11/23/24
August 27, 2003
"It does far more than cast doubt on the legitimacy... It totally destroys it.": It has been revealed that new world 400 metres champion Jerome Young won an Olympic gold medal in the 4x100m relay in Sydney in 2000, despite having tested positive for steroids in 1999. The revelations once again cast a further shadow on the attitude of USA Track and Field towards drug testing of athletes in the late 1990s, in contravention of IAAF rules. It also means that drug-free American athletes remain under international suspicion, thanks to the attitude of their governing body.
I always wondered why every American summer Olympian had a chance to win, and usually did. It was almost scripted to perfection for NBC execs. I guess its comeuppance for the Cold War attitude toward the ruskies and e.german olympians, both the mens and the mens teams. I used to despise generalizations, but the good thing about them, is that you are usually right.
posted by garfield at 09:40 AM on August 27, 2003
If it can be proved that the USATF covered up positive drug tests, there is only one penalty. Suspension from all IAAF events. The standard suspension for an athlete who tests positive for the first time is 2 years. So a 2 year suspension it is then. It's sad for the American athletes who are clean, but a stand has to be made. I'm not saying this to be anti-American. I would say the same for any country that could be proved to be flouting IAAF drug regulations at an institutional level.
posted by salmacis at 12:21 PM on August 27, 2003
Totally - I've been railing against USATF for years - As far as I'm concerned how can you not doubt any/all achievements of the US team in light of these (simply the most recent) events? My country was absolutely creamed after Ben Johnson - but we had our own Dubin inquiry and crucified our own athletes, we have yet to fully recover and may never will - it cost us corporate sponsorship, federal funding and our reputation to bring our athletes back into the fold of fair competition. We were chastised vehemently by American officals and the IAAF for not tending to our own flock adequately - Now we're considered to be the harshest punishers of our own cheaters (lifetime bans not uncommon). Years later we learn (far too late to do anything about ti) that Carl Lewis among others in that historical event were all doped up. They should be banned, but won't be, of course. Athlete's make the decision to cheat or not to cheat - but when your supposedly national governing body deccides that they won't punish the cheaters, then what seperates you from the other 'godless communists' and 'banana republics' out there? Nothing. Rant over.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:05 PM on August 27, 2003
weedy.......amen to that (you must have been as pleased as I was when Donovan won that crazy cooked up 150m race!!)
posted by smithers at 03:34 PM on August 27, 2003
Smithers. Hard to say. That race was weird. I just took exception when all of a sudden winning the 100 meters no longer meant you were the fastest man in the world - despite that being the global benchmark and America's benchmark whenever Carl Lewis won, or any of the other US sprinters. But no - Mike Johnson wins the 200 and it's a friggin' debate?!? I'd never heard such lunacy - then they have to risk injury in that crazy 150 meter race. Thankfully it was Johnson who ended up injured. I mean Donovan had no qualms about racing - he knew he'd win. Why? He was faster.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:57 PM on August 27, 2003
amen x 2
posted by garfield at 04:12 PM on August 27, 2003
I'd have to disagree on this. It was a debate because Michael Johnson accomplished a singular achievement, to wit: the 200m-400m double gold, not because Johnson was a US citizen. If Michael Johnson had been a Swede or a Mongol the debate would have still existed, it just would have been quieter, and probably not present the opportunity for a gimmick race that could "settle" it, in addition to a purse of $2 million. "Thankfully it was Johnson who ended up injured" Hey, that's Canadian sportsmanship for you! You forgot to call him a coward like Bailey did after he won. I rather agree with the posts in front of this silly Donovan Bailey hijack.
posted by pastepotpete at 10:34 AM on August 28, 2003
I'm not a track-and-field guy (I bale hay in them, not throw hammers — wtf is up with that?), but the American sport should be banned. I can totally attest to all the self-righteous bullshit that we spouted down here when Ben tested positive. Hey, if you can't walk the walk ... two years minimum.
posted by wfrazerjr at 10:42 AM on August 28, 2003
I think the fastest man debate had something to do with the American media. So I doubt if Johnson had been Swedish or a Mongol they debate would have existed at all. I figure that the focus would have been on his history making achievement and not so much on the title of world's fastest man. The title is hype and the media enjoy a good helping of hype. And back to our regularly scheduled thread - athletics suck. I feel bad for the folks who (naively?) are competing clean.
posted by gspm at 12:25 PM on August 28, 2003
Pastepotpete - when, oh when - was either the 200m or 400m winner EVER considered 'the fastest man in the world' prior to ol' Gold Shoes. Just a case (perhaps just another case) of USA athletics re-writing the script when it doesn't cast their man in the lead role. And I take back the whole 'glad Johnson got injured'. He was as much a victim of the hype as everyone else - basically forced to go along with it or face the repercussions to his wallet - damned if you do damned if you don't. It was either win, or pull up lame and don't re-race - and I beleive he knew he couldn't win. And if I were Donovan Bailey I'd be pretty upset too if my world record in the 100m was not recognized as the acheivement it had always been - Fastest Man in the World -becuase of a double winner in the 200 and 400. His option was simple - get your title back by beating the guy who 'took' it. He reacted poorly, perhaps in calling Johnson a chicken - but his righteous indignation was, well, righteous.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:57 PM on August 28, 2003
I think they claimed Johnson was the fastest was that his 200m record was run at a faster speed than the 100m record (19.32/2=9.66seconds for each hundred, compared to Bailey's record of 9.84 seconds). But then the old 200m world record, held by the Italian Pietro Mennea from 1979 until 1996, was also faster than (or equal to) every hundred metre record until Donovan Bailey broke it if you apply this measuring criteria to it. And I doubt anyone ever did when Carl Lewis held the 100m record.
posted by dng at 05:52 PM on August 28, 2003
Noone ever did when Carl was winning 100M gold because Carl was also winning 200M gold during the same games. But IIRC Carl's 200 times were always a hair faster per meter than 100 times.
posted by vito90 at 07:18 PM on August 28, 2003
Guys, of course the splits are inthe 200m winner's favour - the second 100m only takes these guys like 8 seconds since they go into it at full speed and not from a complete rest. Give their first hundred meter times.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:30 AM on August 29, 2003
well, Jones has admitted it, so the issue can be re-opened.
posted by garfield at 08:44 AM on August 29, 2003
Garfield attempts to bring the conversation back on topic!
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:02 AM on August 29, 2003
'Just the facts, ma'am.'
posted by garfield at 09:40 AM on August 29, 2003
'1,600 meter relay'??? 4x400, shurely!
posted by etagloh at 06:17 PM on August 30, 2003
Oops. Young won his gold in the 4x400m relay. But USATF's reputation is already mud on the world stage: while it led the charges against Eastern Bloc athletes, it turns out that it was covering up drug-taking for its own stars. And many American athletes don't particularly appreciate that, because it tarnishes their own reputations.