damu cherry

[Guest]

I also see that Damu Cherry was banned for 2 years yesterday. What's all that about?

http://www.usatf.org/about/legal/antido ... ions.shtml

[gh]

Re: damu cherry

See "Devers vs Felicien" on the Current Forums forum

[Guest]

Re: damu cherry

Anyone notice anything unusual about that list?

A lot of 'no name' athletes are on it (no, I did not say all). Considering the huffing and puffing made by the IOC back in late 2000, and the subsequent attempts to get the USATF to surrender names, this list is most interesting.

[Powell]

Re: damu cherry

>Anyone notice anything unusual about that
>list?

A lot of 'no name' athletes are on it
>(no, I did not say all). Considering the huffing
>and puffing made by the IOC back in late 2000,
>and the subsequent attempts to get the USATF to
>surrender names, this list is most interesting.

The list of athletes who tested positive in 2000 was never released, so we don't know how big the names were... The only name we have officially learned now was Jerome Young, and he's a more serious player than most on the list of currently banned athletes.

My problem with the whole thing is that the USATF are willing to ban no-name athletes, but as soon as it's a Carl Lewis, a Mary Slaney or a Dennis Mitchell testing positive, things start to work differently. It looks like everyone who could afford to spend enough for legal advice was able to find a loophole. I suppose the big shoe company might have played a part in this, too... If they backed their athletes, their leverage with the USATF might have made all the difference.

[Guest]

Re: damu cherry

>The list of athletes who tested
>positive in 2000 was never released, so we don't
>know how big the names were... The only name we
>have officially learned now was Jerome Young, and
>he's a more serious player than most on the list
>of currently banned athletes.>>

Let's say this ONE MORE TIME. There is no list of people who "tested positive" in 2000. Or any other year. That's a list solely of people who had A positive, B positive and failed in hearing/arbitration. If somebody passed an A or won their hearing/arbitration they're not listed. Same as any other country. Just happens to be the country that tests the most people (in pure numbers).

[Powell]

Re: damu cherry

>Just happens to be the
>country that tests the most people (in pure
>numbers).

That's incorrect.

The official IAAF statistics for 2002 - number of out-of competition tests per country
The official IAAF statistics for 2002:

The Top 10
Germany 1005
Great Britain 465
USA 431
Australia 279
Spain 185
Finland 177
Norway 175
Japan 136
Poland 129
Sweden 118

The US had only 43% of the number of tests Germany did (a country with 30% of the population of the US). And if you compare the number of tests per capita (or, more significantly, per medal won in major championships) in the US with Australia or the Scandinavian countries... let's just say you could do better.

[Guest]

Re: damu cherry

Same as any other country


What the heck are you talking about? The whole approach to dealing with doping offences by the USATF is vastly different from other countries. That's why there has been so much international pressure specifically centered on them by WADA, IAAF and IOC.

The reality is that they are not the same as any other country in the way things are handled, and therefore the statistics are probably skewed with respect to their official doping offences. They have chosen to run internal investigations on stuff that pertains to an international governing body.

If the athletes were truly innocent (and some may well be) they should still stand 'trial' like everyone else does in most countries, by the international committee set up for these things, not some internal organization who is more concerned with self-funding and image management. It seems like a conflict of interest for the USATF to implicate its top stars (in their prime) who may be guilty.

Can anyone explain why it took from March '99 to Oct 2001 to sort the Inger Miller case out? Hmmm, let's see...would she have missed 3 months under the penal act for stimulants back in early '99? Who knows how that would have altered her season by missing 3 months (maybe the USA Nationals). She subsequently went on to do amazing feats at Worlds (go and do your homework if you don't know) and have a her best season ever. Yes, there seems to be some legit injuries in the next few seasons, but didn't the USATF get much advertising mileage (courtesy NBC) from the supoosed Marion vs. Inger clash, just as they hyped up the MJ vs. Mo' clash? They had in their hand the '99 WC 100m silver medallist/ 200m gold medallist going against the best in the world - Marion Jones. What better attraction is there for them. No wonder they dragged their feet over a 'caffiene' related case!!!! Tell me, doesn't that sound odd to you?


My friend, even though I am not privy to all the going-on in that or any other case, the truth is that it took them damn long to handle and make it public. We 'in-the-know' knew something was amiss, especially when we saw her performances drop way below her career standard so rapidly and almost permanently. We know she is very talented and comes from a great gene pool (a la Kelli White), but it took way too long to handle a non anabloic steroid case! March '99 - Oct '01...that's the fact!

[Guest]

Re: damu cherry

<The US had only 43% of the
>number of tests Germany did (a country with 30%
>of the population of the US). And if you compare
>the number of tests per capita (or, more
>significantly, per medal won in major
>championships) in the US with Australia or the
>Scandinavian countries... let's just say you
>could do better.>

I think you'll find those numbers refer to tests performed by the IAAF and do not include the tests done in-country.

[Powell]

Re: damu cherry

No, I believe it's the opposite - these are random tests performed by national bodies, and do not include the IAAF/WADA tests.