Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chambers named

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Chambers named

    I guessed this was the excuse they'd come up with.
    http://espn.go.com/oly/news/2003/1022/1644051.html

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Chambers named

      No Name: I believe that AYSM's comments above were ironic. Not much need to worry about Mr. Snell & co.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Chambers named

        Oh, my mistake. 1960 was obviously an arbitrary pick on my part; many people feel it is basically the end of the era before athletes started using drugs.

        Maybe it should be an earlier date; I just feel that it would unfair to alot of the athletes who competed 40 years ago and more to expunge them as well.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Chambers named

          But this whole exercise of trying to "purge" the record books is doomed to failure. Sure, we "know" or can guess that some records are bad. (Legal proof, however, is much harder to come by than simple hunches or intuition.) However, some records may well have been set by "drug-users" when such use was completely LEGAL. As I've observed elsewhere, the use of performance enhancing substances of one form or another goes WAY back. The two greatest runners of the 1880s were both employed in the pharmacy trade and knew, for example, about stimulants. The REAL history of all this stuff may never be written...but its clear (to me at least) that the historical use of "supplemental" substances is more complex than we currently know, and that there is NO clear dividing line between "dirty" and "clean"--whatever line there is is in a vast margin of grey. In short: I see no fair way of pretending we can fully "cleanse" the record books.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Chambers named

            <But this whole exercise of trying to "purge" the record books is doomed to failure. Sure, we "know" or can guess that some records are bad. (Legal proof, however, is much harder to come by than simple hunches or intuition.) However, some records may well have been set by "drug-users" when such use was completely LEGAL. As I've observed elsewhere, the use of performance enhancing substances of one form or another goes WAY back. The two greatest runners of the 1880s were both employed in the pharmacy trade and knew, for example, about stimulants. The REAL history of all this stuff may never be written...but its clear (to me at least) that the historical use of "supplemental" substances is more complex than we currently know, and that there is NO clear dividing line between "dirty" and "clean"--whatever line there is is in a vast margin of grey. In short: I see no fair way of pretending we can fully "cleanse" the record books. >

            Not that we are saying that they used performance enhancing drugs in the last century. But when you say the two greatest runners of the 1880s, I presume you mean Lon Myers and Walter George?

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Chambers named

              Yes I do.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Chambers named

                Kuha1 - thanks. I should have said 19th century in my posting, of course, not the last century. I guess I am still stuck in the olden times; or alternately my "velocity" is so great that by moving faster than light, I returned on the previous night!

                Comment

                Working...
                X