FanDuel - WFBC

August 18, 2006

Marion Jones Failed Initial Drug Test: OK, is there anyone who's not doping? Someone? Anyone? I mean come on, what good does it do to cheer for anyone any longer?

posted by commander cody to other at 10:28 PM - 37 comments

Alright, so it's not that new of news about her, but it gets to be a drag after awhile.

posted by commander cody at 10:29 PM on August 18

This comment is 100% drug free. Except for two gin 'n tonics. But that's a legal drug, so I'm good.

posted by Toxteth O'Grady at 11:26 PM on August 18

I Still would like to....

posted by DA ASSX3N at 01:35 AM on August 19

Good grief... And folk wonder why I love old baseball, but have no interest in the current majors...

posted by Drood at 01:44 AM on August 19

marion jones is a runner, she doesn't play baseball. Didn't you read the post?

posted by ptluigi at 08:06 AM on August 19

OBVIOUS Wonder what her latest excuse will be? a) the test is not reliable b) someone with a grudge framed me c) the French hate Americans d) it was from a vitamin supplement I took innocently e) aliens did it

posted by afx237vi at 08:09 AM on August 19

What I don't understand is why athletes take the drug, knowing that they will be tested. If someone could explain that, I'd appreciate it. The other thing that is sad about this story is I use to be a huge Marion Jones fan back in the 2000 Olympics and all of the doping scandal has really made me dislike. What a wasted career.

posted by jwillbballin at 08:55 AM on August 19

What I don't understand is why athletes take the drug, knowing that they will be tested. If someone could explain that, I'd appreciate it. It's probably a case where if you do the doping correctly (either time-wise or masking-agent-wise), it ISN'T detectable. However, there is a very small margin of error in the attempt, and if the person receiving the "boost" has a metabolic reaction different than normal, it might be detectable when it normally isn't. Chemical reactions in the human body are still an inexact science (hence all those "side effect" messages in drug commercials).

posted by grum@work at 10:47 AM on August 19

What I don't understand is why fanatics act like they are 6 year olds who just found out Santa Claus uses roids to get the presents out on time, every time they hear about an athlete possibly doing juice. (possibly, since no test is 100% accurate)

posted by Bishop at 02:55 PM on August 19

The reason athletes take drugs,jwillbballin,is because they're idiots. They are known (with some exceptions) for their physical, not mental prowess.

posted by sickleguy at 03:02 PM on August 19

What I don't understand is why athletes take the drug, knowing that they will be tested. If someone could explain that, I'd appreciate it. jwillbballin, do you know anyone who smokes? Anyone who smokes, and who started smoking in the last 30 years -- in other words, since there's been plenty of public information about the harmful effects of smoking? There is no conceivable upside to smoking, plenty of downside, it's known to be highly addictive, expensive, inconvenient, stinky and bad for your health, and people still do it. You probably know quite a few people who've done it, they're all around you -- people who have chosen a course that is nothing but a lose. And you really need to ask why someone would take performance-enhancing drugs and risk being caught when the potential payoff is money, fame, or a championship? It makes a lot more sense than smoking cigarettes.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 05:34 PM on August 19

It's just getting to the point where someone does something amazing in any sport and the first thought that pops into your mind is "I'll want to see the drug test results first, before I applaud". Next we'll see Olympic results posted with the words "Pending drug test outcome" afterwards on the board.

posted by commander cody at 06:53 PM on August 19

The reason athletes take drugs,jwillbballin,is because they're idiots another possibility is because they make $10 or $20 million per year entirely based on their physical abilities. Some people are just cheaters and the lure of huge amounts of money could make it very difficult to maintain their integrity. Hypothetical, would you do drugs under a shady doctor's care for 2 or 3 years if it meant you would earn enough money doing your job to retire at 25 years old?

posted by kyrilmitch_76 at 08:53 PM on August 19

Well said l_b_b. These are premiere athletes who have invested most of their lives in their training. When someone at that level uses performance enhancers (and doesn't get caught), the rest of the competitors must decide if they're willing to become second tier athletes in comparison. It's either that, or fight fire with fire. If they got caught every time, nobody would do it. The problem is that, used "properly", many of these enhancers can be used effectively and still not show up in your system by the time testing rolls around. The choice is simple. Do your best naturally, and lose to "enhanced" athletes, or take advantage of the same programs and be competitive again.

posted by ctal1999 at 08:57 PM on August 19

Hypothetical, would you do drugs under a shady doctor's care for 2 or 3 years if it meant you would earn enough money doing your job to retire at 25 years old? no

posted by commander cody at 09:15 PM on August 19

The choice is simple. Do your best naturally, and lose to "enhanced" athletes, or take advantage of the same programs and be competitive again I'd have to pick the first choice ctal1999 and I guess I never really understood anyone who'd take the second one. Of course that could explain why I'm not rich. Pretty happy, but not rich.

posted by commander cody at 09:38 PM on August 19

Hypothetical, would you do drugs under a shady doctor's care for 2 or 3 years if it meant you would earn enough money doing your job to retire at 25 years old? no Comment icon posted by commander cody at 9:15 PM CDT on August 19 Have you ever bought a lottery ticket of any kind? If so, then don't be so quick to dismiss the opportunity to make big money by less-than-honourable (hard work) methods.

posted by grum@work at 10:42 PM on August 19

I think it's not the same thing grum. I earned the money I used to buy the ticket (though I rarely buy them). Big dif between that and cheating for money. I'm not claiming to be squeaky clean about all things myself. We all make mistakes. But I couldn't live with myself if I was rich and I knew the millions came from cheating. I'd feel guilty as hell everytime I bought something.

posted by commander cody at 11:40 PM on August 19

To me it was just a matter of time before she tested positive. Look at the people she has surrounded herself with and even married. Guilt through association is proving true in her case.

posted by gfinsf at 04:36 AM on August 20

Big dif between that and cheating for money 1.Team athletes get paid whether they win or lose. 2.You know you have cheated on a school test or a pick up game of ball at your local playground (calling a foul when you know you didn't get touched, maybe not on every play, but certainly when the game is on the line) 3.If you have inside info that the team and or player you are about to compete against is on steroids, so you or your team in turn take steroids, to level the playing field, are you considered a cheater, when all you did is knowingly level the playing field? Guilty by association? She allegedly tested positive herself. That would be just plain guilt. Not by association.

posted by Bishop at 06:02 AM on August 20

That's why I said "through" association, not "by." Through those she has been associated with, and have been tested positive, it was just a matter of time before someone mixed the wrong potion and she got busted. And yes she now stands guilty with the rest of them.

posted by gfinsf at 09:41 AM on August 20

1.Team athletes get paid whether they win or lose. And? They're getting paid to play, to do their best, not paid to win. 2.You know you have cheated on a school test or a pick up game of ball at your local playground (calling a foul when you know you didn't get touched, maybe not on every play, but certainly when the game is on the line) No, not that I can remember. Then again I did skip school a few times, but couldn't sleep the whole night because I felt guilty so I stopped doing it. It just doesn't occur to me to cheat because I don't get the point. It doesn't count if you cheated even if you're the only one who knows. 3.If you have inside info that the team and or player you are about to compete against is on steroids, so you or your team in turn take steroids, to level the playing field, are you considered a cheater, when all you did is knowingly level the playing field? No, still wouldn't do it. Just because they do it doesn't make it ok for me too.

posted by commander cody at 12:48 PM on August 20

CC, I probably wouldn't do it either, more because of health concerns than the "cheating" factor. The way I see it, there's at least one lineman holding on almost every play, runners on second steal signs, and there's no way that the officials can stop it. There's no excuse for it when you're teaching kids the games, but as the stakes get higher, the choices get harder. Everything else being equal, if your opponents are cheating and the officials can't stop it, you either join in or lose. I wish that weren't the case, but I understand it. Personally, I'd draw the line at physical damage (mine or my opponent's) even with millions on the line, but I don't have the drive of an Olympic champion or an MVP. By necessity, my line and theirs will be in different places.

posted by ctal1999 at 12:55 PM on August 20

CC you said: cheating for money I said: Team athletes get paid whether they win or lose My point was to contradict you saying cheating for money. For example, BB, he got his check whether he did juice or not. He also is more likely to get less money (endorsement deals etc. if he risks doing roids) So to call it "cheating for money" is not entirely accurate. No, still wouldn't do it. Just because they do it doesn't make it ok for me too I'm not asking whether it's ok. I already agree it's not ok. My question was: If an athlete takes steroids just because they know for a fact the competition they are facing is taking steroids, does this make them a CHEATER? When in reality all they are doing is leveling the playing field. Ctal1999, well put.

posted by Bishop at 02:24 PM on August 20

If an athlete takes steroids just because they know for a fact the competition they are facing is taking steroids, does this make them a CHEATER? When in reality all they are doing is leveling the playing field. Imho, yes it does.

posted by commander cody at 02:28 PM on August 20

For example, BB, he got his check whether he did juice or not. He also is more likely to get less money (endorsement deals etc. if he risks doing roids) So to call it "cheating for money" is not entirely accurate. I see your point, but I think he got more money because of his performance. A performance that was enhanced by cheating, so I still think it's cheating for money. As for getting caught I think that like many other people who cheat he never thought he would get caught, so he in fact cheated to try to get even more money through more endorsements. It's sort of like people in prison. Most of them didn't consider what would happen in prison because they thought they were too smart to get caught.

posted by commander cody at 04:12 PM on August 20

If an athlete takes steroids just because they know for a fact the competition they are facing is taking steroids, does this make them a CHEATER? When in reality all they are doing is leveling the playing field. I'll dodge this question by saying that I don't think cheating/not cheating is orthogonal to the central issue of performance-enhancing drugs. The justification and the purpose for PED regs is not and has never been to create that much-overused cliche, the level playing field; if said field were a paramount concern, we'd have regs to ensure that each athlete had access to the same equipment, the same coaching, the same food, you name it.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:08 PM on August 20

This is an interesting philosophical discussion. I guess I missed most of it. As for Marion Jones, a few points (some of them making contradictory arguments) - the test for EPO is probably the most unreliable test that WADA uses (WADA has responded to some of these concerns) - EPO is probably not performance-enhancing in the events Jones competes in. However, it has been used by other sprinters to allow them to train more intensely. It was part of Jones' drug regimen as described by Victor Conte on 20/20 - if you were the kind of person who believed that the anti-doping agencies framed people up because of personal vendettas (I am not), Jones would be the world's best candidate for a frame-up. I am sure that she has been on Dick Pound's "most wanted" list for years.

posted by Amateur at 08:59 PM on August 20

If you have inside info that the team and or player you are about to compete against is on steroids, so you or your team in turn take steroids, to level the playing field, are you considered a cheater, when all you did is knowingly level the playing field? But in an individual sport, the playing field is only level if everybody is cheating, and that's not the case. Certainly nobody knows that all of their opponents are cheating. If you knew that one of your competitors was doping, and you doped "just to be fair," you'd still be cheating the rest of your rivals. Right? So you're not cheating to "level the playing field," you're cheating to win. Not the same thing.

posted by Amateur at 09:04 PM on August 20

I do see all of your points CC, LBB, Amateur. Would you all say that there are levels of cheating? Meaning, do you consider, Roids, blood doping, corked bat, scuffing a ball with sandpaper as just cheating, or is one worse than the other in any of your opinions?

posted by Bishop at 02:29 AM on August 21

Bishop, obviously people get a lot more outraged by doping than by infractions of other rules. It is interesting to note that even some drugs (e.g. steroids) cause a much stronger reaction than others (e.g. amphetamines). Every time somebody gets caught taking drugs there are a few people who suggest that all the players should just be allowed to take whatever they want -- that because some people are breaking the rules, the rules should be scrapped. You never hear anybody say that about, say, scuffing the baseball, or stealing signs. I have a few half-baked theories about why that is, but nothing I want to share right now.

posted by Amateur at 07:14 AM on August 21

commander cody: I'd feel guilty as hell everytime I bought something. cc, did you ever wonder why every athlete who "comes clean" about steroid use and there aren't very many tells us in their confession that "50%" or "80%" or some other outrageously high fraction of athletes are using? That's how they get through the night. I'm not saying that they're liars they probably really believe those numbers. And therefore, along the line of reasoning that Bishop presented above, they don't consider themselves cheaters. But that doesn't mean that those numbers have anything to do with reality. It's a very natural human defense mechanism to justify your own wrongdoing. I am sure that this view of the world is pretty common to many criminals, too.

posted by Amateur at 07:22 AM on August 21

Of course, these days that argument is getting a lot of ammunition. I am against cheating, but not so naive as to believe that you can ever get rid of all of it, and that some of it is more innocuous than others. Steriods and performance enhancing drugs are clearly a line in the sand that most of society has elected to supported, it seems like a good line to me. Makes sense. That and standardized equipment. If you want to gain an edge in other places, more power to you, I guess. The reality is that all these steriod abusers are a little short sighted and a lot selfish. They are similtaneously boosting their career while killing their sport. With Jones and Gatlin leading the way, who is really going to care who the 100m champ is anymore? Pretty soon were going to be talking about how these things USED to be worth millions of dollars, but perhaps ten years from now an olympic gold and a buck twenty five will get you a cup of coffee and a ride on the bus.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:04 AM on August 21

Well put Weedy. I just want to say how much I value these types of posts. With a topic like this it would be easy to just have the usual posts (i.e. F the cheating biotch/ I hope she dies in prison). If opinions could be shared like the few previous posts more often here at spofi, it wouldn't take long at all for this place to reclaim it's previous reputation. Instead of the negative posters high-jacking threads, maybe a few more of the "pro athlete does bad" threads can be swayed into this type of direction, where people who disagree, can do it without some sort of political based war of words starting. I know I've been guilty in the past. This is a nice change of pace.

posted by Bishop at 09:44 AM on August 21

I'm thinking I'd probably be more outraged by things like 'roids and other drugs. But I'm still not happy with other things like scuffing the ball. I know there is really no way to take all cheating out of sports since many people want to win no matter what it takes and, at the pro level, there is a lot of money at stake. I accept that it happens, I just couldn't do it myself. To me to knowingly cheat is the same thing as stealing. Unless I was starving I don't think I could ever bring myself to do that either. Some things are just wrong. Guess I'm a bit goody-two shoes as they say about it.

posted by commander cody at 12:50 AM on August 22

The reality is that all these steriod abusers are a little short sighted and a lot selfish. They are similtaneously boosting their career while killing their sport. My feelings exactly. Kudos, Weedy, couldn't have put it better.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:30 AM on August 22

Weedy, that is a great point. I used the examples of linemen holding and runners on second stealing signs earlier, but those things don't threaten the future of the sports in question. Enhancement by pharmacology does, in sport after sport. Great example of the difference between self interest and enlightened self interest.

posted by ctal1999 at 10:09 AM on August 22

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.