Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

LuigiVercotti

Will IOC set all records to zero?

Recommended Posts

CAF, gee, you don't have to get so defensive.  

I just picked Kornelia Enders out because hers was the only East German athlete name of that 1976 (& probably 1980 as well) batch that I remember.  What I tried to point out is that how can there be no more clearer proof of steroids used -- and it doesn't matter whether before or during the Olympics -- than with the female athletes of the DEFUNCT GDR regime.  Why so touchy about that rotten regime?  Not unless you have roots in that regime, then I guess you should say so.

I mean, I really feel sorry for those East German (men and) women who were used as guinea pigs by the state.  And why nobody has used them as examples, I don't know.

As for FloJo, she suffered a seizure during a flight; and died the next day.  If you want to impugn her memory, then fine since she is not here to defend herself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why so touchy about that rotten regime?  Not unless you have roots in that regime, then I guess you should say so.

I´m German - and Kornelia Ender is German, too - but I have no problems to speak about the public drug system of the GDR - and I know that the athletes were used as "guinea-pigs" - what annoyed me was LA84´s remark about Kornelia Enders´ character - therefore I jumped in in this thread...

She is not able to defend herself here on the boards - like Florence Griffith Joyner...

The Uneasy Death Of Florence Griffith Joyner

I have to admit that my remark about Flo-Jo was very harsh, but LA84´s remarks about Kornelia Ender was very harsh, too!

And before you quote my remark about the US-relay team: yes it was harsh, too, but can we really judge about doping because of the looks of an athlete? Is that proof enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
didn´t die Florence Griffit-Joyner because of a heart-desease?

Heart failure, I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I am sorry you feel that way but that is just the way I see it.  Granted she was a tool in a now defunct GDR regime but for her to say that she "didn't know what (they) were injecting me with", and was "shocked at putting on 18 lbs of muscle in such a short amount of time" sounds like Barry Bonds or some of the other BALCO athletes saying they didn't know what their coaches were giving him.

Maybe she was a naive 17 year old at the time - maybe she was a "guinea pig." I personally seriously doubt it but that is merely my opinion.  Either way, she (and Kristin Otto too for that matter) should step up and right the wrongs of the past.

As for FloJo - maybe she did, maybe she didn't (and it was heart failure). Personally I think she did but we will never know now unless her husband or sister-in-law someday have something to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I am sorry you feel that way but that is just the way I see it.  Granted she was a tool in a now defunct GDR regime but for her to say that she "didn't know what (they) were injecting me with", and was "shocked at putting on 18 lbs of muscle in such a short amount of time" sounds like Barry Bonds or some of the other BALCO athletes saying they didn't know what their coaches were giving him.

Maybe she was a naive 17 year old at the time - maybe she was a "guinea pig." I personally seriously doubt it but that is merely my opinion.  Either way, she (and Kristin Otto too for that matter) should step up and right the wrongs of the past.

As for FloJo - maybe she did, maybe she didn't (and it was heart failure). Personally I think she did but we will never know now unless her husband or sister-in-law someday have something to say.

... like I have already said: I think the whole doping discussion is a farce:

In my point of view the majority of athletes have used and still use doping to improve their ability.

I can´t see a difference between athletes, who likely used doping, and athletes, who committed that they used doping in the past, but weren´t positively tested.

Maybe it isn´t fair for the athletes who "lost" their medals vs. GDR-athletes, but isn´t it also unfair for Grace Jackson-Small (JAM) and Heike Drechsler (GDR), who "lost" their medals vs. Florence Griffith-Joyner (USA) in the 200 m final or Evelyn Ashford (USA) and Heike Drechsler (GDR), who "lost" their medals in the 100 m final in Seoul? And are we really sure, if Grace Jackson-Small (JAM), Heike Drechsler (GDR) or Evelyn Ashford (USA) didn´t use doping themselves?

I would like to emphasise again, that I take Florence Griffith-Joyner (USA) as an example - and I want to repeat in my point of view the majority of athletes from all over the world use doping to improve their ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been trying to formulate a concise response to all the points brought up on the drugs debate, and can't...so instead I'll relate an incident I recall from the Sydney games.

I was driving the chef de mission and his colleague the doctor for the Luxembourg team back to my place during the Sydney Olympics, and we were talking about the swimmers and doping (Luxembourg's team had 3 swimmers which accounted for almost half their athletes). Anyway, the doctor was saying that he thought Ian Thopre was on drugs, and had been given drugs by his parents from when he was a kid so that accounted for his size and success. I didn't say too much at the time, because I didn't want to be rude, but the argument was absolute bulldust. In Thorpie's case, he came from a lower middle class background in Sydney, and considering that steriods used for doping ion sport are generally extremely expensive, there was no way they could have afforded them (an Ian Thopre hadn't attended the AIS where any state doping scheme could have been implemented, even if it did exist). And since that time Thorpe, like all Australian swimmers have been willing to have blood samples taken and frozen even for testing in future against those drugs not detectable now.

The point of this is it's very easy to make accusations about doping, but it's far harder to prove them. The GDR systemic doping may or may not have made victims of their athletes, but no matter what it was and is documented and proven cheating. The same can be said about Ben Johnson and lots of others who have been caught. In the case of Flo Jo, or even our old Greek friend Kenderis it can't be proved. Even Michelle Smith, the Irish swimmer at Atlanta, can't be accused of doping at those games. There isn't the proof that she did it then, only latter proof that she tried to mask her results.

I believe strongly in the innocent till proven guilty dictum in doping, and whilst the monitoring and policing of doping has still got lots of problems, I believe generally that most athletes are clean when they attend the Olympics.

Geez, this is a hard issue to address...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... sorry I had to edit my previous post - I add the bold written part:

I can´t see a difference between athletes, who likely used doping, and athletes, who committed that they used doping in the past, but weren´t positively tested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, the doctor was saying that he thought Ian Thopre was on drugs, and had been given drugs by his parents from when he was a kid so that accounted for his size and success. I didn't say too much at the time, because I didn't want to be rude, but the argument was absolute bulldust. In Thorpie's case, he came from a lower middle class background in Sydney, and considering that steriods used for doping ion sport are generally extremely expensive, there was no way they could have afforded them

yes - drugs are very expensive - but how much earns Thorpe with his advertising-contracts now?

Isn´t he or his parents are now able to pay any loan back?

I´m sorry I think the doctor was right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example:

my brother, he was a very very good Volleyball-player, had testicular cancer at early stage - and he was operated, but he didn´t have to get a chemotherapy - I know what impact such an operation has.

There is a famous athlete, who recognised in 1996 that he has testicualr cancer in advanced stadium with metastases in his brain - he was operated and had to get a chemotherapy - two years later he get back into the business and won the most distinguished competion in his sports several times in a row since 1999.

Three years later after his operation and the start of the chemotherapy - he wasn´t tasted positive, but there are just two years in between...

:oo:  :oo:  :oo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can´t see a difference between athletes, who likely used doping, and athletes, who committed that they used doping in the past, but weren´t positively tested.

Let's take Valerie Brisco-Hooks (USA) who won 3 gold medals in '84 as an example.

She did not test positive 20 years ago in Los Angeles nor did she prior to the Olympics in any of the NCAA and USOC testing. And there were never any whispers about her possibly using a substance at the time and I do not think she did.

So let's say hypothetically that she announces that she was on some sort of performance enchancer at the time but her argument is that it wasn't caught in '84 and therefore she should keep her medals.

Rubbish.  The athletes and their coaches/physicians are always one step ahead in the drug game and are very good at coming up with new and improved methods to improve performance enchancement that is not detectable.  What happens is the IOC later learns about these things and then typically bans them.  

Which is why I still stand by my statement.  Any athlete, whether it be from 1948 or 2004, who is discovered or admits to have used any sort of synthetic performance enchancer, should be stripped of their medal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry - LA84, I can´t share your view...

I think it is only possible to strip of the medals if there is a positive test right after the resp. competition.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree  :grinning:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway, the doctor was saying that he thought Ian Thopre was on drugs, and had been given drugs by his parents from when he was a kid so that accounted for his size and success. I didn't say too much at the time, because I didn't want to be rude, but the argument was absolute bulldust. In Thorpie's case, he came from a lower middle class background in Sydney, and considering that steriods used for doping ion sport are generally extremely expensive, there was no way they could have afforded them

yes - drugs are very expensive - but how much earns Thorpe with his advertising-contracts now?

Isn´t he or his parents are now able to pay any loan back?

I´m sorry I think the doctor was right

Sorry CAF, but you've totally ignored the evidence of (a) Ian Thopre having never had a positive drug test and (B) his willingness to submit without any prompting from any agency like WADA blood samples for current, past and future testing for those forms of doping that have no tests as yet.

And do you seriously believe that a suburban family with a low income would spend the thousands and thousands required on undetectable drugs, in the hope that financial benefits may somehow provide the funds to repay such a shady debt? We're not talking about a collegiate sporting system or a state run institute...the typical environments where the worst excess of drug taking (such as the GDR or Chinese) have happened.

As for the argument to strip an athlete of their medals after having succeeded due to doping, generally I would agree with you. The problem is whereas nowadays the testers are closer behind the dopers, and there is less state-sponsorship and more interplay between certain corporations and athletes (e.g. the Balco group), in the days of the GDR there was an incredible gulf between the testers and the dopers, and the state records prove that at the time doping did occur during the events. It may seem punitive, but during 1968-1988 I would heartily concur every documented GDR drug taker to have their medals taken off them.

But then again, I would also argue that the blood doping undertaken by the US cycling team at the LA games should also merit their medals being withdrawn. That too was unethical cheating, and whilst the tests and rules were different then as to now, ultimately it was an example of athletes operating on an unfair biochemical basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the argument to strip an athlete of their medals after having succeeded due to doping, generally I would agree with you. The problem is whereas nowadays the testers are closer behind the dopers, and there is less state-sponsorship and more interplay between certain corporations and athletes (e.g. the Balco group), in the days of the GDR there was an incredible gulf between the testers and the dopers, and the state records prove that at the time doping did occur during the events. It may seem punitive, but during 1968-1988 I would heartily concur every documented GDR drug taker to have their medals taken off them.

But then again, I would also argue that the blood doping undertaken by the US cycling team at the LA games should also merit their medals being withdrawn. That too was unethical cheating, and whilst the tests and rules were different then as to now, ultimately it was an example of athletes operating on an unfair biochemical basis.

I agree with everything you just said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry - LA84, I can´t share your view...

I think it is only possible to strip of the medals if there is a positive test right after the resp. competition.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree  :grinning:

... lol - yes

:grinning:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...