US Doping coverup

Stewart Fleming said:

Does the allegation made in this article, that the US Olympic Committee ignored positive dope tests
among Olympic athletes relate to any US cyclists?

smh.com.au1050172709693.htmlOpen ↗

Or is it simply the track and field program that it refers to? Who finished 4th in the Seoul 100m?
They could be in line for a gold medal... STF

According to my newspaper theherald.co.uktheherald.co.ukOpen ↗

"A total of 114 positive drug findings in a range of disciplines were covered up by the US Olympic
Committee and a range of American sport governing bodies during the years from 1988 to 2000."

and

"Football had nine positive findings between 1988 and 1999. They banned one player. Skiing had 11
from 1991-98. They banned nobody. Ice hockey had 15 in the 12 years from 1988. Again, nobody was
suspended."

IIRC Dennis Mitchell (US) was 4th in Seoul - and of course it would have meant the obviously drug
free Linford Christie would be double olympic champ now.

There's a lot more to the Lewis situation than a bit of
pseudoephedrine use - why did he and so many of his track team require orthodontic appliances,
for instance?

Stephen

Steve McGinty said:

There's a lot more to the Lewis situation than a bit of
pseudoephedrine use - why did he and so many of his track team require orthodontic appliances, for
instance?

I think Lewis grew an inch or two between Olympics. I remember a commentator mentioning that during
one of Lewis's races.

Steve McGinty said:

There's a lot more to the Lewis situation than a bit of
pseudoephedrine use - why did he and so many of his track team require orthodontic appliances, for
instance?

I wonder what sort of game Exum is playing? Outing people for cold meds seems really lame. If he
really wants to get people's attention he should talk about the Tammy Thomases of track and field,
not lame ass [censored] like cold meds.

Bob Schwartz [email hidden]

In article <[email hidden]>, Steve McGinty

stephenmcginty@ntlworld_DOT_.com said:

There's a lot more to the Lewis situation than a bit of
pseudoephedrine use - why did he and so many of his track team require orthodontic appliances, for
instance?

Because track stars must have a pretty smile when they win on TV.

-WG

"Bob Schwartz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Steve McGinty said:

There's a lot more to the Lewis situation than a bit of
pseudoephedrine use - why did he and so many of his track team require orthodontic appliances,
for instance?

I wonder what sort of game Exum is playing? Outing people for cold meds seems really lame. If he
really wants to get people's attention he should talk about the Tammy Thomases of track and field,
not lame ass [censored] like cold meds.

It appears to me that Exum didn't have all that much ammunition, and the media has focussed on the
few recognizable names guilty of relatively minor offenses (cold meds vs., say, EPO), rather than
touting the more egregious examples (such as Tammy Thomas).

Andy Coggan

Quoted message said:

Or is it simply the track and field program that it refers to? Who finished 4th in the Seoul 100m?
They could be in line for a gold medal...

If you mean who finished 4th before the then and potentialy retrospective DQ's (Johnson, Lewis,
Christie) then it would have been Calvin Smith (US) who always struck me as looking "normal" - but I
may be niave...

Stephen

Andy Coggan said:

It appears to me that Exum didn't have all that much ammunition, and the media has focussed on the
few recognizable names guilty of relatively minor offenses (cold meds vs., say, EPO), rather than
touting the more egregious examples (such as Tammy Thomas).

Sounds a reasonable assessment. I think he leaked the paperwork on the cases that he knew about. The
hint that the US knew of a positive test for one of their athletes who won gold at the Sydney
Olympics but would not release that name due to "privacy laws" indicate the "bigger fish". (I have
my own suspicions about who it is.)

Just prior to the Sydney Olympics, a New Zealand middle distance runner made an allegation (not
widely reported) that he personally knew of "large numbers" of elite runners using EPO, for example
and how the administration "colluded" to avoid positive tests for other substances.
coolrunning.co.nz2000a015.htmlOpen ↗ (Martin Johns I think is currently in Colorado
if someone wants to take him up on his suggestion of discussing the EPO issue.)

I wondered at first if the suggestion made by Exum was akin to the "agreement" that Tammy Thomas
thought she had, that a positive test would be excused. STF

"Andy Coggan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Bob Schwartz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Steve McGinty said:

There's a lot more to the Lewis situation than a bit of
pseudoephedrine use - why did he and so many of his track team require orthodontic appliances,
for instance?

I wonder what sort of game Exum is playing? Outing people for cold meds seems really lame. If he
really wants to get people's attention he should talk about the Tammy Thomases of track and
field, not lame ass [censored] like cold meds.

It appears to me that Exum didn't have all that much ammunition, and the media has focussed on the
few recognizable names guilty of relatively

minor

Quoted message said:

offenses (cold meds vs., say, EPO), rather than touting the more egregious examples (such as Tammy
Thomas).

Andy Coggan

I cannot remember the time line, but Exum may have been gone before the Thomas situation. Exum is
just a bitter man. I loved that he sued USADA for discrimination even though he did not even apply
for the position! What an idiot.

Exum has 0.0000000000000000000 credibility. Afterall he was the guy in charge of everything. US
Skiing has a letter from Exum saying one of their cases was not a violation. I would love to see
that made public in response.

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Steve

McGinty

Quoted message said:

stephenmcginty@ntlworld_DOT_.com said:

There's a lot more to the Lewis situation than a bit of
pseudoephedrine use - why did he and so many of his track team require orthodontic appliances,
for instance?

Because track stars must have a pretty smile when they win on TV.

How about because he made enough money to be able to afford straight teeth. After all, the guy is
gay and wants to look pretty. It worked for Mohammed Ali. If Ali looked like Frazer he wouldn't have
gotten all of that publicity, money and love. Should Carl be any different - or more stupid?

Tom Kunich said:

How about because he made enough money to be able to afford straight teeth. After all, the guy is
gay and wants to look pretty. It worked for Mohammed Ali. If Ali looked like Frazer he wouldn't
have gotten all of that publicity, money and love. Should Carl be any different - or more stupid?

Muhammad Ali. Joe Frazier.

The rumor spin that has been around for a while about Lewis's braces is that Human Growth Hormone
makes every part of your body grow except your teeth.

The IOC isn't exactly clean in this regard either. 5 positive tests uncovered on the last day of the
Atlanta Olympics were never made public. Nine positive tests on the last day of the Los Angeles
Olympics were similarly never released. STF

Stewart Fleming said:

The rumor spin that has been around for a while about Lewis's braces is that Human Growth Hormone
makes every part of your body grow except your teeth.

Bingo! braces are very common among the adult male body building community! notiice arnold's teeth
spacing sometime from his hGH bulking up days.

g.

I'm not surprised this kind of stories are published. It's known worldwide that the USA has a very
lax attitude concerning doping. It rises questions if associations like the NBA don't allow
dopingtests and that's ok for the govermental organs who fight against doping. Does this mean the
NBA has something to hide? Or does this mean there really is no anti-doping policy in the US? Or is
it the fact that American athletes (representing the most powerful nation on eart) are expected to
be the best (or that they have to win the most olympic medals) that causes this lax attitude (even
toleration?) against doping. If those athletes were as much tested as cyclists, the list of positive
medal winning doping-sinners should be a lot longer.

"Kenny" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm not surprised this kind of stories are published. It's known worldwide that the USA has a very
lax attitude concerning doping. It rises questions if associations like the NBA don't allow
dopingtests and that's ok for the govermental organs who fight against doping. Does this mean the
NBA has something to hide? Or does this mean there really is no anti-doping policy in the US? Or
is it the fact that American athletes (representing the most powerful nation on eart) are expected
to be the best (or that they have to win the most olympic medals) that causes this lax attitude
(even toleration?) against doping. If those athletes were as much tested as cyclists, the list of
positive medal winning doping-sinners should be a lot longer.

Anti-doping policy started in 1952, when the Russians won more gold medals at the Olympic games in
Helsinki and made a propaganda stunt of it. The US suspected they were using performance enhancing
products (they were right, of course) and did all they could to introduce dopingtests. In other
words: the doping policy of the American associations sporting was to prevent athletes of other
countries to use it, not their own (probably they couldn´t image that American athletes would be as
`bad´ as their East-European competitors). Of course, in the meantime they must have become less
naive, but that doesn´t mean that the main principles of the American anti-doping policy have
really changed.

Benjo Maso

"Kenny" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm not surprised this kind of stories are published. It's known worldwide that the USA has a very
lax attitude concerning doping. It rises questions if associations like the NBA don't allow
dopingtests and that's ok for the govermental organs who fight against doping. Does this mean the
NBA has something to hide? Or does this mean there really is no anti-doping policy in the US? Or
is it the fact that American athletes (representing the most powerful nation on eart) are expected
to be the best (or that they have to win the most olympic medals) that causes this lax attitude
(even toleration?) against doping. If those athletes were as much tested as cyclists, the list of
positive medal winning doping-sinners should be a lot longer.

The professional sports leagues have a vested interest in keeping the doping issue on the
backburner. That is the sort of publicity that could cost them $$$. Money talks.

Cycling has a different revenue engine, sponsors of teams.

Notice how European football has much less of a doping issue than European cycling, but similar to
the American professional leagues.

"Kenny" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm not surprised this kind of stories are published. It's known worldwide that the USA has a very
lax attitude concerning doping. It rises questions if associations like the NBA don't allow
dopingtests and that's ok for the govermental organs who fight against doping.

Douchebag,

The NBA has drug testing.

Thanks, Brian.

hold my beer and watch this... said:

The NBA has drug testing.

The NBA program is interesting in its own right. The NBA for starters won't discuss any information
relating to its own drug testing program. Neither teams, players, nor the player's association can
reveal the result of a failed test, information about tests or even information about treatment.
They can only announce suspension or dismissal from the league.

What would we think in cycling if the "suspension" of an athlete was simply announced, with no
reason given by the UCI or the team? Would that be positive or negative for the sport or its image?

The player's association doesn't like the IOC terms proposed for the Athens Olympics next year.
seattletimes.nwsource.com134647866 nbadrugs07.htmlOpen ↗

OT: Does the NBA drug testing program test for anything other than "recreational" drugs in a way to
avoid substance abuse and corresponding negative publicity/player welfare? STF

I have never seen any reports that hGH makes anything happen.

"Stewart Fleming" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

How about because he made enough money to be able to afford

straight

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

teeth. After all, the guy is gay and wants to look pretty. It

worked

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for Mohammed Ali. If Ali looked like Frazer he wouldn't have

gotten

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

all of that publicity, money and love. Should Carl be any

different -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

or more stupid?

Muhammad Ali. Joe Frazier.

The rumor spin that has been around for a while about Lewis's braces

is

Quoted message said:

that Human Growth Hormone makes every part of your body grow except

your

Quoted message said:

teeth.

The IOC isn't exactly clean in this regard either. 5 positive tests uncovered on the last day
of the Atlanta Olympics were never made public. Nine positive tests on the last day of the
Los Angeles

Olympics

Quoted message said:

were similarly never released. STF

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I have never seen any reports that hGH makes anything happen.

Geez, Thomas, are you doubting again?

Ever heard of hGH reducing body fat and increasing lean muscle? Increasing strength and
thereby power?

Possibly you mean side effects. Ever heard of hGH causing Carpal Tunnel Syndrome? Or acromegaly?
High salt and water retention?

Acromegaly is the issue with Lewis et al. I quote "Acromegaly refers to growth hormone excess in
adulthood after the epiphyses are closed and the bones are no longer growing. In these people the
cartilage continues to grow, and the disease is characterized by enlargement of the nose, chin,
ears, supra-orbital ridge (eyebrow area), hands and feet."

"In fact, one would have to use ridiculously high doses by today's standards to achieve the growth
hormone levels seen in acromegaly."

But Thomas, athletes do use ridiculously high doses above the norm.

Did you notice Carl's chin and supra-orbital ridge in the latter years of his career?

I am losing faith in your omniscience on all and sundry.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]

(Veloflash) said:

Acromegaly is the issue with Lewis et al. I quote "Acromegaly refers to growth hormone excess in
adulthood after the epiphyses are closed and the bones are no longer growing. In these people the
cartilage continues to grow, and the disease is characterized by enlargement of the nose, chin,
ears, supra-orbital ridge (eyebrow area), hands and feet."

"In fact, one would have to use ridiculously high doses by today's standards to achieve the growth
hormone levels seen in acromegaly."

But Thomas, athletes do use ridiculously high doses above the norm.

Did you notice Carl's chin and supra-orbital ridge in the latter years of his career?

There's no way you can look at the face of Carl Lewis and see a case if acromegaly. Sorry. Trying to
be smug to Kunich sure sounds fun. Maybe you need to think of other things to do.