Ben Johnson article

[Guest]

Here's an interesting article from today's Times of London regarding Ben Johnson's positive drug test. I can't see any reason why there would be a conspiracy but it sounds like this isn't going to go away any time soon:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 73,00.html

[michael lewis]

Re: Ben Johnson article

Maybe Johnson was the King's taster.

[Pego]

Re: Ben Johnson article

As they say in Westerns: "A horse thief is hanged for the horse he did not steal".

[gh]

Re: Ben Johnson article

I've read the Francis book of course, and while he makes an intriguing case for a conspiracy, I've never been able to fathom why there would be a conspiracy aimed at Ben Johnson.

I'm also equally intrigued that when it comes to testing, we've often got the same shrill voices--and you know who you are--who at the same time are suggesting that the powers that be somehow got to Ben are also suggesting that the same powers that be routinely cover up positive tests. Now why the heck would they going both ways? Robert Ludlum write their scripts for them or what?

[Guest]

Re: Ben Johnson article

>at the same time are
>suggesting that the powers that be somehow got to
>Ben are also suggesting that the same powers that
>be routinely cover up positive tests. Now why the
>heck would they going both ways?

Those that believe it would argue that, in both cases, we are talking about Americans. I'm not saying that-just trying to rationalize their conspiracy beliefs. I think something odd happened and he likely would have got off but he would have had to lawyer up pretty quick. Be interesting to see if Astaphan names names.

[Guest]

Re: Ben Johnson article

Be interesting to see
>if Astaphan names names.

He hasn't bothered to do so at any time in the last 15 years. What indications are there he's going to do so now? He had a great chance to start when being interviewed for this extensive newspaper feature, yet didn't.

[Guest]

Re: Ben Johnson article

>Be interesting to see
>if Astaphan names names.
>

Can we get Astaphan and Exum at the same newsconference to get the bs over all at once.

[michael lewis]

Re: Ben Johnson article

"I've read the Francis book of course, and while he makes an intriguing case for a conspiracy, I've never been able to fathom why there would be a conspiracy aimed at Ben Johnson."

First, Gary knows I'm Canadian, but I want to state that I didn't know about this conspiracy stuff and have never felt that Ben and co. shouldn't have been getting away with what they did just because they weren't the only ones. Why do I feel it important to state this? Because some people can't control their knees from jerking and make the assumption that if you're Canadian, you're here to whine about Johnson. That much aside, is it possible that the powers that be felt they needed to demonstrate that they were doing something to fight drugs in sport, ie. could they have felt it necessary to state that dramatically by making a big example of someone? If I wanted to do that I'd look for someone from a weaker country not one with alot of money, power and influence. The decision would be made with alot of variables considered, ie. it's not made by one person but several and with many considerations being made about who not to piss off while simultaneously doing what needs to be done. It's all interesting stuff, although probably nothing more at the end of the afternoon than fodder for a script.

[Guest]

Re: Ben Johnson article

>Can we get Astaphan and Exum at the
>same newsconference to get the bs over all at
>once.

That's right. Ben is the only high level athlete that ever took drugs and everybody else who has been caught(many of whom we don't know) has been a victim of circumstances. Other than the big bad communists of course. Everyone else is pure as the driven snow. So people like Michael will just have to get over it.

[Guest]

Re: Ben Johnson article

First,
>Gary knows I'm Canadian, but I want to state that
>I didn't know about this conspiracy stuff and
>have never felt that Ben and co. shouldn't have
>been getting away with what they did just because
>they weren't the only ones. Why do I feel it
>important to state this? Because some people
>can't control their knees from jerking and make
>the assumption that if you're Canadian, you're
>here to whine about Johnson. That much aside, is
>it possible that the powers that be felt they
>needed to demonstrate that they were doing
>something to fight drugs in sport, ie. could they
>have felt it necessary to state that dramatically
>by making a big example of someone? If I wanted
>to do that I'd look for someone from a weaker
>country not one with alot of money, power and
>influence. The decision would be made with alot
>of variables considered, ie. it's not made by one
>person but several and with many considerations
>being made about who not to piss off while
>simultaneously doing what needs to be done. It's
>all interesting stuff, although probably nothing
>more at the end of the afternoon than fodder for
>a script.

Also as a Canadian, I have a several problems with the conspiracy theory. From their numerous public pronouncements, it appears that Samaranch and Nebiolo had little interest in the whole drug testing thing ("always worrying about the pee-pee"). Could the organizations they head be competent enough to put together such a scheme when 15 years later they can't even keep quiet for a couple of days after an 'A' sample postive test?

With direct respect to what Michael raises as picking a "weaker" country without a lot of "power and influence", we're talking about a country which had several IOC members, including Dick Pound in a rather senior executive position. Might not a country such as Jamaica been a better target?

[Guest]

Re: Ben Johnson article

>Also
>as a Canadian, I have a several problems with the
>conspiracy theory.

I can't completely discount the sabotage theory.
Too much, such as Charlie's shocked look when told the name of the drug in question, rings true.
He basically admitted Ben's drug use by implication by saying that he would never give an athlete a drug like that on the day of a competition. What was unsaid was that he would at another time. Isn't there a term for that when someone testifies that way(against interest) in a court of law? Maybe one of the "not a lawyer" types can tell us.

[6 5.5hjsteve]

Re: Ben Johnson article

one thing I remember learning from Watergate back in the 70's is that it is not that hard for intelligent people to lie persuasively.

It's also not hard to lie and be believed if the listeners want to believe what they are hearing.

Bottom line is that all these Astaphan/Johnson/Francis type people lied back in 1988. Why should they be believed now ?

[Guest]

Re: Ben Johnson article

I
>can't completely discount the sabotage
>theory.
Too much, such as Charlie's shocked look
>when told the name of the drug in question, rings
>true.

Just because Francis wasn't aware of it doesn't mean that Johnson may not have gone off on his own for some extra juice. I believe that's what tripped him up for his third strike a few years ago when his manager arranged for a test to demonstrate his cleanliness, only to have it show a banned masking agent.

It's also amazing that with all the dope Johnson later admitting to be taking, that this supposedly "vast right-wing conspiracy" couldn't organize itself to test and catch him for something he was actually doing.

[Guest]

Re: Ben Johnson article

>one thing I remember learning from Watergate back
>in the 70's is that it is not that hard for
>intelligent people to lie persuasively.

It's
>also not hard to lie and be believed if the
>listeners want to believe what they are
>hearing.

Bottom line is that all these
>Astaphan/Johnson/Francis type people lied back
>in 1988. Why should they be believed now ?

Exactly!!!
Also, we are supposed to believe that Astaphan has the names of all these conspirators, and has had them for years. If his friends (francis and Johnson) are really being victimized then why the hell did he hold on to this info for the last 15 years while his friends were being so mistreated?! Why is he not releasing these names now?!

[Guest]

Re: Ben Johnson article

>Bottom line is that all these
>Astaphan/Johnson/Francis type people lied back
>in 1988. Why should they be believed now ?

I realize that it is a bit of a distinction without a difference but they were cheating not lying. When flat out asked, they told the truth. Now the cheats lie AND cheat. To wit:

"I'm trying to be vague with my answers."

LOL. Reminds me of this:

"It depends on what your definition of is is."