LaShawn Merritt [good to go for London?]

[glimp5k]

Mr. Merritt is listed on the start list for the 400m in Stockholm. One would assume that he would be in the A race with Warriner? Are all athletes returning from drug suspensions now going to be accepted in Diamond League meets?

[7-sided]

Re: LaShawn Merritt

Mr. Merritt is listed on the start list for the 400m in Stockholm. One would assume that he would be in the A race with Warriner? Are all athletes returning from drug suspensions now going to be accepted in Diamond League meets?

I hope not!

[tandfman]

Re: LaShawn Merritt

I believe that will be entirely up to the meet directors. I'm guessing that some will accept these folks and some won't.

[proofs in the pudd'in]

Re: LaShawn Merritt

The way Wariner is running he will probably get beaten by LM - thats gota hurt. JW struggles during the suspension time with no one is his league and then during the WC his best rival and 'cheat' comes out in his first race and wins - ouch. Watch him get a WL - double ouchy

[Marlow]

Re: LaShawn Merritt

Are all athletes returning from drug suspensions now going to be accepted in Diamond League meets?

I hope not!

So you are of the opinion that a drug bust, even for the kind that LM experienced, should be a life-time suspension? When you make a mistake, do you feel a maximum punishment is always in order?

[tandfman]

Re: LaShawn Merritt

So you are of the opinion that a drug bust, even for the kind that LM experienced, should be a life-time suspension? When you make a mistake, do you feel a maximum punishment is always in order?

There are meet directors who believe that having ex-druggies in the meet diverts publicity from other athletes because many media people would rather write about drugs than about the competition. It's not an unreasonable concern; I've seen this happen. Really good athletes and events can be eclipsed by the presence of an athlete who has returned from a doping suspension. Keeping these people out may be seen as an extension of their punishment, but letting them in can effectively punish not only innocent athletes but also the sport itself.

[Marlow]

Re: LaShawn Merritt

So you are of the opinion that a drug bust, even for the kind that LM experienced, should be a life-time suspension? When you make a mistake, do you feel a maximum punishment is always in order?

There are meet directors who believe that having ex-druggies in the meet diverts publicity from other athletes because many media people would rather write about drugs than about the competition. It's not an unreasonable concern; I've seen this happen. Really good athletes and events can be eclipsed by the presence of an athlete who has returned from a doping suspension. Keeping these people out may be seen as an extension of their punishment, but letting them in can effectively punish not only innocent athletes but also the sport itself.

Point taken. But I think 7 would like to see the ban extended into the WC also. He does not abide Gatlin's presence either.

[7-sided]

Re: LaShawn Merritt

Are all athletes returning from drug suspensions now going to be accepted in Diamond League meets?

I hope not!

So you are of the opinion that a drug bust, even for the kind that LM experienced, should be a life-time suspension? When you make a mistake, do you feel a maximum punishment is always in order?

1. A "maximum punishment" would be death; that was never in the cards so LM, in terms of the max, got off lightly.
2. A drug bust where the "professional athlete" has PURPOSELY put a substance in his/her body that they had no idea what that substance is/was should receive the maximum penalty allowed with zero leniency (something LM received). This sport does not need unnecessary PR hits because of stupidity of laziness.

Marlow, I have never said that I would like to see his ban extended to the WC! I have been consistent in saying that drug cheats (for more than 6 months) should be banned for life on the first offense.

[Marlow]

Re: LaShawn Merritt

Marlow, I have never said that I would like to see his ban extended to the WC! I have been consistent in saying that drug cheats (for more than 6 months) should be banned for life on the first offense.

Distinction without a difference? A life-time penalty for 'being stupid' (I think there are few who say he actually trying to use a PED) would pretty much include the WC.

Oh, you were understating for effect, I get it! :wink:

I happen to believe we ALL do stupid stuff that we don't mean to, and perhaps INTENT, when it is rather obvious, should factor into the punishment.

[7-sided]

Re: LaShawn Merritt

Marlow, I have never said that I would like to see his ban extended to the WC! I have been consistent in saying that drug cheats (for more than 6 months) should be banned for life on the first offense.

Distinction without a difference? A life-time penalty for 'being stupid' (I think there are few who say he actually trying to use a PED) would pretty much include the WC.

Oh, you were understating for effect, I get it! :wink:

I happen to believe we ALL do stupid stuff that we don't mean to, and perhaps INTENT, when it is rather obvious, should factor into the punishment.

Marlow, it's not a "lifetime penalty for being stupid", it's a lifetime penalty for breaking the most important aspect of a sport based on performance. He cheated. It's not for us to divine his intent. I recognize that is a tough thing to swallow for one's favorite athletes but it must be. Is Shoeless Joe Jackson in the Hall of Fame? How about Pete Rose? Why? Because they violated what MLB considers to be the most important aspect of their sport, the whole integrity of the games thing. Matter of fact, I can't think of a single sport that allows point-shavers to return to the game. PED's must be our point-shaving. The athletes MUST be held accountable.

[3]

Re: LaShawn Merritt

Wouldn't an intentional loss, a step on the foul line on a very fair, possibly leading shot or discus mark, be your point-shaver?

[tandfman]

Re: LaShawn Merritt

I can't recall ever having seen an intentional foul on a visibly fair and possibly leading throw. Why would anyone do that?

[lonewolf]

Re: LaShawn Merritt

I can't recall ever having seen an intentional foul on a visibly fair and possibly leading throw. Why would anyone do that?

Nor I. I have seen intentional fouls to preclude recording a sub-par effort. Of course, the athlete does not consider that sub-par marks make great tie-breakers which could affect the outcome of the competition.

[Marlow]

Re: LaShawn Merritt

Is Shoeless Joe Jackson in the Hall of Fame? How about Pete Rose? Why? Because they violated what MLB considers to be the most important aspect of their sport, the whole integrity of the games thing. Matter of fact, I can't think of a single sport that allows point-shavers to return to the game. PED's must be our point-shaving. The athletes MUST be held accountable.

Did SSJ KNOW what he was doing? Did Pete? Yes, in both cases. Did LM? You know he didn't because of the very nature of the 'drug'. I get Gatlin. His first bust was unintentional, but the second one had to be taken as intentional because the circumstances dictated such. I sure hope that when you eff up next time in 'real life', people give you another chance if you didn't MEAN to hurt them. And 'real life' is MUCH more important than sport!

[7-sided]

Re: LaShawn Merritt

I can't recall ever having seen an intentional foul on a visibly fair and possibly leading throw. Why would anyone do that?

Sadly, 3, thinks he's being clever.

A "spiked" ball doesn't result in a delay of game penalty though throwing a football where there is no receiver does. Why? because the rules allow it. Stepping on the line or intentionally fouling (sector, NBA) is allowed by the rules. Running out of bounds (NFL) is allowed by the rules. Intentionally missing a free throw is allowed by the rules. Infield fly rules...we can go on and on. Weight lifting is allowed, corked bats aren't; change-ups are allowed; vaseline/sandpaper isn't.

It comes down to the rules.