| |
Main
Date: 14 Sep 2006 15:17:07
From: runsrealfast
Subject: WADA's Pound: Jones' inconsistent tests 'disturbing'
|
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/trackandfield/news/story?id=2581927
ok I know that this topic has already been discussed but I was looking
around espn today and found this one. Even though its a couple of days
old I had not read it yet. Apparently, in pounds eyes there is no such
thing as a false positive. I thought the whole reason behind the B
sample was to prevent those and protect the athlete. Now when that
happens Pound questions it. I wonder if its time to replace Pound and
get someone thats not against the athletes with someone that would be
fair.
John
|
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 03:41:21
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: WADA's Pound: Jones' inconsistent tests 'disturbing'
|
"runsrealfast" <tay01020@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1158272227.904103.111640@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/trackandfield/news/story?id=2581927
>
> ok I know that this topic has already been discussed but I was looking
> around espn today and found this one. Even though its a couple of days
> old I had not read it yet. Apparently, in pounds eyes there is no such
> thing as a false positive. I thought the whole reason behind the B
> sample was to prevent those and protect the athlete. Now when that
> happens Pound questions it. I wonder if its time to replace Pound and
> get someone thats not against the athletes with someone that would be
> fair.
>
> John
Pound is just taking a play out of Karl Rove's playbook: we're never wrong;
it's our way or you support the terrorists (dopers). And by the way, that
particular piece of evidence you want to examine is classified (...not yet
perhaps, but Landis' lawyers are not allowed under WADA rules to interview
personnel at the French lab that apparently may have mishandled some
samples, and took almost 6 weeks *after* finding the "B" sample positive
before releasing the 400 or so odd pages of results to Landis for review,
after he had been impuned in he press for, yes, almost 2 months).
-Tony
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 20:11:57
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: Re: WADA's Pound: Jones' inconsistent tests 'disturbing'
|
Mark Hutchinson wrote:
> That being said, there is unfortunately very little difference
> between an athlete who uses dope and the chairman of WADA who
> clearly is a dope. They both compromise the system.
Maybe, but the man's got the best name in sports since that race car
driver, Se=F1or Trickle.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 10:32:55
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: WADA's Pound: Jones' inconsistent tests 'disturbing'
|
"Charlie Pendejo" <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote
> Mark Hutchinson wrote:
>> That being said, there is unfortunately very little difference
>> between an athlete who uses dope and the chairman of WADA who
>> clearly is a dope. They both compromise the system.
>
> Maybe, but the man's got the best name in sports since that race
> car driver, Seņor Trickle.
I used to live across the street from a US Congressman who got
convicted of lying about a drug money deal and ended up in jail.
His name was Pat Swindall. Befittingly, he has since become an
evangelical preacher.
The best runner's name I have seen is Orinthal Striggles. A very
good runner in the Carolinas. Gotta be fast with a name like
that.
-- __________________
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 15:29:28
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: Re: WADA's Pound: Jones' inconsistent tests 'disturbing'
|
runsrealfast wrote:
> I wonder if its time to replace Pound and get someone thats
> not against the athletes with someone that would be fair.
Does it also bother you when prosecuting attorneys are "against the
defendents" rather than "fair"?
The two-sample process allows Jones to run another day, regardless of
what Pound thinks or says. How much further backwards do you propose
we should bend to be "fair" to someone who, in this particular case,
almost certainly has a long history as a drug cheat, at the expense of
clean athletes who after years of brutally hard work and dedication are
robbed of medals, winnings, and endorsements?
|
| | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 23:58:51
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: WADA's Pound: Jones' inconsistent tests 'disturbing'
|
"Charlie Pendejo" <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote
> The two-sample process allows Jones to run another day,
> regardless of what Pound thinks or says. How much further
> backwards do you propose we should bend to be "fair" to someone
> who, in this particular case, almost certainly has a long
> history as a drug cheat, at the expense of clean athletes who
> after years of brutally hard work and dedication are robbed of
> medals, winnings, and endorsements?
That being said, there is unfortunately very little difference
between an athlete who uses dope and the chairman of WADA who clearly
is a dope. They both compromise the system.
--
__________________
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 18:45:02
From: Harold Buck
Subject: Re: WADA's Pound: Jones' inconsistent tests 'disturbing'
|
In article <Xns983ED4B716E84markhgoamilcom@66.150.105.47 >,
Mark Hutchinson <markh@goamil.com > wrote:
> "Charlie Pendejo" <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > The two-sample process allows Jones to run another day,
> > regardless of what Pound thinks or says. How much further
> > backwards do you propose we should bend to be "fair" to someone
> > who, in this particular case, almost certainly has a long
> > history as a drug cheat, at the expense of clean athletes who
> > after years of brutally hard work and dedication are robbed of
> > medals, winnings, and endorsements?
>
> That being said, there is unfortunately very little difference
> between an athlete who uses dope and the chairman of WADA who clearly
> is a dope. They both compromise the system.
You simply can't say that Pound is a dope until the B-sample results are
in.
--Harold Buck
"Hubris always wins in the end. The Greeks taught us that."
-Homer J. Simpson
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 17:19:50
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: WADA's Pound: Jones' inconsistent tests 'disturbing'
|
On 2006-09-15, Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net > wrote:
> In article <Xns983ED4B716E84markhgoamilcom@66.150.105.47>,
> Mark Hutchinson <markh@goamil.com> wrote:
>
>> "Charlie Pendejo" <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>> > The two-sample process allows Jones to run another day,
>> > regardless of what Pound thinks or says. How much further
>> > backwards do you propose we should bend to be "fair" to someone
>> > who, in this particular case, almost certainly has a long
>> > history as a drug cheat, at the expense of clean athletes who
>> > after years of brutally hard work and dedication are robbed of
>> > medals, winnings, and endorsements?
>>
>> That being said, there is unfortunately very little difference
>> between an athlete who uses dope and the chairman of WADA who clearly
>> is a dope. They both compromise the system.
>
>
> You simply can't say that Pound is a dope until the B-sample results are
> in.
One could always "leak" it though (-;
But it's hardly a well kept secret, so there wouldn't be much point.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 00:15:57
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: WADA's Pound: Jones' inconsistent tests 'disturbing'
|
Harold Buck said...
> Mark Hutchinson <markh@goamil.com> wrote:
>
>> That being said, there is unfortunately very little difference
>> between an athlete who uses dope and the chairman of WADA who
>> clearly is a dope. They both compromise the system.
>
>You simply can't say that Pound is a dope until the B-sample
>results are in.
That type of consideration would violate established WADA
policies.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 18:44:07
From: Harold Buck
Subject: Re: WADA's Pound: Jones' inconsistent tests 'disturbing'
|
In article <1158272968.608546.189050@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"Charlie Pendejo" <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote:
> runsrealfast wrote:
> > I wonder if its time to replace Pound and get someone thats
> > not against the athletes with someone that would be fair.
>
> Does it also bother you when prosecuting attorneys are "against the
> defendents" rather than "fair"?
The analogy is not apt, since I think in this case Pound should be
playing the role of the (neutral) judge.
--Harold Buck
"Hubris always wins in the end. The Greeks taught us that."
-Homer J. Simpson
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 09:13:21
From: runsrealfast
Subject: Re: WADA's Pound: Jones' inconsistent tests 'disturbing'
|
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On 2006-09-14, runsrealfast <tay01020@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/trackandfield/news/story?id=2581927
> >
> > ok I know that this topic has already been discussed but I was looking
> > around espn today and found this one. Even though its a couple of days
> > old I had not read it yet. Apparently, in pounds eyes there is no such
> > thing as a false positive. I thought the whole reason behind the B
> > sample was to prevent those and protect the athlete. Now when that
>
> No, the purpose is to ensure a fair and effective testing process. If Pound's
> only failure was failing to "protect" athletes, that would be fine with me.
> He is not obliged to protect anything except the integrity of the sport.
>
> > happens Pound questions it. I wonder if its time to replace Pound and
> > get someone thats not against the athletes with someone that would be
> > fair.
>
> Jones is so suspicious that everyone who's been paying attention believes
> she's at least very likely to be a doper.
>
> But Pound is just way out of line here. Ultimately, those comments undermine
> the testing process that he is supposed to be presiding over.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi
> http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
at first I was going to comment about him making comments, but you
stated it at the end. Anyone involved in any testing shouldn't have a
bias either way. Pound clearly is against the athletes, which is why i
don't think he is the right person. Regardless if they are all cheats
someone needs to be in their thats going to be fair and unbiased, and
then pounce on someone that fails a test not jump them when the test
comes back negative.
john
|
| | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 18:13:25
From: bj
Subject: Marion Jones conditioning question
|
I'm confused about MJ's plans.
She says she's not going to race anymore this year because her condition
"isn't there" -- because of having to miss recent races.
Couldn't she maintain conditioning & training even w/o racing?
How is her condition going to improve for next year's racing season any
better, with no racing until then either? IOW, how is the non-racing
training going to get her better fit over the next few months than
non-racing training could have in recent months?
bj
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 19:42:22
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: Marion Jones conditioning question
|
On 2006-09-15, bj <bjones44@bellatlantic.net > wrote:
> I'm confused about MJ's plans.
>
> She says she's not going to race anymore this year because her condition
> "isn't there" -- because of having to miss recent races.
>
> Couldn't she maintain conditioning & training even w/o racing?
My take on it is that she's made attempts to go clean, and this always results
in her running slower. Her sponsorship deals depend on her producing fast
times, so that makes it hard to go clean. Now she's under the magnifying glass
and wants to get out while she's ahead. It wouldn't surprise me if she retires
soon. She's already over 30.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 15:38:45
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: WADA's Pound: Jones' inconsistent tests 'disturbing'
|
On 2006-09-14, runsrealfast <tay01020@yahoo.com > wrote:
> http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/trackandfield/news/story?id=2581927
>
> ok I know that this topic has already been discussed but I was looking
> around espn today and found this one. Even though its a couple of days
> old I had not read it yet. Apparently, in pounds eyes there is no such
> thing as a false positive. I thought the whole reason behind the B
> sample was to prevent those and protect the athlete. Now when that
No, the purpose is to ensure a fair and effective testing process. If Pound's
only failure was failing to "protect" athletes, that would be fine with me.
He is not obliged to protect anything except the integrity of the sport.
> happens Pound questions it. I wonder if its time to replace Pound and
> get someone thats not against the athletes with someone that would be
> fair.
Jones is so suspicious that everyone who's been paying attention believes
she's at least very likely to be a doper.
But Pound is just way out of line here. Ultimately, those comments undermine
the testing process that he is supposed to be presiding over.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 08:02:11
From: runsrealfast
Subject: Re: WADA's Pound: Jones' inconsistent tests 'disturbing'
|
since were on this topic:
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=2588324
John
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 07:35:54
From: runsrealfast
Subject: Re: WADA's Pound: Jones' inconsistent tests 'disturbing'
|
Charlie Pendejo wrote:
> runsrealfast wrote:
> > I wonder if its time to replace Pound and get someone thats
> > not against the athletes with someone that would be fair.
>
> Does it also bother you when prosecuting attorneys are "against the
> defendents" rather than "fair"?
I completly agree with you. I just hate how pound wants to take all
these cases to the court of puplic opinon before they are in a real
court. I think its bad method of practicing law.
> The two-sample process allows Jones to run another day, regardless of
> what Pound thinks or says. How much further backwards do you propose
> we should bend to be "fair" to someone who, in this particular case,
> almost certainly has a long history as a drug cheat, at the expense of
> clean athletes who after years of brutally hard work and dedication are
> robbed of medals, winnings, and endorsements?
What I'm thinking is that the two sample system is not the best method.
I think a three sample system is best. That way if the A sample comes
up positive and the B sample contridicts the A sample the C sample
would be the tell all sample. Of course then you have the issue of what
about the C sample being wrong (thats what the athlete would say at
least). I think with the Landis issue three samples would settle it
once and for all.
I agree that Jones most likely is a cheat, and I wonder what a C sample
would have told. Its possible that the B sample is a false Negative.
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 14:14:42
From: runsrealfast
Subject: Re: Marion Jones conditioning question
|
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> My take on it is that she's made attempts to go clean, and this always results
> in her running slower. Her sponsorship deals depend on her producing fast
> times, so that makes it hard to go clean. Now she's under the magnifying glass
> and wants to get out while she's ahead. It wouldn't surprise me if she retires
> soon. She's already over 30.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. I just thought about the
williams sisters in tennis. When was the last time either of them won
anything. They had to be on something...
John
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 14:13:03
From: runsrealfast
Subject: Re: Marion Jones conditioning question
|
bj wrote:
> I'm confused about MJ's plans.
Lets get a new nickname for her. I don't want her and Jordan (the real
MJ) being mentioned in the same breath. I'm just having a tough time
getting roids into her name.
John
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 14:09:40
From: runsrealfast
Subject: Re: Marion Jones conditioning question
|
bj wrote:
> I'm confused about MJ's plans.
>
> She says she's not going to race anymore this year because her condition
> "isn't there" -- because of having to miss recent races.
>
> Couldn't she maintain conditioning & training even w/o racing?
>
> How is her condition going to improve for next year's racing season any
> better, with no racing until then either? IOW, how is the non-racing
> training going to get her better fit over the next few months than
> non-racing training could have in recent months?
> bj
I wonder if she thinks that a year off will allow the smoke to blow
away and someone else will get caught cheating and we will forget about
her. that in some ways has happened to Barry Bonds. Does anyone realize
he is 25 HR away from the record. Of course with him its going to be
revisited next year as he gets close to the record.
John
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 12:43:13
From: LSmith
Subject: Re: Marion Jones conditioning question
|
i think you're completely off base here. she was commanding $20K in
appearance fee money up to the point wherein the EPO test turned up
positive. that event likely moved race promoters to cancel contracts &
there may well be clauses in their contracts wherein even 1 pos test is
sufficient to cancel.
this is sorta what happend to Lance Armstrong. a company called SCA
promotions in dallas withheld $5M in bonus money to be paid to Lance
for winning 6 in a row based entirely on EPO doping
suspicions/allegations. Lance sued and won.
Jones is an entertainer, a draw, and attraction. Her value/worth is
uncertain at the moment to her and a promoter. Makes more sense for
her to not race, hope tickets don't sell, ratings down, etc. to
re-establish her worth as an entertainer on the card, etc.
Her not racing imo is all function of business matters & strategy and
has zero to do with the content in your posting. Like her or hate
her, she is the biggest name in track and field still in events.
http://sport.scotsman.com/athletics.cfm?id=1220942006
"Unbanned and unbowed she may have been, but meeting promoters now
started to turn the financial screw on Jones. The woman who used to be
able to command $100,000 appearance fees found herself ostracised from
Europe's top meetings in 2005."
|
|
