We could call him "invalid" record holder, but that might raise other questions.
Tom
On Jan 27, 2006, at 2:44 PM, Geoff Pietsch wrote:

With respect, I disagree. To call him the "former" recordholder suggests that he held a valid record. He did not. So if the record is found to have been invalid, he cannot be a "former" recordholder.
   Geoff


From: Dan Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Dan Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: t-and-f: What's the precedent for 'former?'
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:16:58 -0800 (PST)

Neither Maurice or Tim currently holds the record, but both did at one point, so "former" seems perfectly applicable. Just because Tim's record isn't currently on the books, doesn't mean it wasn't formerly. (Just had
to sneak that in.)

Dan

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> What's the precedent for 'former?'
>
> I was reading the Marion Jones story below. From a journalism
> standpoint, I am hung up on this word "former." Monty's 9.78 has been
> canceled and has been purged from official standings. Is it fair to
> reference Monty's 9.78 as a "former world record" if the mark was
> achieved by illegal means and not officially recognized?
>
> Maurice Greene is a "former world record holder." Should cheats be given
> the same recognition?
>
> Maybe it just takes time to let it fade away.
>
>
>
>
> "... Tim Montgomery - the former world 100m world record-holder."
>
> Sprinter Jones on way back to top
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4651870.stm
>
>
> Montgomery hit with two-year ban
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4521452.stm
>


http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design & Custom Programming
http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy T&F
------------------------------------------------------------
  @    o      Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 <|\/ <^-  ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
_/ \ \/\      (503)370-9969 phone/fax
   /   /

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com



Reply via email to