12/21/24
December 13, 2005
thats why they call it dope: Tim Montgomery gets a two year suspension, has the 100 meter world record he once held wiped from the books, AND loses two medals.
posted by irunfromclones to other at 01:35 PM - 21 comments
Amazing. They were banned with no evidence but the words of an admitted cheater. Sounds like justice to me.
posted by scottypup at 02:39 PM on December 13, 2005
Amazing. They were banned with no evidence but the words of an admitted cheater. Sounds like justice to me. I thought the same thing, except that I read to the end of the article and came across this: "Montgomery testified that in 2001 Conte gave him weekly doses of human growth hormone and a substance called the "clear," the San Francisco Chronicle reported in June 2004. That substance was later unmasked as TGH." Also, throw in the fact that neither of them wanted to defend themselves of the accusations: (The panel said Montgomery and Gaines both declined to testify at their hearings.), and it looks like they threw in the towel.
posted by grum@work at 02:50 PM on December 13, 2005
Does anyone relate stem cell research to products like the clear? Clinics are now using adult stem cells to repair hearts. Certainly this will lead to advances in rehabilitation & possibly performance enhancement. We've had several discussions about enhancements & everyone seems to be against it. Are y'all scared of progress or what am I missing? There is clearly no turning back & if you think athletes from long ago weren't "cheating" then you're only fooling yourself.
posted by catfish at 03:13 PM on December 13, 2005
I agree with grum. The fact that they declined to testify in their hearings is just about as clear an admission of guilt you can get, aside perhaps from them admitting they were guilty of cheating.
posted by squealy at 03:25 PM on December 13, 2005
But it is for my narcolepsy. Of course it is dear. Your medal please. catfish, NBIC technology (nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science) seems to be what you are on about: enhancing performance via "therapy, augmentation, and designed evolution." I'm not sure what I am missing, but I don't think anyone is against progress but rather is frustrated by the lag between innovation and rule enforcement.
posted by garfield at 03:43 PM on December 13, 2005
Sports Illustrated mentioned it when it happened and I agree completely, thank God that Asafa Powell broke his record. Now at least the 100 meter record is still legit.
posted by the don at 04:24 PM on December 13, 2005
Certainly this will lead to advances in rehabilitation & possibly performance enhancement New Scientist recently ran an article on gene doping, saying that it is already taking place in the sports world. Also a new treatment developed for muscular dystrophy, that switches off the part of the genome that restricts muscle growth, is going to be open to abuse. However, in the latter, it is easily detected since the treatment uses high doses of an artificial protein. But WADA will always be one step behind (like Norton and McAfee!) and idiots like those in US Track and Field will always try and turn a blind eye or cover up.
posted by owlhouse at 04:43 PM on December 13, 2005
We've had several discussions about enhancements & everyone seems to be against it. Are y'all scared of progress or what am I missing? What you're missing (and what WADA often seems to forget too, so you're in good company) is that the idea isn't to ban substances that are performance-enhancing, or to ban substances that are harmful, but to ban substances that are both. If they're one but not the other, there's no need to ban them: they don't ban oatmeal, and they don't ban cyanide either.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 05:12 PM on December 13, 2005
Looks like garfield is really onto something! Not too long from now you will be able to grow the perfect athlete. That's one way to level the playing field if just anyone can get "spliced". You could keep playing pro into your seventies. Imagine Bonds hitting 75 homers a year for the next 30 years. I guess when it reaches that point, records become moot. How do you break into a sport when nearly everyone is at the same level and can play as long as they want to?
posted by irunfromclones at 06:09 PM on December 13, 2005
The fact that they declined to testify in their hearings is just about as clear an admission of guilt you can get Not to defend anyone here without reading the article, but those kind of comments freak me out.
posted by yerfatma at 06:38 PM on December 13, 2005
What "kind of comment" do you think it is then fatso? If they were innocent of doping then they would have put up a fight. Don't you think?
posted by squealy at 06:44 PM on December 13, 2005
You could read the article too.
posted by squealy at 06:46 PM on December 13, 2005
i agree w/ yerfatma. whatever happened to being presumed innocent? clearly, i'm not talking about montgomery or gaines here, who confessed. but... it's common for defendants to not take the stand, especially if they're legally unsophisticated, poor public speakers, or if there's at all a chance a savvy prosecutor is going to make them look silly on cross.
posted by ninjavshippo at 07:18 PM on December 13, 2005
i agree w/ yerfatma. whatever happened to being presumed innocent? This will probably surprise you -- it seems to surprise a lot of people, since I end up posting words to this effect about once a month -- but while presumption of innocence does exist in some criminal and some civil codes, depending on what country you're in, it has never existed in the world of drug testing, particularly WADA drug testing. That's what drug testing is all about: a drug test is an opportunity to prove one's innocence. Flunk the test? You're guilty. Refuse to take it? Guilty. The stuff shows up in your sample? Guilty -- unless you can prove cross-contamination, and the burden of proof is on you. Fail to show or be available for the test? Guilty. That's an oversimplification, but that's the essence of it. You may feel that that's shocking and appalling, but it is the way things are, so talk about "presumed innocent" has no place in a drug-testing discussion. Now, that has nothing to do with the statement yerfatma reacted to. Statements or lack of statements about drugs, drug testing, one's use of drugs, etc. are not evidence to WADA -- not officially, that is. However -- just to give a recent f'rinstance -- since Bode Miller had the temerity to make a public statement in which he pointed out some of the dufus-ass inconsistencies in WADA's policies, and then had the crust to refuse to retract his statement, he has apparently been singled out for additional attention, just as WADA officials had more or less threatened. Coercion or blackmail? You be the judge.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:43 PM on December 13, 2005
"The fact that they declined to testify in their hearings is just about as clear an admission of guilt you can get" Not to defend anyone here without reading the article, but those kind of comments freak me out. I'd like to first point out that I mentioned their lack of testimony not as an admission of guilt, but as an indication that they didn't feel their side of the case had much strength (hence, "throwing in the towel"). Secondly, not testifying in a trial (which this wasn't) is definitely not an indication of guilt. However, not testifying in a trial when the prosecution has used hearsay evidence against you is tantamount to admitting those statements are true.
posted by grum@work at 12:04 AM on December 14, 2005
but while presumption of innocence does exist in some criminal and some civil codes . . . it has never existed in the world of drug testing I realize this, but hearing people say it still freaks me out. I'm assuming there's a boatload of evidence to cite before you fall back on, "Plus he didn't defend himself." You could read the article too. Right, but I'm trying to get a feel for how the other half lives. Just making loud pronouncements without even skimming the text in question.
posted by yerfatma at 06:28 AM on December 14, 2005
I read the article. Perhaps I didn't express myself properly. I meant what grum said about the hearsay evidence. Apologies for any misunderstanding. I'm not blessed with the debating skills some of you possess. I blame it on the fact that I love football, beer and cigarettes.
posted by squealy at 01:36 PM on December 14, 2005
I'm not blessed with the debating skills some of you possess. I blame it on the fact that I love football, beer and cigarettes. Why you beautiful idiot, you. Me too! (among other things)
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 01:55 PM on December 14, 2005
me: but while presumption of innocence does exist in some criminal and some civil codes . . . it has never existed in the world of drug testing yerfatma: I realize this, but hearing people say it still freaks me out. I'm assuming there's a boatload of evidence to cite before you fall back on, "Plus he didn't defend himself." Your outfreakage is entirely appropriate; I hope the feeling spreads. The Bode Miller witch-hunt may help raise awareness of the problem, it being an Olympic season and all that.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:22 PM on December 14, 2005
I don't think Bode is a cheater. Unless he's a cheater in the way Ross Rebligati was a cheater. Heh.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:08 PM on December 14, 2005
I have to admit, I hate the US Track and Field team. Wall to wall cheaters being protected by the organizational brass. It's a joke. I truly do hope they can clean this stuff up. It's less likely to happen, however, given the amount of protection that they are offered. Please get Marion Jones soon too. She's an unbelievable cheater.