Makes you wonder about the following I guess then. Maybe he would have only saved them from bad breath.
"When he learned that a famous track coach was supplying his athletes with drugs, Chamberlain withdrew his support, and agonized over whether he should go public "to save the life" of other young athletes. Typically, Chamberlain said nothing." Regards, Martin ghill wrote: > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 21:53:40 -0400 (EDT) > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: t-and-f: NYTimes.com Article: A Journey With Wilt Chamberlain Through > > Sport and Life > > > > This article from NYTimes.com > > has been sent to you by [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > A Journey With Wilt Chamberlain Through Sport and Life > > > > October 13, 2002 > > By ROBERT LIPSYTE > > > >[most of it snipped here] > > > But that's not all [Lynda Huey] wrote. Her journals and unpublished > > memoirs have a jock "Sex and the City" sensibility. In one > > episode, she wangles media credentials to get close to a > > famous Olympian from another country. In the midst of > > recounting the graphic, gamey details of their explosive > > encounter, she stops to describe an illegal, > > performance-enhancing substance he was using. > > > > She writes: "If you ever used dimethyl sulfur dioxide > > (DMSO), you tasted it; and if you ever tasted it, you never > > forgot that taste. It was the supposed wonder drug of the > > 1970's. If something hurt, you spread this clear, > > garlic-smelling syrup on it and sometimes the pain > > disappeared. Within a few minutes it was in your > > bloodstream and the taste of garlic was in your mouth." >> > > If the NYT wrote it, it must be true, but this is the first I've ever heard > of DMSO being either illegal or performance-enhancing. Far as I know, it's > an industrial solvent that's a byproduct of the wood-processing industry. > Hence the fact that Bill Bowerman's athletes in the '60s loved it. It > penetrates the skin with ease, hence its use to carry other substances into > the body. > > I can't imagine that the IAAF or IOC have ever looked at it as a substance > to be banned. Didn't the FDA even refuse even to sanction its production as > a "drug"? (I remember Oregon athletes of the era complaining that decision > was based on bad science.) > > gh
