"Tom Paterson" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> >From: "B. Lafferty"
>
> >Two of the reasons high school football players use steroids is to get
> >football scholorships to college and in the hope (absurd for most) of
making
> >it to the pro level. (snip)
>
> > Would there be fewer dopers
> >if there was no money. Fewer perhaps, but human nature being what it is,
> >some will still dope. We see it at the local races all the time. Come
big
> >race day, some riders suddenly have >rocket power.
>
> So you agree that at least some of the Spitz article you posted the link
for is
> bull: people take steroids when there is little/no money at stake
("amateur"
> bike racing) and/or when the rewards are iffy, as for scholarships and pro
> careers. "Taking the money out" is a dumb thing to say. Spitz isn't dumb.
> Disingenuous, maybe. Not dumb.
>
> >Sounds like you have the inside track on mark Spitz. Have you ever met
him,
> >Tom?
>
> What's the matter, Brian? I'm obviously playing off you here. Sarcasm
lost?
> Turnabout a little hard to take?
Oh. You're playing off me? Now I'm confused.
>
> Met him? No. Parallel to your (longstanding) treatment of Lance Armstrong
> nearly completed. Bear with me a moment:
>
> Mark Spitz a *hero* of yours or something? Are you indeed a Spitz tifiosi?
Do
> you believe everything he says, even when he won all those medals in a
> scurrilously suspicious display of superiority? Why didn't he swim in more
> events? What about that non-competitive, post-testing comback attempt in
91-92?
> And all those high-paying commercials that kept him out of the pool!!!
(etc.
> etc.)
What's your point? You don't like Mark Spitz? I don't have any opinion
about him either way.
>
> >He never tested positive, did he.
>
> Nor did anyone until '76 if my sources are correct. Nice try (not): one
Olympic
> alcohol positive in 68, seven unspecified positives in 72.
Does that mean he and everyone else was clean?
>
> <S> (for Sarcasm, Brian, I'll start doing that; anything to help): Is
that
> improved testing for '76 *really* why Spitz quit, not the "lost his
amateur
> status" cover story? I find myself unsatisfied with the answers given <S>.
It
> would seem that Mr. Spitz has a deeper, more detailed story to tell <S>.
> Perhaps we can find people who swam with him or worked with organizations
he
> was affiliated with <S>, perhaps some people whose employment or team
slots
> were terminated, so we can get a more accurate <S> picture of what really
> happened all those years ago.
Sounds like you're really a very frustrated person. I suggest that if you
have that much bile for Mr. Spitz, start researching and interviewing.
>
> I think I'm grasping the basics pretty well, here!
>
> >I guess the US gold
> >medal hockey team must have been >pumped up on roids, too. Right, Tom?
>
> Making assumptions based on performance and association is your prime
area,
> Brian. Remember? "Lance wins races and consults with Ferrari, so Lance is
a
> doper?"
And if Spitz or any other swimmer today had used a Ferrari type of
trainer/coach, I'd be asking the same questions and seeing the same warning
flags I and others see with Armstrong. The issue is, as Spitz, Lemond and
numerous others have pointed out, that not testing positive proves nothing.
>
> (I posted):
>
> >> "I might have been tempted". Snort, guffaw.
>
> (reply):
>
> >But your man Lance is clean. Snort, >guffaw.
>
> I'm snorting at the self-serving, chicken-**** "might". I know that didn't
> really go over your head. Lance? What about Lance, Brian? Any news? They
didn't
> find his name in the Balco stuff, no post-Tour "revelations" from Walsh,
no
> nothing (including, of course: A&B sample positive tests, possession,
uncoerced
> confession).
Have you read the Walsh & and Ballester book yet? I have. Talk to me about
Walsh and Lance after you've read it. Until then you're just blowing smoke
out of your bung hole. If you want to borrow the book let me know.
>
> (snip from previous):
>
> >IIRC, back then it was the Chinese swim
> >team that was heavy into steroids, and >obviously so.
>
> If this is true it only pokes a nice big hole in Spitz's statement that
> "steroids were only used in other sports" (along with the fact that
steroids
> were in common use from approx. 1954 in the USA:
> <http://www.methodistsports.com/Images/Item/bin11705.pdf>
>
> That would be real close to 20 years that steroids were known about and
used
> right here in the USA, not just behind the Iron Curtain. Spitz: "We had
> steroids...". His own recent words.
Steroids were around. Did Spitz use them? I certainly don't know. He never
tested positive and he says he didn't use them. Maybe he just has a great
VO2 Max--higher than Lance's 82 (not the 83.5 that his web site suddenly
changed to).
>
> Damn, Brian, you dragged poor old Mark Spitz in here and he got all dirty,
> whether he ever doped or not. Tsk tsk. I hope you can still look at that
fading
> picture on your bedroom wall with the same rosy adulation <S><g>. --TP
Thanks Tom. You made my day. Have a great evening.
