In 1988, after Carl Lewis was awarded the gold medal in the 100M dash when Ben Johnson tested positive for steroids, (I believe it was) Lewis stated that he was not really that surprised because he just didn't think that it was humanly possible to run the 100m in 9.79 (Johnson's winning time).
In the past 3 years, 2 american’s have euqaled or surpassed that time.
In today’s Houston Chronicle there is a tiny article (which is a true disappointment considering the magnitude of the accusations) that reads as follows:
According to Terry Madden, the chief executive of the US anti-doping agency: "What we have unconverted appears to be intentional doping of the worst sort (...) this is a conspiracy involving chemists, coaches and certain athletes using what they developed to be undetectable designer steroids to defraud their fellow competitors and the American and world public"
The drug in question is known as THG and though no athletes were named, it appears that several prominent athletes are a party to this.
I also know for a FACT, that some elite swimmers know of the drug, and believe it is undetectable.
*** This is in no way intimating that any specific athlete has or is using the substance.
Parents
Former Member
Aquageek,
Thanks for the help - I did find the section, the arguement comes down to semantics. Based upon the writing it is hard to say that the drug companies are the biggest lobbiers in DC - if that was the case then why didn't the Public Citizen come out and say that, that is a much stronger message than the 'still appeared to have spent more on lobbying in 2001 than any other industry' . The reason for their statement rather than a 'They are the biggest' is because the public citizen is using their criteria ('as defined by Public Citizen ' - which could be just about anything) and of course the 'based on available data.'
Not sure what Lobbying and the Drug industry has to do with original question for this thread - but would appear to have been totally sidetracked into a politically based debate (which I thought were discouraged, oh well).
Aquageek,
Thanks for the help - I did find the section, the arguement comes down to semantics. Based upon the writing it is hard to say that the drug companies are the biggest lobbiers in DC - if that was the case then why didn't the Public Citizen come out and say that, that is a much stronger message than the 'still appeared to have spent more on lobbying in 2001 than any other industry' . The reason for their statement rather than a 'They are the biggest' is because the public citizen is using their criteria ('as defined by Public Citizen ' - which could be just about anything) and of course the 'based on available data.'
Not sure what Lobbying and the Drug industry has to do with original question for this thread - but would appear to have been totally sidetracked into a politically based debate (which I thought were discouraged, oh well).
