Christ man, if you think that the sport is so tainted then why the hell are you still in it?
What would it take for you to believe that there are people on top that are clean? Blood tests every race? Mandatory lock down the few weeks before competition so that you can't get a fix anywhere?
Do I have to separate you all? Jeez, at this rate next thing you know some guy will come on the board and try to rewrite the science of force application and return, or something…
The only certainties come when someone tests positive, tests negative or misses a test. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of individuals after that. I am reminded of an old truism: If you sleep with dogs you get fleas. Applied to the topic of the hour, who would you say is clean, dirty, at fault?
For my part, if I had a dollar for everytime I tried to tell someone who wouldn't believe me (participant of the sport, fan of, causally aware of) that Marion was dirty, I'd be rich. Cant wait to meet up again with the guy from NJ who refused to believe us the night of the Waffle-cured famine in Ashville.
Sadly, she is not only dirty but pretty much a lousy human being. From both first hand observation and trusted revealations. Dont write back on how you saw her help a little old lady across the street or similar. Just accept it.
More damming is assuming the mantle of poster girl for the sport all the while knowing that when exposed you would do more harm than any good you did.
Also, lets remember that there is (while perhaps gray) a large area between an athlete being guilty and their coach being guilty. Is knowledge of use, equal to athlete's guilt? or is it similar to one's parent not dragging their child down to the PD for a BAC test when they return home with the family car clearly under the influence?
Thats my measly 3 "junior stars" story and I am sticking with it.
Mike, you can look at it and call it what it is or you can ignore it.
This sounds like a "my opinion is the gospel diatribe" of your (and some might say mine) arch-nemesis, Barry Ross.
If you think that other people are somehow beating these individuals who are in elite programs, getting elite therapy, and have supreme genetics on top of their vast drug use, then that is your belief, right or wrong.
You are putting words in to my mouth. I never said that a non-doper could beat a doper with 100th % talent, perfect coaching, physiotherapy, nutrition, etc. I said, as I have repeatedly, that drugs can make up for lesser coaching, talent, physio, nutrition, etc. Basically, for a clean guy to beat a doper they have to do everything right. Many are doing this. If the most talented athlete was working with the best coach and getting the best therapy AND taking drugs that person would be unbeatable. There's no doubting that.
You are also forgetting that nobody has an incentive to tell anybody the truth.
I am forgetting nothing and you're again putting words in to my mouth. The only person I mentioned incentive about was CF. He has an incentive to say that EVERYONE is cheating because it makes it easy to justify his group's use.
Please also address my rebuttals that I posted above:
1. Shaver, Schexnayder, Winkler, Holloway, etc. and there group of world-beaters with not a single positive in the group.
2. What are your sources? Seriously. I'm curious. You don't have to name names (if it's a person or persons) but I'm curious to know what makes you think you know so much about the state of doping in elite track and field. Keep it as general / non-specific as you feel comfortable with.
Never said my opinion was gospel, but you are well off on some accounts.
Just because you didn't mention incentive doesn't mean I cannot bring it up. I put no words in your mouth (though you do like that phrase it seems). Please explain what incentive a coach who coaches doped athletes has in telling you what they did or better yet what incentive a doped up athlete has in turning in himself to his coach or federation?
1. While I did not specify, I was referring to the main events. Sorry, but women's 100mh or men's 400mh are not the marquee events and do not attract the most talent and competition as say the men's 100m. I already mentioned one connection, but you say that is me dragging people's names through the mud. Maybe you can explain why somebody would associate with a person like that then with many other equally (or more) qualified people without the tainted background?
2. Sources. For what? Which particular moment? Some from pro or former pro sprinters, others from guys that are in the scene at the coaching level. You should know what went on in '05 with USATF and certain individuals, being on the inside and all—heck that is barely even covered up at this point. Maybe Boo and Dan (or whoever else we're going to name drop) can explain that because I sure don't understand the politics behind it? I am not claiming to know so much and never have, but the things I do know and that others on this forum know should make it obvious that there is some vast underestimating of the actual #s here.
Christ man, if you think that the sport is so tainted then why the hell are you still in it?
What would it take for you to believe that there are people on top that are clean? Blood tests every race? Mandatory lock down the few weeks before competition so that you can't get a fix anywhere?
I watch and enjoy pro football and know that almost everyone on the field is using something—perhaps not steroids or GH, but frequently pain killers and the like—just to get through week to week. I see Tiger Woods and am impressed in spite of the fact he can afford eye surgery that few others could. I could go on, but the fact that a guy or gal may or may not use an illegal substance or practice does not change the fact that I am impressed by their performances. I am pretty sure no amount of anything (unless they find a way to inject talent) will make me run 9.74 and I am pretty sure the same could be said for basically every other athlete out there.
Just because you didn't mention incentive doesn't mean I cannot bring it up. I put no words in your mouth (though you do like that phrase it seems). Please explain what incentive a coach who coaches doped athletes has in telling you what they did or better yet what incentive a doped up athlete has in turning in himself to his coach or federation?
I know a handful of coaches and athletes who have mentioned it in some capacity.
I think you're misunderstanding my position. My point is not to say whether it is right or wrong, should be legal or illegal, etc. I do have stances on these but that's not what I'm arguing. My point is to say that you are wrong when you say ALL elites or ALL medalists are using PEDS (as opposed to 'only' 50, 60, 70, or 80%). If you disagree with me on this we'll just have to agree to disagree.
1. While I did not specify, I was referring to the main events. Sorry, but women's 100mh or men's 400mh are not the marquee events and do not attract the most talent and competition as say the men's 100m.
No argument there. Depth of PED usage will correspond with the financial and performance rewards. This is why it is so rampant in the major league sports and the marquee events in track and field.
I already mentioned one connection, but you say that is me dragging people's names through the mud.
As I said, I'm not interested in naming names. I was more interested if it was coming from an actual person, from your personal opinion, from a clandestine message board, secret government intel, etc.
Maybe you can explain why somebody would associate with a person like that then with many other equally (or more) qualified people without the tainted background?
I don't know what this is about or what you're referring to? If it's in reference to CF, you have misunderstood me. I will be the first to admit that there's much to learn about sprinting and training theory from Charlie.
I am not claiming to know so much and never have, but the things I do know and that others on this forum know should make it obvious that there is some vast underestimating of the actual #s here.
What I was trying to weed out is, how have you and the "others on this forum" who are in agreement with you become so assured in your stance that ALL 100-400m elites are on PEDs when people who are around these athletes on a fairly regular basis do not have the same impression. Have we just had the wool pulled over our eyes this entire time? This should not be taken as a smart-arse comment…just a legitimate request to anyone who shares the same standpoint. Davan has stated where he gets his viewpoint. To others that share this viewpoint, what is your general source (again, without getting too specific) that can make you so sure that ALL elite 100-400m sprinters are on PEDs.
Also, just to be sure we're all clear here, when you say ALL, do you mean every finalist in the men's and women's 100-200-400m (that's 48 athletes in total)? Every medalist in the men's and women's 100-200-400m (18 athletes in total)? Am I right in assuming your use of all is strict and literal (as in one of the above 2 definitions)?
I don't know what this is about or what you're referring to? If it's in reference to CF, you have misunderstood me. I will be the first to admit that there's much to learn about sprinting and training theory from Charlie.
Not CF. Why would you choose, as your agent/manager, a person who has been associated with drugs?
What I was trying to weed out is, how have you and the "others on this forum" who are in agreement with you become so assured in your stance that ALL 100-400m elites are on PEDs when people who are around these athletes on a fairly regular basis do not have the same impression. Have we just had the wool pulled over our eyes this entire time? This should not be taken as a smart-arse comment…just a legitimate request to anyone who shares the same standpoint. Davan has stated where he gets his viewpoint. To others that share this viewpoint, what is your general source (again, without getting too specific) that can make you so sure that ALL elite 100-400m sprinters are on PEDs.
Also, just to be sure we're all clear here, when you say ALL, do you mean every finalist in the men's and women's 100-200-400m (that's 48 athletes in total)? Every medalist in the men's and women's 100-200-400m (18 athletes in total)? Am I right in assuming your use of all is strict and literal (as in one of the above 2 definitions)?
ALL may be slightly extreme, but 90-95+%, especially when we are speaking of years where the winning times are good (not like '03 where gold medal in the men's was 10.0x) is probably very likely. If the women's 400m can be won in >50secs, men's 200m 20+secs, then okay, there may be clean athletes in those races that medal, but note how far away they are from both the world record and world championship record times.
Again, can you please ask your friends in USATF about the event I have mentioned? You can PM the response or whatever, but I am curious and have been for a while.
Ok I am going to chime in. I have coached athletes to semi-elite levels (i.e., World Champs semis and Olympic Games). Not all elite athletes are using, in some events it is much more rampant than others.
You can be an Oly medalist, American Record Holder, Top 5 in the world completely clean. There is no doubt about that in my mind. I have several close friends and colleagues friends who coach athletes at the top levels that are clean. (Many of the same people Mike mentioned in his earlier post). Many of them won medals or were close to medals at this past (and other) World Champs.
For someone to doubt that this is possible is simply ignorance. There are A LOT of dirty athletes out there. There are ALSO A LOT OF CLEAN ATHLETES out there competing at the highest levels. Charlie is smart and talented coach, but is simply wrong on this issue - you can compete clean and medal.
We are talking mainly about the elites but I want to know how much in % you believe the of PEDs is being abused at the college level where I compete. Are there certain school, conference that isnt' more of problem then others. Walter Dix, Xavior, and others during college are in the elite range of performance, are they all cheating.
We are talking mainly about the elites but I want to know how much in % you believe the of PEDs is being abused at the college level where I compete. Are there certain school, conference that isnt' more of problem then others. Walter Dix, Xavior, and others during college are in the elite range of performance, are they all cheating.
I should probably keep my mouth shut, but as many of you who know me realize I seldom do in these instances.
I think there is a real opportunity at hand to purge our sport of it's worst element, namely those individuals who knowingly and ruthlessly purputrated the fraud of Marion on the general public for the last fifteen years. There have been individuals at the very highest levels of track in the US who have known since 92' that this person was a fraud and not only did they do nothing to stop it, but seeing an opportunity to profit they jumped on the bandwagon as well. I beg all of you in the track and field community to not let this subject die. This could well be the crack in the dam that opens up the floodwaters on these people, but it will not happen if we continue to be quiet little sheep who live in fear of the ramifications of speaking out. Ask questions! Demand answers! We owe it to the sport we care so much about to at least do this much.
1988 After watching Seoul Olympics, Jones writes on her blackboard, "I want to be an Olympic champion."
1991-92 Two-time high school track and field athlete of the year for Thousand Oaks High; misses qualifying for the 1992 Olympics by .07 of a second and declines offer to be an alternate on U.S. Olympic team.
1994 North Carolina Tar Heels win NCAA championship, with Jones as point guard.
1997 Announces she will bypass her final year of basketball eligibility to concentrate on track and field; begins training with Trevor Graham. Wins two events at U.S. championships, beating Jackie Joyner-Kersee in long jump.
1998 Wins three gold medals at U.S. championships, becoming first woman in 50 years to accomplish that feat.
1999 Wins every 100-meter and 200-meter race she enters until injured during the world championships in August.
2000 Wins three gold and two bronze medals at Sydney, the most by any woman in a single Olympics.
2002 Records first undefeated season of her track and field career.
2003 One of several athletes to testify before a federal grand jury in San Francisco investigating BALCO.
2004 Insists she is drug-free and says she will sue if the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency bars her from competing in the Athens Olympics without a positive drug test. Jones goes home empty-handed from Athens. In December, the IOC opens an investigation into doping allegations against her.
2005 Ranked No. 2 in the world in the 100.
2006 Wins 100 at the national championships. It is her 14th U.S. championship but first sprint title since 2002. Jones' "A" sample from that meet tested positive for the banned endurance-boosting hormone EPO. For the next month, she is faced with the possibility of a two-year ban. But her "B" sample is negative. She is cleared of wrongdoing and allowed to return to competition.
2007 On Oct. 5, she admits in federal court to lying about her drug use starting in 1999 and faces up to six months in prison.
This masterpiece has been circulating around the net for a couple years…an interesting look / alternative viewpoint for those who swore about her innocence all along. Especially worth a look in retrospect of her recent partial revelations.
You pay for your wife's (Marryin' Jonz) cocaine habit with a check.[1] Later, she denies any relationship with the local coke dealer, Victor Vector [2], and denies knowing about the check.
Soon afterwards, she and her new boyfriend, Tiny Tim [3], are observed by DEA agents in Canada, then later in Hawaii, with Chuck Frank [4], who in 1988 was the kingpin in one of the most infamous cocaine busts in history, resulting in the forced retirement of Canadian porn star, Ben's Johnson [5]. At first, both she and her boyfriend repeatedly deny knowing Chuck Frank; when finally cornered with the truth, they admitted to knowing Frank and traveling to meet him.
She later admits to knowing Victor Vector[6], but now claims he was only a Herbalife rep. She then says that her fabulous wealth is the reason why a $7000 check to the local Herbalife rep would go unnoticed. "I'm rich," she arrogantly boasts, "$7000 may seem like a lot of money to you, but to me even $200,000 isn't very much."
Street-smart Marryin' would never pay $7000 to a street vendor for a "genuine" Rolex watch; she's yet to explain why she paid $7000 for Herbalife products?
No explanation why the need to lie about it either.
In the meantime, Victor Vector is indicted for developing, manufacturing and selling a previously undetectable isomer of methamphetamine he names "clear." [7] DEA agents find a ledger detailing the deliveries of cocaine, heroin, marijuana and "clear" to a dozen high-profile users and convinces a few of them to turn State's evidence against Vector—corroborating your wife's cocaine habit along the way.
Her "daddy", a notorious pimp named Fill Nite [8], desperately wants to see her case disappear. He has a huge investment in her, dressing her up in schoolgirl outfits for all of his regular johns [9]. She's been one of the most productive hoes in the stable despite her addiction to coke and crank. Mr. Nite claims that when Marryin' first turned tricks for him she wasn't on drugs, therefore there's no reason for her to be on drugs now—expecting us to believe that years of wallowing in the gutter with every sleazebag on the street didn't affect her at all.
Even though Marryin' claims to be powered by Girl Scout cookies and milk, she offers no logical reason why she takes practice urinalysis tests [10] and guzzles cranberry juice and Golden Seal?
Which do you expect us to believe: you fell off a turnip truck, or the rear door to a fishmonger's truck came ajar and red herrings are scattered all over town?
