Now Calvin??

[Guest]

Re: The Plot Thickens

>Why if he tested positive at USA nats, is this
>just being made public now? When White tested
>positive, it was immediately announced.>>

Doesn't any read and/or have any retention anymore? White tested positive at Paris, not USATF. White was the first Modafinil positive ever; after that they decided to go back and restest Palo Alto samples, specifically looking for it (which they weren't before). In the restest they (apparently) found Harrison. And probably some others.

[tafnut]

Re: The Plot Thickens

"He is guilty no matter how you slice it.

Sigh . . . I give up. Apparently some people would rather just post than read. Guilt is not the issue I raise.

[Guest]

Re: The Plot Thickens

>Sigh . . . I give up. Apparently some
>people would rather just post than read. Guilt is
>not the issue I raise.

I know what you are saying tafnut but the problem is that your hypothetical doesn't apply to Calvin. His coach didn't give him the stuff.

[tafnut]

Re: The Plot Thickens

"Harrison said he was given the substance by a coach in California. But the athlete stressed he had never been given an illegal substance by his current coach, Trevor Graham. He [the coach in California] had given me this pill, and I had taken it. He told me it was not a steroid and that it would just keep you 'up' so you wouldn't be so fatigued," said Harrison."

I'm just responding to what's in the media.

[Guest]

Re: The Plot Thickens

>"Harrison said he was given the substance by a
>coach in California. But the athlete stressed he
>had never been given an illegal substance by his
>current coach, Trevor Graham. He [the coach in
>California] had given me this pill, and I had
>taken it. He told me it was not a steroid and
>that it would just keep you 'up' so you wouldn't
>be so fatigued," said Harrison."

I'm just
>responding to what's in the media.

But tafnut, you are making my case. Your argument is based on the fact that some athletes could get screwed because of a trusting relationshipo that they have with THEIR OWN COACH. Quoting from your own post-emphasis added.

"...will take whatever supplement THEIR coach suggests..."

"do what THE coach says; he knows what's best for you."

Why should we feel any sympathy for someone who takes some advice about a substance from someone with whom he doesn't have that trusting relationship even using your argument?

[Asterix]

Re: The Plot Thickens

> I bet Harrison can pass
>any lie detector test question that asks, 'did
>you knowing take a banned substance?'

Completely meaningless.
http://www.aps.org/WN/WN03/wn041803.html#1
"...a little collateral damage is not a problem, coins will catch fully half of all spies, a vast improvement over the polygraph, which has never caught even one. Moreover, coins are notoriously difficult to train, making them impervious to countermeasures. "

[Guest]

Re: The Plot Thickens

>coins will catch fully half of all spies, a vast
>improvement over the polygraph, which has never
>caught even one. Moreover, coins are notoriously
>difficult to train, making them impervious to
>countermeasures. "

I love it; that's hilarious!

[tafnut]

Re: The Plot Thickens

I'll have to agree with you on that one (another sigh).

[MJD]

Re: The Plot Thickens

>I am assuming that this has no impact on the WC
>relay gold since his only penalty would be just
>loss of anything he won at Nationals? Different
>than Chambers who would be dealing with a 2 year
>thing resulting in a loss of the relay silver.

No one answered this but I think I was right except for one small problem:

"Under IAAF rules, the U.S. relay team faces being stripped of the gold medal if Harrison is found guilty of the second drug offense by USADA and the ruling is upheld on appeal."

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/sports/7142398.htm

[Guest]

Re: The Plot Thickens

As Dr. Ljunguist said, this one's "kinda tricky." Not to defend an apparent repeat offender, but note also that when he had his first one, you got 90-days for what now gets you the day off. In light of that, wonder if the 2-year ban isn't slightly out of line with the new thinking on these mild stimulants? Particularly if the first one was--as so many were, which is why they changed the rule--an inadvertent cold medication screwup

[Guest]

Re: The Plot Thickens

>Why if he tested positive at USA nats, is this
>just being made public now? When White tested
>positive, it was immediately announced.

Because the USATF covers up! Can you say C.J. Hunter and Jerome Young!

[Truth Squad]

Re: The Plot Thickens

>>Because the USATF covers up! Can you say C.J. Hunter and Jerome Young!<<

Can you say USADA? Since October 1, 2000 (after the CJ and JY tests), USATF has had nothing to do with testing or adjudication. The whole program is run by USADA, and they do not release names until afger the B sample has tested positive. If you think that's covering up, you're entitled to your opinion. But don't blame USATF.

[Guest]

Re: The Plot Thickens

>>>Because the USATF covers up! Can you say C.J.
>Hunter and Jerome Young!<<

Can you say USADA?
>Since October 1, 2000 (after the CJ and JY
>tests), USATF has had nothing to do with testing
>or adjudication. The whole program is run by
>USADA, and they do not release names until afger
>the B sample has tested positive. If you think
>that's covering up, you're entitled to your
>opinion. But don't blame USATF.

Since my last message was pulled...C.J. Hunter tested positive numerous times (more that 10) before anything was revealed and USATF knew about Jerome Young's positive test for years before he made any kind of statement in the papers.

[Asterix]

Re: The Plot Thickens

Since my last message was
>pulled...C.J. Hunter tested positive numerous
>times (more that 10) before anything was
>revealed and USATF knew about Jerome Young's
>positive test for years before he made any kind
>of statement in the papers.

Do you realize how nonsensical your line of reasoning is? A few messages ago you blatantly claim USATF is CURRENTLY in the habit of covering up positive tests. It is pointed out to you that for the past couple of years, USATF does not run the testing program and that USADA is a completely seperate organization. And yet here you are back on what USATF did before they got out of the testing business.

Either you did not read the message that explained to you USADA does the testing or you did not understand it. Which one? For someone calling themselves "answer giver", you need to work on the factual content of the answers you give.

[Guest]

Re: The Plot Thickens

>Since my last message was
>pulled...C.J. Hunter
>tested positive numerous
>times (more that 10)
>before anything was
>revealed and USATF knew
>about Jerome Young's
>positive test for years
>before he made any kind
>of statement in the
>papers.

Do you realize how nonsensical your
>line of reasoning is? A few messages ago you
>blatantly claim USATF is CURRENTLY in the habit
>of covering up positive tests. It is pointed out
>to you that for the past couple of years, USATF
>does not run the testing program and that USADA
>is a completely seperate organization. And yet
>here you are back on what USATF did before they
>got out of the testing business.

Either you
>did not read the message that explained to you
>USADA does the testing or you did not understand
>it. Which one? For someone calling themselves
>"answer giver", you need to work on the factual
>content of the answers you give.

Like I said, in my opinion, I do not believe that certain governing bodies have been completely forthcoming about past positive drug tests.