De Bruijn and USA

De Bruijn and USA

Post by bep » Mon, 04 Sep 2000 04:51:33


1. De Bruijn wants the *** test to prove she's clean before the games
2. US plans to win at least 90 medals in swimming !
http://SportToday.org/
 
 
 

De Bruijn and USA

Post by Michael Ede » Mon, 04 Sep 2000 12:46:55


Quote:


> >1. De Bruijn wants the *** test to prove she's clean before the games

> I hope she does, and I hope she passes it with flying colors, and I
> hope if she tears up the pool in Sydney afterwards there will be
> no whispering.

> I mean, if it's true, if she's drug-free, if she did what she did
> through sheer guts and hard work--man, what a story!
> And, I think offering to take the *** test is a smart thing
> to do. I'd love it. If she swims lights out at the Olympics, I
> want to just *enjoy* it.

I have to agree, I mean, who doesn't want to see some fast swimming?  It's a
great time to be a fan
Double Triple!!!Double Triple!!!Double Triple!!!

Gl
Mike

 
 
 

De Bruijn and USA

Post by RunnSw » Thu, 07 Sep 2000 04:26:19


Quote:

>Martin de Wildt, 26yrs old, posting about 15 PB's last season, through
>better traiing and nutrition.................. :)

Hmm,  sounds like a case deserving a 4 year suspension from the newsgroup.

- Larry Weisenthal

P.S. Can you tell me where to get some of that "better training and nutrition?"
(wink, wink)

 
 
 

De Bruijn and USA

Post by RunnSw » Thu, 07 Sep 2000 04:26:20


Quote:

>De Bruijn is under suspect because she is not american and some us fans
>cannot believe in foreigner heroes.

It is starting once again.  You remember all of the people from the Chinese
newsgroups who cross posted to r.s.s. complaining about American racism against
the Chinese?  And then the Irish who basically made that same complaints about
Janet Evans and others from the US who raised questions about Michelle Smith?

Look, "we" are just as quick to turn on our own athletes when they disillusion
us. Certainly there have been and probably are many US athletes in many sports,
including swimming, who dope.  When performances are suspect or when an athlete
fails a drug test, Americans have been just as quick to question/condemn if the
athlete in question is American as if the athlete is non-American.  Angel
Meyers Martino was ostracized for years, despite claims that the positive test
was only for legally prescribed ***contraceptives, taken at prescribed
dosages.  Jessica Foschi had lots of critical "whispering" to contend with,
even after she was "cleared" by an arbitration panel.  Richard Quick felt
compelled to post a detailed analysis of Dara Torres training regimen, just to
deal with (mostly US) critical "whispers" about her near miraculous comeback.
And so on.  Had there been an American swimmer in her/his mid 20s who started
swimming miraculous personal bests this summer, that swimmer would received
much more critical scrutiny than unreserved adulation.  Were an American
swimmer to "test positive" this summer (or at any other time), that swimmer
would receive much more in the way of critical condemnation than unbridled
support.

If there happen to be foreign athletes who have suspicious achievements,
certainly they will be scrutinized - but so would Americans who had comparably
suspicious achievements.

- Larry Weisenthal

 
 
 

De Bruijn and USA

Post by Tong » Thu, 07 Sep 2000 12:19:34

Lance Armstrong is a hero but he got some positive tests since he came back
from his illness. Nevertheless, UCI let him take illegal *** to avoid the
return of his illness. If any other cyclist eat the same ***, he is
disqualified. USA have too much power in COI; FINA; UCI, IAAF, etc.
 
 
 

De Bruijn and USA

Post by taske.. » Thu, 07 Sep 2000 14:09:04

Larry,

You write:

" Meyers Martino was ostracized for years, despite claims that the
positive test was only for legally prescribed ***contraceptives,
taken at prescribed dosages."

The US Swimming establishment took Martino's postive drug test so
seriously that they named her the captain of the 1996 swim team. I
think that fact alone speaks volumes about US attitudes towards
performance enhancing ***. My view, unsupported by evidence, is that
Martino's claims regarding the contraceptives causing the positive are -
- and I'm looking for the right technical term here - hooey.

Personally, I don't care when the media accuses athletes of cheating.
What really bugs me, however, is when the media glosses over relevant
facts when making the accusation. For instance, in the build up to the
Games, watch how many media reports mention De Bruijn's astounding
progress without mentioning that she was the NUMBER ONE RANKED 50M
FREESTYLE SWIMMER IN THE WORLD IN 1998 AND 1999. Or that she is coached
by an American who is well-respected in the swimming community. I think
its because "Top Ranked swimmer breaks World Record" is less exciting
journalism than "Muscular foreign swimmer we've never heard of breaks
WR - she denies drug allegations".

I mean - come on - it's not De Bruijn retired from swimming for seven
years, during which time she dropped twenty pounds of muscle to be a
model, was doing informercials of all things, and, after a mere year
back in the pool, is swimming at "American record levels".

Am I the only one who has noticed that the scrutiny around De Bruijn's
performances have tapered off somewhat now that the US has its own
version of the "oh my god, how could she be swimming that fast after
coming out of retirement...and at her age....and look how big her
muscles are...." female swimmer?

I've bored you all enough. Have fun watching the Olympics.

Sent via Deja.com http://SportToday.org/
Before you buy.

 
 
 

De Bruijn and USA

Post by eni » Thu, 07 Sep 2000 20:36:38

Quote:

>Lance Armstrong is a hero but he got some positive tests since he came back
>from his illness. Nevertheless, UCI let him take illegal *** to avoid the
>return of his illness. If any other cyclist eat the same ***, he is
>disqualified. USA have too much power in COI; FINA; UCI, IAAF, etc.

All world level cyclists are at it, not just Lance, and the authorities know
it.
 
 
 

De Bruijn and USA

Post by Tong » Fri, 08 Sep 2000 00:00:17

Quote:

> All world level cyclists are at it, not just Lance, and the authorities
know
> it.

That is a lie, cyclism is the cleanest sport in world because the cyclists
suffer many *** tests. The Tour 98 scandal was a lesson to learn. And they
learnt it, except Armstrong.
 
 
 

De Bruijn and USA

Post by Frank Downe » Fri, 08 Sep 2000 00:06:45

Quote:

>Am I the only one who has noticed that the scrutiny around De Bruijn's
>performances have tapered off somewhat now that the US has its own
>version of the "oh my god, how could she be swimming that fast after
>coming out of retirement...and at her age....and look how big her
>muscles are...." female swimmer?

Actually, I would think that scrutiny around De Bruijn's performances
have tapered off somewhat because she hasn't swum all that much
lately. If she starts breaking WRs in Sydney, count on the scrutiny
reappearing, no matter what Torres does. And if *Torres* starts
breaking WRs too? Oy veh.

Frank

 
 
 

De Bruijn and USA

Post by RunnSw » Fri, 08 Sep 2000 03:40:29

Quote:
>>Lance Armstrong is a hero but he got some positive tests since he came back

from his illness. Nevertheless, UCI let him take illegal *** to avoid the
return of his illness. If any other cyclist eat the same ***, he is
disqualified. USA have too much power in COI; FINA; UCI, IAAF, etc.<<

This is not correct.  Lance was using a GLUCOCORTICOID cream to treat
saddlesores (like dexamethasone).  It was NOT a banned substance.  It was NOT a
performance enhancing substance.  It was NOT an androgenic (anabolic) steroid.

Basically, the French media found out about the "positive test" and got carried
away, because they lacked the knowledge to know the difference between
different types of "steroids."

- Larry Weisenthal

 
 
 

De Bruijn and USA

Post by Mikkel Gybel Jense » Fri, 08 Sep 2000 04:21:55


Quote:
> Lance Armstrong is a hero but he got some positive tests since he
came back
> from his illness. Nevertheless, UCI let him take illegal *** to
avoid the
> return of his illness.

Which ***?

Mikkel

--
Mikkel Gybel Jensen, http://SportToday.org/~mgj,  ICQ: 9821906

Copenhagen Muscle Research Center, http://SportToday.org/
DENMARK - winner of the Eurovision Song contest 2000!

 
 
 

De Bruijn and USA

Post by RunnSw » Fri, 08 Sep 2000 04:57:33

Quote:
> Lance Armstrong is a hero but he got some positive tests since he
came back
> from his illness. Nevertheless, UCI let him take illegal *** to
avoid the
> return of his illness.
>Which ***?<

1.  (While cycling): Only a (non-banned, non-anabolic, non-performance
enhancing glucocorticoid skin cream).

2.  More than two years before his first Tour de France win...erythropoietin
(EPO) for the medical indication for which it is approved, namely reduced red
*** cell count owning to the effects of cancer chemotherapy (in Lance's case:
ifosfamide plus cisplatin plus etoposide, which are literally *** on the
bone marrow, which produces red *** cells).

EPO is not an anabolic steroid.  All it does is to (very temporarily) raise the
levels of red *** cells.  In the case of athletes who are doping, they start
out with a normal level and EPO is used to raise it to a super-normal level
(making the *** thicker and sludgier and putting the athlete at risk for
sudden death).

In Lance's case, he had a life-threatening, low level of red *** cells, owing
to the toxic effects of chemotherapy.  He was appropriately given EPO, for the
precise purpose for which it is approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
This did not even raise his counts to normal (much less supra-normal), but it
was enough to allow him to withstand repeated doses of chemotherapy.  The
effects of EPO wore off years before he competed in the Tour de France.  Unlike
anabolic steroids, which have effects which probably last for years, EPO is
well understood to have only short term effects, which wear off rather
immediately.  The drug itself is almost instantly metabolized (again, unlike
some anabolic steroids) and the lifespan of a red *** cell produced with the
aid of EPO is only 120 days.

- Larry Weisenthal

 
 
 

De Bruijn and USA

Post by Tong » Fri, 08 Sep 2000 05:40:38

I know that creatine is not doping in USA, ok, you decide what is banned and
what is clean=too much power of USA en IOC, FINA; UCI, etc. You forget the
high levels of testosterone in Armstrong's ***..., without ***!!!!!



Quote:
> >>Lance Armstrong is a hero but he got some positive tests since he came
back
> from his illness. Nevertheless, UCI let him take illegal *** to avoid
the
> return of his illness. If any other cyclist eat the same ***, he is
> disqualified. USA have too much power in COI; FINA; UCI, IAAF, etc.<<

> This is not correct.  Lance was using a GLUCOCORTICOID cream to treat
> saddlesores (like dexamethasone).  It was NOT a banned substance.  It was
NOT a
> performance enhancing substance.  It was NOT an androgenic (anabolic)
steroid.

> Basically, the French media found out about the "positive test" and got
carried
> away, because they lacked the knowledge to know the difference between
> different types of "steroids."

> - Larry Weisenthal