Olympics 2008

[WoodpeckerBWFC]

We won some gold medals this morning This woman won bronze in Windsurfing and in the interview she was like ' THIS IS THE BEST FEELING IN THE WORLD'....My ears hurt

[communistworkethic]

she has never been tested positive, had 14 clear tests, she is innocent and there is no suggestion to the contrary. That's about as conclusive as you can get. You've made out that suspicion should hang over her and your "I am not saying she is or isn't a drug cheat" enforces that.

Would you be happy with me suggesting that you take heroin? Because there's equal evidence for that and much less evidence to support you being innocent. Have you ever had a clear random drug test? If you can't answer "yes" then on that basis I think I'm suspicious that you are in fact a smackhead. Obviously that's not to say you are but nothing to suggest you're not. You've come out with little more than "no smoke without fire".

Commie, you said that "innocent until proven guilty" is a basic tenet of the law, and now you say she is innocent. Actually a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. There is a significant difference between presumed innocent and innocent - I would have thought that was fairly obvious. If you to say she should be presumed innocent of taking drugs, I would have no disagreement, although I would still say she was guilty of negligence. Years ago American athletes competed at the Olympics, passed every drug test, won their medals and went home. By your standard they were innocent. Years later they confessed to taking performance enhancing drugs so they were in fact guilty all this time. Even Michael Johnson had to return his (relay) medal this year because another athlete in the team confessed. Why did they confess years later? A sudden attack of conscience? A burning desire to save the sanctity of the sport? I would suggest rather that when American Congressional committees and grand juries investigate things it is inadvisable to lie to them (ask Roger Clements). Better to confess and endure the loss of medals and public humiliation, than to do seven years in durance vile for perjury. All I have said is there is no conclusive proof one way or another - though missing three tests may raise official concern. I have never said she was a drug cheat - I do not know that any more than you know about my heroine habits. You should not call me a smackhead, but you are free to say there is no evidence I am not. There is a difference. Why is this so hard to see?

she's been tested before and after the missed tests, tests which could have been taken within minutes of teh alloted times, and was clear she's had a trial during which is was stated she was not a drug taker, yet you think there should be some suspicion. You haven't been through due process so therefore if you assume that everyone's potentially guilty irrespective of the evidence, then by the same logic I can assume you might like to chase the dragon, as I know of another librarian than has who denied it.

[Lord Kangana]

She missed a test.The rules say you can't.

Its really that simple.

[KeeeeeeeBaaaaaaab]

She fecked up, the disciplinary committee dealing with her discplinary proceedings accepted she wasn't taking drugs (even when forcing the ban the committee said it was for "forgetfulness"), the BOA accepted this when considering lifting their over zealous byelaw, she came back after serving her ban, she won. What's to dispute?

Some people just can't give credit somtimes.

[Montreal Wanderer]

she has never been tested positive, had 14 clear tests, she is innocent and there is no suggestion to the contrary. That's about as conclusive as you can get. You've made out that suspicion should hang over her and your "I am not saying she is or isn't a drug cheat" enforces that.

Would you be happy with me suggesting that you take heroin? Because there's equal evidence for that and much less evidence to support you being innocent. Have you ever had a clear random drug test? If you can't answer "yes" then on that basis I think I'm suspicious that you are in fact a smackhead. Obviously that's not to say you are but nothing to suggest you're not. You've come out with little more than "no smoke without fire".

Commie, you said that "innocent until proven guilty" is a basic tenet of the law, and now you say she is innocent. Actually a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. There is a significant difference between presumed innocent and innocent - I would have thought that was fairly obvious. If you to say she should be presumed innocent of taking drugs, I would have no disagreement, although I would still say she was guilty of negligence. Years ago American athletes competed at the Olympics, passed every drug test, won their medals and went home. By your standard they were innocent. Years later they confessed to taking performance enhancing drugs so they were in fact guilty all this time. Even Michael Johnson had to return his (relay) medal this year because another athlete in the team confessed. Why did they confess years later? A sudden attack of conscience? A burning desire to save the sanctity of the sport? I would suggest rather that when American Congressional committees and grand juries investigate things it is inadvisable to lie to them (ask Roger Clements). Better to confess and endure the loss of medals and public humiliation, than to do seven years in durance vile for perjury. All I have said is there is no conclusive proof one way or another - though missing three tests may raise official concern. I have never said she was a drug cheat - I do not know that any more than you know about my heroine habits. You should not call me a smackhead, but you are free to say there is no evidence I am not. There is a difference. Why is this so hard to see?

she's been tested before and after the missed tests, tests which could have been taken within minutes of teh alloted times, and was clear she's had a trial during which is was stated she was not a drug taker, yet you think there should be some suspicion. You haven't been through due process so therefore if you assume that everyone's potentially guilty irrespective of the evidence, then by the same logic I can assume you might like to chase the dragon, as I know of another librarian than has who denied it.

All I have said is that she is guilty of negligence in terms of the rules of her sport. If the rules state a missed test is the equivalent of a failed test (I haven't read them), then she has failed a drug test. Indeed, I gather she failed three in this fashion and was banned. I don't see how the governing authority had much choice. All this has nothing to do with a definitive answer to the question of whether or not she used drugs. I have agreed that there are many indicators that she is drug free, but there are also concerns because of the missed tests. I don't have these concerns and it doesn't really matter to me what the truth is. I just had trouble with your failure to distinguish between innocence and the presumption of innocence, when you declared her innocent (something you have not addressed unless it is your reference 'to chase the dragon' - I have no idea what that may mean). Anyway, I think we will have to agree to differ on this one as we appear to going round in rather silly circles.

[Montreal Wanderer]

She fecked up, the disciplinary committee dealing with her discplinary proceedings accepted she wasn't taking drugs (even when forcing the ban the committee said it was for "forgetfulness"), the BOA accepted this when considering lifting their over zealous byelaw, she came back after serving her ban, she won. What's to dispute?

Some people just can't give credit somtimes.

I agree absolutely with this (apart from the spelling ). She paid the price for negligence, was free to compete and competed brilliantly. Hats off to her. My argument was on a different question.

[communistworkethic]

she has never been tested positive, had 14 clear tests, she is innocent and there is no suggestion to the contrary. That's about as conclusive as you can get. You've made out that suspicion should hang over her and your "I am not saying she is or isn't a drug cheat" enforces that.

Would you be happy with me suggesting that you take heroin? Because there's equal evidence for that and much less evidence to support you being innocent. Have you ever had a clear random drug test? If you can't answer "yes" then on that basis I think I'm suspicious that you are in fact a smackhead. Obviously that's not to say you are but nothing to suggest you're not. You've come out with little more than "no smoke without fire".

Commie, you said that "innocent until proven guilty" is a basic tenet of the law, and now you say she is innocent. Actually a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. There is a significant difference between presumed innocent and innocent - I would have thought that was fairly obvious. If you to say she should be presumed innocent of taking drugs, I would have no disagreement, although I would still say she was guilty of negligence. Years ago American athletes competed at the Olympics, passed every drug test, won their medals and went home. By your standard they were innocent. Years later they confessed to taking performance enhancing drugs so they were in fact guilty all this time. Even Michael Johnson had to return his (relay) medal this year because another athlete in the team confessed. Why did they confess years later? A sudden attack of conscience? A burning desire to save the sanctity of the sport? I would suggest rather that when American Congressional committees and grand juries investigate things it is inadvisable to lie to them (ask Roger Clements). Better to confess and endure the loss of medals and public humiliation, than to do seven years in durance vile for perjury. All I have said is there is no conclusive proof one way or another - though missing three tests may raise official concern. I have never said she was a drug cheat - I do not know that any more than you know about my heroine habits. You should not call me a smackhead, but you are free to say there is no evidence I am not. There is a difference. Why is this so hard to see?

she's been tested before and after the missed tests, tests which could have been taken within minutes of teh alloted times, and was clear she's had a trial during which is was stated she was not a drug taker, yet you think there should be some suspicion. You haven't been through due process so therefore if you assume that everyone's potentially guilty irrespective of the evidence, then by the same logic I can assume you might like to chase the dragon, as I know of another librarian than has who denied it.

All I have said is that she is guilty of negligence in terms of the rules of her sport. If the rules state a missed test is the equivalent of a failed test (I haven't read them), then she has failed a drug test. Indeed, I gather she failed three in this fashion and was banned. I don't see how the governing authority had much choice. All this has nothing to do with a definitive answer to the question of whether or not she used drugs. I have agreed that there are many indicators that she is drug free, but there are also concerns because of the missed tests. I don't have these concerns and it doesn't really matter to me what the truth is. I just had trouble with your failure to distinguish between innocence and the presumption of innocence, when you declared her innocent (something you have not addressed unless it is your reference 'to chase the dragon' - I have no idea what that may mean). Anyway, I think we will have to agree to differ on this one as we appear to going round in rather silly circles.

she is innocent of taking drugs and presumed innocent of same. that as simple as it gets. if you're suggesting she isn't innocent merely presumed so, then everyone is only presumed innocent of every accusation as soon as it is made or are you suggesting we all live in a shrodinger's cat-like state of innocence/guilt until proven guilty of something? you're the one being silly about conclusivity of proof. She's proved to have no drugs in her system to the satisfactionof her sport and the law, it can be no more conclusive. You haven't done so, so by your own silly suggestion, it's not conclusive that you don't take heroin, therefore you should remain under suspicion, until you prove otherwise but even then we should doubt that, as you could have eluded the testing somehow?

And to follow that through anyone who was ever found innocent is still a bit dubious becuase there could have been some miscarriage of justice?

Nobody who actually knows anything of Christine or the rules has any doubts about her being drug free, it's only those who think they know that throw it up.

as for "chase the dragon" - go look it up, you manage on every other occasion.

[jmjhb]

Bolt beats Michael Johnson's 200m record by two hundredths of a second, absolutely sensational.

[jammyjim12]

Bolt just broke the 200 Metre record with 19.30. Absolutlely magnificent run and what an amazing athlete this man is.

[Lord Kangana]

she has never been tested positive, had 14 clear tests, she is innocent and there is no suggestion to the contrary. That's about as conclusive as you can get. You've made out that suspicion should hang over her and your "I am not saying she is or isn't a drug cheat" enforces that.

Would you be happy with me suggesting that you take heroin? Because there's equal evidence for that and much less evidence to support you being innocent. Have you ever had a clear random drug test? If you can't answer "yes" then on that basis I think I'm suspicious that you are in fact a smackhead. Obviously that's not to say you are but nothing to suggest you're not. You've come out with little more than "no smoke without fire".

Commie, you said that "innocent until proven guilty" is a basic tenet of the law, and now you say she is innocent. Actually a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. There is a significant difference between presumed innocent and innocent - I would have thought that was fairly obvious. If you to say she should be presumed innocent of taking drugs, I would have no disagreement, although I would still say she was guilty of negligence. Years ago American athletes competed at the Olympics, passed every drug test, won their medals and went home. By your standard they were innocent. Years later they confessed to taking performance enhancing drugs so they were in fact guilty all this time. Even Michael Johnson had to return his (relay) medal this year because another athlete in the team confessed. Why did they confess years later? A sudden attack of conscience? A burning desire to save the sanctity of the sport? I would suggest rather that when American Congressional committees and grand juries investigate things it is inadvisable to lie to them (ask Roger Clements). Better to confess and endure the loss of medals and public humiliation, than to do seven years in durance vile for perjury. All I have said is there is no conclusive proof one way or another - though missing three tests may raise official concern. I have never said she was a drug cheat - I do not know that any more than you know about my heroine habits. You should not call me a smackhead, but you are free to say there is no evidence I am not. There is a difference. Why is this so hard to see?

she's been tested before and after the missed tests, tests which could have been taken within minutes of teh alloted times, and was clear she's had a trial during which is was stated she was not a drug taker, yet you think there should be some suspicion. You haven't been through due process so therefore if you assume that everyone's potentially guilty irrespective of the evidence, then by the same logic I can assume you might like to chase the dragon, as I know of another librarian than has who denied it.

All I have said is that she is guilty of negligence in terms of the rules of her sport. If the rules state a missed test is the equivalent of a failed test (I haven't read them), then she has failed a drug test. Indeed, I gather she failed three in this fashion and was banned. I don't see how the governing authority had much choice. All this has nothing to do with a definitive answer to the question of whether or not she used drugs. I have agreed that there are many indicators that she is drug free, but there are also concerns because of the missed tests. I don't have these concerns and it doesn't really matter to me what the truth is. I just had trouble with your failure to distinguish between innocence and the presumption of innocence, when you declared her innocent (something you have not addressed unless it is your reference 'to chase the dragon' - I have no idea what that may mean). Anyway, I think we will have to agree to differ on this one as we appear to going round in rather silly circles.

she is innocent of taking drugs and presumed innocent of same. that as simple as it gets. if you're suggesting she isn't innocent merely presumed so, then everyone is only presumed innocent of every accusation as soon as it is made or are you suggesting we all live in a shrodinger's cat-like state of innocence/guilt until proven guilty of something? you're the one being silly about conclusivity of proof. She's proved to have no drugs in her system to the satisfactionof her sport and the law, it can be no more conclusive. You haven't done so, so by your own silly suggestion, it's not conclusive that you don't take heroin, therefore you should remain under suspicion, until you prove otherwise but even then we should doubt that, as you could have eluded the testing somehow?

And to follow that through anyone who was ever found innocent is still a bit dubious becuase there could have been some miscarriage of justice?

Nobody who actually knows anything of Christine or the rules has any doubts about her being drug free, it's only those who think they know that throw it up.

as for "chase the dragon" - go look it up, you manage on every other occasion.

An elite athlete has to prove they are drug free to be an elite athlete.

An ordinary person has no responsibility to prove they are drug free to be an ordinary person.

Therefore there is a presumption of guilt until presumed innocent, and thats why they have testing. And thats why testing is compulsory.

This isn't as hard work as you are making it.

[Athers]

That is just incredible, headwind as well.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Wow, wow, wow, wow, wow!

Tingle down the spine as he crossed the line.

[David Lee's Hair]

That is just incredible, headwind as well.

Aye very impressive.

I'll be honest though, and I know I'm going to get abuse off some , but the more I see him run the more I just think he must be doing something.

In his semi he was jogging nect to the american in the next lane from about 60m in. I realise he's been tested but they're always coming up with something new to improve themselves.

[jmjhb]

He'd be quite good upfront imo, Meggo should sign him

[Verbal]

Hoooooooooolllllllllyyyyyyyyyy shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttttt

[Montreal Wanderer]

as for "chase the dragon" - go look it up, you manage on every other occasion.

Don't think I'll bother - we've said enough on this - I'm sure everyone is bored.

[Athers]

That is just incredible, headwind as well.

Aye very impressive.

I'll be honest though, and I know I'm going to get abuse off some , but the more I see him run the more I just think he must be doing something.

In his semi he was jogging nect to the american in the next lane from about 60m in. I realise he's been tested but they're always coming up with something new to improve themselves.

The way he acts makes it look like he's been smoking the herb never mind THG

[David Lee's Hair]

The way he acts makes it look like he's been smoking the herb never mind THG

He is Jamacian

[communistworkethic]

An elite athlete has to prove they are drug free to be an elite athlete.

An ordinary person has no responsibility to prove they are drug free to be an ordinary person.

Therefore there is a presumption of guilt until presumed innocent, and thats why they have testing. And thats why testing is compulsory.

This isn't as hard work as you are making it.

sorry, but last time I looked you weren't allowed to take drugs, them being illegal.

I used drugs as a direct parallel, perhaps the accusation that you felate goats, or rape, or murder? you haven't proved you've not done any of those, but they've happened, therefore it could have been you.

If you're going to say that as some athletes have cheated, they're all under suspicion, you can draw the same silly logic to say, some librarians have stolen, therfore they're all under suspicion.

You're innocent or you're not. otherwise it's back to Shrodinger's cat again.

she's guilty of missing tests not taking drugs, therefore she is innocent of the latter, especially has she has proved it.

[Lord Kangana]

An elite athlete has to prove they are drug free to be an elite athlete.

An ordinary person has no responsibility to prove they are drug free to be an ordinary person.

Therefore there is a presumption of guilt until presumed innocent, and thats why they have testing. And thats why testing is compulsory.

This isn't as hard work as you are making it.

sorry, but last time I looked you weren't allowed to take drugs, them being illegal.

I used drugs as a direct parallel, perhaps the accusation that you felate goats, or rape, or murder? you haven't proved you've not done any of those, but they've happened, therefore it could have been you.

If you're going to say that as some athletes have cheated, they're all under suspicion, you can draw the same silly logic to say, some librarians have stolen, therfore they're all under suspicion.

You're innocent or you're not. otherwise it's back to Shrodinger's cat again.

she's guilty of missing tests not taking drugs, therefore she is innocent of the latter, especially has she has proved it.

As an ordinary member of society, we have an obligation to not take drugs form a legal perspective. But we aren't required to have a breath test every time we enter a car, or a drugs swab every morning we get up. That can only be done when suspicion is aroused, or indeed an illegal act has already taken place.

As an athlete, they have a further layer of rules that state (fairly categorically as I recall) that to be able to participate in elite athletics competitions they are obliged to take compulsory drugs test at the time and place of the governing bodies choosing. Failure to do so is considered to be equal to the guilt of failure. She has been neither singled out nor treated any differently than anyone else who wishes to do the same. The two are completely incomparable.

And I can see its a bit pointless discussing this, because you clearly don't agree with the rules or this partuicular ruling, which is largely irrelevant, because they are the rules of the game, right or wrong. She missed the test, she broke the rules, she paid the price. The length of ban, and any appeals process that subsequently take place are merely a further level of bureaucracy with which to haggle over the amount of guilt attached to the case. That she was guilty of breaking the rules in the first place has clearly been established.