# American views on Gatlin



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

I was just wondering what the American public's view on Gatlin's bronze was given his doping past. Is he looked on favourably? 

The reason I ask is as a Brit I was pretty disgusted to see three former dopers/testing non-attendees competing for us in the Olympics (even though I like Millar) one of whom won a silver medal having won a gold in Beijing. 

It's not intended to start some accusatory discussion about unproven dopers, I was just genuinely interested as it how it's viewed over the pond in comparison.


----------



## Hawayyan (Feb 26, 2002)

I think it's terrible. Gatlin has been busted twice!!! The first time for amphetamines attributed to drugs he had taken since youth for ADHD, and the second time for testosterone that he attributed to his masseur massaging them unknowingly into his butt n(no joke, that was his defense). He subsequently agreed to be banned for eight years vice life because his first drug bust had extraordinary circumstances attached, and when the final ruling was made, he only got a four year ban.

If you are busted for drugs, GO AWAY!! When I was in the military, one failed test and was discharged with an "other than honorable" discharge. At my current job, one failed test and you're gone, it's a condition of employment. 

Athletes should have the same thing, drug prevention as a condition of employment. Once and gone, then go do something else.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Regardless of drugs, he annoys me.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Considering I tend to be on the side of..."They all do it", I don't care much. However, I would have rather seen somebody that hasn't actually turned a positive result in the past get a medal.


----------



## bayAreaDude (Apr 13, 2012)

I'd never heard of him until the other night, but after I heard about the doping I was rooting for him to lose.


----------



## tricycletalent (Apr 2, 2005)

Hawayyan said:


> I think it's terrible. Gatlin has been busted twice!!! The first time for amphetamines attributed to drugs he had taken since youth for ADHD, and the second time for testosterone that he attributed to his masseur massaging them unknowingly into his butt n(no joke, that was his defense). He subsequently agreed to be banned for eight years vice life because his first drug bust had extraordinary circumstances attached, and when the final ruling was made, he only got a four year ban.
> 
> If you are busted for drugs, GO AWAY!! When I was in the military, one failed test and was discharged with an "other than honorable" discharge. At my current job, one failed test and you're gone, it's a condition of employment.
> 
> Athletes should have the same thing, drug prevention as a condition of employment. Once and gone, then go do something else.


Your opinions are sh.t. 

Cruel punishment doesn't change the game, it just changes the stakes. 

Even if you issued a death penalty, doping would still be an advantage that you would have to accept in order to win. 

Winning is a consequence of everything coming together. That includes doping. 

Tougher punishment just increases the turnover of athletes. 

Jesus, how come the world is littered with illogical thinkers???


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

tricycletalent said:


> Your opinions are sh.t.
> 
> Cruel punishment doesn't change the game, it just changes the stakes.
> 
> ...


Yep, but by changing the stakes you reduce the attractiveness of doping by increasing the risk. It's equally not completely logical to presume that if you ban someone for life they're replaced by another doper nor that doping is an advantage you have to accept in order to win.

I sort of think GB had it right when if you were caught doping you were banned from the Olympics for life - unfortunately that has now been overturned and hence we have athletes competing who in my opinion shouldn't have been there. It seldom does the athlete any favours either particularly here where Dwain Chambers and David Millar were under more intense media scrutiny because of the overturning of the lifetime ban. It's not even just the winning of medals - Dwain Chambers never stood much chance of that although GBR are an outside possibility for the 4 x 100. They just shouldn't be there. Make the choice, live with the consequences


----------



## tricycletalent (Apr 2, 2005)

roddjbrown said:


> Yep, but by changing the stakes you reduce the attractiveness of doping by increasing the risk. It's equally not completely logical to presume that if you ban someone for life they're replaced by another doper nor that doping is an advantage you have to accept in order to win.


You just reduce the competition, but the top guys will still be the risk-non-aversive, especially those coming from Spain, China, african countries and the US. After this season, put UK on that list. 
You then essentially create a system where cheaters are glorified, and clean riders are treated like crap, forcing people to dope, but unlike today, you completely tear them down afterwards. 
I am not sure about your morals here. I'd say they are non-existent. But hey, morals are just fictionalism anyways. I like the fact that you have an extra uncertainty when betting money, nothing was ever as good as being cheated from the Ullrich-Basso-Armstrong duel due to operacion Puerto.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

tricycletalent said:


> You just reduce the competition, but the top guys will still be the risk-non-aversive, especially those coming from Spain, China, african countries and the US. After this season, put UK on that list.
> You then essentially create a system where cheaters are glorified, and clean riders are treated like crap, forcing people to dope, but unlike today, you completely tear them down afterwards.
> I am not sure about your morals here. I'd say they are non-existent. But hey, morals are just fictionalism anyways. I like the fact that you have an extra uncertainty when betting money, nothing was ever as good as being cheated from the Ullrich-Basso-Armstrong duel due to operacion Puerto.


So just to be clear, I have no morals? And all top athletes are dopers? 

I'm not sure what you mean about morals. If you're implying you dopers HAVE to dope and I shouldn't therefore criticise them after they're caught as it wasn't their fault it's one perspective. Cycling in particular seems to have that pressure although that is not to say it's not prevalent in other sports.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Miller competing raises another question. Why didn't GB cycling and Brailsford just not select him? By choosing him it just raises more questions re: their seeming 180 degree change on their stance against doping.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

The Tedinator said:


> Miller competing raises another question. Why didn't GB cycling and Brailsford just not select him? By choosing him it just raises more questions re: their seeming 180 degree change on their stance against doping.


IIRC, GB had a ban on convicted dopers being selected for the Olympics, but WADA said that was contrary to their guidelines.

Given WADA's declaration what would you rather have: a system that allows a former doper that has served his time earn a spot on the team because of his performance or a system that allows a star chamber to select the athletes?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

jorgy said:


> IIRC, GB had a ban on convicted dopers being selected for the Olympics, but WADA said that was contrary to their guidelines.
> 
> Given WADA's declaration what would you rather have: a system that allows a former doper that has served his time earn a spot on the team because of his performance or a system that allows a star chamber to select the athletes?


how were the british riders selected? for most countries it's a judgement call from the coach that does it. take the italian team, their WC team is not made out of the 10 strongest riders for example.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

den bakker said:


> how were the british riders selected? for most countries it's a judgement call from the coach that does it. take the italian team, their WC team is not made out of the 10 strongest riders for example.


Well, there are some star-chamber antics that go on with every sport and every country regarding selection. But for most there is at least some standard that gives an automatic qualification and those that are selected should be justified based on sporting grounds rather than and exclusion based on some criterion that WADA says is a no-no.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

jorgy said:


> Well, there are some star-chamber antics that go on with every sport and every country regarding selection. But for most there is at least some standard that gives an automatic qualification and those that are selected should be justified based on sporting grounds rather than and exclusion based on some criterion that WADA says is a no-no.


some standard?I noted none specific was given. and there's a good reason for that,


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

den bakker said:


> some standard?I noted none specific was given. and there's a good reason for that,


I think that Millar was selected for the same reason he was on the world champs team to be the captain on the road. I do completely agree that 1) GB had plenty of other eligible riders and 2) not selecting him would have between a far less contentious decision.

I also don't think Millar would have had any problem with it. He'd already missed two Olympics so it's not as though he had any expectation to go before the ban was overturned


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

jorgy said:


> IIRC, GB had a ban on convicted dopers being selected for the Olympics, but WADA said that was contrary to their guidelines.
> 
> Given WADA's declaration what would you rather have: a system that allows a former doper that has served his time earn a spot on the team because of his performance or a system that allows a star chamber to select the athletes?


ultimately all athletes being treated the same is the goal. It does not promote fairness when certain athletes are either protected *or* punished differently.

I expect this to change. An Olympic ban is a discussion topic in the next WADA general session.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderator Note*



tricycletalent said:


> Your opinions are sh.t.
> 
> Cruel punishment doesn't change the game, it just changes the stakes.
> 
> ...


And that's a posting vacation And this is your final warning.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

Womens 1500m final won by a former doper. Fourth place was another one. It completely spoils a race for me, even IF they're now clean.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*The military?*



Hawayyan said:


> I think it's terrible. Gatlin has been busted twice!!! The first time for amphetamines attributed to drugs he had taken since youth for ADHD, and the second time for testosterone that he attributed to his masseur massaging them unknowingly into his butt n(no joke, that was his defense). He subsequently agreed to be banned for eight years vice life because his first drug bust had extraordinary circumstances attached, and when the final ruling was made, he only got a four year ban.
> 
> If you are busted for drugs, GO AWAY!! When I was in the military, one failed test and was discharged with an "other than honorable" discharge. At my current job, one failed test and you're gone, it's a condition of employment.
> 
> Athletes should have the same thing, drug prevention as a condition of employment. Once and gone, then go do something else.


I think the military is all for PED's. You're talking about busts for illicit recreational drugs. Drugs that will help you pay attention in order to kill people aren't frowned upon.:thumbsup:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modafinil

Military and law enforcement

Militaries of several countries are known to have expressed interest in Modafinil as an alternative to amphetamines—the drug traditionally employed in combat situations where troops face sleep deprivation, such as during lengthy missions. The French government indicated that the Foreign Legion used modafinil during certain covert operations. The United Kingdom's Ministry of Defence commissioned research into Modafinil[93] from QinetiQ and spent £300,000 on one investigation.[94] In 2011, the Indian Air Force announced that modafinil was included in contingency plans.[95] The Indian Armed Forces Medical Services is researching its use.

In the United States military, Modafinil has been approved for use on certain Air Force missions, and it is being investigated for other uses.[96] One study of helicopter pilots suggested that 600 mg of modafinil given in three doses can be used to keep pilots alert and maintain their accuracy at pre-deprivation levels for 40 hours without sleep.[97] However, significant levels of nausea and vertigo were observed. A second helicopter study found modafinil was comparable to dextroamphetamine and was well-tolerated[98]. Another study of fighter pilots showed that modafinil given in three divided 100 mg doses sustained the flight control accuracy of sleep-deprived F-117pilots to within about 27 percent of baseline levels for 37 hours, without any considerable side effects.[99] In an 88-hour sleep loss study of simulated military grounds operations, 400 mg/day doses were mildly helpful at maintaining alertness and performance of subjects compared to placebo, but the researchers concluded that this dose was not high enough to compensate for most of the effects of complete sleep loss.[100] In law enforcement, tactical paramedics in Maryland (US) may administer 200 mg of modafinil once daily in order to "enhance alertness / concentration" and "facilitate functioning with limited rest periods."[101]

The Canadian Medical Association Journal also reports that Modafinil is used by astronauts on long-term missions aboard the International Space Station. Modafinil is "available to crew to optimize performance while fatigued" and helps with the disruptions in circadian rhythms and with the reduced quality of sleep astronauts experience.[102]

*Modafinil has been shown to prolong exercise time to exhaustion while performing at 85% of VO2max and also reduces the perception of effort required to maintain this threshold.[90] Modafinil was added to the World Anti-Doping Agency "Prohibited List" in 2004 as a prohibited stimulant (see Modafinil Legal Status).

*


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

*it's all about the chemistry*

Justin Gatlin was mentioned in this interesting article, along with a few other athletes that you may have heard of:

http://www.muscleweek.com/is-usain-bolt-on-steroids


----------



## Hawayyan (Feb 26, 2002)

Chris-X said:


> I think the military is all for PED's. You're talking about busts for illicit recreational drugs. Drugs that will help you pay attention in order to kill people aren't frowned upon.:thumbsup:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modafinil
> 
> ...


----------



## yurl (Mar 31, 2010)

*nationalistic myopia*

Doping cloud continues to hang over 2012 Olympics - S.L. Price - SI.com 
the irony of raising suspicion on Bolt's performances when Gatlin has been convicted (and never mentioned in the article). Also Lewis who made the initial comments doesn't exactly have a squeaky clean record.
Every country engages in this type of hypocrisy, in Australia, we're quick to acuse doping whenever anyone beats us in swimming. 
There's a rant about how cycling gets disproportionately picked on somewhere too.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

yurl said:


> Doping cloud continues to hang over 2012 Olympics - S.L. Price - SI.com
> the irony of raising suspicion on Bolt's performances when Gatlin has been convicted (and never mentioned in the article). Also Lewis who made the initial comments doesn't exactly have a squeaky clean record.
> Every country engages in this type of hypocrisy, in Australia, we're quick to acuse doping whenever anyone beats us in swimming.
> There's a rant about how cycling gets disproportionately picked on somewhere too.


Completely agree. There's an incredible amount of sour grapes in doping accusations and it's normally coming from people firmly esconced in glass houses. I think there's a pretty big difference between saying performances are suspicious versus an actual convicted doper taking part.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

roddjbrown said:


> Womens 1500m final won by a former doper. Fourth place was another one. It completely spoils a race for me, even IF they're now clean.


The thing about running is that it's like having power meter in cycling that is speed is a fairly reliable indicator of work rate. Every indication in cycling over the last few years is that power has dropped as testing became rigorous and the culture started to change, have speeds slowed in running?

Doesn't appear so at either the sprint or distance events?

Hard to believe these events are being run clean when they are just as fast or just about as fast as the last couple of decades.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

Dwayne Barry said:


> The thing about running is that it's like having power meter in cycling that is speed is a fairly reliable indicator of work rate. Every indication in cycling over the last few years is that power has dropped as testing became rigorous and the culture started to change, have speeds slowed in running?
> 
> Doesn't appear so at either the sprint or distance events?
> 
> Hard to believe these events are being run clean when they are just as fast or just about as fast as the last couple of decades.


I think that's a completely valid point. My point was more that people tend to focus on one athlete's performance whilst proven dopers are still in the field.

I think the speed thing is very relevant though. Cycling was known to be full of dopers, therefore one of the best possible indicators of a cleaner peloton is a reduction in performance. On the other hand where do the increases in running come from? Johnson was up to his eyeballs and ran 9.79s over 100m, and I can think of at least 6 who have run that - Blake, Bolt, Gay, Gatlin, Greene and Powell. It's not as though track or spike technology has evolved particularly so I can understand the question. My point is just that people are entitled to ask the question, just perhaps it should be an all inclusive question rather than focussing on one athlete or country.


----------

