Track should use this approach for Drug Testing

[toyracer]

Re: Track should use this approach for Drug Testing

That is one heck of a sweeping generalization of NASCAR fans.

[mrbowie]

Re: Track should use this approach for Drug Testing

When I saw Kelli White win the sprints at the Nationals held at Stanford, I remember being amazed at the size of her thighs and wondered how a precocious high school sprinter had left all of her previous form behind as an adult.

When she was found to be doping, I personally felt cheated, because I had made an investment in my time and my emotions as a fan of track and field.

The reason doping must be stopped is that if it continues, there will be no more fans left to care.

I've seen it happen in other sports.

Purity in sports is a goal that is achievable and it is worth the effort.

For those that want to watch the NFL and don't care about cheating in any form, I say to them that they are the same types that cheered the lions when people were thrown to them in ancient times. That is not sport. Neither is NASCAR, where crowds gather hoping to see somebody get maimed or killed.

We have a sport and it behooves us to keep it as clean as possible.

[Daisy]

Re: 85 as the new approach?

I'm almost positive (note the almost) that the IOC is fully responsible for testing at and around the Olympics.

Right, I was confused because your example was Daegu. But your point remains the same.

[preston]

Re: 85 as the new approach?

Either FINA ain't trying that hard or the IOC [you mean IAAF?] is in full on PR mode.

Or the IOC/IAAF are calling their bluff.

If athletes think there is a good chance of being tested, possibly that will be enough for them to dial back on the PED's? If the athletes knew that only 85 tests would be carried out then they might take the risk, hoping that if they get called they can 'accidently' miss it, or have time to manipulate it?

Daisy, I'm almost positive (note the almost) that the IOC is fully responsible for testing at and around the Olympics. There were athletes who missed tests during the 2012 Olympics while in the village... and they weren't sanctioned, yet they're banning athletes from 8 years ago (because the BALCO politics were too much is my guess). The Olympics is the IOC's show. That is why they don't like positives announced before or during the games and we get these mystery positives months after they've concluded. I'm not that cynical or conspiratorial but I have to believe that the IOC is just not trying to catch that many drug cheats. Add, in that they tested 5% of the 2004 samples they claimed that they would test and ...well, yes ... it's a PR campaign to have the Olympics be the world show with little to no bad news - even if it calls into question the results. Especially, if it calls into question the results.

[Daisy]

Re: 85 as the new approach?

Either FINA ain't trying that hard or the IOC [you mean IAAF?] is in full on PR mode.

Or the IOC/IAAF are calling their bluff.

If athletes think there is a good chance of being tested, possibly that will be enough for them to dial back on the PED's? If the athletes knew that only 85 tests would be carried out then they might take the risk, hoping that if they get called they can 'accidently' miss it, or have time to manipulate it?

[preston]

Re: Track should use this approach for Drug Testing

But it is only money. And fame and pay-for-view, etc. But we have the moralists on our side, such as Phil Hersh.

• Oh, the joy I will have snubbing Sosa, Bonds and Clemens (plus McGwire and Palmeiro, natch) on my HoF ballot.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/ ... -druggies/

The best description I've heard of folks like him and the rest of these sanctimonious pricks/sportswriters is "overzealous crossing guards".

Phil Hersh is a good guy, jazzy. I don't agree with him on this. He may be an overzealous crossing guard, he is being sanctimonious on this, and he is a sportswriter. A prick he is not.

Phil Hersh is a prick and he's NOT a good guy. He's a racist. (I don't care if he's a friend to this site) Read his comments about athletes NOT born in the US or from Muslim countries, or his illogical attitude towards libeling sprinters and NOT distance runners and it becomes obvious that he's not always using his column to be a sportswriter. He's not worthy of a HoF ballot...but then neither are most of the other sportswriters who can write what they do and consider ANYONE from that era when there was no testing being done.

[26mi235]

Re: Track should use this approach for Drug Testing

I think if I were a baseball writer on the voting panel that I would vote "NO" on the first-year ballot. Let them wait a year or at least get a less-than-stellar rating. Will Ben Johnson be in the track and field HoF? Lance Armstrong?

[bambam]

Re: Track should use this approach for Drug Testing

But it is only money. And fame and pay-for-view, etc. But we have the moralists on our side, such as Phil Hersh.

• Oh, the joy I will have snubbing Sosa, Bonds and Clemens (plus McGwire and Palmeiro, natch) on my HoF ballot.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/ ... -druggies/

The best description I've heard of folks like him and the rest of these sanctimonious pricks/sportswriters is "overzealous crossing guards".

Phil Hersh is a good guy, jazzy. I don't agree with him on this. He may be an overzealous crossing guard, he is being sanctimonious on this, and he is a sportswriter. A prick he is not.

[jazzcyclist]

Re: Track should use this approach for Drug Testing

But it is only money. And fame and pay-for-view, etc. But we have the moralists on our side, such as Phil Hersh.

• Oh, the joy I will have snubbing Sosa, Bonds and Clemens (plus McGwire and Palmeiro, natch) on my HoF ballot.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/ ... -druggies/

The best description I've heard of folks like him and the rest of these sanctimonious pricks/sportswriters is "overzealous crossing guards".

[preston]

85 as the new approach?

On the front page it is noted that not a single athlete in the aquatic events (open water, synchronized swimming, pool, diving and water polo) tested positive. http://www.supersport.com/aquatics/inte ... n_negative

FINA brags in the article that they did 433 urine tests and 85 blood tests! And, this is the sport that is being tabbed to takeover the summer olympics standardbearer from athletics? They did 518 total tests! 631 total athletes in just swimming and 102 medals (that doesn't include MULTIPLE medals awarded per team in the relays) to be awarded and they only did 518 total tests. Only 85 blood. 85!

In 2011 before Daegu, the IAAF announced that it would blood test EVERY SINGLE competitor http://www.iaaf.org/news/news/blood-tes ... gu-in-unpr - that was nearly 2000 athletes!

Either FINA ain't trying that hard or the IOC is in full on PR mode.

[Conor Dary]

Re: Track should use this approach for Drug Testing

Not really back up sufficiently with facts. They did not bother to test either athlete in any manner at all, whereas Armstrong was tested repeatedly, including by people outside the control of UCI.

What I meant was that they didn't dig up the pile of damning evidence (outside of testing) against him until after his career was over.

What sport does? But anyways that is another thread which we have beaten to death. The point is the comparison is meaningless.

And I started this post as a joke. These two guys could be shooting heroin and no one would really care. Certainly not me.

[Conor Dary]

Re: Track should use this approach for Drug Testing

[quote=26mi235]

The Nevada State Athletic Commission did not drug test either fighter in the lead-up to the event, saying both were veteran boxers above reproach.

In other words, too many people stood to lose too much money if the fight didn't happen, so they decided against testing.

Something similar probably happened with Lance Armstrong. The powers that be in cycling must have known what was going on, but he brought so much attention and money to the sport of cycling that they wouldn't dare to catch and ban him. Once he's 40 years old and no longer a contender, it becomes OK to dig up all the damaging evidence against him and remove him from the sport.

Not really back up sufficiently with facts. They did not bother to test either athlete in any manner at all, whereas Armstrong was tested repeatedly, including by people outside the control of UCI.[/quote:2m2ukioz]

Right. Armstrong was tested hundreds of times.

[18.99s]

Re: Track should use this approach for Drug Testing

Not really back up sufficiently with facts. They did not bother to test either athlete in any manner at all, whereas Armstrong was tested repeatedly, including by people outside the control of UCI.

What I meant was that they didn't dig up the pile of damning evidence (outside of testing) against him until after his career was over.

[26mi235]

Re: Track should use this approach for Drug Testing

[quote=18.99s]

The Nevada State Athletic Commission did not drug test either fighter in the lead-up to the event, saying both were veteran boxers above reproach.

In other words, too many people stood to lose too much money if the fight didn't happen, so they decided against testing.

Something similar probably happened with Lance Armstrong. The powers that be in cycling must have known what was going on, but he brought so much attention and money to the sport of cycling that they wouldn't dare to catch and ban him. Once he's 40 years old and no longer a contender, it becomes OK to dig up all the damaging evidence against him and remove him from the sport.[/quote:1phbq30s]

Not really back up sufficiently with facts. They did not bother to test either athlete in any manner at all, whereas Armstrong was tested repeatedly, including by people outside the control of UCI.

[18.99s]

Re: Track should use this approach for Drug Testing

The Nevada State Athletic Commission did not drug test either fighter in the lead-up to the event, saying both were veteran boxers above reproach.

In other words, too many people stood to lose too much money if the fight didn't happen, so they decided against testing.

Something similar probably happened with Lance Armstrong. The powers that be in cycling must have known what was going on, but he brought so much attention and money to the sport of cycling that they wouldn't dare to catch and ban him. Once he's 40 years old and no longer a contender, it becomes OK to dig up all the damaging evidence against him and remove him from the sport.