Janet Evans: Setting the record straight

Josh Jeffrey

unread,

Aug 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/20/96

to

I have been looking for information to help substantiate my claims that
Janet Evans did not use performance enhancing drugs. Also information
about her progression and what not.

This is from the article "Meet a small wonder", Sports Illustrated
Olympic Preview 88.

"During a pre-olympic training camp at the university of hawaii, dr.
john troup, director of sports medicine and science for u.s. swimming,
is testing the energy efficiency of the nation's top 75 swimmers. The
results will tell him who uses the least amount of energy to swim the
fastest.
Janet Evans, at 17 the world's best female distance swimmer,
reaches the halfway point of a 400-meter test swim and pauses just long
enough to slip lightweight plastic headgear over her bathing cap and to
insert a mouthpiece. The mouthpiece is connected to two plexiglas pipes
that loop in front of her face and are attached to the top of the
headgear. Evans inhales through the shorter pipe, a sort of snorkel,
and exhales through the other, which is connected to a rubber weather
balloon held by troup. Evans begins swimming again, and troup walks
alongside the pool, collecting her exhaled air. At the end of the swim
he empties the balloon's contents into computerized oxygen and
carbon-dioxide analyzers.
"Janet is the most energy-efficient machine in the water today, male or
female," troup declares. "In the past four years I have tested more
than a thousand swimmers, beginners to Olympians, and Janet uses less
oxygen or less energy, to swim at a fast pace than anybody i've ever
seen."
"I'll stop short of saying Janet's a fish, but physiologically she's
very similar. Both have muscles with a high anaerobic capacity, which
means great endurance as well as big bursts of speed at the end of a
swim."

It also goes on to say that Janet set a NAG record in the 200m free as
a 10 year old <2:18.07>, which still stood at the time of press. She
qualified for Junior Nationals at age 11 the first time she ever swam
the 1650. She was the youngest competitor there and she finished 47th
in 17:33.85 as an 11 year old. At 12 when she won Junior Nationals
<16:56.02 for the 1500m>, she was 4'10 and 68 pounds. She took 36
strokes to travel 25 yards and 62 to travel 50 meters. In 1985 she grew
to 5'1 and 87 pounds, and by Seoul she had grown to 5'5 and 105. She
reduced her 50-meter stroke count to 52. I don't think a 12-year old
has ever won Junior Nationals since then.

Here is some info from SOMAX.

"..Janet Evans for instance, has the biggest breathing range of any
elite swimmer. This is why she holds world records in the 400, 800, and
1500 meter freestyle when she has a VO2 Max of only 56, compared to
most elite swimmers with a VO2 max of 70-80. In otherwards, Janet can
outswim freestylers with a cardiovascular capacity 50% greater than
hers because her breathing flexibility is 50% greater than theirs."

"....Janet Evans, who can swim longer distances far faster than anyone
her size, expands 3 1/2 inches at her diaphragm. But Janet only has a
21" chest. To expand proportionately, an adult swimmer would have to
expand 6-7 inches depending on chest size. The greatest expansion we
have measured is 4" on a nationally ranked college swimmer. Janet Evans
is the only swimmer we know of who swims anywhere near her
physiological potential."

I called Pritchard and he said he thinks Evans' times have dropped off
because she is less flexible in her breathing range now. Less
flexibility in the ranges needed for swimming results in dramatic
increases in time. Pritchard also said something about Mary T. He said
that to this day, she was the only swimmer who had 100% flexibility in
the ranges needed for butterfly. To this day, she still holds the world
record.

Heenan said that Evan's training was nothing spectacular. Get this.
Evans had to train with the men because the women couldn't keep up with
her. Also, at the 88 Olympics and all camps leading up to the Games,
Janet trained with the men. Mel Stewart said of her at the 88 Games,
"We would all get in and try to train with her <the men> and we would
have to stop because we were killing ourselves. She's an animal in
workout."

Here are some of the sets she did according to Bud McAllister in
"Swimming Into the 21st Century."

Individual Medley
200 at 2:45, 400 at 5:30, 600 at 8:15, 800 at 11:00.
600 at 7:45 <swam 7:38>, 400 at 5:10 <swam 4:59>, and 200 at 2:35 <swam
2:27>
This set was swam at 3:00 per 200 on all distances going up, and 2:45
from the second 600 down.

Also 20X400 IM, with 4 at 6:00, 4 at 5:50, 4 at 5:40, 4 at 5:30, 4 at
5:20. <last four were done in 5:12, 5:09, 5:07, 5:04>

Also 4000 IM for time-1000 of each stroke. Time 52:29 <5:13 avg each
400 IM>

"On the following set, I gradually lowered the intervals and watched
her go faster."
600 IM @ 9:00 and then 3x400 IM at 5:25. <5:13,5:13,5:11>
600 IM at 9:00 then 2x400 IM at 5:15 <5:06, 5:01>
600 IM at 9:00 then 1x400 IM at 5:05 <4:53>

Butterfly Set: 24x100
1 each at 1:30, 1:25, 1:20, 1:15
2 each at "" "" "" ""
3 each at "" "" "" ""
Janet's last 3 were 1:12, 1:12, 1:12.

Freestyle sets
3 @ 2:05, 1 @ 1:50, then
2 @ 2:00, 2 @ 1:45, then
1 at 1:55, 3 @ 1:40
Janet's last 3 were 1:36, 1:37, 1:38. Janet has also done 3x150 at
1:40. Also
4x100 at 1:25, 3x200 at 2:40, 2x300 at 3:45 and 1x400 at 4:40 <Janet
did 4:13>

8x300 with 2 at 3:45, then 2 at 3:25, 3:24, 3:20. <on the 3:20, Janet
went 3:17, 3:19>

These were some of the toughest and best sets Janet Evans made. She has
also done intense middle-distance freestyle sets, such as 8 300s with 2
at 3:45, 2 at 3:25, and 2 at 3:20. During school vacations, she does
slightly more, 14,000 to 15,000 a day rather than 13,000 to 14,000. I
think these were long course. But I am not sure. Nevertheless quite
impressive.

As for Heenan, who said Bud McAllister hasn't coached anyone else to
greatness. He is the only coach I know of with 2 women below 4:40 in
the 400 IM. Kristine Quance and Janet Evans are both McAllister
protegees, and right now, Japan's Suzu Chiba <1:59.40 in the 200 free
this year> is too. I believe he is coaching at Golden West right now
where he has some very good distance freestylers.

Well, you have seen some of my arguments. Feel free to post your own.
But I feel that Janet never has used performance enhancing drugs. Make
your own decision. There is something to the flexibility issue. Get
this. Matt Biondi was not the most powerful swimmer on the Cal team,
but he had 60 percent more range of motion in his shoulders than anyone
else on the team. Janet Evans is the most energy-efficient swimmer ever
tested, and so she was faster. Plus she put in a hell of a lot of hard
work. She earned everything she won.

----Josh----

John Heenan

unread,

Aug 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/21/96

to

Many of the points below have already been dealt with at some length.

I can recognise an unbalanced 'wave the flag' gimmicky PR hype when I see
one. The quotes provided are sickeningly reminiscent of the type of hyped
marketing that abuses science and is practiced so well by the corporate
world.

Metabolic efficiency does not measure stroke or mechanical efficiency.
There is additionally no attempt to incorporate a scaling factor to
account for size differences.

Evans abnormal chest expandibility has questionable advantage and may be
used to irrelevantly take attention away from other factors, such as
possibly drugs. Her expandibility may have been due to misguided syurgery
ehich has no real benefit. Advertisements for surgical preocedures have
been carried by 'Swimming World' magazine. As to whether her supposedly
low VO2 max is a disadvantage compensated by abnormal expandibility, it is
an interesting idea. But that is all it is, more work is necessary. As
her oxygen consumption requirements were obviousely so low, VO2 max would
not appear to be an issue. Anyway VO2 max is only an issue in which
explosive breathing is required. This is not a requirement in distance
events. So it may not even be an issue in explaining her decline as she
'developed' more.

As for Kristin Quance and Suzu Chuba being 'protegees' of Bud Mcallister,
they cannot be considered to be spectacular successes on a level with Janet
Evans.

There is nothing out of the ordinary about the format of Evans training
sessions. Don't imply there is. Nothing there to explain that as the
source of success over drug cheats on a similiar format. What is
extraordinary is her performance level. It has not being explained by
the silly hype below.

John Heenan
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| John Heenan Reply to: jo...@heenan.ironbark.id.au |
| Fax: +61 2 383 8064 http://www.mpx.com.au/~datam |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Josh Jeffrey (jjs...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: I have been looking for information to help substantiate my claims that

--
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| John Heenan Reply to: jo...@heenan.ironbark.id.au |
| Fax: +61 2 383 8064 http://www.mpx.com.au/~datam |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Redsocks

unread,

Aug 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/22/96

to

jjs...@ix.netcom.com(Josh Jeffrey ) wrote:

[bigsnip]

>As for Heenan, who said Bud McAllister hasn't coached anyone else to
>greatness. He is the only coach I know of with 2 women below 4:40 in

>the 400 IM....

Unless Petra Schneider and Daniela Hunger had the same coach.

Note to Mr. Heenan: you seem to have an inordinate faith in the power of
chemistry. Drugs can only do so much. If Friedrich/Strauss/Lung were two
seconds slower than Evans with the drugs (and that's all they were: the
winning margins in Seoul were 2.09 seconds in the 400 free, 1.89 seconds in
the 800 free, and 1.70 seconds in the 400 IM), that means they would have been
five seconds slower without them.

--
REAL LIFE: Matthew Brotman
USENET: Redsocks (no, I'm not from Boston)
E-MAIL: matt...@li.net
WWW: http://www.li.net/~matthewb/
IRC: Don't go there

John Heenan

unread,

Aug 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/27/96

to

Redsocks (matt...@li.net) wrote:
: jjs...@ix.netcom.com(Josh Jeffrey ) wrote:

: >As for Heenan, who said Bud McAllister hasn't coached anyone else to

: >greatness. He is the only coach I know of with 2 women below 4:40 in

: >the 400 IM....

He still hasn't produced another Janet.

: Note to Mr. Heenan: you seem to have an inordinate faith in the power of

: chemistry. Drugs can only do so much. If Friedrich/Strauss/Lung were two

If you have been reading other postings I have made then you will know
the above statement about me is silly.

: seconds slower than Evans with the drugs (and that's all they were: the

: winning margins in Seoul were 2.09 seconds in the 400 free, 1.89 seconds in
: the 800 free, and 1.70 seconds in the 400 IM), that means they would have
: been five seconds slower without them.

I don't see what the point is. These winning margin in the 400 metres
free is substantial using a statistical comparison for this event.

Lets look at the equivalent differene if scaled as a 100 metres.

Event Winning Margin Scaled as if 100m event

400 free 2.09 .52
800 free 1.89 .47
400 IM 1.70 .42

The 400m was a world record (4.03.85). No one looks getting near it.
Using an old edition of Swimming World that I haven't been thrown out yet,
the 1990 the all time top 10 for the womens 400 metre freestyle was:

Off WR indicates how far the best times of swimmers were off Janet's
best times. Off 2nd indicates how far the best times of swimmers were
off the 2nd best swimmer's time (Anke Mohring of East Germany)

Swimmer Country Time Off WR Off 2nd Date

Janet Evans USA 4:03.85 0.00 minus 1.99 22 Sept 1988
Anke Mohring GDR 4.05.84 1.99 0.00 17 Aug 1989
Heike Friedich GDR 4.05.94 2.09 0.10 22 Sept 1989
Tracey Wickham AUS 4:06.28 2.43 0.44 24 Aug 1978
Tiffany Cohen USA 4:07.10 3.25 1.26 31 Jul 1984
Kim Linehan USA 4.07.12 3.27 1.28 27 Jul 1979
Cynthia Woodhead USA 4.07.15 3.30 1.31 24 Aug 1978
Astrid Strauss USA 4.07.66 3.81 1.90 21 Aug 1984
Sarah Hardcastle GBR 4.07.68 3.77 1.92 27 Jul 1986
Tami Bruce USA 4.07.89 3.98 2.13 10 Aug 1988

Between the second and tenth fastest swimmers there was a gap of 2.13
seconds. Between Evans and the tenth swimmer there was a gap of nearly
twice this amount. The second and third swimmers were from East
Germany, a country known to have had a systematic drug program. These
presumably had good technique, had a superb training program and were
the product of systematic selection. You can see US swimmers ranked
all over the top ten, with the East Germans only at the top. Yet the
two East Germans are still nowhere near the top swimmer, Janet Evans
in time comparison terms. There is good reason to suppose Janet has
poor technique and appears to lack the build and body type associated
with being a top swimmer.

Now these gaps are even more dramatic in the womens 1500 metres, not
an Olympic event. The circumstantial evidence for drug abuse by Evans
is strenthgened by this as a side effect! Why would she put so much
effort training for an unpopular event that she is so far ahead of
everyone else in.

I don't imagine there has been much of a shift in this all time top
ten in the past 6 years, particularly with swimmers from the US. We
can speculate that improved drug testing might have something to do
with this, particularly in the US!

Please note Michelle Smith's time of 4.07.25 at Atlanta was behind the
seventh and fourth times of Cynthia Woodhead and Tracey Wickham, both
set in 1978! That is she was still slower than times set 18 years
before, despite 18 years to improve training techniques!

The more you look into it, the more it strengthens the circumstantial
evidence for Evans being a drug cheat than for Michelle Smith being a
drug cheat!

John
--
[=====================================================================]
[ John Heenan jo...@heenan.ironbark.id.au Swim controversy Web ]
[ updated 31 July 1996 http://www.mpx.com.au/~datam/swim.html ]
[=====================================================================]

John Heenan

unread,

Aug 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/28/96

to

Another typo! 4 x 0.036 = 0.15 (approx and rounding up)

John

John Heenan (jo...@heenan.ironbark.id.au) wrote:
: An error in posting below, Astrid Strauss in table below is from GDR.
: Still, ignoring Evans, the table is still dominated at the top end by
: East Germans.

: It should be pointed out that pool length certification standards make
: a mockery of ranking any times above or below another that are within
: about 4 x 0.036 = 0.05 seconds of each other in the 400m at this
: level.

: I discuss the reason for this on http://www.mpx.com.au/~datam/2.html#3
: under title 'Why is swimming falsely ratifying records, rankings and
: placings?'

: John

: John Heenan (jo...@heenan.ironbark.id.au) wrote:

John Heenan

unread,

Aug 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/28/96

to

An error in posting below, Astrid Strauss in table below is from GDR.
Still, ignoring Evans, the table is still dominated at the top end by
East Germans.

It should be pointed out that pool length certification standards make
a mockery of ranking any times above or below another that are within
about 4 x 0.036 = 0.05 seconds of each other in the 400m at this
level.

I discuss the reason for this on http://www.mpx.com.au/~datam/2.html#3
under title 'Why is swimming falsely ratifying records, rankings and
placings?'

John

John Heenan (jo...@heenan.ironbark.id.au) wrote:

Redsocks

unread,

Aug 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/28/96

to

jo...@heenan.ironbark.id.au (John Heenan) wrote:

>Redsocks (matt...@li.net) wrote:
>
>: Note to Mr. Heenan: you seem to have an inordinate faith in the power of
>: chemistry. Drugs can only do so much. If Friedrich/Strauss/Lung were two
>
>If you have been reading other postings I have made then you will know
>the above statement about me is silly.

Is it? Your whole argument is ... here, I'll let you say it:

>... The second and third swimmers were from East

>Germany, a country known to have had a systematic drug program. These
>presumably had good technique, had a superb training program and were
>the product of systematic selection. You can see US swimmers ranked
>all over the top ten, with the East Germans only at the top. Yet the
>two East Germans are still nowhere near the top swimmer, Janet Evans
>in time comparison terms.

"The East Germans were on drugs, and Evans beat them." That's it. That's
your proof. The East Germans Tracey Wickham beat in 1978 were on drugs, too.
Why doesn't that count as "circumstantial evidence" against Wickham?

> There is good reason to suppose Janet has
>poor technique and appears to lack the build and body type associated
>with being a top swimmer.

This is a point *supporting* Evans' alleged steroid use?? In 1988 Evans was
5ft5in (1.62m), exactly average for an American woman, and 101lb (46kg), below
average. If she got *that* body from steroids, she must have Kerri Strug's
genes. She is taller and heavier now - and slower.

>The more you look into it, the more it strengthens the circumstantial
>evidence for Evans being a drug cheat than for Michelle Smith being a
>drug cheat!

Oh, really? Here's how I see the "circumstances" surrounding Evans and Smith:

BACKGROUND
Evans was born and raised in suburban Los Angeles, an area which has produced
many champion swimmers. Smith was born and raised in Dublin, which hasn't.

AGE
Evans emerged as a world-class swimmer at age 16, historically a prime age for
female swimmers, especially in the distance events. Smith emerged at age 25,
well past the historic norms.

COACHING
Bud McAllister, Richard Quick, and Mark Schubert have several decades of
coaching experience between them. McAllister's record of developing young
swimmers has been documented here, Quick has won more women's college
championships than any other coach, and Schubert has won more club
championships than any other coach. None of them has ever been involved
(either themselves or with one of their swimmers) in a doping incident.
Erik de Bruin had zero experience as a swimming coach (in fact, I don't know
if he had ever coached *any* sport) before his relationship with Smith. He
has had a run-in with the doping authorities, and is currently under
suspension by somebody or other (I didn't really follow that).

And you still say the "evidence" is against Evans...?

--

Redsocks (no, I'm not from Boston)

matt...@li.net http://www.li.net/~matthewb/

I've never done good things
I've never done bad things
I never did anything out of the blue
I want an axe to break the ice
I want to come down right now
- David Bowie

Message has been deleted

Redsocks

unread,

Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96

to

jo...@heenan.ironbark.id.au (John Heenan) wrote:

>Redsocks (matt...@li.net) wrote:
>
>: "The East Germans were on drugs, and Evans beat them." That's it. That's

>: your proof. The East Germans Tracey Wickham beat in 1978 were on drugs, too.
>: Why doesn't that count as "circumstantial evidence" against Wickham?
>

>Evans was up against a highly sophisticated swimming machine in the
>East Germans which had a lot better resources, ....

You didn't answer me. Yes, Evans was up against a highly sophisticated
swimming machine. So was Wickham. And Caulkins. And Meagher. And about a
dozen others I could name. Why do you infer drug use from Evans' results, and
not from anyone else's?

[snip]
>... the use of drugs. Using Redsocks and other reasoning puts a
>guilty finger on many US swimmers who have never had drug abuse
>allegations raised against them. It is unjust.

You've committed the injustice here, by presenting "evidence" that is no more
valid for Evans than for any of them.

John Heenan

unread,

Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96

to

Redsocks (matt...@li.net) wrote:
: jo...@heenan.ironbark.id.au (John Heenan) wrote:

: >Redsocks (matt...@li.net) wrote:
: >
: >: Note to Mr. Heenan: you seem to have an inordinate faith in the power of

: >: chemistry. Drugs can only do so much. If Friedrich/Strauss/Lung were two
: >
: >If you have been reading other postings I have made then you will know
: >the above statement about me is silly.

: Is it? Your whole argument is ... here, I'll let you say it:

I have very clearly indicated that without talent and high quality
training drugs are useless. That is a very clear indication that
drugs can only 'do so much'.

: >... The second and third swimmers were from East

: >Germany, a country known to have had a systematic drug program. These
: >presumably had good technique, had a superb training program and were
: >the product of systematic selection. You can see US swimmers ranked
: >all over the top ten, with the East Germans only at the top. Yet the
: >two East Germans are still nowhere near the top swimmer, Janet Evans
: >in time comparison terms.

: "The East Germans were on drugs, and Evans beat them." That's it. That's

: your proof. The East Germans Tracey Wickham beat in 1978 were on drugs, too.
: Why doesn't that count as "circumstantial evidence" against Wickham?

:
: > There is good reason to suppose Janet has

: >poor technique and appears to lack the build and body type associated
: >with being a top swimmer.

Evans was up against a highly sophisticated swimming machine in the
East Germans which had a lot better resources, but lacked long term
experience using drugs. They used drugs with a medical model. This
was dosage up to the level of ability to tolerate side effects. Drugs
provide advantages. Evans appears to have few natural advantages in
terms of build, her stroke appears terrible. She beat the East
Germans. Her father is a vet in California where there is high
tolerance and acceptance of personal drug abuse. Abuse and experience
of drugs is widespread in veterinary practice servicing the production
obsessive agricultural industry. This level of experience is unlikely
to have been available to the East Germans. This is circumstantial
evidence of drug abuse. It is not an accussation. I can't make this
much clearer. If Redsocks cannot accept the reasonableness of my
assertions, then that is not my problem.

I have made other postings which indicate the foolishness of judging
uindividuals not to have abused steroids on the basis of lacking bulk.

Smith does not match Evans in terms of performance.

With regard to other points below, they are circumstantial but
extremely weak. The knowledge of how to coach is not limited by
national boundaries. Additionally Smith has trained in Europe and has
had longer to get to a level that is not as fast as Evans. I have
given many explanations, for her performance, one of which was
possibly the use of drugs. Using Redsocks and other reasoning puts a

guilty finger on many US swimmers who have never had drug abuse
allegations raised against them. It is unjust.

John

: This is a point *supporting* Evans' alleged steroid use?? In 1988 Evans was

: 5ft5in (1.62m), exactly average for an American woman, and 101lb (46kg), below
: average. If she got *that* body from steroids, she must have Kerri Strug's
: genes. She is taller and heavier now - and slower.

: >The more you look into it, the more it strengthens the circumstantial

: >evidence for Evans being a drug cheat than for Michelle Smith being a
: >drug cheat!

: Oh, really? Here's how I see the "circumstances" surrounding Evans and Smith:

: BACKGROUND
: Evans was born and raised in suburban Los Angeles, an area which has produced
: many champion swimmers. Smith was born and raised in Dublin, which hasn't.

: AGE
: Evans emerged as a world-class swimmer at age 16, historically a prime age for
: female swimmers, especially in the distance events. Smith emerged at age 25,
: well past the historic norms.

: COACHING
: Bud McAllister, Richard Quick, and Mark Schubert have several decades of
: coaching experience between them. McAllister's record of developing young
: swimmers has been documented here, Quick has won more women's college
: championships than any other coach, and Schubert has won more club
: championships than any other coach. None of them has ever been involved
: (either themselves or with one of their swimmers) in a doping incident.
: Erik de Bruin had zero experience as a swimming coach (in fact, I don't know
: if he had ever coached *any* sport) before his relationship with Smith. He
: has had a run-in with the doping authorities, and is currently under
: suspension by somebody or other (I didn't really follow that).

: And you still say the "evidence" is against Evans...?

: --

: Redsocks (no, I'm not from Boston)
: matt...@li.net http://www.li.net/~matthewb/

: I've never done good things
: I've never done bad things
: I never did anything out of the blue
: I want an axe to break the ice
: I want to come down right now
: - David Bowie

John Heenan

unread,

Aug 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/30/96

to

John Charles Westergaard (west...@lightning.seas.ucla.edu) wrote:

: jo...@heenan.ironbark.id.au (John Heenan) writes:
: >Redsocks (matt...@li.net) wrote:
: >: jjs...@ix.netcom.com(Josh Jeffrey ) wrote:
: >
: >: >As for Heenan, who said Bud McAllister hasn't coached anyone else to
: >: >greatness. He is the only coach I know of with 2 women below 4:40 in
: >: >the 400 IM....
: >
: >He still hasn't produced another Janet.

: There ISN'T another Janet. You have done a pretty poor job of attacking
: McAllister.

My use of English is clear. Am I expected to pedantically pad out
every statement for nit pickers? What am I supposed to be attacking
McAllister for? McAllister not producing another swimmer of the
standard of Evans was used not to make some attack against McAllister
but to strengthen circumstantial evidence against Evans. I have made
complimentary statements about McAllister, for example calling him an
excellent coach.

: >: Note to Mr. Heenan: you seem to have an inordinate faith in the power of
: >: chemistry. Drugs can only do so much. If Friedrich/Strauss/Lung were two
: >
: >If you have been reading other postings I have made then you will know
: >the above statement about me is silly.

: Yep. A more accurate statement about you would be that you're a grade-A,
: certified kook!

I don't know what a kook is. I imagine, given tone of posting, that
it is an inappropriate and abusive term that reflects badly on the
poster, UCLA and its Engineering school.

: [Data and "analysis" snipped]

: >The more you look into it, the more it strengthens the circumstantial
: >evidence for Evans being a drug cheat than for Michelle Smith being a
: >drug cheat!

: John, you have not provided ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that sets Janet
: Evans apart from any other swimmer, other than her best times, which
: (as anyone with one iota of sports knowledge knows) by themselves
: are NOT evidence of drug use.

Well the above statement is clearly false. I have pointed out
circumstantial evidence unique to Janet Evans. I am not going to
repeat it here. I have not even accused Evans of cheating!
Circumstantial evidence used by others against Michelle Smith does not
share the same strengths and uniqueness. Much of the evidence can be
applied to others, including Americans, who have not had doubts raised
against them.

John
k

John Heenan

unread,

Aug 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/31/96

to

Redsocks (matt...@li.net) wrote:

: You didn't answer me. Yes, Evans was up against a highly sophisticated
: swimming machine. So was Wickham. And Caulkins. And Meagher. And about a

: dozen others I could name. Why do you infer drug use from Evans' results, and
: not from anyone else's?

Good. The penny is beginning to drop. Although Evans results give more
rise to suspicion than many others.

I have not infered or accused drug use. I have simply pointed out
circumstantial evidence. What haven't I answered? I pointed out that in
1990 Evans had nearly twice as much time in the 400 free between her and
the tenth ranked swimmer of all time than between the second ranked
swimmer and the tenth ranked swimmer. The second ranked swimmer was East
Germany, now known to have systematically used drugs. I have pointed out
the connections Evans has to an industry and known for its association
with widesprread abuse of drugs in animals. I have pointed out Evans lived
in a state where there is widespread acceptance and tolerance of drug
abuse. I have pointed out lacking bulk does not mean not having used
steroids. I have pointed out distance events are nor precluded from
obtaining advantages from drug abuse. What more do I have to say to
answer Redsocks?

I simply used Evans because with my knowledge of her I am able to show
how unfair it is to point a finger at Michelle Smith when there is
stronger evidence against Evans. More circumstantial evidence arose out
of this, such as the veterinary connection.

:
: [snip]
: >... the use of drugs. Using Redsocks and other reasoning puts a

: >guilty finger on many US swimmers who have never had drug abuse
: >allegations raised against them. It is unjust.

:
: You've committed the injustice here, by presenting "evidence" that is no more

: valid for Evans than for any of them.

What is unjust is selectively pointing fingers at others (for example
Michelle Smith), particularly when their is good reason to point the
finger elsewhwere also and where their is good reason to consider
performances which leave more to be explained.

John
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| John Heenan jo...@heenan.ironbark.id.au http://www.mpx.com.au/~datam |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Message has been deleted

John Heenan

unread,

Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96

to

Redsocks

unread,

Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96

to

da...@mpx.com.au (John Heenan) wrote:

>Redsocks (matt...@li.net) wrote:
>
>: You didn't answer me. Yes, Evans was up against a highly sophisticated
>: swimming machine. So was Wickham. And Caulkins. And Meagher. And about a
>: dozen others I could name. Why do you infer drug use from Evans' results, and
>: not from anyone else's?
>
>Good. The penny is beginning to drop. Although Evans results give more
>rise to suspicion than many others.

Why?

>I have not infered or accused drug use. I have simply pointed out
>circumstantial evidence. What haven't I answered? I pointed out that in
>1990 Evans had nearly twice as much time in the 400 free between her and
>the tenth ranked swimmer of all time than between the second ranked
>swimmer and the tenth ranked swimmer.

This is meaningless in the absence of similar data from other events. Let's
look at the 800 free:

1 - Janet Evans 8:16.22
2 - Anke Mohring 8:19.53
3 - Astrid Strauss 8:22.09
4 - Julie McDonald 8:22.93

That's far enough. The gap between second and fourth (3.40 sec) is greater
than the gap between first and second (3.31).

>The second ranked swimmer was East
>Germany, now known to have systematically used drugs.

This is not unique to Evans.

>I have pointed out
>the connections Evans has to an industry and known for its association
>with widesprread abuse of drugs in animals.

Frankly, I find your suggestion that Dr. Evans may have pumped his daughter
full of animal drugs to be just plain sick.

>I have pointed out lacking bulk does not mean not having used
>steroids.

As P.T. Barnum once said, "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"

>I have pointed out distance events are nor precluded from
>obtaining advantages from drug abuse.

The effect is much smaller in the distances. East Germany and China have a
combined total of six world championships (out of seven) in the 100 free, and
one in the 800. East Germany has held some world records almost continuously
since 1973, but never held the 400 free record after 1978 and had the 800
record for less than six months in that time.

> What more do I have to say to answer Redsocks?

You can start by explaining what Janet Evans ever did to you to provoke this
smear campaign. It is obvious that you are less interested in talking about
drugs than slamming Evans (witness your lengthy discourse on her education,
which is completely irrelevant to the drug question but which provided you
several opportunities to call her a dimwit).

>I simply used Evans because with my knowledge of her I am able to show
>how unfair it is to point a finger at Michelle Smith when there is
>stronger evidence against Evans. More circumstantial evidence arose out
>of this, such as the veterinary connection.

"Stronger evidence"? Paul Evans' veterinary training is stronger evidence
than Erik de Bruin's doping suspension? Yeah, sure.

Martin William Smith

unread,

Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96

to

Matthew writes, to John Heenan:
> [...]

> You can start by explaining what Janet Evans ever did to you to
> provoke this smear campaign. It is obvious that you are less
> interested in talking about drugs than slamming Evans (witness your
> lengthy discourse on her education, which is completely irrelevant
> to the drug question but which provided you several opportunities to
> call her a dimwit).

Why have you not risen to defend Michelle Smith's reputation in the
same way?

martin
--
Martin Smith Email: m...@metis.no
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet Tel. : +47 330 46900
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway Fax. : +47 330 42297

Eric Wang

unread,

Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96

to

For the record, I discount all rumors against both Smith *and* Evans. I
do have some objections to John Heenan's attempts at constructing an
analogy to link the two. If I understand correctly, Heenan himself
isn't actually accusing Evans of cheating, what he's attacking is the
anti-Smith rumor mentality, and the way he attempts to do it is to build
up a counter-case that is (a) obviously absurd, therefore not
believable, but also (b) similar enough to the Smith case that it shows
the latter to be equally absurd, i.e. a reasonable person must either
accept both or reject both. Heenan's case just happens to involve Evans
because she's an American multiple-gold-medalist swimmer, which pretty
much narrows down the field. Under this assumption, and with the
understanding that both Smith and Evans are innocent of all wrong-doing,
I'll now poke some holes in Heenan's counter-case. (Corollary: John, if
you really *are* pressing a case against Evans, then I must agree with
the consensus of the newsgroup that you're a fruitcake gone bad.)

da...@mpx.com.au (John Heenan) writes:
>:> Circumstantial evidence used by others against Michelle Smith does

>:> not share the same strengths and uniqueness.

Well, except for de Bruin's drug banishment. Evans' closet doesn't
contain anything that has ever been *proven* to look so much like a
skeleton.

>Michelle Smith's supposed 'sudden improvement' is not unique.

Prove it. Name the other gold medalists who have improved their
times so dramatically in a similarly brief period of time, or quote
a source that identifies them. IMHO, if such a "sudden improvement"
were common, then the other swimmers in Atlanta wouldn't have been
talking and whispering about Smith's performances.

Here's an example from my domain of familiarity. Volleyball places
great value on vertical leaping ability, resulting in much research
into jump training. The typical USA collegiate women's volleyball
athlete jumps around 24", with 30" being a superior height. In
international levels, the average is up to 30", and among 2-time
gold medalist Cuba's starting 6, the average is around 36" :-|
Explosive jumping as used in volleyball is a highly specialized
move, one that requires specific training but responds strongly to
it. Players can usually gain around 6"-12" of improvement through
this specialized jump training. More to the point, players who've
never done serious jump training before will see much of the gain
very quickly: 2" in 1 month, 4" in 3 months, 6" in 6 months is
pretty common. (Note that the athlete sees such an increase only
*once* in their careers; once she plateaus out at her physical max,
all of the training simply maintains her gains. The basic point is
that you're either training or you're not, and it doesn't take all
that long to close the gap between the two.) Rita Crockett of USA,
who won silver at LA '84, went from a do-you-even-deserve-to-be-here
24" to a world-mega-elite 38" in a little over one year. The bottom
line is that rapid increase in vertical leap is truly "not unique",
and raises no eyebrows among vb players. AFAIK, swimmers consider
swimming to be much different from this: it's hard to lower your
times so drastically.

>[There] is nothing unique about her age with regards to performance.

Actually, there is: female distance swimmers tend to excel at
younger ages, 16-18 or so. However, consider her age and her rapid
improvement *together*: when has a swimmer shown such a big
improvement *at such a late age*? I'd have no trouble accepting a
great athlete who peaked young and then held on longer than anybody
else ever had before, or one who was great, retired, and then came
back and was still great. But an athlete who was mediocre
throughout her supposed "prime" years and then bloomed towards the
end of her time is, well, fishy.

>Look at track and field. Her performances were not even remarkable by
>all time standards.

Nobody is accusing her because of her *performances*; we know
perfectly well that these performances are, in principle, achievable
by the best athletes. The rumors were based on her _meteoric
improvement_, supposedly at an age when such improvement simply
isn't attained.

>Evans performances are remarkable even by all time standards compared
>with swimmers from a country known to have had a systematic drug
>program.

This statement is the crux of your counter-case. You imply that
Evans' performances are suspicious simply because no drug-using
athlete could come close to them. I submit that it is a red
herring, a faulty attempt to infer a connection where none exists.
That is like saying that you commit fraud but still don't have as
much money as Chase Manhattan Bank, ergo Chase must also commit
fraud, or that your go-kart burns nitrous oxide but still doesn't go
as fast as a Porsche, thus the Porsche must also burn nitrous oxide.
This line of reasoning rests on an underlying assumption that
everybody starts out roughly equal in resources and abilities, so
that any differences in performance must be a result of additional
factors. Your entire counter-case "against" Evans hinges on this
assumption. Unfortunately, it doesn't apply to athletes when
measuring athletic performance.

Allow me to elaborate. Suppose I create a competitive environment
where all contestants start *completely* equally. For example,
everybody is given a box containing an identical set of parts, have
access to the same tools, and must build a device to do something,
e.g. a balloon capable of hoisting a scale pan, or a soapbox derby
car, or a stock portfolio. Entries are evaluated through some sort
of comparison or tournament. In such a controlled, restricted
environment, we would expect the differences between the top
competitors to be small: the inputs are the same, and the best
people will converge on the same solutions. In other words, no
matter how good an idea you have, some other guys will have had the
same idea, so their entries are just as good as yours, and you'll
all be clustered with roughly the same score. Those of you who were
Cub Scouts can think back to your soapbox derbies: everybody is
given a small bag of parts, basically a block of wood and four
plastic wheels, and you can whittle any shape you like from your
block of wood, but you can't add any wood to it, and you absolutely
may not glue additional lead weights into hollow cavities in its
belly. Over a ~ 50' track, good cars will win by a couple of
body-lengths or so, which is considered to be normal. Thus, a car
that beats all comers by 20' is immediately and thoroughly checked
for hollow cavities, and provides its own justification for doing
so: such a winning margin cannot be explained by anything in the
parts kit.

In the real world, though, athletes do *not* start from equal
footings. People start with their genetic potential, which they
then develop through training, practice, and experience. No two
athletes end up at the same rank; they spread themselves across a
spectrum of levels of effectiveness, from champion on down to
bottom-feeder, in roughly a probabilistic distribution around some
hypothetical average. Suppose (just for this explanation) that the
average level represents the athletes who participated in high
school. A portion of these people excelled and went on to compete
in college, where the level of play is higher; these athletes are a
couple of "standard deviations" above the average ones. (A standard
deviation, or s-dev, is a unit of distance along a probabilistic
distribution. It has a precise mathematical definition that's too
formal for this discussion; suffice it to say that I use it as a
rough measurement of likelihood.) A few collegians advance to the
pro ranks, which is another couple of s-devs up; a few of those make
it to the Olympics, and a handful of Olympians win gold. At this
point, we're several s-devs above the median, at such a high level
that there are only a few people in all the world who reach it.

But there's nothing to prevent people from arriving on the scene at
a skill level of any arbitrarily high value, except that the
likelihood decreases (exponentially, probably) in proportion to the
skill level. Suppose that sprinters at +16 s-devs or more above the
mean are so rare that only 30 or so make it to the Olympics, exactly
filling that Olympic sprinting event. Three of those guys are
actually +17, which means they're so good that they make it to the
finals and pull away down the stretch. But a fourth guy was Michael
Johnson at +20 (on an exponential scale, remember!), and he beats
the +17s as bad as they beat college boys. How did Michael Johnson
get to +20? It's a combination of inborn talent and hard training,
and maybe he just was born with more sheer potential than anybody
else, as if God or the universe stamped him out of 20-grade
human-stuff. Similar examples are so numerous that we don't even
notice them until we're reminded. Not many American men have the
genes to grow to 6'6 and 250+ pounds, but of these special few, many
find gainful employment in the NFL or NBA. Consider the superstars
of our major sports, e.g. Michael Jordan, Barry Bonds, Wayne
Gretzky, Steffi Graf, Pele, Mia Hamm, Karch Kiraly, even Tiger Woods
when compared to his ex-fellow collegians, and so on: even among the
pros and world-class players they play with regularly, these special
few athletes stand a cut above their peers. Is it necessary to ask
how they got so far ahead? Ask away; if their peers knew, they'd
all do it, to. Within the annals of Olympic competition, we have
standouts such as Bob Beamon's monster long jump in Mexico '68,
Edwin Moses' utter domination of the 400m hurdles (undefeated in
*110*(?) consecutive races over *nine years* in his prime), Sergei
Bubka's mastery of the pole vault outside the Olympics, Jackie
Joyner-Kersee holding the top *six* highest heptathlon scores in
history, etc. Do we say that these persons must have all turned pro
as +17 s-devs, and then used drugs of different strengths to get
themselves up to +19? Ridiculous, and unnecessary. From these
examples, and all of the past champions athletes throughout modern
athletic competition, we see that it is instead an axiom of human
existence that some athletes are simply better than others, and the
scales are balanced by the fact that the great ones are so much
rarer than the run-of-the-mill pros.

Thus, when you tout Evans' record times and compare them to the East
Germans, your counter-case requires that we assume that Evans and
the East Germans both started at roughly the same s-dev, which
implies that Evans must have out-drugged the drugged-up East
Germans. But there's no reason at all to make this assumption, and
in fact it contradicts what we see in athletics in general. It's
far more likely that the East Germans were +14 s-devs, drugged to
+14.5, and Evans was just born and raised to peg out at +15. To put
it simply, she's just *better* than they were, and their drugs
weren't enough to close the gap. Consider that East Germany churned
out so many +14.5 s-dev swimmers over several Olympiads that they
built up their reputation (or notoriety) as a swimming powerhouse,
and in all that time, USA's much larger gene pool produced only one
Janet Evans. If USA had produced a dozen women nearly at the same
time, all of whom trounced the East Germans by the huge margins you
talk about, then it would look very suspicious, since it's extremely
unlikely that we could find so many naturally-talented swimmers.
But it didn't happen that way, so Occam's Razor to "prefer the
fewest assumptions" cuts your counter-case apart.

>Evans standards and standards in the US have declined commensurate with
>tougher drug testing.

Also commensurate with her age. In fact, Evans has exhibited quite
closely the "classic" career of female distance swimmers: peak at
mid-teens, reach prime around 20, burn out by mid-20s. Many of the
previous teen Olympic champions in these events followed a similar
career path, and it's sufficiently common that any deviations get
noticed, e.g. Smith. But this is beside the point.

Your underlying claim of Evans' presumed guilt-by-comparison falls
apart under the proper scrutiny. You compared Evans *only* to the
East Germans, thereby demanding that we make the spurious inference
that they both used drugs. Compare, instead, swimming to all other
sports, and Evans to the superstars in those sports. Do other
sports have superstars who dominate their peers by significantly
abnormal amounts? YES. Do we need to resort to drugs to explain
these other sports' superstars? NO. Neither, then, do we need them
to explain Evans' success. After all, we certainly need *something*
(s-devs) to explain all of the other sports' superstars, and once we
have this explanation, we find that it also covers Evans.

Consider this:

(1) I put a gun to my girls' heads and told them I'd shoot
them if they swam too slowly.
(2) Janet Evans still swims faster than my girls do!
------------------------------------------------------------
(3) I wonder who's holding the gun at *Janet's* head.

I've used your own trick against you here; I hope you can appreciate
the irony. This little statement is patently absurd: it makes an
unjustified deduction from the mere juxtaposition of two unrelated
facts. But it's identical in structure to your argument. To me,
this says that your argument, and hence your entire counter-case
against Evans, is equally absurd, and hence ill-founded. You
painted a subtle picture in defense of Michele Smith, but your easel
falls over: *poof*.

Feel free to try again to establish your case. However, you *do*
have to establish it all over again; the way you've stated it
currently, it simply doesn't hold up. You'll have to accuse Evans
with more skill to make your Evans-Smith analogy work.

Eric Wang
wan...@uiuc.edu

Redsocks

unread,

Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96

to

m...@metis.no (Martin William Smith) wrote:

>Matthew writes, to John Heenan:
>> [...]
>> You can start by explaining what Janet Evans ever did to you to
>> provoke this smear campaign. It is obvious that you are less
>> interested in talking about drugs than slamming Evans (witness your
>> lengthy discourse on her education, which is completely irrelevant
>> to the drug question but which provided you several opportunities to
>> call her a dimwit).
>
>Why have you not risen to defend Michelle Smith's reputation in the
>same way?

If someone were spewing forth a similar combination of bizarre theories and
bald-faced lies about Smith, I would.

Mark S. Fitton

unread,

Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96

to

John Charles Westergaard wrote:
> John, you have not provided ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that sets Janet
> Evans apart from any other swimmer, other than her best times, which
> (as anyone with one iota of sports knowledge knows) by themselves
> are NOT evidence of drug use.
>

> -J.W.

A neutral observer, such as myself, would dare to ask, where is the ONE
SHRED OF EVIDENCE that Michelle Smith cheated. My interpretation of John
Heenans many, many points is that Janet Evans is just as likely to have
cheated as Michelle Smith has...based on CIRCUMSTANTIAL eveidence. I for
one choose to believe that neither cheated and that I got to see Janets
great performance in 1988 and Michelles great performace in 1996. Toodle
oooh, Captain Q!
Mark

Mark S. Fitton

unread,

Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96

to

Redsocks wrote:
>
> m...@metis.no (Martin William Smith) wrote:
>
> >Matthew writes, to John Heenan:
> >> [...]
> >> You can start by explaining what Janet Evans ever did to you to

> >> provoke this smear campaign. <<<deleted stuff in here>>>>>

> >
> >Why have you not risen to defend Michelle Smith's reputation in the
> >same way?
>
> If someone were spewing forth a similar combination of bizarre theories and
> bald-faced lies about Smith, I would.

> Redsocks (no, I'm not from Boston)
> matt...@li.net http://www.li.net/~matthewb/

SNIPPED - another inane sig file!

Lets see if I've got you right. This woman wins gold medals and gets accused
of steroid use because her husband is under suspension for ? (guess what, it
wasnt steroid abuse). Then they point out the dramatic improvements in her
times and she is asked by Jim the jerk on American national TV what she has
to say to those who would accuse her of doping. She gets into a race she
hadnt qualified for earlier and is taken to task for that, when many, many US
swimmers have done similar things. (US track runners too!)
And yet, you don't consider these to be "bizarre theories and bald faced
lies". I am embarassed for you Matthew. I truly am. This John Heenan has
presented rational points and counterpoints (excepting his 'dimwit'
comments). I happen to be a Janet Evans fan, big time believe me, but he
makes a good point. That is, that if one wished to, they could find as much,
if not more circumstantial evidence against Janet, as they could for
Michelle. I would add that Mary T. Meagher had some incredible improvements
in the 200m butterfly in the 2 years before the 84 Games and no one EVER
questioned her, as well they shouldnt in my opinion. Of course, in my opinion
we shouldnt question Michelle Smith, because, after all, SHE PASSED THE
TESTS!!! That has to count for something. Argue against changing the system
or something, but stop showing what a homer moron you are, you're
embarrasing me!
Mark

Mark S. Fitton

unread,

Sep 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/2/96

to

Eric Wang wrote:
>
> da...@mpx.com.au (John Heenan) writes:
> >:> Circumstantial evidence used by others against Michelle Smith does
> >:> not share the same strengths and uniqueness.
>
> Well, except for de Bruin's drug banishment. Evans' closet doesn't
> contain anything that has ever been *proven* to look so much like a
> skeleton.
>
> >Michelle Smith's supposed 'sudden improvement' is not unique.
>
> Prove it. Name the other gold medalists who have improved their
> times so dramatically in a similarly brief period of time, or quote
> a source that identifies them.

OK, Mary T. Meagher improved her times 3.5 seconds in the 2 years leading up
to her gold in the 200m butterfly. Dawn Fraser, a renowned freestyle swimmer,
set the world record in the 100 butterfly one of the first times she ever
swam it competitively. Florence Griffith Joyner dramatically improved her
times for the 1992 gold in the 100m track event.
David Wilkie took 8.5 seconds off his time from 1972 to 1976 when he won his
gold medal in the 200 breaststroke. Mark Spitz took off nearly 1.8 seconds on
his time for the 100 free from 68 to 72. Bob Beamons leap in 68! Hell, even
Shirley Babashoff, whom I loved, took 3+ seconds off her times in the 200
freestyle from 1972 to 76 while the East Germans were dominating. My
source...look in any Olympic record book. There are many more, I just looked
a little.

As I mentioned above, NO it is not hard to lower your times so dramatically,
it only appears to be cheating when a non-American does it. Also volleyball
is not swimming, so this entire bit is irrelevant. Swimming is so very much
different from volleyball. Trust me on that.

>
> >[There] is nothing unique about her age with regards to performance.
>
> Actually, there is: female distance swimmers tend to excel at
> younger ages, 16-18 or so. However, consider her age and her rapid
> improvement *together*: when has a swimmer shown such a big
> improvement *at such a late age*?

Umm, right off the top of my head, how about Pablo Morales in the 1992
Olympics. His times dropped even more dramatically than Smiths did. I missed
the furor over rumors of his drug usage. Again, Im only countering your
counters.

> I'd have no trouble accepting a
> great athlete who peaked young and then held on longer than anybody
> else ever had before, or one who was great, retired, and then came
> back and was still great. But an athlete who was mediocre
> throughout her supposed "prime" years and then bloomed towards the
> end of her time is, well, fishy.

Again, you could use Pablo Morales as an example. He was, what 28 when he
finally won a gold medal, after having retired too. So, your logice means
Pablos gold is "fishy"? I would like to think it isnt.

>
> >Look at track and field. Her performances were not even remarkable by
> >all time standards.
>
> Nobody is accusing her because of her *performances*; we know
> perfectly well that these performances are, in principle, achievable
> by the best athletes. The rumors were based on her _meteoric
> improvement_, supposedly at an age when such improvement simply
> isn't attained.

I know from swimming. Large improvements in time happen with EVERY swimmer,
most when they are younger, but many when they are older. Several factors
contribute to this: improper early training, lazy training, improved
techniques, changes in coaching, heavier training or lighter training,
physiological traits unique to each individual. So, YES, at her age it could
simply be attained.

>
> >Evans performances are remarkable even by all time standards compared
> >with swimmers from a country known to have had a systematic drug
> >program.
>
> This statement is the crux of your counter-case. You imply that
> Evans' performances are suspicious simply because no drug-using
> athlete could come close to them. I submit that it is a red
> herring, a faulty attempt to infer a connection where none exists.

And I submit that you have never looked at a record book for the 400m & 800m
womens freestyles. Check out the statistical variance in her winning times in
1988 with the other winning times. Quite simply, it IS A REMARKABLE
DIFFERENCE. Again, I like Janet and I dont think she cheated.

> That is like saying that you commit fraud but still don't have as
> much money as Chase Manhattan Bank, ergo Chase must also commit
> fraud, or that your go-kart burns nitrous oxide but still doesn't go
> as fast as a Porsche, thus the Porsche must also burn nitrous oxide.
> This line of reasoning rests on an underlying assumption that
> everybody starts out roughly equal in resources and abilities, so
> that any differences in performance must be a result of additional
> factors. Your entire counter-case "against" Evans hinges on this
> assumption. Unfortunately, it doesn't apply to athletes when
> measuring athletic performance.

Well, it has to some degree doesnt it?? After all, we ARE only human. We cant
run the mile in 1 minute or swim 800 meters in 1 minute can we?? If you look
at every track and swimming events world records over time, improvements have
been in very modest increments excepting Janets 1988 records and Beamons 1968
record, as well as a couple others. So perhaps you are right, perhaps you are
wrong. I think you are wrong. We are all humans and we are, in some ways
similarly limited and similarly skilled at the extremes.

>
> Allow me to elaborate. Suppose I create a competitive environment
> where all contestants start *completely* equally. For example,
> everybody is given a box containing an identical set of parts, have
> access to the same tools, and must build a device to do something,
> e.g. a balloon capable of hoisting a scale pan, or a soapbox derby
> car, or a stock portfolio. Entries are evaluated through some sort
> of comparison or tournament. In such a controlled, restricted
> environment, we would expect the differences between the top
> competitors to be small: the inputs are the same, and the best
> people will converge on the same solutions. In other words, no
> matter how good an idea you have, some other guys will have had the
> same idea, so their entries are just as good as yours, and you'll
> all be clustered with roughly the same score. Those of you who were
> Cub Scouts can think back to your soapbox derbies: everybody is
> given a small bag of parts, basically a block of wood and four
> plastic wheels, and you can whittle any shape you like from your
> block of wood, but you can't add any wood to it, and you absolutely
> may not glue additional lead weights into hollow cavities in its
> belly.

Ummm, when was the last time you did a Cub Scouts Pinewood Derby. I did with
my son last year and you can add weights up to a certain overall weight for
the vehicle. Check your data first:)

> Over a ~ 50' track, good cars will win by a couple of
> body-lengths or so, which is considered to be normal. Thus, a car
> that beats all comers by 20' is immediately and thoroughly checked
> for hollow cavities, and provides its own justification for doing
> so: such a winning margin cannot be explained by anything in the
> parts kit.

In reality, all vehicles equal, track also equal, that would never happen,
without some outside force at work. NEVER.

Every one of those athletes skills were far more superior than their
competitors. Swimming and track rely mostly on brute strength or remarkable
endurance. This is hardly an accurate comparison.

> Is it necessary to ask
> how they got so far ahead? Ask away; if their peers knew, they'd
> all do it, to. Within the annals of Olympic competition, we have
> standouts such as Bob Beamon's monster long jump in Mexico '68,
> Edwin Moses' utter domination of the 400m hurdles (undefeated in
> *110*(?) consecutive races over *nine years* in his prime), Sergei
> Bubka's mastery of the pole vault outside the Olympics, Jackie
> Joyner-Kersee holding the top *six* highest heptathlon scores in
> history, etc. Do we say that these persons must have all turned pro
> as +17 s-devs, and then used drugs of different strengths to get
> themselves up to +19? Ridiculous, and unnecessary.

Yet we say it about Michelle Smith after she passed her drug test. That is
what really bothers me. You are right, we shouldnt question the above
athletes performances, neither should we, or NBC have questioned her
performances, unless we are prepared to question all 'great' performances.

Actually no it isnt. It is entirely possible, in my mind probable, that
Michelle was a lazy trainer, so she never 'peaked' until this year and hasnt
'burned out' yet.

>
> Your underlying claim of Evans' presumed guilt-by-comparison falls
> apart under the proper scrutiny. You compared Evans *only* to the
> East Germans, thereby demanding that we make the spurious inference
> that they both used drugs.

As I recall, the initial accusations against the East Germans started from a
comparison of their times to others.

> Compare, instead, swimming to all other
> sports, and Evans to the superstars in those sports. Do other
> sports have superstars who dominate their peers by significantly
> abnormal amounts? YES. Do we need to resort to drugs to explain
> these other sports' superstars? NO. Neither, then, do we need them
> to explain Evans' success. After all, we certainly need *something*
> (s-devs) to explain all of the other sports' superstars, and once we
> have this explanation, we find that it also covers Evans.
>
> Consider this:
>
> (1) I put a gun to my girls' heads and told them I'd shoot
> them if they swam too slowly.
> (2) Janet Evans still swims faster than my girls do!
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> (3) I wonder who's holding the gun at *Janet's* head.

I absolutely do not see how this relates to the issue. Psychological torture
cant compare to drug enhancement. Mr. Heenan did not use that 'trick'.

>
> I've used your own trick against you here; I hope you can appreciate
> the irony. This little statement is patently absurd: it makes an
> unjustified deduction from the mere juxtaposition of two unrelated
> facts. But it's identical in structure to your argument. To me,
> this says that your argument, and hence your entire counter-case
> against Evans, is equally absurd, and hence ill-founded. You
> painted a subtle picture in defense of Michele Smith, but your easel
> falls over: *poof*.
>
> Feel free to try again to establish your case. However, you *do*
> have to establish it all over again; the way you've stated it
> currently, it simply doesn't hold up. You'll have to accuse Evans
> with more skill to make your Evans-Smith analogy work.
>
> Eric Wang
> wan...@uiuc.edu

Everyone has the right to an opinion Eric, I think Mr. Heenan has made some
good points and used sound logic. Of course no one is perfect, his arguments
have a few holes, but not as many as I've just poked in your rather lengthy
dissertation. Im sure I have made some errors, but I know this...in America,
we are supposed to be INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Jesus, even OJ hasnt
gotten this kind of abuse. :-) ( that was meant as a joke to lighten things
up)
Mark

John Heenan

unread,

Sep 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/2/96

to

Redsocks (matt...@li.net) wrote:

: da...@mpx.com.au (John Heenan) wrote:
: >Redsocks (matt...@li.net) wrote:

: >Good. The penny is beginning to drop. Although Evans results give more

: >rise to suspicion than many others.

: Why?

Because her performances are so much better.

: >I have not infered or accused drug use. I have simply pointed out

: >circumstantial evidence. What haven't I answered? I pointed out that in
: >1990 Evans had nearly twice as much time in the 400 free between her and
: >the tenth ranked swimmer of all time than between the second ranked
: >swimmer and the tenth ranked swimmer.

: This is meaningless in the absence of similar data from other events. Let's
: look at the 800 free:

: 1 - Janet Evans 8:16.22
: 2 - Anke Mohring 8:19.53
: 3 - Astrid Strauss 8:22.09
: 4 - Julie McDonald 8:22.93

: That's far enough. The gap between second and fourth (3.40 sec) is greater
: than the gap between first and second (3.31).

: >The second ranked swimmer was East
: >Germany, now known to have systematically used drugs.

: This is not unique to Evans.

Just the one (the 400 metres) is sufficent to prove uniqueness. At
any rate her 1500 metres time of 15:52 or so is pretty unique also.
No other womwn below 16 minutes. Let's fill out the results above to
show more interesting circumstantial evidence. I'll simply consider
the number of swimmers between Evans and the first non East German
swimmer and compare this with the difference beween this compared
swimmer and the same number of swimmers below her. East Germany had a
systematic drug abuse program.

All time Top 7 times during 1990 in womens 800 metres freestyle

Name Time Off 4th Date

1 Janet Evans USA 8:16.22 -6.71 20 Aug 1989
2 Anke Mohring GDR 8:19.53 -3.40 22 Aug 1987
3 Astrid Strauss GDR 8:22.09 -0.84 24 Sep 1988
4 Julie McDonald AUS 8:22.93 0.00 24 Sep 1988
5 Janelle Elford AUS 8:24.15 +1.22 30 May 1988
6 Tracey Wickham AUS 8:24.62 +1.69 5 Aug 1978
7 Kim Linehan USA 8:24.70 +1.77 16 Aug 1979

Between Evans and first non East German swimmer Australian, fourth
ranked Julie McDonald there is a differene of 6.71 seconds. Four from
one is three. Add three to four to get seven. The difference between
Mcdonald and the seventh ranked swimmer, Kim Linehan is 1.77 seconds.
6.71 divided by 1.77 is about 3.8, or nearly four.

So between Evans and the first non East German swimmer, who is is
fourth, there is a gap of nearly four times as much as between the
fourth swimmer and the next swimmer in terms of ranking places (the
seventh ranked swimmer)!

: >I have pointed out

: >the connections Evans has to an industry and known for its association
: >with widesprread abuse of drugs in animals.

: Frankly, I find your suggestion that Dr. Evans may have pumped his daughter
: full of animal drugs to be just plain sick.

We do not know if the above occurred. Certainely many parents must
have known their children were being dosed with steroids.

: >I have pointed out lacking bulk does not mean not having used
: >steroids.

: As P.T. Barnum once said, "Who are you going to believe, me or your
: own eyes?"

I have discussed the sterotype appearance at some length.

: >I have pointed out distance events are nor precluded from

: >obtaining advantages from drug abuse.

: The effect is much smaller in the distances. East Germany and China have a
: combined total of six world championships (out of seven) in the 100 free, and
: one in the 800. East Germany has held some world records almost continuously
: since 1973, but never held the 400 free record after 1978 and had the 800
: record for less than six months in that time.

The East Germans have been 'up there' in the distance events. It is
more statistically valid to use wider samples, such as I have been
using by considering rankings for events.

: > What more do I have to say to answer Redsocks?

: You can start by explaining what Janet Evans ever did to you to provoke this
: smear campaign. It is obvious that you are less interested in talking about

: drugs than slamming Evans (witness your lengthy discourse on her education,
: which is completely irrelevant to the drug question but which provided you
: several opportunities to call her a dimwit).

Evans started the ball rolling by patronisingly and unsatisfactorily
giving Michelle Smith the 'benefit of the doubt' on public television.
I have also given Evans the 'benefit of the doubt'. The education
issue arose out of a silly comment by RunnSwim when he ridiculed me by
suggesting Evans father was a 'mad vet genius'. I replied by
suggesting their is little evidence to suppose Evans father is a
genius on the basis of Evans, and included the example of dropping out
of college. It rolled on from there. I did not call Evans a dimwit.
The education issue is irrelvant.

: >I simply used Evans because with my knowledge of her I am able to show

: >how unfair it is to point a finger at Michelle Smith when there is
: >stronger evidence against Evans. More circumstantial evidence arose out
: >of this, such as the veterinary connection.

: "Stronger evidence"? Paul Evans' veterinary training is stronger evidence
: than Erik de Bruin's doping suspension? Yeah, sure.

Any possible doping connections, such as above, are minor in
consideration against more objective criteria such as consideration of
objective performance levels as indicated further above.

At any rate Erik's doping suspension is controversial. It has been
lifted by one body and not another. If he did cheat then he looks
incompetent at not being caught. Michelle Smith was tested an
abnormally large amount of times, including randomnly, and did not
test positive. Any possible level of 'expertise' provided by Erik
will also be widely available to others, although fear of getting
caught will affect possible doping levels. Evans father is involved
in an industry in which drug abuse is widespread and their is a wide
level of expertise in drug prescribing and administration. EVANS WAS
ALSO MORE SUCCESSFUL BEFORE DRUG TESTING WAS TIGHTENED UP.

John

: --
: Redsocks (no, I'm not from Boston)
: matt...@li.net http://www.li.net/~matthewb/

: I've never done good things
: I've never done bad things
: I never did anything out of the blue
: I want an axe to break the ice
: I want to come down right now
: - David Bowie

Some more David Bowie lines from the same track as above:
'We all know Major Tom's a junkie'.
And who was Major Tom? He was an astronaut!
Some (out of order) lines from another track many years earlier (Life
on Mars?):
'Floating in a tin can'
'Far above the...'
'Congratulations Major Tom, you've really made the grade...'
'And the papers want to know whose shirt you wear'

John

John Heenan

unread,

Sep 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/2/96

to

Eric Wang (wa...@saturn.ge.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: For the record, I discount all rumors against both Smith *and* Evans. I

: do have some objections to John Heenan's attempts at constructing an
: analogy to link the two. If I understand correctly, Heenan himself
: isn't actually accusing Evans of cheating, what he's attacking is the
: anti-Smith rumor mentality, and the way he attempts to do it is to build
: up a counter-case that is (a) obviously absurd, therefore not

Stating something is absurd does not prove it is absurd.

: believable, but also (b) similar enough to the Smith case that it shows

: the latter to be equally absurd, i.e. a reasonable person must either
: accept both or reject both. Heenan's case just happens to involve Evans
: because she's an American multiple-gold-medalist swimmer, which pretty
: much narrows down the field. Under this assumption, and with the
: understanding that both Smith and Evans are innocent of all wrong-doing,
: I'll now poke some holes in Heenan's counter-case. (Corollary: John, if
: you really *are* pressing a case against Evans, then I must agree with
: the consensus of the newsgroup that you're a fruitcake gone bad.)

Using the most objective data availble, that of performance levels
against individuals from a country where drug abuse was systematic,
the case is stronger against Evans.

: da...@mpx.com.au (John Heenan) writes:
: >:> Circumstantial evidence used by others against Michelle Smith does
: >:> not share the same strengths and uniqueness.

: Well, except for de Bruin's drug banishment. Evans' closet doesn't
: contain anything that has ever been *proven* to look so much like a
: skeleton.

Evans father is part of an industry widely involved in drug abuse.

The supposed possible drug connections are really a minor issue to the
main issue of using more objective criteria, such as performance
levels.

: >Michelle Smith's supposed 'sudden improvement' is not unique.

: Prove it. Name the other gold medalists who have improved their
: times so dramatically in a similarly brief period of time, or quote
: a source that identifies them. IMHO, if such a "sudden improvement"
: were common, then the other swimmers in Atlanta wouldn't have been
: talking and whispering about Smith's performances.

Smiths time in the 400 metres was not spectacular by all time
standards. Two cases already mentioned on the newsgroup are David
Berkoff and Amanda Beard. Do I need to document the 'sudden
improvement' made by many swimmers at a young age who make their first
high profile performance? The problem with Michelle Smith is the age
at which the improvement occurred. However this is based on a false
assumption that her training and lifestyle did not alter.

[snip]

: 24" to a world-mega-elite 38" in a little over one year. The bottom

: line is that rapid increase in vertical leap is truly "not unique",
: and raises no eyebrows among vb players. AFAIK, swimmers consider
: swimming to be much different from this: it's hard to lower your
: times so drastically.

Smiths improvement was not unique. It is irrelevant that she happened
to be older. Evans performance levels are in a unique category.

: >[There] is nothing unique about her age with regards to performance.

: Actually, there is: female distance swimmers tend to excel at
: younger ages, 16-18 or so. However, consider her age and her rapid
: improvement *together*: when has a swimmer shown such a big
: improvement *at such a late age*? I'd have no trouble accepting a
: great athlete who peaked young and then held on longer than anybody
: else ever had before, or one who was great, retired, and then came
: back and was still great. But an athlete who was mediocre
: throughout her supposed "prime" years and then bloomed towards the
: end of her time is, well, fishy.

Not if they train longer, harder and differently.

: >Look at track and field. Her performances were not even remarkable by
: >all time standards.

: Nobody is accusing her because of her *performances*; we know
: perfectly well that these performances are, in principle, achievable
: by the best athletes. The rumors were based on her _meteoric
: improvement_, supposedly at an age when such improvement simply
: isn't attained.

Her improvement was hardley 'metoric'. It is possible to obtain the
improvements without the assistance of drugs.

: >Evans performances are remarkable even by all time standards compared

: >with swimmers from a country known to have had a systematic drug
: >program.

: This statement is the crux of your counter-case. You imply that
: Evans' performances are suspicious simply because no drug-using
: athlete could come close to them. I submit that it is a red
: herring, a faulty attempt to infer a connection where none exists.

I have not infered drug use or accused Evans of drug use. I have
pointed out circumstantial evidence. The rest of Eric's discussion is
somewhat dreary and unnecesary. I accept Evans may not have cheated.
I accept Michelle Smith may have cheated. I accept Evans decline may
not be related to tougher drug testing. However the suggestions I
have made are reasonable and possible, though not necessarily true.
Eric cannot prove otherwise. It is inappropriate of him to abuse me
the way he has.

John

[=====================================================================]
[ John Heenan jo...@heenan.ironbark.id.au Swim controversy Web ]
[ updated 31 July 1996 http://www.mpx.com.au/~datam/swim.html ]
[=====================================================================]

: That is like saying that you commit fraud but still don't have as

: Consider this:

: Eric Wang
: wan...@uiuc.edu

RunnSwim

unread,

Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96

to

In article <322A4B...@concentric.net>, "Mark S. Fitton"
<mark...@concentric.net> writes:

>A neutral observer, such as myself, would dare to ask, where is the ONE
>SHRED OF EVIDENCE that Michelle Smith cheated. My interpretation of John
>Heenans many, many points is that Janet Evans is just as likely to have
>cheated as Michelle Smith has..

The strongest accusation that anyone on this newsgroup has made (save for
one single facetious reply to Mr. Heenan to the effect that "common now,
if you had to bet your fortune, how would your bet?...") is simply to
state the facts of the case and then to ask if there are any precedents
for such facts. We can do the same for Evans and find many precedents.

It is one thing to out and out slander every aspect of an athlete's
persona, from her father to her intelligence, which is what has been done
to Evans, and it is quite another to raise perfectly legitimate questions,
given the very well documented recent history of doping in women's
swimming.

The following are legitimate issues for discussion:

1. Are Michelle Smith's achievements unique, without precedent, or are
there other examples?

2. How foolproof are current drug testing methods, especially as applied
to Michelle Smith?

3. If Michelle Smith's achievements are, indeed, unprecedented, then are
there credible explanations for this, apart from doping?

Preamble to points 1 - 3: Obviously, some newsgroup participants feel
that, out of fairness to Michelle Smith, these issues should not be
discussed, absent the a priori existence of proof that illegal substances
were used. If a given person feels this way, then, fine, one could begin
by debating the appropriateness of discussing points 1 - 3 in the absence
of a priori proof of wrongdoing.

What to me seems most unfortunate/inappropriate is to avoid a serious
discussion of the points 1 - 3 and even to avoid a serious discussion of
the "Preamble" question, and instead to change the issues to (1) an
unwarranted insistence that the only motivations for discussants raising
these issues are American jingoism and jealousy and/or (2) an (obvious to
most readers of these threads) unwarranted personal attack on Janet Evans.

What is most important here is the integrity and very survival of women's
sport.

Neither I nor anyone else here is in any way motivated to tarnish the
achievements of Michelle Smith, Irish sport, or Chinese sport, and
certainly not to do so out of some sick tantrum arising because American
athletes fell short of capturing every possible medal.

Rather, it is women's sport which is at stake here, and the only hope for
its future is in improved scrutiny and in the identification of areas in
which monitoring and enforcement can be improved.

Larry Weisenthal

RunnSwim

unread,

Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96

to

In article <322A5F...@concentric.net>, "Mark S. Fitton"
<mark...@concentric.net> writes:

>OK, Mary T. Meagher improved her times 3.5 seconds in the 2 years leading
up
>to her gold in the 200m butterfly.

This isn't true. Mary T's 100 and 200 records were set in, I believe,
1981, when she was 16 years old. Her Olympic gold was in 1984, when she
was already experiencing deteriorating performances. These were not close
to personal best times. She was darn lucky to come from behind to barely
win the 100. Her first world record came at age 14. She then had
incremental improvements, leading to her 2:05 high in the 200 in 1981.

Lots of girl swimmers have big time drops in their teens. I don't know of
an international level women's swimmer who has had such drops in her late
20s.

Larry Weisenthal

Martin William Smith

unread,

Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96

to

Larry Weisenthal writes:
> [...]

> It is one thing to out and out slander every aspect of an athlete's
> persona, from her father to her intelligence, which is what has been done
> to Evans, and it is quite another to raise perfectly legitimate questions,
> given the very well documented recent history of doping in women's
> swimming.
>
> The following are legitimate issues for discussion:
>
> 1. Are Michelle Smith's achievements unique, without precedent, or are
> there other examples?
>
> 2. How foolproof are current drug testing methods, especially as applied
> to Michelle Smith?
>
> 3. If Michelle Smith's achievements are, indeed, unprecedented, then are
> there credible explanations for this, apart from doping?
>
> Preamble to points 1 - 3: Obviously, some newsgroup participants feel
> that, out of fairness to Michelle Smith, these issues should not be
> discussed, absent the a priori existence of proof that illegal substances
> were used. If a given person feels this way, then, fine, one could begin
> by debating the appropriateness of discussing points 1 - 3 in the absence
> of a priori proof of wrongdoing.

I object to public discussions of these points when connected with a
specific swimmer because such discussions are unethical no matter what
good intentions are alleged. And I ask, Why discuss them?

Suppose we answer points 1 - 3 hypothetically:

1. Michelle Smith's achievements are unique and without precedent.

2. Drug testing methods are not foolproof, whether applied to
Michelle Smith or to anyone else.

3. Michelle Smith's achievements are, indeed, unprecedented and the
only other credible explanation for them, apart from doping, is that
she worked real hard and had the right combination of genes, training,
diet, and attitude.

Now what are you going to do? If we leave out the discussion, which,
in the worst case scenario, will just arrive at the above answers, and
we just cut right to that worst case scenario, what are you going to
do? What is your motivation for achieving that result? What purpose
does it serve? It proves nothing; it does nothing for the sport, and
it points the bone at Michelle Smith.

> What to me seems most unfortunate/inappropriate is to avoid a
> serious discussion of the points 1 - 3 and even to avoid a serious
> discussion of the "Preamble" question, and instead to change the
> issues to (1) an unwarranted insistence that the only motivations
> for discussants raising these issues are American jingoism and
> jealousy and/or (2) an (obvious to most readers of these threads)
> unwarranted personal attack on Janet Evans.
>
> What is most important here is the integrity and very survival of
> women's sport.

Women's sport is not going to die, Larry. But assuming it would, how
is your discussion of Michelle Smith going to help save it?

> Neither I nor anyone else here is in any way motivated to tarnish
> the achievements of Michelle Smith, Irish sport, or Chinese sport,
> and certainly not to do so out of some sick tantrum arising because
> American athletes fell short of capturing every possible medal.
>
> Rather, it is women's sport which is at stake here, and the only
> hope for its future is in improved scrutiny and in the
> identification of areas in which monitoring and enforcement can be
> improved.

What does a discussion of Michelle Smith have to do with ways of
improving monitoring and enforcement? Why don't you just discuss ways
of improving monitoring and enforcement? And include a discussion of
the costs while your at it.

John Heenan

unread,

Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96

to

Mark S. Fitton (mark...@concentric.net) wrote:

: Redsocks wrote:
: >
: > m...@metis.no (Martin William Smith) wrote:
: >
: > >Matthew writes, to John Heenan:
: > >> [...]

: > >> You can start by explaining what Janet Evans ever did to you to

: > >> provoke this smear campaign. <<<deleted stuff in here>>>>>

: > >
: > >Why have you not risen to defend Michelle Smith's reputation in the
: > >same way?
: >
: > If someone were spewing forth a similar combination of bizarre theories and
: > bald-faced lies about Smith, I would.

: > Redsocks (no, I'm not from Boston)
: > matt...@li.net http://www.li.net/~matthewb/

: SNIPPED - another inane sig file!

: Lets see if I've got you right. This woman wins gold medals and gets accused
: of steroid use because her husband is under suspension for ? (guess what, it
: wasnt steroid abuse). Then they point out the dramatic improvements in her
: times and she is asked by Jim the jerk on American national TV what she has
: to say to those who would accuse her of doping. She gets into a race she
: hadnt qualified for earlier and is taken to task for that, when many, many US
: swimmers have done similar things. (US track runners too!)
: And yet, you don't consider these to be "bizarre theories and bald faced
: lies". I am embarassed for you Matthew. I truly am. This John Heenan has
: presented rational points and counterpoints (excepting his 'dimwit'
: comments). I happen to be a Janet Evans fan, big time believe me, but he

Excellent comments from Mark. However, for the 'millionth time', I
never called Evans a dimwit!

John

: makes a good point. That is, that if one wished to, they could find as much,

: if not more circumstantial evidence against Janet, as they could for
: Michelle. I would add that Mary T. Meagher had some incredible improvements
: in the 200m butterfly in the 2 years before the 84 Games and no one EVER
: questioned her, as well they shouldnt in my opinion. Of course, in my opinion
: we shouldnt question Michelle Smith, because, after all, SHE PASSED THE
: TESTS!!! That has to count for something. Argue against changing the system
: or something, but stop showing what a homer moron you are, you're
: embarrasing me!
: Mark

John Heenan

unread,

Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96

to

Redsocks (matt...@li.net) wrote:
: m...@metis.no (Martin William Smith) wrote:
: >Matthew writes, to John Heenan:
: >> [...]
: >> You can start by explaining what Janet Evans ever did to you to

: >> provoke this smear campaign. It is obvious that you are less

: >> interested in talking about drugs than slamming Evans (witness your
: >> lengthy discourse on her education, which is completely irrelevant
: >> to the drug question but which provided you several opportunities to
: >> call her a dimwit).

: >
: >Why have you not risen to defend Michelle Smith's reputation in the
: >same way?

: If someone were spewing forth a similar combination of bizarre theories and
: bald-faced lies about Smith, I would.

1. Interesting how no one has bothered to quote what was actually said in
the issue of 'Swimming World' concerned. Maybe the facts would be too
upsetting.

2. Interesting the lies that have been told about what I said to give
the false impression of idiotic theories.

3. The issue of Evans education level is irrelevant. The group has
chosen to isolate and concentrate on statements that have had no
relevance to the central issues. I never even called Evans a dimwit.

John

Redsocks

unread,

Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96

to

"Mark S. Fitton" <mark...@concentric.net> wrote:

>Redsocks wrote:
>>
>> m...@metis.no (Martin William Smith) wrote:
>>
>> >Why have you not risen to defend Michelle Smith's reputation in the
>> >same way?
>>
>> If someone were spewing forth a similar combination of bizarre theories and
>> bald-faced lies about Smith, I would.

>Lets see if I've got you right. This woman wins gold medals and gets accused

>of steroid use because her husband is under suspension for ? (guess what, it
>wasnt steroid abuse).

Among other things. This is a person from a country with zero swimming
tradition, whose coach had zero swimming experience (in addition to his run-in
with the doping authorities), with a history of second-rate international
performances, who at a very advanced age for the sport suddenly becomes a
superstar. That sounds perfectly ordinary to you?

> And yet, you don't consider these to be "bizarre theories and bald faced
>lies". I am embarassed for you Matthew. I truly am. This John Heenan has
>presented rational points and counterpoints (excepting his 'dimwit'
>comments).

If you're going to be embarrassed for me, then at least spell it right. And
if you find Heenan's "Island of Dr. Moreau" scenario rational, then you ought
to be embarrassed for yourself.

>I would add that Mary T. Meagher had some incredible improvements
>in the 200m butterfly in the 2 years before the 84 Games and no one EVER
>questioned her, as well they shouldnt in my opinion.

Meagher scaled back her training after her dominant '79-81 period, then
stepped it back up for the Olympics. Apples and oranges.

> Of course, in my opinion
>we shouldnt question Michelle Smith, because, after all, SHE PASSED THE
>TESTS!!! That has to count for something.

Evans has passed the tests for ten years. Doesn't that count?

Redsocks

unread,

Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96

to

jo...@heenan.ironbark.id.au (John Heenan) wrote:

>Redsocks (matt...@li.net) wrote:
>: da...@mpx.com.au (John Heenan) wrote:
>:

>: >I have not infered or accused drug use. I have simply pointed out
>: >circumstantial evidence. What haven't I answered? I pointed out that in
>: >1990 Evans had nearly twice as much time in the 400 free between her and
>: >the tenth ranked swimmer of all time than between the second ranked
>: >swimmer and the tenth ranked swimmer.
>
>: This is meaningless in the absence of similar data from other events. Let's
>: look at the 800 free:

[data snipped, repeated below]

>: That's far enough. The gap between second and fourth (3.40 sec) is greater
>: than the gap between first and second (3.31).
>
>: >The second ranked swimmer was East
>: >Germany, now known to have systematically used drugs.
>
>: This is not unique to Evans.
>
>Just the one (the 400 metres) is sufficent to prove uniqueness. At
>any rate her 1500 metres time of 15:52 or so is pretty unique also.
>No other womwn below 16 minutes.

The women's 1500m is not an Olympic event, and is not widely competed, so the
results from that race are going to be less reliable than in the Olympic
events which are held on a more regular basis.

> Let's fill out the results above to
>show more interesting circumstantial evidence. I'll simply consider
>the number of swimmers between Evans and the first non East German
>swimmer and compare this with the difference beween this compared
>swimmer and the same number of swimmers below her. East Germany had a
>systematic drug abuse program.
>
>
>All time Top 7 times during 1990 in womens 800 metres freestyle
>
> Name Time Off 4th Date
>
>1 Janet Evans USA 8:16.22 -6.71 20 Aug 1989
>2 Anke Mohring GDR 8:19.53 -3.40 22 Aug 1987
>3 Astrid Strauss GDR 8:22.09 -0.84 24 Sep 1988
>4 Julie McDonald AUS 8:22.93 0.00 24 Sep 1988
>5 Janelle Elford AUS 8:24.15 +1.22 30 May 1988
>6 Tracey Wickham AUS 8:24.62 +1.69 5 Aug 1978
>7 Kim Linehan USA 8:24.70 +1.77 16 Aug 1979
>
>Between Evans and first non East German swimmer Australian, fourth
>ranked Julie McDonald there is a differene of 6.71 seconds. Four from
>one is three. Add three to four to get seven. The difference between
>Mcdonald and the seventh ranked swimmer, Kim Linehan is 1.77 seconds.
>6.71 divided by 1.77 is about 3.8, or nearly four.
>
>So between Evans and the first non East German swimmer, who is is
>fourth, there is a gap of nearly four times as much as between the
>fourth swimmer and the next swimmer in terms of ranking places (the
>seventh ranked swimmer)!

So when the data doesn't support your standard of "evidence", you change the
rules. Nice trick.

>: >I have pointed out
>: >the connections Evans has to an industry and known for its association
>: >with widesprread abuse of drugs in animals.
>
>: Frankly, I find your suggestion that Dr. Evans may have pumped his daughter
>: full of animal drugs to be just plain sick.
>
>We do not know if the above occurred. Certainely many parents must
>have known their children were being dosed with steroids.

It's not the same as dosing the children themselves. And in the Eastern Bloc,
the children were generally relocated to training centers, so the parents
would be lass aware of what was going on.

>: >I have pointed out distance events are nor precluded from
>: >obtaining advantages from drug abuse.
>
>: The effect is much smaller in the distances. East Germany and China have a
>: combined total of six world championships (out of seven) in the 100 free, and
>: one in the 800. East Germany has held some world records almost continuously
>: since 1973, but never held the 400 free record after 1978 and had the 800
>: record for less than six months in that time.
>
>The East Germans have been 'up there' in the distance events. It is
>more statistically valid to use wider samples, such as I have been
>using by considering rankings for events.

Look at those rankings again. The eighth place is held by Tiffany Cohen
(8:24.95, 3 Aug 1984). So six of the top eight all-time (as of 1990) 800m
swimmers were from non-Communist countries.

>Some (out of order) lines from another track many years earlier (Life
>on Mars?):

"Space Oddity"

Eric Wang

unread,

Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96

to

"Mark S. Fitton" <mark...@concentric.net> writes:

>Florence Griffith Joyner dramatically improved her times for the 1992

>gold in the 100m track event. Bob Beamons leap in 68!

I wrote:
>> ... Volleyball places great value on vertical leaping ability
>> ... [players] can usually gain around 6"-12" of improvement

>> through this specialized jump training.

"Mark S. Fitton" <mark...@concentric.net> writes:
>Also volleyball is not swimming, so this entire bit is irrelevant.

But vertical leaping is not volleyball, only a small part of it.
Pure vertical leaping is very similar in physical demands and
training methods to track and field events such as sprinting and
jumping. Your misunderstanding aside, "this entire bit" is just as
relevant as any of the track and field events you quoted above.

>> >[There] is nothing unique about her age with regards to performance.
>>
>> Actually, there is: female distance swimmers tend to excel at
>> younger ages, 16-18 or so. However, consider her age and her rapid
>> improvement *together*: when has a swimmer shown such a big
>> improvement *at such a late age*?

>Umm, right off the top of my head, how about Pablo Morales in the 1992
>Olympics. His times dropped even more dramatically than Smiths did. I

>missed the furor over rumors of his drug usage. Again, I'm only
>countering your counters.

Perhaps I'm not up to speed on swimming, but in every other sport
with which I'm familiar, it's not valid to compare men to women. I
know about Morales' comeback; see next paragraph. Can you name any
*female swimmers* as examples, with improvements of the same order
of magnitude?

>> I'd have no trouble accepting a great athlete who peaked young
>> and then held on longer than anybody else ever had before, or one
>> who was great, retired, and then came back and was still great.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Again, you could use Pablo Morales as an example.

In fact, I was thinking of Morales when I wrote that line, as I
didn't know of any other swimmers who had come back from retirement
to win a gold medal.

>Several factors contribute to this: improper early training, lazy
>training, improved techniques, changes in coaching, heavier training or
>lighter training, physiological traits unique to each individual. So,
>YES, at her age it could simply be attained.

Agreed. This is precisely the reason why I ignored the rumors
against Smith. I figured that she had simply not been training up
to her full potential until just recently. As you've mentioned,
there are at least two sources of "meteoric improvement": (1) when
you first start training seriously, raising you from human-average
performance to dedicated-athlete performance, and (2) drugs, which
can raise you from athlete to supra-athlete. It's never too late in
life to achieve (1). Note that the same holds true for vertical
leaping in volleyball (or basketball, gridiron football, gymnastics,
or any other sport that emphasizes jumping -- vb simply places more
emphasis on it than most sports, hence it's a bigger issue), and for
the same reasons.

>>> Evans performances are remarkable even by all time standards compared
>>> with swimmers from a country known to have had a systematic drug
>>> program.
>>
>> This statement is the crux of your counter-case. You imply that
>> Evans' performances are suspicious simply because no drug-using
>> athlete could come close to them. I submit that it is a red
>> herring, a faulty attempt to infer a connection where none exists.

>And I submit that you have never looked at a record book for the 400m &
>800m womens freestyles. Check out the statistical variance in her
>winning times in 1988 with the other winning times. Quite simply, it IS
>A REMARKABLE DIFFERENCE.

I think you miss the point. I am saying that Heenan builds his case
by putting two unrelated statements ("East Germans used drugs" and
and "Evans was still faster") side-by-side to trick the reader into
making an unsound deduction ("Evans must have used drugs"). Such a
deduction would be sound if and only if the "fact"

"Drugs are the *only* possible way to improve speed!"

were true. Is it? We seem to agree that it is not; swimmers can
improve in other ways.

In addition, I claim that swimmers, like all athletes, have
different maximum potentials. Two swimmers who both train equally
hard using identical work-outs with identical resources for the same
length of time with the same amount of effort, determination,
commitment, and sacrifice may still end up with vastly different
best performances. That's enough for me to explain Evans' success,
and the success of all other superstars in other events (Edwin Moses
and Sergei Bubka spring to mind). The East Germans' drug abuse is
as irrelevant to Evans' stature as any other nations' methods or
habits. The Japanese swimmers had a systemic rice-based diet; did
Evans necessarily eat more rice than they did? The French and
Italian swimmers regularly consumed wine with their meals; must we
believe that Evans drank more wine than they did? There are an
unlimited number of these spurious properties and characteristics
that you could dig up among Evans' competitors such that (1) they
all had property P, and (2) they all lost to Evans. This doesn't
imply that Evans has property P; maybe she beat them because she was
just flat-out a better swimmer. Property P could be "trains in cold
water", or "likes chocolate ice cream", or "starts slowly but
finishes strong", or "uses performance-enhancing drugs", or anything
else. Logically, they're all equally irrelevant; none of them
necessarily pertain to Evans just because she swam faster. *If*
Heenan claimed and proved the "fact" given above, that drugs are the
*only* possible way to explain Evans' advantage over the East
Germans, *then* her drug usage would follow. Obviously, such proof
does not exist. Hence, Heenan attempts to dupe the readers into
making the connection on their own by placing the statements
side-by-side, *as if* they formed a valid logical inference. Most
people don't know formal logic well enough to see through such a
trap.

In any case, the actual times of Evans' victories are irrelevant
(else Heenan would have included them in his "case" against Evans,
no?) The flaw lies in the semantics of Heenan's presentation, not
in his factual content.

>> Cub Scouts can think back to your soapbox derbies: everybody is
>> given a small bag of parts, basically a block of wood and four
>> plastic wheels, and you can whittle any shape you like from your
>> block of wood, but you can't add any wood to it, and you absolutely
>> may not glue additional lead weights into hollow cavities in its

>> belly. ^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^

>Ummm, when was the last time you did a Cub Scouts Pinewood Derby. I did with
>my son last year and you can add weights up to a certain overall weight for
>the vehicle. Check your data first:)

20 years ago; I did it myself. Way back then, we could add one or
two weights to the underside of the front of the car, but not inside
the car cavity, for reasons unknown (imagine trying to explain the
physics involved to 3rd-graders). Our instruction sheets
specifically included a diagram of a car with a cut-out in its belly
hiding some weights, with a big red X over the whole picture.

The point remains the same: the input set of each car is
sufficiently restricted that there cannot be significant variation
among the top performers. The same is not true for humans, though,
since we don't all start from the same bag of parts, and we're not
restricted to the same size, volume, body weight, muscle mass,
slow/fast fiber distribution, neural control, etc. etc. No matter
how high a world record is set, there will eventually be that
"one-in-a-lifetime" superstar who arrives on the scene to break it.

>> Over a ~ 50' track, good cars will win by a couple of
>> body-lengths or so, which is considered to be normal. Thus, a car
>> that beats all comers by 20' is immediately and thoroughly checked
>> for hollow cavities, and provides its own justification for doing
>> so: such a winning margin cannot be explained by anything in the
>> parts kit.

>In reality, all vehicles equal, track also equal, that would never happen,
>without some outside force at work. NEVER.

*Precisely* my point: it can't happen fairly, thus there must be
something unfair, either in the car or on the track. So if it
happens, you check the car, and probably find reason to disqualify
it. (And I did, in fact, see such a car a few years afterwards, in
my middle school's shop room. The car was machined from a solid
piece of aluminum and weighed a couple of pounds, but was painted to
look like paint-over-wood, so you couldn't tell it was a ringer
until you saw it rumbling across the floor, ramming things out of
the way :-)

>It is entirely possible, in my mind probable, that Michelle was a lazy
>trainer, so she never 'peaked' until this year and hasnt 'burned out'
>yet.

Agreed; this is also my opinion.

>As I recall, the initial accusations against the East Germans started
>from a comparison of their times to others.

But it was strengthened by the *number* of East Germans who were
achieving this time, the consistent "quality" of the entire East
German team, and their dynasty over many years. If we'd produced
the same kind of dynasty, then I'd wonder about us, too.

>> Consider this:
>>
>> (1) I put a gun to my girls' heads and told them I'd shoot
>> them if they swam too slowly.
>> (2) Janet Evans still swims faster than my girls do!
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> (3) I wonder who's holding the gun at *Janet's* head.

>I absolutely do not see how this relates to the issue. Psychological torture
>cant compare to drug enhancement. Mr. Heenan did not use that 'trick'.

You miss the point. This is the "trick" I accuse Heenan of using:
{ // begin TRICK

I want to prove the following:
(4) E has property Q [P="Janet Evans", Q="uses drugs"].

I have: (1) G has property Q [G="East Germans", P="uses drugs"].
(3) E has property P [E="Janet Evans", P="swims faster"].

Unfortunately I do *not* have:
(2) P implies Q ["faster swimming is *only* from drugs"].

(4) follows logically from (1,2,3), but not from (1,3) only.
But I'll trick the reader into *thinking* that it does, just by
writing (1) and (3) next to each other:

(1) East German swimmers used drugs.
(3) Evans swam faster.
--------------------------------
(4) Evans used drugs!

} // end TRICK

That's simply faulty logic, regardless of the people E and G or the
properties P and Q. If you can't prove statement (2), then there is
no logical connection between (1) and (3). We can change property Q
from "uses drugs" to "has gun pointed at head", as I did above, or
to "likes chocolate ice cream", "votes Republican", "sings tenor",
or anything else, and conclusion (4) still doesn't follow without
statement (2). The connection between (1) and (3) is the red
herring; it may look suspicious, especially if it plays off the
reader's own paranoia, but it doesn't hold water. Simply by
changing property Q to something silly, like "brings teddy bear to
every event", we see that this 1-3-4 "deduction" is actually
specious, and proves nothing. So it proves nothing about Evans'
alleged drug usage, too.

>> I've used your own trick against you here; I hope you can appreciate
>> the irony.

By this, I mean that Heenan attempts to defend Michelle Smith by
counter-attacking against Evans in such a way that both "attacks"
must be rejected together. I challenge the *semantic structure* of
Heenan's case against Evans in such a way that the very same
semantic structure must allow us to make many ridiculous
"conclusions" about Evans (for example, that she likes chocolate ice
cream more than the East German swimmers do), and in rejecting these
"conclusions", as we must, we also have to reject Heenan's case
against Evans, as it is currently constructed.

>Everyone has the right to an opinion Eric, I think Mr. Heenan has made some
>good points and used sound logic.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The predicate calculus doesn't agree. Modus ponens, the
fundamental rule of logical deduction, says,

From "A" and "A implies B", conclude "B".

From "A" and "B implies C", you get bupkus.

>in America, we are supposed to be INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Michelle Smith is innocent in my book, and always has been. This is
Predicate Calculus vs. John Heenan's Case Against Evans, and Case
Against Evans has a mighty big fudge factor that demands
clarification.

Eric Wang
wan...@uiuc.edu

Eric Wang

unread,

Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96

to

da...@mpx.com.au (John Heenan) writes:
>:>:> Circumstantial evidence used by others against Michelle Smith does
>:>:> not share the same strengths and uniqueness.

Eric Wang (wa...@saturn.ge.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>: Well, except for de Bruin's drug banishment. Evans' closet doesn't
>: contain anything that has ever been *proven* to look so much like a
>: skeleton.

>Evans father is part of an industry widely involved in drug abuse.

But he hasn't been *proven* to have abused those drugs, or had his
certification revoked for it.

>The problem with Michelle Smith is the age at which the improvement
>occurred. However this is based on a false assumption that her
>training and lifestyle did not alter.

Absolutely. "Meteoric improvement" can occur from at least two
sources, (1) when first beginning a dedicated training program, and
(2) drugs and whatnot. There's no age-limit for an athlete to
benefit from (1). From what I've heard, Smith radically increased
her training intensity right around the time of her improvement. To
me, that's enough to explain her success.

>However the suggestions I have made are reasonable and possible, though
>not necessarily true. Eric cannot prove otherwise.

I have no comment about your factual or hypothetical statements, but
*only* and solely about your comparison between Evans and the East
German swimmers, and your insinuation that this comprises evidence,
however circumstantial, for drug abuse by Evans. This is, I feel, a
logically unsubstantiated comparison, *seemingly* impressive but in
actuality only misleading. To put it briefly, you're missing a step
in your logical "proof".

>It is inappropriate of him to abuse me the way he has.

You have begun and perpetuated a public debate, which I've decided
to join. Everything you say is fair game for rebuttal, just as is
everything I write. I am calling you to task for the logical flaws
I perceive in the semantic structure of your argument, and have
provided considerable explanation of my own position. Rebut it
point-by-point, if you like, and if you can.

If you consider it "abuse" for a debater to challenge your
statements, that's something you'll have to deal with. Do you
expect us to hold you up on some sort of pedestal, safe from the
stinging barbs of disagreement and discourse, simply because of your
reputation or past contributions? No, sir, you'll defend and
explain your statements and respond to all challenges, or you're not
worth taking seriously.

Eric Wang
wan...@uiuc.edu

Redsocks

unread,

Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96

to

jo...@heenan.ironbark.id.au (John Heenan) wrote:

>Redsocks (matt...@li.net) wrote:

>: m...@metis.no (Martin William Smith) wrote:
>:
>: >Why have you not risen to defend Michelle Smith's reputation in the
>: >same way?
>
>: If someone were spewing forth a similar combination of bizarre theories and
>: bald-faced lies about Smith, I would.
>

>1. Interesting how no one has bothered to quote what was actually said in
>the issue of 'Swimming World' concerned. Maybe the facts would be too
>upsetting.

My "Swimming World" back-issue collection isn't as complete as yours. Why
don't *you* quote it. I'd love to see it.

>3. The issue of Evans education level is irrelevant. The group has
>chosen to isolate and concentrate on statements that have had no
>relevance to the central issues. I never even called Evans a dimwit.

You made several references to "special cases" and "sub-standard SAT scores",
which were obviously intended to give the impression that Evans wasn't
qualified to enter Stanford in the first place and dropped out because she
couldn't handle it. You also used Zhong's term "moron" more than once, always
denying authorship of course.

You started the education thing. You brought up the issue of the "non-degree
program" that she was allegedly placed in. For you to blame us for the
diversion is disingenuous at best.

RunnSwim

unread,

Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96

to

In article <wgsp90f...@norne.metis.no>, m...@metis.no (Martin William
Smith) writes:

>Women's sport is not going to die, Larry. But assuming it would, how
>is your discussion of Michelle Smith going to help save it?
>

Women's sport will die, because the world's best women's long jumper would
only be ranked 130th, were she a man (I learned this from watching Nike
commercials on US television during the Olympics). Steroids make a women
part-way into a man and offer a huge advantage that no amount of training
can compensate for.

Remember Rene Richards? Years after he was castrated, he/she still had a
big advantage as a middle aged tennis player over young women in their
primes.

As I have stated before, it is unfortunate that doping obviously exists in
women's sport and has had a huge negative effect on "clean" competitors,
such as Shirley Babashoff.

A price which must be paid by a women athlete who does something very
unusual is for that athlete to undergo scrutiny and questioning. The
achievements of Florence Griffith Joyner in 1988 were very unusual. She
paid the price of scrutiny and questioning. In the end, she got 95% of
the credit, despite the questioning and scrutiny. Michelle Smith will
also end up with 95% of the credit, despite the current scrutiny. The 5%
"tax" is not an unreasonable price to pay, given recent history.

If, after scrutiny and questioning, lingering questions remain, then this
will serve as an added impetus for improved methods for monitoring. It
has been alleged here that she avoided/was unavailable for some tests.
Modern drugs have short half-lives and other drugs cannot be detected. In
the future, I would, for example, require a country to list its top
athletes for a minimum of one year before an important international
competition (world championships and/or Olympics). Such athletes would be
required to be always available for unannounced, out of competition
testing, which should be blood testing, if necessary and appropriate.
Were they not available, they could not compete. This would make it
impossible for a new athlete to burst upon the scene at a last minute,
which is undesirable, but preferable to having the sport ruined by
cheaters. With regard to cost, this would have to be borne by the
national sports federations. Countries with may elite athletes would have
high costs. Countries with few elite athletes would have low costs.

But swimming generated huge TV ratings. In large measure, this was due to
women viewers tuning in to see clean young women athletes. Virtually no
one will tune in to watch dishonest competitions between normal and
pharmacologically-altered women. So it is a cost which must be borne. To
do otherwise is to be penny-wise and pound-foolish.

What is the purpose of discussing these things here? You might be
surprised at the number of influential people in the
coaching/administration/publication/governance of swimming who actually
read this stuff. I have personally received not a few e-mails from these
people.

It is not necessary for us all to agree. But it would be decent if people
could just acknowledge that one's motives for discussing these issues can
be constructive in their intent.

Larry Weisenthal

Mark S. Fitton

unread,

Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96

to

Eric Wang wrote:
>
> By this, I mean that Heenan attempts to defend Michelle Smith by
> counter-attacking against Evans in such a way that both "attacks"
> must be rejected together. I challenge the *semantic structure* of
> Heenan's case against Evans in such a way that the very same
> semantic structure must allow us to make many ridiculous
> "conclusions" about Evans (for example, that she likes chocolate ice
> cream more than the East German swimmers do), and in rejecting these
> "conclusions", as we must, we also have to reject Heenan's case
> against Evans, as it is currently constructed.
>
> >Everyone has the right to an opinion Eric, I think Mr. Heenan has made some
> >good points and used sound logic.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> The predicate calculus doesn't agree. Modus ponens, the
> fundamental rule of logical deduction, says,
>
> From "A" and "A implies B", conclude "B".
>
> From "A" and "B implies C", you get bupkus.
>
> >in America, we are supposed to be INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
>
> Michelle Smith is innocent in my book, and always has been. This is
> Predicate Calculus vs. John Heenan's Case Against Evans, and Case
> Against Evans has a mighty big fudge factor that demands
> clarification.
>
> Eric Wang
> wan...@uiuc.edu

Eric, we seem to agree on most every point, but for the sticking point. I
did say his argument had some holes, you hit upon them of course:)I believe
(and I could be wrong) that Heenan was simply attacking Americas best
swimming hero because of the unfair abuse Michelle Smith took. I think he
meant to point out that "circumstantially" one could make accusations about
Janet as the media and others have done about Michelle. I do not believe that
Heenan actually believes Janet did drugs. Again, I could be wrong about that,
but I'm sure we will hear from him. Good post, by the way. The vertical
leaping stuff confused me, but you're right about it. (I think:-)
Mark

Al Spohn

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

In article <322E30...@concentric.net>, "Mark S. Fitton"

> Eric, we seem to agree on most every point, but for the sticking point. I
> did say his argument had some holes, you hit upon them of course:)I believe
> (and I could be wrong) that Heenan was simply attacking Americas best
> swimming hero because of the unfair abuse Michelle Smith took. I think he
> meant to point out that "circumstantially" one could make accusations about
> Janet as the media and others have done about Michelle. I do not believe that
> Heenan actually believes Janet did drugs. Again, I could be wrong about that,
> but I'm sure we will hear from him. Good post, by the way. The vertical
> leaping stuff confused me, but you're right about it. (I think:-)

You're absolutely right, and Mr. Heenan has clarified this again and again.
Another point that he has to keep repeating is that he never called Evans a
dimwit. And although his arguments have a few thin spots here and there
(like everyone's), I agree completely with his motivation. No matter how
much Evans might appear to getting "beat up on" in this group, such
treatment really pales compared to what Michelle Smith has been subjected
to by multiple hack journalist and snotty athletes (which in my opinion
included Evans in this case, great swimmer that she is).

- Al

--
* Al Spohn * sp...@millcomm.com*
http://www.millcomm.com/~spohn/

Martin William Smith

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

Larry Weisenthal writes:

> Martin Smith wrote:
> >Women's sport is not going to die, Larry. But assuming it would, how
> >is your discussion of Michelle Smith going to help save it?
>
> Women's sport will die, because the world's best women's long jumper
> would only be ranked 130th, were she a man (I learned this from
> watching Nike commercials on US television during the Olympics).
> Steroids make a women part-way into a man and offer a huge advantage
> that no amount of training can compensate for.

What is the limit on masculine features in a woman, Larry? Can she
have a moustache? Is she allowed to have hairy legs? We went through
this about 35 years ago when female athletes were routinely accused of
being male because they didn't look like barbi dolls.

And elsewhere in this thread, John Heenan pointed out that Janet Evans
trounced the East Germans who apparently used steroids, so your claim
that "Steroids ... offer a huge advantage that no amount of training
can compensate for," is false - unless you mean to accuse Janet Evans
of using steroids.

> Remember Rene Richards? Years after he was castrated, he/she still
> had a big advantage as a middle aged tennis player over young women
> in their primes.

But he didn't destroy women's tennis. And Billie Jean King demolished
Bobby Rigg.

> As I have stated before, it is unfortunate that doping obviously
> exists in women's sport and has had a huge negative effect on
> "clean" competitors, such as Shirley Babashoff.

I agree.

> A price which must be paid by a women athlete who does something
> very unusual is for that athlete to undergo scrutiny and
> questioning.

No. All athletes should who want to compete at that level should be
subject to a standardized testing system, and nothing more.

> The achievements of Florence Griffith Joyner in 1988 were very
> unusual. She paid the price of scrutiny and questioning. In the
> end, she got 95% of the credit, despite the questioning and
> scrutiny. Michelle Smith will also end up with 95% of the credit,
> despite the current scrutiny. The 5% "tax" is not an unreasonable
> price to pay, given recent history.

I don't understand your measurements. What is the 5% tax? Do you
mean it is reasonable for a swimmer to have her integrity publicly
hammered by TV commentators and newsgroup posters and others?

> If, after scrutiny and questioning, lingering questions remain, then
> this will serve as an added impetus for improved methods for
> monitoring.

Are you saying that your way of getting FINA to improve monitoring is
to throw verbal mud at a few swimmers? Why not just demand that FINA
improve monitoring, and leave the swimmers alone?

> It has been alleged here that she avoided/was unavailable for some
> tests. Modern drugs have short half-lives and other drugs cannot be
> detected. In the future, I would, for example, require a country to
> list its top athletes for a minimum of one year before an important
> international competition (world championships and/or Olympics).
> Such athletes would be required to be always available for
> unannounced, out of competition testing, which should be blood
> testing, if necessary and appropriate. Were they not available,
> they could not compete. This would make it impossible for a new
> athlete to burst upon the scene at a last minute, which is
> undesirable, but preferable to having the sport ruined by cheaters.
> With regard to cost, this would have to be borne by the national
> sports federations. Countries with may elite athletes would have
> high costs. Countries with few elite athletes would have low costs.

You say you will sacrifice the phenomenon of "a new athlete [bursting]
upon the scene at a last minute" because this is preferable to having
the sport ruined by cheaters. To save the sport you will destroy this
part of the sport. What other parts of the sport will you destroy to
save it?

> But swimming generated huge TV ratings. In large measure, this was
> due to women viewers tuning in to see clean young women athletes.

How do you know that? I would say a lot of people tuned in because of
the controversy. Bob Costas, et al, are there to raise interest.
Swimming is a pretty boring sport to watch for non-swimmers.

> Virtually no one will tune in to watch dishonest competitions
> between normal and pharmacologically-altered women.

I would. Give me a "Rocky" style David and Goliath competition every
time. I would also watch if steroids were legal and the competitions
were honest.

> What is the purpose of discussing these things here? You might be
> surprised at the number of influential people in the
> coaching/administration/publication/governance of swimming who
> actually read this stuff. I have personally received not a few
> e-mails from these people.

I asked the question - What is *your* purpose of discussing these
things here? - in relation to Michelle Smith, not in relation to the
legitimate issues of improvement of monitoring and enforcement. If
you want to discuss the legitimate issues, fine. They have nothing to
do with Michelle Smith.

> It is not necessary for us all to agree. But it would be decent if
> people could just acknowledge that one's motives for discussing
> these issues can be constructive in their intent.

Noam Chomsky calls this The Doctrine of Good Intentions. It is the
doctrine that if you have good intentions, then you can say anything
you want.

You can say anything you want, Larry, but I don't have to let it pass
just because you have good intentions.

David Swarbrick

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

In article <50gdkc$g...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> runn...@aol.com "RunnSwim" writes:

] It is one thing to out and out slander every aspect of an athlete's

] persona, from her father to her intelligence, which is what has been done
] to Evans, and it is quite another to raise perfectly legitimate questions,
] given the very well documented recent history of doping in women's
] swimming.

The 'perfectly legitimate' questions are not such when you leave
disgraceful innuendo against an individual swimmer who just happens
to have upset your own favourite.

]
] The following are legitimate issues for discussion:

No, not unless you are prepared to discuss precisely the same issues
against your own swimmers.

It clearly hurts you to have others talk about Mary Evans without
any proper cause. I agree that the talk generated is nonsense. It
is constructed on the very poorest of evidence and is nothing more
than someone hitting back against others who have cheaply and
falsely maligned someone who should be applauded to the skies
for her efforts.

Unfortunately for you, and precisely, the same applies to your own
comments on Michelle Smith.

--
David Swarbrick, Solicitor, 22 Bradford Rd, Brighouse, West Yorks HD6 1RW
da...@swarb.demon.co.uk - http://www.lawsoc.org.uk/swarbrick
Tel: Office +44(0)1484 722531 Fax +44(0)1484 716617

David Swarbrick

unread,

Sep 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/5/96

to

In article <wgsp90f...@norne.metis.no>
m...@metis.no "Martin William Smith" writes:

] Larry Weisenthal writes:
] > [...]

] > It is one thing to out and out slander every aspect of an athlete's
] > persona, from her father to her intelligence, which is what has been done
] > to Evans, and it is quite another to raise perfectly legitimate questions,
] > given the very well documented recent history of doping in women's
] > swimming.

A shameful statement because

] I object to public discussions of these points when connected with a

] specific swimmer because such discussions are unethical no matter what
] good intentions are alleged. And I ask, Why discuss them?

I think you should have stopped there.

RunnSwim

unread,

Sep 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/6/96

to

In article <wgloepf...@norne.metis.no>, m...@metis.no (Martin William
Smith) writes:

>Are you saying that your way of getting FINA to improve monitoring is
>to throw verbal mud at a few swimmers? Why not just demand that FINA
>improve monitoring, and leave the swimmers alone?

There is a huge difference between "throwing mud," and asking perfectly
reasonable questions.

To re-state:

1. Are Smith's achievements with precedent or without precedent?

2. Are current methods of drug testing adequate to preclude doping in
athletes who "test negative?"

3. If Smith's achievement are unprecedented, then are there other
explanations for the improvements beyond doping?

If you subtract out all of the screaming and howling that the above
questions are not suitable topics for public consideration and subtract
out all of the smokescreen charges against Janet Evans, then there has
been a remarkable degree of useful information and opinions provided by
participants on this thread. I am going to pull them out, patch them
together, and send them to US Swimming, FINA, and Swimming World. I don't
know whether or not this will accomplish anything, but I hope that it will
add one more measure of impetus for much-needed improvement in drug
monitoring.

The very existence of this controversy is testimony to the need for such
improvement.

>>You can say anything you want, Larry, but I don't have to let it pass
just because you have good intentions.<<

Rather than constructively participating in a discussion on legitimate
questions 1-3, above, you have chosen instead to condemn those of us
(including the Irish national swim team member whose well-considered
discussion of the above issues initiated most of the long and lingering
discussions on this topic) who have tried to consider these issues
dispassionately.

You have made your feelings on the topic of drug testing well known. You
have publicly stated that elite athletes should be permitted to take
whatever drugs they wished and that no one should be subjected to testing.

With this point of view, your comments on this thread are perfectly
understandable.

I do not, however, respect this point of view.

Larry Weisenthal

Redsocks

unread,

Sep 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/6/96

to

wa...@saturn.ge.uiuc.edu (Eric Wang) wrote:

>da...@mpx.com.au (John Heenan) writes:

>>Evans father is part of an industry widely involved in drug abuse.
>

> But he hasn't been *proven* to have abused those drugs, or had his
> certification revoked for it.

You know, if you take five minutes and look at the verterinary-science issue,
the lunacy of Heenan's allegation becomes readily apparent. All it takes is a
few simple questions ....

Q: What are Evans' main physical strengths (athletically speaking ;) )?
A: Endurance and aerobic capacity.

Q: Are those traits useful and desirable in farm animals?
A: No.

Q: Would veterinary scientists produce drugs that promote those traits?
A: No.

Q: Would Dr. Evans have access to such drugs to use on his child?
A: No.

If she had turned out to be a champion shotputter, that would be one thing.
But a distance swimmer?

William A. T. Clark

unread,

Sep 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/6/96

to

In article <32307563...@newshost.li.net>, matt...@li.net (Redsocks)
wrote:

> wa...@saturn.ge.uiuc.edu (Eric Wang) wrote:
>
> >da...@mpx.com.au (John Heenan) writes:
>

> >>Evans father is part of an industry widely involved in drug abuse.
> >

> > But he hasn't been *proven* to have abused those drugs, or had his
> > certification revoked for it.
>
> You know, if you take five minutes and look at the verterinary-science issue,
> the lunacy of Heenan's allegation becomes readily apparent. All it takes is a
> few simple questions ....
>
> Q: What are Evans' main physical strengths (athletically speaking ;) )?
> A: Endurance and aerobic capacity.
>
> Q: Are those traits useful and desirable in farm animals?
> A: No.
>
> Q: Would veterinary scientists produce drugs that promote those traits?
> A: No.
>
> Q: Would Dr. Evans have access to such drugs to use on his child?
> A: No.
>
> If she had turned out to be a champion shotputter, that would be one thing.
> But a distance swimmer?
>

Maybe the connection is in her being able to come across like the rear end
of a horse in press conferences.

William Clark

Al Spohn

unread,

Sep 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/6/96

to

In article <322EF6...@spss.com>, Black Diamond Dave <don...@spss.com> wrote:

> Al Spohn wrote:
> >
> > No matter how much Evans might appear to getting "beat up on" in this
> > group, such treatment really pales compared to what Michelle Smith has

> > been subjected to by multiple hack journalist and snotty athletes my
> > (which in opinion included Evans in this case, great swimmer that she is).
>
>
> It's ironic that you defend Michelle Smith's treatment from the media
> but
> do not consider that Janet Evans may have been victimized, as well.

That's a very good point, I must admit.

> I worked the Olympic swimming events on the ACOG press information
> staff. I transcribed the post-race press conference held after Janet
> Evans failed to qualify for the final in the 400m Freestyle. Evans was
> bombarded by questions from the media about Michelle Smith. So she
> answered them. I listened closely
> to see whether she would "bite" the bait from the media and accuse Smith
> of using drugs. She never did. She was very diplomatic. She said she
> didn't know. She said Smith should get the benefit of the doubt. She did
> acknowledge that Smith was a topic of discussion on deck. When a swimmer
> improves so rapidly after swimming internationally for years, that's
> what will happen. The next day, the media took Evans' quotes out of
> context on this issue and out of context about Smith's late entry and
> Evans was labeled a sore loser. I would go into this issue more but I
> don't have the time right now, nor do I have the transcript of the Evans
> press conference in front of me. I just wanted to make the point that
> the media generates controversy to keep people interested. Evans was
> very fair to Smith, but instead of reporting that, the media isolated a
> few quotes, out of context, and made Evans into a sore loser.

Thanks for the info, but I guess I'm torn about how to feel about this
because my comments are based exclusively on what Evans said in her
interview on NBC with Jim Grey (a super-hack, in my opinion). For me it
wasn't necessarily only what she said, but how she said it. In my opinion
she left little doubt that she felt Smith's achievements were dubious at
best. But I suppose I should also consider that she may have remained
totally silent on the issue if it weren't for the relentless prodding by
the media.

As for Smith's improvement, I still feel the attention it recieved was
really unwarranted - it wasn't nearly spectacular enough relative to the
personal histories of other swimmers to recieve such scrutiny.

> By the way, no matter what you hear about Smith's late entry, the facts
> are this: (1) Smith's qualifying time was swum after the entry deadline
> (2) The IOC bent the rules because Smith was the #1 ranked swimmer in
> the world. (3) The excuse of a miscommunication between the Irish NOC
> and ACOG was just that: an excuse. They knew the rules. Other swimmers
> had a right to be upset about Smith's entry in the 400m Freestyle. Every
> other swimmer in that meet met their entry deadline. When rules are not
> applied uniformly, what's the point in having them?

I agree with you completely on this one.

> Finally, I should say the Smith handled herself admirably in front of
> the media. I agree with Evans that Smith should get the benefit of the
> doubt unless drug testing (although it's not foolproof) proves
> otherwise. U.S. Swimming's executive director Ray Essick said the same
> thing. He only had an issue about the late entry, because the rules were
> bent. It should be noted that the U.S. (and other countries) filed a
> protest on the late entry before Smith had swum ANY of her events. It
> was not a matter of being a sore loser, Smith hadn't won anything. It's
> a matter of the IOC following its own rules.

We're in agreement again. Thanks again for the post - it was educational
for me! I'm always happy to be given cause to re-think things!

phil. Felton

unread,

Sep 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/6/96

to

In article <322EF6...@spss.com>, Black Diamond Dave <don...@spss.com> wrote:

> Al Spohn wrote:
(deleted)

> Finally, I should say the Smith handled herself admirably in front of
> the media. I agree with Evans that Smith should get the benefit of the
> doubt unless drug testing (although it's not foolproof) proves
> otherwise. U.S. Swimming's executive director Ray Essick said the same
> thing. He only had an issue about the late entry, because the rules were
> bent. It should be noted that the U.S. (and other countries) filed a
> protest on the late entry before Smith had swum ANY of her events. It
> was not a matter of being a sore loser, Smith hadn't won anything. It's
> a matter of the IOC following its own rules.

As I recall it was FINA's rule which was different from the IOC and other
federation's rules regarding the entry deadline. Anyway it surely wasn't
Smith's responsibility for the late entry but the Irish Federation?

Phil.

John Heenan

unread,

Sep 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/7/96

to

Hey! RunnSwim has given me a good laugh! He lectures us about
appropriate standards and topics for discussion while many of these
standards and topics are being addressed by others without his
contributions, clearly ignores the standards I and others have upheld
and he hasn't and continues to drag on points related to what he
inappropriately exaggerated and have had falsely attributed to me.
These points have no relevance to the current issues and I have raised
more points that have not been addressed. I commented appropriately
as a side issue given the evidence available (Evans academic
qualities).

Would it be fair to call RunnSwim a parasite?

John

RunnSwim (runn...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <322A4B...@concentric.net>, "Mark S. Fitton"
: <mark...@concentric.net> writes:

: >A neutral observer, such as myself, would dare to ask, where is the ONE

: >SHRED OF EVIDENCE that Michelle Smith cheated. My interpretation of John
: >Heenans many, many points is that Janet Evans is just as likely to have
: >cheated as Michelle Smith has..

: The strongest accusation that anyone on this newsgroup has made (save for
: one single facetious reply to Mr. Heenan to the effect that "common now,
: if you had to bet your fortune, how would your bet?...") is simply to
: state the facts of the case and then to ask if there are any precedents
: for such facts. We can do the same for Evans and find many precedents.

: It is one thing to out and out slander every aspect of an athlete's

: persona, from her father to her intelligence, which is what has been done
: to Evans, and it is quite another to raise perfectly legitimate questions,
: given the very well documented recent history of doping in women's
: swimming.

: The following are legitimate issues for discussion:

: 1. Are Michelle Smith's achievements unique, without precedent, or are
: there other examples?

: 2. How foolproof are current drug testing methods, especially as applied
: to Michelle Smith?

: 3. If Michelle Smith's achievements are, indeed, unprecedented, then are
: there credible explanations for this, apart from doping?

: Preamble to points 1 - 3: Obviously, some newsgroup participants feel
: that, out of fairness to Michelle Smith, these issues should not be
: discussed, absent the a priori existence of proof that illegal substances
: were used. If a given person feels this way, then, fine, one could begin
: by debating the appropriateness of discussing points 1 - 3 in the absence
: of a priori proof of wrongdoing.

: What to me seems most unfortunate/inappropriate is to avoid a serious

: discussion of the points 1 - 3 and even to avoid a serious discussion of
: the "Preamble" question, and instead to change the issues to (1) an
: unwarranted insistence that the only motivations for discussants raising
: these issues are American jingoism and jealousy and/or (2) an (obvious to

: most readers of these threads) unwarranted personal attack on Janet Evans.

: What is most important here is the integrity and very survival of women's
: sport.

: Neither I nor anyone else here is in any way motivated to tarnish the

: achievements of Michelle Smith, Irish sport, or Chinese sport, and
: certainly not to do so out of some sick tantrum arising because American
: athletes fell short of capturing every possible medal.

: Rather, it is women's sport which is at stake here, and the only hope for
: its future is in improved scrutiny and in the identification of areas in
: which monitoring and enforcement can be improved.

: Larry Weisenthal

--
[=====================================================================]
[ John Heenan jo...@heenan.ironbark.id.au Swim controversy Web ]

[ updated 3 September 1996 http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ohn/swim ]
[=====================================================================]

John Heenan

unread,

Sep 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/7/96

to

With regard to Redsocks reply below, once is sufficient to prove
uniqueness, I am free to do whatever I want with the figures to prove
uniqueness (this does not change 'rules'), six out of eight in 800m
from non communist countries has no relevance to any arguments by
Redsocks, young athletes are doped with the knowledge of parents while
at home, parental abuse of children is regretably widespread and a
huge social problem.

John

Redsocks (matt...@li.net) wrote:
: jo...@heenan.ironbark.id.au (John Heenan) wrote:

: "Space Oddity"

--
[=====================================================================]
[ John Heenan jo...@heenan.ironbark.id.au Swim controversy Web ]

John Heenan

unread,

Sep 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/7/96

to

Al Spohn (sp...@mayo.edu) wrote:
: In article <322E30...@concentric.net>, "Mark S. Fitton"

: > Eric, we seem to agree on most every point, but for the sticking point. I
: > did say his argument had some holes, you hit upon them of course:)I believe
: > (and I could be wrong) that Heenan was simply attacking Americas best
: > swimming hero because of the unfair abuse Michelle Smith took. I think he
: > meant to point out that "circumstantially" one could make accusations about
: > Janet as the media and others have done about Michelle. I do not believe that
: > Heenan actually believes Janet did drugs. Again, I could be wrong about that,
: > but I'm sure we will hear from him. Good post, by the way. The vertical
: > leaping stuff confused me, but you're right about it. (I think:-)

: You're absolutely right, and Mr. Heenan has clarified this again and again.
: Another point that he has to keep repeating is that he never called Evans a
: dimwit. And although his arguments have a few thin spots here and there

: (like everyone's), I agree completely with his motivation. No matter how

: much Evans might appear to getting "beat up on" in this group, such
: treatment really pales compared to what Michelle Smith has been subjected

: to by multiple hack journalist and snotty athletes (which in my opinion

: included Evans in this case, great swimmer that she is).

: - Al

: --

: * Al Spohn * sp...@millcomm.com*
: http://www.millcomm.com/~spohn/

It never occurred to me to that Evans might have taken drugs until I
started considering the evidence after Evans patronisingly gave
Michelle Smith 'the benefit of the doubt' statement. Emotionally I
still find it difficult to accept the objectivity of the inconclusive
circumstantial evidence I have presented, that inconclusively points
to Evans taking drugs. However I am experienced enough to objectively
know that subjective rejection of possibilites presented by objective
evidence is not to be trusted. Yeah, I can live with these
contradictions! It's almost poetic.

The main point is that from an objective consideration of performance
and improvement, Michelle Smith is not unique, but Evans is. This
makes speculations about drug use by Michelle Smith unfair, without
also considering many others.

John

John Heenan

unread,

Sep 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/7/96

to

Redsocks (matt...@li.net) wrote:
: "Mark S. Fitton" <mark...@concentric.net> wrote:

: >Redsocks wrote:
: >>
: >> m...@metis.no (Martin William Smith) wrote:
: >>
: >> >Why have you not risen to defend Michelle Smith's reputation in the
: >> >same way?
: >>
: >> If someone were spewing forth a similar combination of bizarre theories and
: >> bald-faced lies about Smith, I would.

: >Lets see if I've got you right. This woman wins gold medals and gets accused

: >of steroid use because her husband is under suspension for ? (guess what, it
: >wasnt steroid abuse).

: Among other things. This is a person from a country with zero swimming
: tradition, whose coach had zero swimming experience (in addition to his run-in
: with the doping authorities), with a history of second-rate international
: performances, who at a very advanced age for the sport suddenly becomes a
: superstar. That sounds perfectly ordinary to you?

I'm sure many Belgian (and indeed Irish) competitive swimmers would be
amused to be told their country has 'zero swimming tradition'!
Redsocks is naieve if he believes having a husband who has some
question over him with regard to drugs in sport, puts his wife in a
better postion to abuse drugs than many others! At any rate Evans can
be considered to have had access to a sophisticated level of expertise
in an industry with a long record of drug abuse (veterinarty practice)
in a part of the world (California )where their is high tolerance of
personal drug abuse.

John

: > And yet, you don't consider these to be "bizarre theories and bald faced

: >lies". I am embarassed for you Matthew. I truly am. This John Heenan has
: >presented rational points and counterpoints (excepting his 'dimwit'
: >comments).

: If you're going to be embarrassed for me, then at least spell it right. And
: if you find Heenan's "Island of Dr. Moreau" scenario rational, then you ought
: to be embarrassed for yourself.

: >I would add that Mary T. Meagher had some incredible improvements
: >in the 200m butterfly in the 2 years before the 84 Games and no one EVER
: >questioned her, as well they shouldnt in my opinion.

: Meagher scaled back her training after her dominant '79-81 period, then
: stepped it back up for the Olympics. Apples and oranges.

What is this supposed to prove?

: > Of course, in my opinion

: >we shouldnt question Michelle Smith, because, after all, SHE PASSED THE
: >TESTS!!! That has to count for something.

: Evans has passed the tests for ten years. Doesn't that count?

Evans declined as drug teating got tougher. Smith was tested at
random times, not only at competition time. No claims have ever been
made that Evans was subject to random early morning 'secret police'
type door knocks which she had to answer in her nightie!

Martin William Smith

unread,

Sep 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/7/96

to

Larry Wiesenthall writes:
> [...]

> The very existence of this controversy is testimony to the need for such

> improvement [of drug testing and policy enforcement].

It is also testimony to the lack of ethics demonstrated by some
participants in the argument.

> >>You can say anything you want, Larry, but I don't have to let it pass
> just because you have good intentions.<<
>

> Rather than constructively participating in a discussion on legitimate
> questions 1-3, above, you have chosen instead to condemn those of us
> (including the Irish national swim team member whose well-considered
> discussion of the above issues initiated most of the long and lingering
> discussions on this topic) who have tried to consider these issues
> dispassionately.

Dispassionately? I condemn "dispasionately" linking a swimmer with
cheating when that person has not failed any drug test. But did you
miss my response to your original 3 Points Of Light post, or didn't my
attempt at constructive participation meet your tough standards? Here
it is again:

Larry's 3 Points and the "preamble" which, oddly, came after them:

>>>1. Are Michelle Smith's achievements unique, without precedent, or are
>>>there other examples?
>>>
>>>2. How foolproof are current drug testing methods, especially as applied
>>>to Michelle Smith?
>>>
>>>3. If Michelle Smith's achievements are, indeed, unprecedented, then are
>>>there credible explanations for this, apart from doping?
>>>
>>>Preamble to points 1 - 3: Obviously, some newsgroup participants feel
>>>that, out of fairness to Michelle Smith, these issues should not be
>>>discussed, absent the a priori existence of proof that illegal substances
>>>were used. If a given person feels this way, then, fine, one could begin
>>>by debating the appropriateness of discussing points 1 - 3 in the absence
>>>of a priori proof of wrongdoing.

My pathetic attempt at constructive participation:

>>I object to public discussions of these points when connected with a
>>specific swimmer because such discussions are unethical no matter what
>>good intentions are alleged. And I ask, Why discuss them?
>>

>>Suppose we answer points 1 - 3 hypothetically:
>>
>>1. Michelle Smith's achievements are unique and without precedent.
>>
>>2. Drug testing methods are not foolproof, whether applied to
>>Michelle Smith or to anyone else.
>>
>>3. Michelle Smith's achievements are, indeed, unprecedented and the
>>only other credible explanation for them, apart from doping, is that
>>she worked real hard and had the right combination of genes, training,
>>diet, and attitude.
>>
>>Now what are you going to do? If we leave out the discussion, which,
>>in the worst case scenario, will just arrive at the above answers, and
>>we just cut right to that worst case scenario, what are you going to
>>do? What is your motivation for achieving that result? What purpose
>>does it serve? It proves nothing; it does nothing for the sport, and
>>it points the bone at Michelle Smith.

I then went on to ask why not just discuss ways of improving the
monitoring and enforcement system, without pointing the bone at
anybody, and I asked that a discussion of the costs be included.

[End of attempt at constructive participation]

> You have made your feelings on the topic of drug testing well known.
> You have publicly stated that elite athletes should be permitted to
> take whatever drugs they wished and that no one should be subjected
> to testing.
>
> With this point of view, your comments on this thread are perfectly
> understandable.
>
> I do not, however, respect this point of view.

I'm not surprised, Larry, since your statement is a severe distortion
of my point of view. I would say a deliberate distortion, but I'm not
convinced you understood my point of view when I first put it forth.

John Heenan

unread,

Sep 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/7/96

to

I think it is fair to imply that RunnSwim is implying that I have
slandered Evans. In which case RunnSwim has slandered me!

John

RunnSwim (runn...@aol.com) wrote:
: It is one thing to out and out slander every aspect of an athlete's
: persona, from her father to her intelligence, which is what has been done
: to Evans, and it is quite another to raise perfectly legitimate questions,
: given the very well documented recent history of doping in women's
: swimming.

John Heenan

unread,

Sep 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/7/96

to

I see Eric is abusing me again. I also see Mark has been misled into
believing Eric has found holes in my arguments!

Don't be misled by Eric's attempt to misuse textbook logic below.

1. I have never accused Evans or Michelle Smith of taking drugs.
Neither have I asserted they did not use drugs.

2. I have always clearly pointed out we are dealing with
circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is not A implies B
evidence. We can use logic though to decide if whose improvements or
performances are unique.

3. For anyone to imply Michelle Smith necessarily used drugs to
attain her improvements is false

4. For anyone to imply Michelle Smith's improvements are unique in
comparison to others is false.

5. For anyone to imply Janet Evans has performed non uniqely in
comparison to individuals from East Germany where drug abuse was
systematic is false.

6. For anyone to imply a unique performance as above necessarily
implies drug abuse is false.

ark S. Fitton (mark...@concentric.net) wrote:
: Eric Wang wrote:
: >
: > By this, I mean that Heenan attempts to defend Michelle Smith by

: > counter-attacking against Evans in such a way that both "attacks"
: > must be rejected together. I challenge the *semantic structure* of
: > Heenan's case against Evans in such a way that the very same
: > semantic structure must allow us to make many ridiculous
: > "conclusions" about Evans (for example, that she likes chocolate ice

No conclusions have been made about Evans. These statements are
incredibly ignorant about what I have said.

: > cream more than the East German swimmers do), and in rejecting these

: > "conclusions", as we must, we also have to reject Heenan's case
: > against Evans, as it is currently constructed.
: >
: > >Everyone has the right to an opinion Eric, I think Mr. Heenan has made some
: > >good points and used sound logic.
: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >
: > The predicate calculus doesn't agree. Modus ponens, the
: > fundamental rule of logical deduction, says,
: >
: > From "A" and "A implies B", conclude "B".
: >
: > From "A" and "B implies C", you get bupkus.
: >
: > >in America, we are supposed to be INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Reasonable speculation using avaialable facts is not an assertion of
guilt.

: >
: > Michelle Smith is innocent in my book, and always has been. This is

: > Predicate Calculus vs. John Heenan's Case Against Evans, and Case
: > Against Evans has a mighty big fudge factor that demands
: > clarification.
: >
: > Eric Wang
: > wan...@uiuc.edu

: Eric, we seem to agree on most every point, but for the sticking point. I

: did say his argument had some holes, you hit upon them of course:)I believe

My arguments do not have these holes. Eric has not hit upon them.

: (and I could be wrong) that Heenan was simply attacking Americas best
: swimming hero because of the unfair abuse Michelle Smith took. I think he
: meant to point out that "circumstantially" one could make accusations about
: Janet as the media and others have done about Michelle. I do not believe that
: Heenan actually believes Janet did drugs. Again, I could be wrong about that,

I don't know Evans used drugs. It as simple and as logical as that!

: but I'm sure we will hear from him. Good post, by the way. The vertical
: leaping stuff confused me, but you're right about it. (I think:-)

: Mark

John

Mark S. Fitton

unread,

Sep 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/7/96

to

RunnSwim (runn...@aol.com) wrote:

: In article <322A4B...@concentric.net>, "Mark S. Fitton"
: <mark...@concentric.net> writes:

: >A neutral observer, such as myself, would dare to ask, where is the ONE
: >SHRED OF EVIDENCE that Michelle Smith cheated. My interpretation of John
: >Heenans many, many points is that Janet Evans is just as likely to have
: >cheated as Michelle Smith has..

: The strongest accusation that anyone on this newsgroup has made (save for
: one single facetious reply to Mr. Heenan to the effect that "common now,
: if you had to bet your fortune, how would your bet?...") is simply to
: state the facts of the case and then to ask if there are any precedents
: for such facts. We can do the same for Evans and find many precedents.

: It is one thing to out and out slander every aspect of an athlete's
: persona, from her father to her intelligence, which is what has been done
: to Evans, and it is quite another to raise perfectly legitimate questions,
: given the very well documented recent history of doping in women's
: swimming.

: The following are legitimate issues for discussion:

: 1. Are Michelle Smith's achievements unique, without precedent, or are

: there other examples?

: 2. How foolproof are current drug testing methods, especially as applied
: to Michelle Smith?

: 3. If Michelle Smith's achievements are, indeed, unprecedented, then are
: there credible explanations for this, apart from doping?

: Preamble to points 1 - 3: Obviously, some newsgroup participants feel
: that, out of fairness to Michelle Smith, these issues should not be
: discussed, absent the a priori existence of proof that illegal substances
: were used. If a given person feels this way, then, fine, one could begin
: by debating the appropriateness of discussing points 1 - 3 in the absence
: of a priori proof of wrongdoing.

: What to me seems most unfortunate/inappropriate is to avoid a serious

: discussion of the points 1 - 3 and even to avoid a serious discussion of
: the "Preamble" question, and instead to change the issues to (1) an
: unwarranted insistence that the only motivations for discussants raising
: these issues are American jingoism and jealousy and/or (2) an (obvious to
: most readers of these threads) unwarranted personal attack on Janet Evans.

: What is most important here is the integrity and very survival of women's
: sport.

: Neither I nor anyone else here is in any way motivated to tarnish the
: achievements of Michelle Smith, Irish sport, or Chinese sport, and
: certainly not to do so out of some sick tantrum arising because American
: athletes fell short of capturing every possible medal.

: Rather, it is women's sport which is at stake here, and the only hope for
: its future is in improved scrutiny and in the identification of areas in
: which monitoring and enforcement can be improved.

: Larry Weisenthal

Again, WHERE IS THE SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE!! EVIDENCE you moron, not
legitimate issues for discussion. If you want to suggest or discuss the fact
that Michelle might or probably did use drugs, be prepared for a frontal
assault. You are making the worst kind of speculation. I could give you many,
many other examples in many sports of performances that we could question as
"legitimate issues for discussion" For example, how do you explain Pablo
Morales 92 gold medal performance at his advanced age. (he had even retired
and not competed for a few years). Similarly, how do you think FloJo
drastically improved her 100m track times in the 88 Olympics. I, for one, do
believe that she did steroids for that Olympics and then quit. I never
noticed anyone legitimately discuss those issues. Could it be because they
are Americans? No, of course not! Larry Weisenthal, you of all people should
know better than to question this matter. If you are going to question her
performances, question them all damn it, or SHUT UP. Michelle may have
cheated, and she may not have. Until we get some evidence, we must assume her
innocence. Just as we assume that Janet, Pablo, Mary T, FloJo, Gail Devers,
Mark Spitz were all innocent in their magnificent performances. Will you ever
get it?
Mark

John Heenan

unread,

Sep 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/8/96

to

This is what Mark had to say about Eric Wang's bizarre jumping comments

: : The vertical

: : leaping stuff confused me, but you're right about it. (I think:-)

I have outlined below what appears to be Wang's logic on his leaping
comments. It is invalid as it uses assumptions he has not supported.
Wang has a big problem using facts and logic properly. He deigns to
lecture me with text book logic, not realising he is displaying his
own ability to use logic and facts. I showed this in a previous
posting, a copy of it is below.

Here is a statement from Wang:

> Here's an example from my domain of familiarity. Volleyball places
> great value on vertical leaping ability, resulting in much research
> into jump training. The typical USA collegiate women's volleyball
> athlete jumps around 24", with 30" being a superior height. In
> international levels, the average is up to 30", and among 2-time
> gold medalist Cuba's starting 6, the average is around 36" :-|

An average of 24" with a superior height of 36" indicates the superior
is 50% higher than the average. At an international level, an average
of 30" with a superior height of 36" indicates the superior is 20%
higher than the average. Now this just goes to show how important
other factors are in vooleyball other than the ability to jump.

Here is another statement from Wang:

> Players can usually gain around 6"-12" of improvement through
> this specialized jump training. More to the point, players who've
> never done serious jump training before will see much of the gain
> very quickly

Wang's logic with its false contextual connotations appears to be:

1. Volleyballers show large variations in their ability to jump.

2. Swimmers comparitevely don't show such a large range of variation
in their swimming times.

3. Such variations are expected among volleyballers and so considered normal

4. When a swimmer produces 'abnormal' improvement it is unexpected and
so justifies suspicion.

Now buried among the above are assumptions that are not valid within
the context of the 'discussion'.

Now the fact is volleyball is a sport requiring complex motor skills,
co-ordination and team discipine. What the results above suggest is
that jumping ability, though it may be on important factor, is not the
only important factor and can be compensated for with other important
skills. In swimming, time is everything. All training is geared
towards producing a best time. In volleyball all training is not
geared towards producing best possible jumping heights. In fact some
volleyballers appear to do no training for jumping at all as indicated
above. If they do train then they will find their capacity for
improvement will level off quickly.

Now while swimmers obviously do not show such variations and quite
clearly train for a best time, you will find that the implication that
Michelle Smith demonstrated an improvement of the level of volleyball
jump trainers so utterly false as to demonstrate the illogicality,
bizzareness and in fact what can probably be fairly described as plain
stupidity of Wang when it comes to applying his text book logic to
real life.

Eric also did not provide data to back up his assertion that Michelle
Smith's improvements were abnormal. What is abnormal is that she is
still swimming competively at the age of 26. Her improvements are not
abnormal or unique using normal swimming standards when considered as
part of the total population of swimmers. If she did what she did to
show results at the age of 19 instead of 26, then this can be more
readily apprecaited.

My earlier comments on Wang's misuse of logic follow.

John

John Heenan (jo...@heenan.ironbark.id.au) wrote:
: I see Eric is abusing me again. I also see Mark has been misled into

: believing Eric has found holes in my arguments!

: Don't be misled by Eric's attempt to misuse textbook logic below.

: 1. I have never accused Evans or Michelle Smith of taking drugs.
: Neither have I asserted they did not use drugs.

: 2. I have always clearly pointed out we are dealing with
: circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is not A implies B
: evidence. We can use logic though to decide if whose improvements or
: performances are unique.

: 3. For anyone to imply Michelle Smith necessarily used drugs to
: attain her improvements is false

: 4. For anyone to imply Michelle Smith's improvements are unique in
: comparison to others is false.

: 5. For anyone to imply Janet Evans has performed non uniqely in
: comparison to individuals from East Germany where drug abuse was
: systematic is false.

: 6. For anyone to imply a unique performance as above necessarily
: implies drug abuse is false.

: Mark S. Fitton (mark...@concentric.net) wrote:
: : Eric Wang wrote:
: : >

: : > By this, I mean that Heenan attempts to defend Michelle Smith by

: : > counter-attacking against Evans in such a way that both "attacks"
: : > must be rejected together. I challenge the *semantic structure* of
: : > Heenan's case against Evans in such a way that the very same
: : > semantic structure must allow us to make many ridiculous
: : > "conclusions" about Evans (for example, that she likes chocolate ice

: No conclusions have been made about Evans. These statements are
: incredibly ignorant about what I have said.

: : > cream more than the East German swimmers do), and in rejecting these

: : > "conclusions", as we must, we also have to reject Heenan's case
: : > against Evans, as it is currently constructed.
: : >
: : > >Everyone has the right to an opinion Eric, I think Mr. Heenan has made some
: : > >good points and used sound logic.
: : > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: : >
: : > The predicate calculus doesn't agree. Modus ponens, the
: : > fundamental rule of logical deduction, says,
: : >
: : > From "A" and "A implies B", conclude "B".
: : >
: : > From "A" and "B implies C", you get bupkus.
: : >
: : > >in America, we are supposed to be INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

: Reasonable speculation using avaialable facts is not an assertion of
: guilt.

: : >
: : > Michelle Smith is innocent in my book, and always has been. This is

: : > Predicate Calculus vs. John Heenan's Case Against Evans, and Case
: : > Against Evans has a mighty big fudge factor that demands
: : > clarification.
: : >
: : > Eric Wang
: : > wan...@uiuc.edu

: : Eric, we seem to agree on most every point, but for the sticking point. I

: : did say his argument had some holes, you hit upon them of course:)I believe

: My arguments do not have these holes. Eric has not hit upon them.

: : (and I could be wrong) that Heenan was simply attacking Americas best
: : swimming hero because of the unfair abuse Michelle Smith took. I think he
: : meant to point out that "circumstantially" one could make accusations about
: : Janet as the media and others have done about Michelle. I do not believe that
: : Heenan actually believes Janet did drugs. Again, I could be wrong about that,

: I don't know Evans used drugs. It as simple and as logical as that!
:
: : but I'm sure we will hear from him. Good post, by the way. The vertical
: : leaping stuff confused me, but you're right about it. (I think:-)
: : Mark

Ch1nese

unread,

Sep 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/8/96

to

What is wrong with you people???

You all say that Chinese female swimmers cheated and now all of you
are trying to prove that those two "white" females are not cheating???

Come on, as janet evans' own theory, that if she win, beause she is
taking drugs, if she lost, it is because she is not taking drugs,

very simple. oh, please tell bob costas that he forgot to tell the
"americans" that janet evans lost this time, it is because the tight
restriction on drug-using!!

hahaha!!!

oh, please visit

http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~tcyang/html/Taiwan_faq.html

our beautiful tai wan province's faq provided

tcy...@seas.ucal.edu

Thank you very much.

Ch1nese

unread,

Sep 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/8/96

to

http://www.seas.ucla.edu/~tcyang/html/Taiwan_faq.html

here is the correct author's email address

tcy...@seas.ucla.edu

Redsocks

unread,

Sep 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/8/96

to

jo...@heenan.ironbark.id.au (John Heenan) wrote:

>I see Eric is abusing me again. I also see Mark has been misled into
>believing Eric has found holes in my arguments!

I see John is crying "abuse" again.

>Don't be misled by Eric's attempt to misuse textbook logic below.
>
>1. I have never accused Evans or Michelle Smith of taking drugs.
>Neither have I asserted they did not use drugs.
>
>2. I have always clearly pointed out we are dealing with
>circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is not A implies B
>evidence. We can use logic though to decide if whose improvements or
>performances are unique.

You seem to be the only judge of what circumstantial evidence is relevant (Dr.
Evans' veterinary training) and what isn't (de Bruin's failed drug test).

>3. For anyone to imply Michelle Smith necessarily used drugs to
>attain her improvements is false

Not "necessarily", but "possibly".

>4. For anyone to imply Michelle Smith's improvements are unique in
>comparison to others is false.

So name another person who did what she did. Hell, name another 26-year-old
women's swimming gold medalist *ever*, whatever their background.

>5. For anyone to imply Janet Evans has performed non uniqely in
>comparison to individuals from East Germany where drug abuse was
>systematic is false.

I can answer that in three words:

Mary

T.

Meagher

Apart from the boycott, Meagher's achievements from 1979 to 1981 match those
of Evans from 1987-89 almost exactly. Meagher was farther ahead of the East
Germans than Evans, relatively speaking.

>6. For anyone to imply a unique performance as above necessarily
>implies drug abuse is false.

That's exactly what you've been implying for the last month.

uglm...@cc.memphis.edu

unread,

Sep 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/9/96

to

Jeez... You guys are begging to be "Kook of the Month" nominees...

jo...@heenan.ironbark.id.au (John Heenan) wrote:

>Hey! RunnSwim has given me a good laugh! He lectures us about
>appropriate standards and topics for discussion while many of these
>standards and topics are being addressed by others without his
>contributions, clearly ignores the standards I and others have upheld
>and he hasn't and continues to drag on points related to what he
>inappropriately exaggerated and have had falsely attributed to me.
>These points have no relevance to the current issues and I have raised
>more points that have not been addressed. I commented appropriately
>as a side issue given the evidence available (Evans academic
>qualities).

>Would it be fair to call RunnSwim a parasite?

>John

>RunnSwim (runn...@aol.com) wrote:

>: Larry Weisenthal

RunnSwim

unread,

Sep 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/9/96

to

Martin,

You have clearly stated your position that elite athletes should be
entitled to take whatever they wanted in the way of drugs. I deleted your
postings on this from months ago, but I am sure that others recall this,
as well.

You also got into a long argument that competitions ought to be based on
some measure of self-improvement, rather than on competition with others.

As time has gone on, you may be re-defining your positions. This is O.K.
Bill Clinton and Bob Dole do a lot of this, as well. I seem to recall
more recently that you think that there should be different "divisions"
for athletes who want to swim with drugs and athletes who want to swim
without drugs. This is, I believe, a deviation from your originally
stated point of view, but, as noted, this is just fine.

If I have misquoted you or misreprestented you, however, it may partially
be because it is sometimes hard to understand the semantics of the points
that you are trying to argue.

Very recently, another newsgroup participant tried to summarize your most
recent views as follows:

>>>1) I believe Martin has suggested that there should be an division of
swimming at the highest level which is open to drug use. So in this
division
swimmers could use any preformance enhancing drugs they wish, reach the
highest posible level of enhanced human athletic performance, and reap
whatever rewards come along with that, even if they do long term damage to

their health.<<

You stated on another occasion:

>> My personal belief is that no amount
of testing will remove these doubts. Therefore, another approach must
be tried. I have offered one here before. If you don't like it, then
let's hear some others.<<

I believe that this was referring to your suggestion to legalize drugs in
elite swimming competitions. Is this correct?

You have also stated that punishment for violations of the rules of
athletic competition should not be the purview of sports organizations,
but instead should be the function of the government judicial courts in a
given country's legal system. You go on to show how this would/should
preclude any attempt at enforcing bans on otherwise legal drugs when used
for the purpose of enhancing athletic performance.

> Enforcement of the rule ought only to ensure that swimming
>: competions are fair according to the definition of a fair swimming
>: competition. This does not include punishment, which is the purview
>: of the court system. If use of the banned substance is not against
>: the law (as you point out, it is not), then there should be no
>: punishment.
>:

Your views seem to me to be consistently libertarian in nature. We have an
honest difference of opinion over whether concern for individual liberties
should overshadow methods of ensuring a level playing field for
participants in a given sport.

My position is that the whole concept of women's sport as a separate
entity from men's sport becomes entirely meaningless, once one allows the
pharmacologic conversion of women into men.

If this particular genie cannot be kept inside the lamp, then the whole
ideal of women's sport becomes a sham.

Keeping the genie within the lamp requires much more diligence than simply
waiting for the results of a positive drug test or waiting for a political
system to collapse so that medical files become available for scrutiny.
This philosophy is incompatible with some facets of libertarianism. And we
will therefore not find ourselves in agreement on this issue.

Larry Weisenthal

Martin William Smith

unread,

Sep 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/9/96

to

Larry Wiesenthall writes:
> Martin,
> You have clearly stated your position that elite athletes should be
> entitled to take whatever they wanted in the way of drugs. I deleted your
> postings on this from months ago, but I am sure that others recall this,
> as well.

I haven't denied saying anything, Larry. I said that summing up my
point of view on drugs in swimming as: "You have publicly stated that

elite athletes should be permitted to take whatever drugs they wished

and that no one should be subjected to testing", is a distortion of my
point of view.

> You also got into a long argument that competitions ought to be
> based on some measure of self-improvement, rather than on
> competition with others.

That is also a distortion, but at least it's a lot closer to the
central part of my point of view on drugs in swimming, which is that
the sport should be split into amateur swimming and professional
swimming, and in amateur swimming, rewards should not be given for
order of finish in individual events, but only for achieving a
personal best. Rewards for order of finish should only be given for
team events.

> As time has gone on, you may be re-defining your positions. This is
> O.K. Bill Clinton and Bob Dole do a lot of this, as well. I seem
> to recall more recently that you think that there should be
> different "divisions" for athletes who want to swim with drugs and
> athletes who want to swim without drugs. This is, I believe, a
> deviation from your originally stated point of view, but, as noted,
> this is just fine.

I don't think I said that. I said there should be amateur swimming
and professional swimming. Drugs would still be prohibited in amateur
swimming, but a testing system would not be required because the
incentive to use drugs in amateur swimming would be almost entirely
eliminated by changing the reward system to reward personal bests
instead of order of finish.

Professional swimming could allow drugs and thereby also eliminate the
testing system, while at the same time enabling doctors and scientists
to legitimately advise swimmers on their safe use.

Or, professional swimming could maintain the prohibition against drugs
and require an amateur swimmer wishing to turn pro to anounce his
intent some pre-determined time before competing professionally and
enter the testing system. Those tests could be performed daily if
necessary.

> If I have misquoted you or misreprestented you, however, it may partially
> be because it is sometimes hard to understand the semantics of the points
> that you are trying to argue.

That would be my fault, but it is hard at times to fend off the
accusations of people who use lots of capital letters (not you).

> Very recently, another newsgroup participant tried to summarize your most
> recent views as follows:
>
> >>>1) I believe Martin has suggested that there should be an division of
> swimming at the highest level which is open to drug use. So in this
> division
> swimmers could use any preformance enhancing drugs they wish, reach the
> highest posible level of enhanced human athletic performance, and reap
> whatever rewards come along with that, even if they do long term damage to
> their health.<<

That is correct, but I hope I have shown above that it is not a
libertarian denial of responsibility to society, but rather that it
has an important purpose, which is to remove or greatly reduce the
incentive to use drugs by eliminating the source of the incentive,
rather than by an ever-increasing spiral of penalties and enforcement.

My assumptions are that there is a vulgar incentive to use drugs
promoted by capitalism and nationalism, and that drug use cannot be
eliminated by any testing system without intolerable costs in both
financial and constitutional terms. Then the best that can be
achieved (and quite enough, I think) is to split the sport into
amateur and professional classes, and in the amateur class, remove the
incentive to use drugs by changing the reward system. *After* that
has been accomplished, the professional class can allow drugs or not
allow them. My personal view is that they should be allowed, largely
for the libertarian reasons quoted above.

> You stated on another occasion:
>
> >> My personal belief is that no amount
> of testing will remove these doubts. Therefore, another approach must
> be tried. I have offered one here before. If you don't like it, then
> let's hear some others.<<
>
> I believe that this was referring to your suggestion to legalize drugs in
> elite swimming competitions. Is this correct?

No, I think that to simply legalize drugs in the present
professional/corporate/nationalistic swimming environment would
probably promote drug use at all levels of the sport. I don't want
that. I also don't want a mammoth drug testing system that intrudes
(unconstitutionally in my opinion) into swimmers' lives and in the end
does not eliminate all the cheating, suspicions, and accusations. Nor
is the libertarian view, that drugs should be legal, without merit.
The "War On Drugs" has pretty much failed, and that war is against
drugs that are not manufactured primarily for medical use in the first
place.

> You have also stated that punishment for violations of the rules of
> athletic competition should not be the purview of sports
> organizations, but instead should be the function of the government
> judicial courts in a given country's legal system. You go on to show
> how this would/should preclude any attempt at enforcing bans on
> otherwise legal drugs when used for the purpose of enhancing
> athletic performance.
>
> > Enforcement of the rule ought only to ensure that swimming
> >: competions are fair according to the definition of a fair swimming
> >: competition. This does not include punishment, which is the purview
> >: of the court system. If use of the banned substance is not against
> >: the law (as you point out, it is not), then there should be no
> >: punishment.

Here I am referring to the mixing up of punishment with ensuring that
swimming competitions are fair. Clearly, if a swimmer develops an
advantage after using steroids for some time, that swimmer's times
cannot be included in the results of the race. But to ban a swimmer
for 2 or 4 years for simply testing positive for some drug, even when
the swimmer has shown no significant improvement, is punishment.
Punishment isn't necessary for ensuring a fair competition, so this
punishment component should be eliminated from the penalty for a
positive drug test.

> Your views seem to me to be consistently libertarian in nature. We
> have an honest difference of opinion over whether concern for
> individual liberties should overshadow methods of ensuring a level
> playing field for participants in a given sport.

I am left liberal, which is not libertarian.

From the "WORLD'S SMALLEST POLITICAL QUIZ" sited below.

* Libertarians are self-governers in both personal and economic
matters. They believe government's only purpose is to protect
people from coercion and violence. They value individual
responsibility, and tolerate economic and social diversity.
* Left-liberals prefer self-government in personal matters and
central decision-making on economics. They want government to
serve the disadvantaged in the name of fairness. Leftists tolerate
social diversity, but work for economic equality.

Even with the world's best testing system, the playing field will not
be level. Why do you only insist on a level playing field with
respect to drugs? Why not insist on a financial level playing field?
Ireland has no 50 meter pools. Most of the rest of the world has no
university swimming, or high school swimming for that matter. Many
swimmers cannot afford top coaching. Many don't live near top
training facilities.

Why not level the playing field genetically? Why not determine the
ratio of fast twitch to slow twitch fibers in each swimmer and
regulate their training so that the genetically disadvantaged can
compete fairly? Why not force all swimmers to carry the same weight
like race horses do?

If you object to the possibility that swimming will be dominated by
pharmacologically produced freaks, then I object to the reality that
swimming is dominated by the genetically advantaged and financially
privileged children of wealthy countries.

> My position is that the whole concept of women's sport as a separate
> entity from men's sport becomes entirely meaningless, once one
> allows the pharmacologic conversion of women into men.

You're over-stating the problem. In the first place, why should they
necessarily remain separate? Shelly Taylor-Smith doesn't seem to mind
competing against, and beating, men. I suspect that long distance
events will eventually be dominated by women. So what? Would you
object to seeing men and women in the same race? No. We do it all
the time in masters, even though the results are still kept separate.

> If this particular genie cannot be kept inside the lamp, then the
> whole ideal of women's sport becomes a sham.
>
> Keeping the genie within the lamp requires much more diligence than
> simply waiting for the results of a positive drug test or waiting
> for a political system to collapse so that medical files become
> available for scrutiny. This philosophy is incompatible with some
> facets of libertarianism. And we will therefore not find ourselves
> in agreement on this issue.

But I'm not a libertarian.

martin

The "WORLD'S SMALLEST POLITICAL QUIZ" was published by

Advocates for Self-Government, 3955 Pleasantdale Road #106 A, Atlanta,
GA 30340 Tel: 404-417-1304 800-932-1776

The Advocates for Self-Government is a non-profit educational organi-
zation. Our purpose is to present libertarianism -- the freedom
philosophy -- honestly and persuasively. Contributions are tax
deductible under section 501(c)(3).

Redsocks

unread,

Sep 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/9/96

to

"Mark S. Fitton" <mark...@concentric.net> wrote:

>Again, WHERE IS THE SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE!! EVIDENCE you moron, not
>legitimate issues for discussion. If you want to suggest or discuss the fact
>that Michelle might or probably did use drugs, be prepared for a frontal
>assault. You are making the worst kind of speculation. I could give you many,
>many other examples in many sports of performances that we could question as
>"legitimate issues for discussion" For example, how do you explain Pablo
>Morales 92 gold medal performance at his advanced age. (he had even retired
>and not competed for a few years).

I don't know where you get off calling people morons when you keep producing
such faulty examples. Pablo Morales' winning time in Barcelona was 53.32, a
time which would not have won a medal in Seoul and which was slower than his
silver-medal time in LA. Don't ask Morales how he won, ask the rest of the
world.

Eric Wang

unread,

Sep 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/9/96

to

jo...@heenan.ironbark.id.au (John Heenan) writes:
>I see Eric is abusing me again.

No, just responding. You can call it "abuse" if it helps you to
demonize me. You'd do better to drop the childish name-calling and
defend your statements, or present a rebuttal of mine.

Eric Wang wrote:
>:> By this, I mean that Heenan attempts to defend Michelle Smith by
>:> counter-attacking against Evans in such a way that both "attacks"
>:> must be rejected together. I challenge the *semantic structure* of
>:> Heenan's case against Evans in such a way that the very same
>:> semantic structure must allow us to make many ridiculous
>:> "conclusions" about Evans (for example, that she likes chocolate ice

>No conclusions have been made about Evans. These statements are
>incredibly ignorant about what I have said.

^^^^^^^^

Who's abusing whom now? In any case, you've clearly missed *my*
point, which is that your alleged "evidence" in comparing Evans to
the East Germans and then dangling the loaded phrase "systematic
drug abuse" is bogus. You claim that it provides "circumstantial
evidence" that Evans was superior to drugged athletes. I can claim
in exactly the same way that circumstantial evidence exists that
Evans was superior to bratwurst-eating, polka-dancing, and/or
hula-hooping athletes. Either we can conclude something from such
comparisons, or we can't. Respond specifically, please: are such
comparisons valid, or are they not?

>My arguments do not have these holes. Eric has not hit upon them.

I dunno which "holes" you're talking about. I'm talking
specifically about your misleading "comparison".

Eric Wang
wan...@uiuc.edu

RunnSwim

unread,

Sep 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/9/96

to

In article <323206...@concentric.net>, "Mark S. Fitton"
<mark...@concentric.net> severely criticizes me for trying to ask the
question of whether or not Michelle Smith's astounding improvements at the
international level as a mature women swimmer are or are not unprecedented
[Fitton's quotation is listed below]:

His central thesis (and that of Ms. Smith's other supporters) is that
there is no legitimate or honorable reason to be discussing her in the
context of doping, absent a positive drug test.

So let's consider the reliability of current doping control measures.

Much has been made of the fact that she "passed 11 drug tests," or
something to this effect. Others have reported, however, that she was not
available for drug tests during some training periods, including training
in the U.S.A.

Newsweek magazine had a pre-Olympic issue July 22, 1996. Included was an
article entitled "Doped to Perfection." At the risk of being cited for
copywrite infringement, I will quote from this article verbatim:

"No one knows just how many athletes used banned substances, but experts
use words like 'epidemic' to describe the problem. Says Olympic chronicler
Gary Allison: 'Drugs are the single biggest threat to the
Games.'...Unfortunately, the technology [for drug testing] always lags a
lap behind.

" 'Drug testing is a joke,' says one steroid-dealing coach who spoke on
the condition of anominity. 'The people who are smart and have the money
to pay for drugs can easily pass.'...Under East Germany's notorious State
Plan 14.25, more than 1,000 scientists, trainers, and physicians spent
much of the 1980s developing better ways to drug the nation's athletes.
Most Olympians suspect that China has since followed suit....Scientists
from the Olympic Lab at UCLA are now joining international efforts to
develop a trump card: a test that recognizes synthetic testosterone by the
amount of carbon 13 it contains. Every Olympian may face that test four
years from now...Meanwhile, says Craig Kammerer, a research scientist at
Bristol Myers Squibb, 'one can take a good moderate dose of testosterone
and not be found positive.' "

The above is particularly relevant, in that Smith's husband/coach was
himself suspended from competition because of evidence of testosterone
doping.

Now, Martin Smith takes a fairly logical position: If the rules state only
that one must pass the existing drug tests and one then passes the tests,
then one has no basis to say that the athlete did not play according to
the rules...the rules being only that one must pass drug tests.

Fair enough. No one has suggested stripping Smith of her medals. But the
suggestion that this also means that one is not entitled to scrutinize her
performances and raise questions, with the goal of motivating the
governing bodies of women's sport to greatly improve the existing
monitoring systems is, to me at least, harmful to efforts to improve
international doping control.

Smith is a mature adult and a veteran international athlete who certainly
must have known that there would be questions raised, given the fact that
she was trained by a coach with a history of drug abuse controversy. The
fact that her achievements were unprecedented for a mature women swimmer
at the international level raises more questions. The fact that the doping
control system is widely acknowledged to be inadequate makes it entirely
reasonable to raise the questions publicly.

Regarding Pro-American bias:

I have made the points before that the vast majority of Yanks on this
newsgroup were strongly behind the suspension of Jessica Foschi for
testing positive. It is also a fact that Angel Meyers-Martino was widely
ostracized for years following her positive drug test (for what she
claimed was just high steroid formula oral contraceptives).

I also made the point that the hue and cry would have been just as great,
had the American swimmer Michelle Griglione (very similar to Michelle
Smith, in terms of age and recent performance) posted the sort of Olympic
performances which were posted by Michelle Smith.

I also point out that the legitimate scrutiny being given to Smith's
performances is not unique to jealous Americans. The very issues which
cause concern were detailed in the initial message of the thread entitled:
"Michelle Smith and the Drug Rumours," by a member of the Irish national
swimming team, who personally knows Michelle Smith. So why can't we stick
to the facts and leave out the flames about jealous nationalism and
intelligence level?

Regarding the other athletes mentioned by Mark Fitton:

Janet Evans has been attacked simply because she made the mistake of
voicing the same concerns which were being publicly voiced by the head
coach of the US Olympic women's team, Richard Quick. It wasn't a
particularly prudent thing for Evans to do, but, given the situation, it
was understandable and certainly forgiveable, at least to me.

Evans in 1987 (when she set her first world record) was a small, skinny,
15 year old girl with a high pitched voice and no other stigmata of drug
use. She had been great as an 80 pound 12 year old and she peaked under
expert coaching as a 16 year old, before declining in the pattern of such
other great female swimmers as Mary T Meagher and Anita Nall. No coach,
competitor, or journalist, to my knowledge, ever raised the issue of drug
use in this case. The shoe just doesn't fit.

Mary T was so great (and a little larger in physical stature) that there
have been whispers, but I don't think that the shoe fits here, as well.
Mary T swam for the Lakeside Swim Club in Louisville (this is only
relevant in that my father has belonged to that club for 45 years and
knows Mary T and her family). Mary T was 14 when she set her first world
record (within about a second of her current 200 fly record) at, I think,
the Pan Am games held in South America. She was one of about 10 children,
all of whom were active in sports and other activities in their own
individual lives and her parents were NOT involved in Mary T's swimming at
age 14 any more than they were involved the various activities of all of
her siblings. I read where her parents didn't even understand that Mary T
had broken the world record for the first time and did not appreciate what
it really meant. So they didn't dope her, and there is no reason to
believe that the Lakeside swim coach secretly would dope a 13-14 year old,
and so on. And Mary T's career also followed the pattern of top
performance as a young teenager and a big-time fade with maturity, despite
increased training efforts. As noted, this is a very common pattern.

Pablo Morales was the world record holder in 1986, but didn't make the US
team in 1988 in the biggest upset of the US trials. He came back to swim
(and - barely - win) in 1992, but he did not swim as fast as he had in
1986.

Mark Spitz's performance in 1972 was unprecedented, but not unexpected.
He had had an illustrious career and was, in fact, favored to be a
multiple gold medal winner in 1968, when he swam well, but not up to
expectations. It is quite usual in swimming for given swimmers to have a
bad meet...look at Sievenen, Dolan, Van Almsick, Chiba, or whomever in
1996. Well, in 1972 many people thought that Spitz would win 7 gold
medals...this was actually forecast on American television...and he did.
Sure, he could have been on dope, but there was no particular reason to
suspect this, not even in retrospect.

Likewise, I think that Gail Devers pretty much performed according to
expectations, based on her history. Perhaps you know of other reasons on
which to base questions. To be honest, I haven't followed her career that
closely since the 1992 Olympics, when SHE pointedly accused OTHER athletes
of doping!

When it comes to Florence Griffith Joyner, I share your suspicions. Her
achievements in 1988 are still without precedent. They represented a very
dramatic improvement over her performances of 1984. But her physical
appearance changed also. She "retired" but then unretired and tried to
have a career as a distance runner. This was very unsuccessful, to say
the least. When she was so great as a sprinter, why on earth would she
try to have a career as a marathoner? Maybe it was the Michael Jordan
syndrome (famous basketball player who is convinced he is such a great
athlete that he can be a great baseball player and so gives up the
basketball career to try baseball). But then why didn't Flo-Jo come back
as a sprinter when her distance running career bombed (Michael Jordan came
back to hoops when he bombed at baseball)? I view the Flo-Jo episode as
another example of why it is crucially important to develop better doping
control methods, if female sport is to continue to exist as a viable
entity.

If Flo-Jo was clean, it is a shame that her legacy is still somewhat
tarnished by suspicion. The same goes for Michelle Smith.

But your central thesis (and that of Ms. Smith's other supporters) is that
there is no legitimate or honorable reason to be discussing her in the
context of this doping stuff, absent a positive drug test.

But I think it is one thing to give the athlete the benefit of the doubt,
and quite another thing to insist that it is not appropriate to have
doubts or to discuss these doubts in the first place. I think that the
very existence of Women's Sport is at stake. It will be hard enough to
protect Women's Sport, even with vigilence. It will be impossible to
protect Women's Sport by keeping our heads in the sand and pretending that
everything is just fine.

-Larry Weisenthal
- - - - -

Mark Fitton charged:

Bob Palermo

unread,

Sep 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/9/96

to

Interesting discussion.

Martin William Smith wrote:

>
> Larry Wiesenthall writes:
> Why not force all swimmers to carry the same weight
> like race horses do?

For the sake of correctness. In some races, all horses are required to
carry the same rider weight. This does not mean that the "horse + rider"
weights
are equal. There is no attempt to try to equalize these weights. Horses
may
vary in weight by a few hundred pounds. In fact, in such races, the
larger horses
end up carrying a smaller percentage of additional weight.

So for your example, all swimmers are carrying the same weight; 0 lbs.
But I
understand the gist of what you are saying. I don't agree but it's
interesting
just the same.

Bob Palermo

John Heenan

unread,

Sep 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/9/96

to

RunnSwim (runn...@aol.com) wrote:

: What is the purpose of discussing these things here? You might be
: surprised at the number of influential people in the
: coaching/administration/publication/governance of swimming who actually
: read this stuff. I have personally received not a few e-mails from these
: people.

Then I hope they are frightened. They should be. If they had any
sense of decency they would abolish international level swimming which
is putting so much pressure on indiviuals to cheat and is giving very
clear messages that winning is all that counts and that it is OK to
cheat asd long as you don't get caught.

Despite my rows with RunnSwim, I credit him with mucking in with us.
Why don't some of those wimpy, frightened little bureacrats join in
instead of engaging in their paper shuffuling, devising pompous press
statements with no end other than to protect and promote the budgets
they have control over, and cover their asses by denying the reality
of problms by ignoring them or papering over cracks with token
measures.

To the administrators and bureaucrats who Larry says reads this: GET
OFF YOUR F****** ASSES. IF THE PROBLEMS CAN'T BE SOLVED WHILE LETTING
SPORT SURVIVE THEN DESTROY SPORT.

John

John Heenan

unread,

Sep 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/9/96

to

Redsocks (matt...@li.net) wrote:
: wa...@saturn.ge.uiuc.edu (Eric Wang) wrote:

: >da...@mpx.com.au (John Heenan) writes:

: >>Evans father is part of an industry widely involved in drug abuse.
: >
: > But he hasn't been *proven* to have abused those drugs, or had his
: > certification revoked for it.

I never stated he has. I imagine many vets have been involved in drug
abuse with it been proven.

: You know, if you take five minutes and look at the verterinary-science issue,

: the lunacy of Heenan's allegation becomes readily apparent. All it takes is a
: few simple questions ....

A few comments demonstrate the lunacy of statement above.

I have not made any allegations.

: Q: What are Evans' main physical strengths (athletically speaking ;) )?

: A: Endurance and aerobic capacity.

: Q: Are those traits useful and desirable in farm animals?
: A: No.

Vets have a close involvement in racing animals. Their is speculation
swimmers in Australia used drugs that are widely and easily available
through veterinary circles. Steroids are used to promote recovery and
perhaps growth of animals. Steroids accelerate recovery from
training. This is of advantage in trining for distane events.

: Q: Would veterinary scientists produce drugs that promote those traits?
: A: No.

See above

: Q: Would Dr. Evans have access to such drugs to use on his child?
: A: No.

Oh?

: If she had turned out to be a champion shotputter, that would be one thing.
: But a distance swimmer?

Shows how much Matthew knows.

John Heenan

unread,

Sep 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/9/96

to

Redsocks (matt...@li.net) wrote:
: jo...@heenan.ironbark.id.au (John Heenan) wrote:

: >1. Interesting how no one has bothered to quote what was actually said in
: >the issue of 'Swimming World' concerned. Maybe the facts would be too
: >upsetting.

: My "Swimming World" back-issue collection isn't as complete as yours. Why
: don't *you* quote it. I'd love to see it.

I would if I could.

If you have more than two issues of 'Swimming World' then your
collection is more complete than mine: I threw my other issues out.
My impression from an article I read around late 1988/early 1989 is
that Janet Evans was not enrolled in Stanford University, but that she
was enrolled in another non university college that appeared to have
use of facilites that are owned by Stanford University.

: >3. The issue of Evans education level is irrelevant. The group has
: >chosen to isolate and concentrate on statements that have had no
: >relevance to the central issues. I never even called Evans a dimwit.

: You made several references to "special cases" and "sub-standard SAT scores",
: which were obviously intended to give the impression that Evans wasn't
: qualified to enter Stanford in the first place and dropped out because she
: couldn't handle it. You also used Zhong's term "moron" more than once,
: always denying authorship of course.

I don't know what Evans SAT score is, I merely gave some possible
reasonable explanations for what I read.

The truth is I did not call Evans stupid, dimwitted or moronic. I do
not use another name and email address to pose as someone called Zhong.

Special cases with sub-standard SAT scores might be children of very
rich donors and high profile students such as sports champions. A sub
standard SAT score does not indicate below average IQ, moronicy or
dimwittedness. I stated that some on the newsgroup had called Evans
'moronic', I didn't. I don't know what the minimum IQ is that below
is regarded as equivalent to a sub standard SAT score. It may be
around 120 on some standard scale. So if Janet Evans has an IQ of 115
on this scale, then she would still be sub standard on a SAT score,
even though possessing above average IQ. If this were her correct
level, I imagine many universities would be happy to accept her on
this level, given her high profile, and perhaps provide some special
assistance.

: You started the education thing. You brought up the issue of the "non-degree
: program" that she was allegedly placed in. For you to blame us for the
: diversion is disingenuous at best.

I brought up the education issue as it was in reply to mocking
statements by RunnSwim that her father was a 'mad vet genius'. I
pointed out facts that give cause to doubt Janet is a genius, and so
also her father. This was a trivial side point that US posters have
gone 'ape' over.

Eric Wang

unread,

Sep 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/9/96

to

jo...@heenan.ironbark.id.au (John Heenan) writes:
>This is what Mark had to say about Eric Wang's bizarre jumping comments

^^^^^^^

The kid gloves are off, eh, John? For somebody who claims to have
been "inappropriately abused", you sure know how to dish it out. Or
are you implying that it's OK for you to do it, but not OK when it
happens to you? In any case, you'll note that I have restricted my
comments solely to your written statements, and continue to do so
here despite your overt hostility. In marked contrast, you seem to
have no qualms about flaming me with personal insults.

>I have outlined below what appears to be Wang's logic on his leaping
>comments. It is invalid as it uses assumptions he has not supported.
>Wang has a big problem using facts and logic properly. He deigns to

>lecture me with text book logic ...

Deign to respond to my charge, then, which was specifically this (in
case you've forgotten): comparing Evans solely to the East Germans
because of their "systematic drug abuse" is bogus, and is no more
conclusive than comparing her to any other group of persons with a
common property P. You've dodged this issue ever since I brought it
up.

I wrote:
>> Here's an example from my domain of familiarity. Volleyball places
>> great value on vertical leaping ability, resulting in much research
>> into jump training. The typical USA collegiate women's volleyball
>> athlete jumps around 24", with 30" being a superior height. In
>> international levels, the average is up to 30", and among 2-time
>> gold medalist Cuba's starting 6, the average is around 36" :-|

>An average of 24" with a superior height of 36" indicates the superior
>is 50% higher than the average. At an international level, an average
>of 30" with a superior height of 36" indicates the superior is 20%
>higher than the average. Now this just goes to show how important

>other factors are in volleyball other than the ability to jump.

A fair assessment, but not really what I was getting at.

I wrote:
>> Players can usually gain around 6"-12" of improvement through
>> this specialized jump training. More to the point, players who've
>> never done serious jump training before will see much of the gain

>> very quickly ...

True enough.

>Wang's logic with its false contextual connotations appears to be:

>1. Volleyballers show large variations in their ability to jump.
>2. Swimmers comparitevely don't show such a large range of variation
> in their swimming times.
>3. Such variations are expected among volleyballers and so considered

normal.

>4. When a swimmer produces 'abnormal' improvement it is unexpected and
> so justifies suspicion.

Well, that's pretty close, but not quite the implication I intended.
1,3,2 are fair summaries, but I meant #4 the other way around:
*because* there was so much suspicion directed towards Smith _by her
fellow swimmers_ in Atlanta (based on my best information; see
below), I assumed that they __had reason to think__ that her
improvement was abnormal. I understand all of the explanations that
have come to light since then, the most significant one being that
she drastically increased her training intensity. But then, why
didn't her peers simply assume this to be the case?

I admit that I was in Atlanta watching other events full-time, and
thus missed most of NBC's live TV coverage of the Smith furor (but
this might be a *good* thing, as I'm probably one of the few persons
here who's been almost entirely uninfluenced by it). I based my
comments almost entirely on the written coverage of the controversy
in Atlanta's daily newspapers. Still, from all of my available
information, I inferred that Smith was controversial even (or
especially?) among her peers. To me, that kind of notoriety sticks
out like a sore thumb, regardless of the sport. My point about the
volleyball leaping gains being "expected" is that when we vb fans
hear that an opposing player has gained 12" or more of vertical in
just one year, we say, "Wow" in unison, but then we forget about it
almost immediately; it's just not something that would create a
fuss. (Actually, it would create a fuss of sorts, but of
admiration, not suspicion -- it's happened often enough that we
accept it as part of the sport.) So then I read these *written*
descriptions of the brewing Smith controversy, and how she is under
suspicion among her own peers, and *that* raises a flag. Maybe
swimming, and other timed or measured events such as track & field,
tends to be more suspicious by nature than volleyball and other
complex, multi-skill team sports, since it's (as you've pointed out)
more difficult to use drugs for success in multi-skill sports, hence
there's less pressure to do so. (Point in fact: Cuba out-jumps the
rest of the world by a few inches, and nobody has ever accused,
suspected, or rumored that they rely on drugs to do it. They just
have that equatorial hot-weather fast-twitch body composition, and
legs up to their armpits :-) I was not attempting to compare the
*quantitative* gains between leaping and swimming; rather, I was
trying to make the distinction between "big gains that make people
say 'wow' for two seconds" and "big gains that make people whisper
for days and days". Perhaps I'm falling into the "where there's
smoke, there's fire" trap, accepting that something is wrong just
because many other people think so. Still, I presented the
volleyball example only to give an idea that there can be "meteoric
gains" towards which knowledgeable people simply shrug their
shoulders. In the absense of other knowledge, I usually defer
judgment to the experts at the scene, and if they are all up in arms
over something, well, I'm not qualified to believe that they're all
wrong.

To summarize: if a vb player progresses from a mediocre leap to a
world-class leap in a couple of years, the vb community says, 'Been
jump-training, eh?' Here, a swimmer had gone from a mediocre time
to a world-class time in a couple of years, and a vocal subset of
the swimming community said, 'Drugs! Drugs! Drugs!' It wasn't the
time improvement or the drug rumors that caught my attention, it was
this brewing controversy.

>Now buried among the above are assumptions that are not valid within
>the context of the 'discussion'.

Think of it as "circumstantial" evidence, then :-)

>Now the fact is volleyball is a sport requiring complex motor skills,
>co-ordination and team discipine. What the results above suggest is
>that jumping ability, though it may be on important factor, is not the
>only important factor and can be compensated for with other important
>skills. In swimming, time is everything. All training is geared
>towards producing a best time. In volleyball all training is not
>geared towards producing best possible jumping heights. In fact some
>volleyballers appear to do no training for jumping at all as indicated
>above. If they do train then they will find their capacity for
>improvement will level off quickly.

Agreed. (As an aside, Cuba's women's team places a greater emphasis
on jump-training than the rest of the world, and they've won the
last two Olympics, the World Cup, and the World Championships.
Perhaps jump-training is more useful than we think :-( ))

>Now while swimmers obviously do not show such variations and quite
>clearly train for a best time, you will find that the implication that
>Michelle Smith demonstrated an improvement of the level of volleyball
>jump trainers so utterly false as to demonstrate the illogicality,
>bizzareness and in fact what can probably be fairly described as plain
>stupidity of Wang when it comes to applying his text book logic to
>real life.

Never complain about being abused again, John; after this, you can't
claim to deserve any better. I've never personally insulted you
like this. In any case, I wasn't attempting to *qualitatively*
compare vertical leap to swimming times, so you're beating a
strawman to death, which isn't very difficult.

>Eric also did not provide data to back up his assertion that Michelle
>Smith's improvements were abnormal.

Agreed; I didn't know of any off-hand, and my knowledge of swimming
is limited to begin with. However, you've got this backwards: it
was *you* who first claimed that Smith's improvements were *not*
unique, without providing examples:

From: da...@mpx.com.au (John Heenan)
Date: 1 Sep 1996 01:47:13 GMT
>>>> Michelle Smith's supposed 'sudden improvement' is not unique.
>>>> [There] is nothing unique about her age with regards to
>>>> performance. Look at track and field. Her performances were
>>>> not even remarkable by all time standards.

This is where I joined this thread, so I missed anything you may
have written before then. It was *I* who challenged *you* to name
other performers:

From: wa...@saturn.ge.uiuc.edu (Eric Wang)
Date: 1 Sep 1996 07:20:49 GMT
>>> Prove it. Name the other gold medalists who have improved their
>>> times so dramatically in a similarly brief period of time, or
>>> quote a source that identifies them. IMHO, if such a "sudden
>>> improvement" were common, then the other swimmers in Atlanta
>>> wouldn't have been talking and whispering about Smith's
>>> performances.

You did go on to name a few others, so I considered that part of the
discussion to be satisfactorily closed.

>What is abnormal is that she is still swimming competively at the age
>of 26. Her improvements are not abnormal or unique using normal
>swimming standards when considered as part of the total population of
>swimmers. If she did what she did to show results at the age of 19

>instead of 26, then this can be more readily appreciated.

Agreed.

>My earlier comments on Wang's misuse of logic follow.

^^^^^^

So ... where's the beef?

>: 2. I have always clearly pointed out we are dealing with
>: circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is not A implies B
>: evidence. We can use logic though to decide if whose improvements or
>: performances are unique.

>: 5. For anyone to imply Janet Evans has performed non uniqely in

>: comparison to individuals from East Germany where drug abuse was
>: systematic is false.

Likewise, for anyone to imply Janet Evans has performed non-uniquely
in comparison to individuals from Japan where rice abuse was
systematic is false. This was, and is, my sole point: it's simply
misleading for you to dangle that "drug abuse" connection repeatedly
and call it "circumstantial evidence", when precisely the same kind
of thinking leads to all sorts of other circumstantial evidence for
totally unrelated things.

>: 6. For anyone to imply a unique performance as above necessarily
>: implies drug abuse is false.

Well, at least you finally clarified this point in writing; it's the
first time I've seen it. In which case, it appears that we are in
agreement: your point #5 has no value to prove drug abuse by Evans.
But it's disingenuous for you to insist that you have nothing
against Evans and yet keep harping on the East Germans' drug abuse;
it's no more relevant than any other common trait of any other
subset of swimmers.

Eric Wang
wan...@uiuc.edu

Mark S. Fitton

unread,

Sep 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/9/96

to

Redsocks wrote:
>
> "Mark S. Fitton" <mark...@concentric.net> wrote:
>

> >Again, WHERE IS THE SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE!! EVIDENCE you moron, not
> >legitimate issues for discussion. If you want to suggest or discuss the fact
> >that Michelle might or probably did use drugs, be prepared for a frontal
> >assault. You are making the worst kind of speculation. I could give you many,
> >many other examples in many sports of performances that we could question as
> >"legitimate issues for discussion" For example, how do you explain Pablo
> >Morales 92 gold medal performance at his advanced age. (he had even retired
> >and not competed for a few years).
>

> I don't know where you get off calling people morons when you keep producing
> such faulty examples. Pablo Morales' winning time in Barcelona was 53.32, a
> time which would not have won a medal in Seoul and which was slower than his
> silver-medal time in LA. Don't ask Morales how he won, ask the rest of the
> world.
>
> --
> Redsocks (no, I'm not from Boston)
> matt...@li.net http://www.li.net/~matthewb/
>
> I've never done good things
> I've never done bad things
> I never did anything out of the blue
> I want an axe to break the ice
> I want to come down right now
> - David Bowie

You miss my point regarding Pablo Morales. His performance at that age was
considered a very remarkable thing by the USA announcers on the network.
Particularly since he had been retired and hadn't competed at that level for
some time. For him to go from inactive to world class in the time frame he
did leading up to the Olympics in Barcelona could lead to the sort of
speculation you and others have made regarding Michelle Smith. I merely use
this as an example of the unfair treatment towards Ms. Smith. I believe Pablo
was clean. I also believe Janet was clean, but there is circumstantial
evidence there too, if one wants to speculate. The same thing can be said of
Michelle Smith, except everyone wants to speculate that she cheated. There IS
NO EVIDENCE to suggest she did cheat. Accept it, she had one of the great
performances of the modern swimming era. You should have enjoyed it for what
it was, rather than dwell in black shadows casting aspersions.
Mark

David Swarbrick

unread,

Sep 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/9/96

to

In article <50phhu$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> runn...@aol.com "RunnSwim" writes:

] There is a huge difference between "throwing mud," and asking perfectly
] reasonable questions.

There is, but sadly, I have to say that you are failing to respect that
distinction, and it does you increasing discredit that you persist.

] To re-state:
]
] 1. Are Smith's achievements with precedent or without precedent?

This may be a reasonable question, but it is meaningless. By what standard
is 'unprecedented' to be measured. You seem to want to use only standards
which blacken Smith. Different yardsticks - equally valid, but just
not as comfortable to your own prejudices are rejected as 'smokescreen'

] 2. Are current methods of drug testing adequate to preclude doping in
] athletes who "test negative?"

Trite. It is obvious that much doping - carried out by anyone - is not
going to be measurable.

] 3. If Smith's achievement are unprecedented, then are there other
] explanations for the improvements beyond doping?

Why should she have to explain herself to you? The assumption should be that
sport is about recognising the greatness in individuals. You turn it
into something shabby and distasteful. You turn the very core of sporting
achievement on its head.

--
David Swarbrick, Solicitor, 22 Bradford Rd, Brighouse, West Yorks HD6 1RW
da...@swarb.demon.co.uk - http://www.lawsoc.org.uk/swarbrick
Tel: Office +44(0)1484 722531 Fax +44(0)1484 716617

Redsocks

unread,

Sep 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/12/96

to

"Mark S. Fitton" <mark...@concentric.net> wrote:

>Redsocks wrote:
>
>> I don't know where you get off calling people morons when you keep producing
>> such faulty examples. Pablo Morales' winning time in Barcelona was 53.32, a
>> time which would not have won a medal in Seoul and which was slower than his
>> silver-medal time in LA. Don't ask Morales how he won, ask the rest of the
>> world.
>

>You miss my point regarding Pablo Morales. His performance at that age was
>considered a very remarkable thing by the USA announcers on the network.
>Particularly since he had been retired and hadn't competed at that level for
>some time. For him to go from inactive to world class in the time frame he
>did leading up to the Olympics in Barcelona could lead to the sort of
>speculation you and others have made regarding Michelle Smith. I merely use
>this as an example of the unfair treatment towards Ms. Smith.

You missed *my* point. Pablo Morales was a world-record holder and Olympic
medalist eight years before he won in Barcelona. Michelle Smith was nobody
eight years before she won in Atlanta. There is a difference between getting
BACK to a world-class level at an advanced age and getting there for the first
time. Cyclist Rebecca Twigg did just about the same thing Morales did in '92,
taking the bronze in the pursuit (ten years after her first world championship
in that event) off one year of full-time training.

Al Spohn

unread,

Sep 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/12/96

to

In article <50klf7$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, runn...@aol.com (RunnSwim)
wrote:

Stuff deleted...

> But swimming generated huge TV ratings. In large measure, this was due to
> women viewers tuning in to see clean young women athletes. Virtually no
> one will tune in to watch dishonest competitions between normal and
> pharmacologically-altered women. So it is a cost which must be borne. To
> do otherwise is to be penny-wise and pound-foolish.

I disagree. The American public have always been freak show fanatics.
Although it's more comfortable to think otherwise, I think it's more likely
that women were tuning into the Olympic swimming to see the Americans
emerge victorious over the "great satan" Chinese athletes (an image
shrewdly reinforced by the press). I genuinely believe that more people
would tune in if they knew they were watching drug offenders than if they
weren't. That doesn't say much for the American public, granted, but we've
in large part turned into what the television moguls wanted, I believe.

Mark S. Fitton

unread,

Sep 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/12/96

to

Gee, maybe this Twigg girl cheated too, huh, what do you think. With
that kind of circumstantial evidence, one could make a case of it.
Mark

Matthew A. Brown

unread,

Sep 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/13/96

to

matt...@li.net (Redsocks) writes:
>"Mark S. Fitton" <mark...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>Redsocks wrote:
>>
>>You miss my point regarding Pablo Morales. His performance at that age was
>>considered a very remarkable thing by the USA announcers on the network.
>>Particularly since he had been retired and hadn't competed at that level for
>>some time. For him to go from inactive to world class in the time frame he
>>did leading up to the Olympics in Barcelona could lead to the sort of
>>speculation you and others have made regarding Michelle Smith. I merely use
>>this as an example of the unfair treatment towards Ms. Smith.
>
>You missed *my* point. Pablo Morales was a world-record holder and Olympic
>medalist eight years before he won in Barcelona. Michelle Smith was nobody
>eight years before she won in Atlanta. There is a difference between getting
>BACK to a world-class level at an advanced age and getting there for the first
>time. Cyclist Rebecca Twigg did just about the same thing Morales did in '92,
>taking the bronze in the pursuit (ten years after her first world championship
>in that event) off one year of full-time training.

However, to take an example from the same event, Yvonne MacGregor came
fourth in the cycling pursuit in Atlanta at the age of 35. She only
took up the sport at 30. These things happen.

Matthew

Redsocks

unread,

Sep 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/13/96

to

"Mark S. Fitton" <mark...@concentric.net> wrote:

>Redsocks wrote:
[snip]
>> ... Cyclist Rebecca Twigg did just about the same thing Morales did in '92,

>> taking the bronze in the pursuit (ten years after her first world championship
>> in that event) off one year of full-time training.
>

>Gee, maybe this Twigg girl cheated too, huh, what do you think. With
>that kind of circumstantial evidence, one could make a case of it.

1) She's not a "girl", she's 33.

2) Cycling has had worse drug problems than swimming (I mean, you've never
heard of a doped-up swimmer literally dropping dead in midrace, have you?), so
it's highly doubtful she would have gotten away with anything.

3) She passed the test, what more do you want?

Philip W. Arcuni

unread,

Sep 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/13/96

to

In article <DxGo...@heenan.ironbark.id.au>,

John Heenan <jo...@heenan.ironbark.id.au> wrote:
>
>To the administrators and bureaucrats who Larry says reads this: GET
>OFF YOUR F****** ASSES. IF THE PROBLEMS CAN'T BE SOLVED WHILE LETTING
>SPORT SURVIVE THEN DESTROY SPORT.
>

Everytime I just about get off my butt to put John in my kill file he
actually says something worthwhile.

Phil

Mark S. Fitton

unread,

Sep 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/13/96

to

Redsocks wrote:
>
> "Mark S. Fitton" <mark...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >Redsocks wrote:
> [snip]
> >> ... Cyclist Rebecca Twigg did just about the same thing Morales did in '92,
> >> taking the bronze in the pursuit (ten years after her first world championship
> >> in that event) off one year of full-time training.
> >
> >Gee, maybe this Twigg girl cheated too, huh, what do you think. With
> >that kind of circumstantial evidence, one could make a case of it.
>
> 1) She's not a "girl", she's 33.

So is she a 33 woman or a 33 man, you don't make that DETAIL clear :-)

> 2) Cycling has had worse drug problems than swimming (I mean, you've never
> heard of a doped-up swimmer literally dropping dead in midrace, have you?), so
> it's highly doubtful she would have gotten away with anything.

I agree with your point here...touche

> 3) She passed the test, what more do you want?

Aaaah, the crux of your argument for the Twigg woman. That would also be the
crux of my argument for Michelle Smith. So, lets agree that for Michelle
Smith...."she passed the test, what more do you want?" Fair is fair. I
believe I lit the bulb on that one.
Mark

BTW, I am not from Boston, but I am a Red Sox fan:-)

<>deleted the sig file for the sake of brevity<>

Jeff Houser

unread,

Sep 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/15/96

to

Mark S. Fitton wrote:
>
> Redsocks wrote:
> >
> > "Mark S. Fitton" <mark...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Redsocks wrote:
> > [snip]
> > >> ... Cyclist Rebecca Twigg did just about the same thing Morales did in '92,
> > >> taking the bronze in the pursuit (ten years after her first world championship
> > >> in that event) off one year of full-time training.
> > >
> > >Gee, maybe this Twigg girl cheated too, huh, what do you think. With
> > >that kind of circumstantial evidence, one could make a case of it.

Wasn't Twigg one of the US cyclists who admitted to blood doping in
1984? Greg Lemond had some excellent comments on the subject at the
time.

Redsocks

unread,

Sep 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/18/96

to

Jeff Houser <hou...@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:

Yes. She said it was done too close to the competition to have any positive
effect, and the distraction may have cost her the race. It doesn't sound like
something she'd have tried again.

RunnSwim

unread,

Sep 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/20/96

to

In article <32402f13...@newshost.li.net>, matt...@li.net (Redsocks)
writes:

>>Wasn't Twigg one of the US cyclists who admitted to blood doping in
>>1984? Greg Lemond had some excellent comments on the subject at the
>>time.
>
>Yes. She said it was done too close to the competition to have any
positive
>effect, and the distraction may have cost her the race. It doesn't sound
>like
>something she'd have tried again.

"Distraction?" Come on. I saw that race in person (on O'Neil Drive...now
Olympic Drive...in Mission Viejo). Rebecca Twigg and Connie Carpenter
rode in the same pack for the whole race. Then there was a furious sprint
finish and Connie beat Rebecca by about the width of her tire. Do you
think that Rebecca was really thinking whether or not the blood doping was
helping her during that sprint? (Rhetorical question only).

-Larry Weisenthal

Redsocks

unread,

Sep 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/23/96

to

runn...@aol.com (RunnSwim) wrote:

[shrug] Don't look at me, I'm just quoting (Sports Illustrated, 7/22/96,
p113).

leonard...@paonline.com

unread,

Sep 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/23/96

to

>>Wasn't Twigg one of the US cyclists who admitted to blood doping in
>>1984? Greg Lemond had some excellent comments on the subject at the
>>time.
>
>Yes. She said it was done too close to the competition to have any

Ru> positive

>effect, and the distraction may have cost her the race. It doesn't sound
>like
>something she'd have tried again.

Ru> "Distraction?" Come on. I saw that race in person (on O'Neil
Ru> Drive...now Olympic Drive...in Mission Viejo). Rebecca Twigg and
Ru> Connie Carpenter rode in the same pack for the whole race. Then there
Ru> was a furious sprint finish and Connie beat Rebecca by about the width
Ru> of her tire. Do you think that Rebecca was really thinking whether or
Ru> not the blood doping was helping her during that sprint? (Rhetorical
Ru> question only).

What I think alot of people have forgotten is that most of the cyclists
who blood doped at the '84 Olympics did it with SOMEONE'S ELSE BLOOD. In
many cases they used blood from relatives or spouses. Apparently the
decision to blood-dope was made too late to use the athlete's own blood
in some cases. There were reported cases of flu-like symptoms following the
doping. As to Rebecca Twigg's situation, I forget the details.

BTW, Rebecca Twigg is the nicest, smartest, most wonderful person you
would ever want to meet. When I was a resident athlete (track & field)
at the Olympic Training Center, she lived about 5 doors down and I used
to pray for the chance to talk to her. Be still, my heart! ;-)

-Leonard <leonard...@paonline.com>

Jeff Houser

unread,

Sep 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/24/96

to

Somebody's missing a point.
Blood doping was then, and is now a banned practice and is subject to
the same sanctions as any other banned classification. Unfortunately
there is no simple test, a fact used to advantage by the many of the
1984 US cycling team.
Twigg should not have been used as an example of sportsmanship.

I do not doubt Rebecca's character, and it is my understanding that the
coaches of the 84 team did not give the Athletes any choice in the
matter (choice in the real and free sense).

Jeff H, 96.

RunnSwim

unread,

Sep 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/24/96

to

In article <324816...@fox.nstn.ca>, Jeff Houser <hou...@fox.nstn.ca>
writes:

>Blood doping was then, and is now a banned practice and is subject to
>the same sanctions as any other banned classification. Unfortunately
>there is no simple test, a fact used to advantage by the many of the
>1984 US cycling team.

I am just curious...not challenging but rather supporting the point of
view that blood doping is cheating in the same way that drug doping is
cheating and therefore is to be condemned...but was blood doping really
"illegal" in 1984? It was supposed to have "started" with Lasse Viren in,
I believe, 1972. The reason that I ask the question is that there seems to
have been no big effort to keep the blood doping by the American cyclists
in 1984 a secret...I would have thought that the fairly open
revelations/admissions about the episode would have provoked a call for
stripping of medals, awarding medals to the athletes beaten by the
blood-doped athletes, etc.

So here's the question...at what point did blood doping explicitly become
a banned practice by the IOC and/or cycling federation? Just curious.

-Larry Weisenthal

Jeff Houser

unread,

Sep 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/24/96

to

I was a National Team Athlete in 84 (Canada, Sprint Kayak), and had
alway tried to keep abreast of the doping control issue. It is my
understanding blood boosting was banned at the time, but I may be wrong,
and this may have come later. I DO remeber Greg Lemond coming out very
strongly in condeming the US team and its coaching staff, and it may be
on the strength of this memory that I believe that boosting was banned
this far back.

However, admission of guilt means nothing without a positive test. The
only reason Ben was stripped of his results prior to '88, was that he
made admission, AND tested positive. Personnally, I don't believe in
this; test everyone or test no one, do not convict on heresay.

Jeff H, 96.

leonard...@paonline.com

unread,

Sep 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/27/96

to

Ru> I am just curious...not challenging but rather supporting the point of
Ru> view that blood doping is cheating in the same way that drug doping is
Ru> cheating and therefore is to be condemned...but was blood doping
Ru> really "illegal" in 1984? It was supposed to have "started" with Lasse
Ru> Viren in, I believe, 1972. The reason that I ask the question is that
Ru> there seems to have been no big effort to keep the blood doping by the
Ru> American cyclists in 1984 a secret...

No. It *was* a secret. The way it came out was that a orthopedic surgeon
by the name of Dickson who had worked with cycling went to the press
with the news. Rumor had it that he was disgruntled about his treatment
by the federation/coaches and used this to get back at them. More
interestingly, after it was revealed, the athletes saw this as a way to
absolve themselves of blame for their less-than-expected performances.
Something like "The coaches made us do it and it hurt our performances
anyway."

-Leonard <leonard...@paonline.com>
U.S. Olympic Committee Member,
Sports Medicine/Science Division from 1982-1991

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

Jason Krupp

unread,

Oct 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/1/96

to

leonard...@paonline.com wrote:
>
> Ru> I am just curious...<stuff deleted>

> Ru> American cyclists in 1984 a secret...
>
> No. It *was* a secret. The way it came out was that a orthopedic surgeon
> by the name of Dickson who had worked with cycling went to the press
> with the news. Rumor had it that he was disgruntled about his treatment
> by the federation/coaches and used this to get back at them. More
> interestingly, after it was revealed, the athletes saw this as a way to
> absolve themselves of blame for their less-than-expected performances.
> Something like "The coaches made us do it and it hurt our performances
> anyway."
>
> -Leonard <leonard...@paonline.com>
> U.S. Olympic Committee Member,
> Sports Medicine/Science Division from 1982-1991

The cyclists had less than expected performances in 1984!?! That is certainly news
to me. I beleive that it was the best ever medal haul by the US in cycling, with
golds in at least 5 events and at least 7 medals total (men's and womens pursuit
golds, men's road race gold, womens road race gold and silver, mens sprint gold and
silver). There may have been more, but I can't find my old. That is a
considerable medal haul if that was all that they did.

Jane Worden

unread,

Oct 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/2/96

to

I'll be in Sydney next week for work and am looking for
a master's group to swim with (or even just a nice pool
to swim in).

I'll be staying at the Regent of Sydney.

Suggestions? Locations? Practice times?

Thanks,
Jane

Colin Priest

unread,

Oct 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/5/96

to

I'm with North Sydney masters. We train at North Sydney pool (next to the
harbour bridge on the north side, and it is the closest pool to the Regent)
on Monday and Wednesday nights at 7:00pm. Don't bother turning up on Monday
7th - its a public holiday.

Jane Worden <ja...@Eng.Sun.COM> wrote in article
<52se5l$j...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>...

Fab4Fan99

unread,

Oct 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/7/96

to

In article <50ibqv$m...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, wa...@saturn.ge.uiuc.edu (Eric
Wang) writes:

>>> Actually, there is: female distance swimmers tend to excel at
>>> younger ages, 16-18 or so. However, consider her age and her
rapid
>>> improvement *together*: when has a swimmer shown such a big
>>> improvement *at such a late age*?
>
>>Umm, right off the top of my head, how about Pablo Morales in the 1992
>>Olympics. His times dropped even more dramatically than Smiths did. I
>>missed the furor over rumors of his drug usage. Again, I'm only
>>countering your counters.
>
>

No, they did not. Morales' winning time in the Olympics in 1992 was 53.32.
His world record in 1986 was 52.84. His SECOND-place finish in 1984 was
53.23!

Morales' comeback was wonderful, and to get close to his previous times
was a remarkabel achievement, but improve on those earlier times he did
not do.

Frank

John Heenan

unread,

Oct 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/12/96

to

It is flattering to see a posting from Sun Microsystems on this
newsgroup.

I wonder if Jane found a place to swim in Sydney. The decrepit North
Sydney pool mentioned below is a walk through swimming history. It
may hold the world record for the most world records set in a swimming
pool. It is an awful pity it won't be tarted up and used for the
Olympics. Public transport wise there would be no difficulties. It
was good enough for the Empire Games in 1936 (now the Commonwealth
Games). Visitors would have been amidst spectacular scences of Sydney
at the base of a glorious technological monument (the Sydney Harbour
bridge).

So what is Jane's comapny, Sun Microsystems, about besides making
powerful Unix workstations?

1. They have has a huge influence on the evolution of the Internet and
highly effective TCP/IP networking.

2. They have no public presence: their systems are not 'consumer items'

3. Their project without a home for years as found a niche on the
Internet as a cool tool: Java, a platform independent object oriented
programming language.

4. They hyped an Irish poet on their web pages before he won a Nobel
prize for literature.

5. They had legal action taken against them by Yellow Pages for using
their name in an Internet database system.

Comments and correctons welcomed.

John

Colin Priest (colin_...@msn.com) wrote:
: I'm with North Sydney masters. We train at North Sydney pool (next to the

: >
: >
: >
: >
--
John Heenan Mobile:(+61 or 0)416005263 Fax:(+61 or 0)2 93838064
jo...@heenan.ironbark.id.au http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ohn/swim

Bernard Robertson-Dunn

unread,

Oct 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/14/96

to b...@netinfo.com.au

John Heenan wrote:
>
> It is flattering to see a posting from Sun Microsystems on this
> newsgroup.
>
> I wonder if Jane found a place to swim in Sydney.
> The decrepit North
> Sydney pool mentioned below is a walk through swimming history. It
> may hold the world record for the most world records set in a swimming
> pool.

I sent Jane an email also suggesting North Sydney Pool. I used to swim
there every lunch hour and I have some fond memories of the place, especially
in winter when they enclosed it with a canvas bubble held up by air pressure.
One day, the air heating had gone and the only way to see was underwater,
if you had goggles. A journalist did a piece on the pool called
Combat Lane Swimming, because of the aggressive nature of some of the
macho types who would not stop for anything.

> So what is Jane's comapny, Sun Microsystems, about besides making
> powerful Unix workstations?

Scott MacNealy, CEO of Sun was out here last week, my guess is that Jane was
travelling with him. I went to a presentation by Scott to Defence people
and there was a young lady with him. I did not get a chance to talk to her
but I suspect that it was (the now famous) Jane. I sent her an email asking,
but her automated mail reader just told me that she was away and would be back
Real Soon Now.

regards
brd

Mike Stratford

unread,

Oct 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/25/96

to

This is the most convincing argument that we have heard RE: Evans not
taking drugs. Can't we leave it here and just accept (by the way I'm
UK not US) that she was one of the most naturally gifted swimmers of
all time ?.

With regard to Smith, she was tested, she passed, end of story.
That was yesterdays news, look forward, not back, and lets get this
group back to talking about SWIMMING by SWIMMERS no any nationalist
with an axe to grind.

jjs...@ix.netcom.com(Josh Jeffrey ) wrote:

>I have been looking for information to help substantiate my claims that
>Janet Evans did not use performance enhancing drugs. Also information
>about her progression and what not.

>This is from the article "Meet a small wonder", Sports Illustrated
>Olympic Preview 88.

>"During a pre-olympic training camp at the university of hawaii, dr.
>john troup, director of sports medicine and science for u.s. swimming,
>is testing the energy efficiency of the nation's top 75 swimmers. The
>results will tell him who uses the least amount of energy to swim the
>fastest.
> Janet Evans, at 17 the world's best female distance swimmer,
>reaches the halfway point of a 400-meter test swim and pauses just long
>enough to slip lightweight plastic headgear over her bathing cap and to
>insert a mouthpiece. The mouthpiece is connected to two plexiglas pipes
>that loop in front of her face and are attached to the top of the
>headgear. Evans inhales through the shorter pipe, a sort of snorkel,
>and exhales through the other, which is connected to a rubber weather
>balloon held by troup. Evans begins swimming again, and troup walks
>alongside the pool, collecting her exhaled air. At the end of the swim
>he empties the balloon's contents into computerized oxygen and
>carbon-dioxide analyzers.
>"Janet is the most energy-efficient machine in the water today, male or
>female," troup declares. "In the past four years I have tested more
>than a thousand swimmers, beginners to Olympians, and Janet uses less
>oxygen or less energy, to swim at a fast pace than anybody i've ever
>seen."
>"I'll stop short of saying Janet's a fish, but physiologically she's
>very similar. Both have muscles with a high anaerobic capacity, which
>means great endurance as well as big bursts of speed at the end of a
>swim."

>It also goes on to say that Janet set a NAG record in the 200m free as
>a 10 year old <2:18.07>, which still stood at the time of press. She
>qualified for Junior Nationals at age 11 the first time she ever swam
>the 1650. She was the youngest competitor there and she finished 47th
>in 17:33.85 as an 11 year old. At 12 when she won Junior Nationals
><16:56.02 for the 1500m>, she was 4'10 and 68 pounds. She took 36
>strokes to travel 25 yards and 62 to travel 50 meters. In 1985 she grew
>to 5'1 and 87 pounds, and by Seoul she had grown to 5'5 and 105. She
>reduced her 50-meter stroke count to 52. I don't think a 12-year old
>has ever won Junior Nationals since then.

>Here is some info from SOMAX.

>"..Janet Evans for instance, has the biggest breathing range of any
>elite swimmer. This is why she holds world records in the 400, 800, and
>1500 meter freestyle when she has a VO2 Max of only 56, compared to
>most elite swimmers with a VO2 max of 70-80. In otherwards, Janet can
>outswim freestylers with a cardiovascular capacity 50% greater than
>hers because her breathing flexibility is 50% greater than theirs."

>"....Janet Evans, who can swim longer distances far faster than anyone
>her size, expands 3 1/2 inches at her diaphragm. But Janet only has a
>21" chest. To expand proportionately, an adult swimmer would have to
>expand 6-7 inches depending on chest size. The greatest expansion we
>have measured is 4" on a nationally ranked college swimmer. Janet Evans
>is the only swimmer we know of who swims anywhere near her
>physiological potential."

>I called Pritchard and he said he thinks Evans' times have dropped off
>because she is less flexible in her breathing range now. Less
>flexibility in the ranges needed for swimming results in dramatic
>increases in time. Pritchard also said something about Mary T. He said
>that to this day, she was the only swimmer who had 100% flexibility in
>the ranges needed for butterfly. To this day, she still holds the world
>record.

>Heenan said that Evan's training was nothing spectacular. Get this.
>Evans had to train with the men because the women couldn't keep up with
>her. Also, at the 88 Olympics and all camps leading up to the Games,
>Janet trained with the men. Mel Stewart said of her at the 88 Games,
>"We would all get in and try to train with her <the men> and we would
>have to stop because we were killing ourselves. She's an animal in
>workout."

>Here are some of the sets she did according to Bud McAllister in
>"Swimming Into the 21st Century."

>Individual Medley
>200 at 2:45, 400 at 5:30, 600 at 8:15, 800 at 11:00.
>600 at 7:45 <swam 7:38>, 400 at 5:10 <swam 4:59>, and 200 at 2:35 <swam
>2:27>
>This set was swam at 3:00 per 200 on all distances going up, and 2:45
>from the second 600 down.

>Also 20X400 IM, with 4 at 6:00, 4 at 5:50, 4 at 5:40, 4 at 5:30, 4 at
>5:20. <last four were done in 5:12, 5:09, 5:07, 5:04>

>Also 4000 IM for time-1000 of each stroke. Time 52:29 <5:13 avg each
>400 IM>

>"On the following set, I gradually lowered the intervals and watched
>her go faster."
>600 IM @ 9:00 and then 3x400 IM at 5:25. <5:13,5:13,5:11>
>600 IM at 9:00 then 2x400 IM at 5:15 <5:06, 5:01>
>600 IM at 9:00 then 1x400 IM at 5:05 <4:53>

>Butterfly Set: 24x100
>1 each at 1:30, 1:25, 1:20, 1:15
>2 each at "" "" "" ""
>3 each at "" "" "" ""
>Janet's last 3 were 1:12, 1:12, 1:12.

>Freestyle sets
>3 @ 2:05, 1 @ 1:50, then
>2 @ 2:00, 2 @ 1:45, then
>1 at 1:55, 3 @ 1:40
>Janet's last 3 were 1:36, 1:37, 1:38. Janet has also done 3x150 at
>1:40. Also
>4x100 at 1:25, 3x200 at 2:40, 2x300 at 3:45 and 1x400 at 4:40 <Janet
>did 4:13>

>8x300 with 2 at 3:45, then 2 at 3:25, 3:24, 3:20. <on the 3:20, Janet
>went 3:17, 3:19>

>These were some of the toughest and best sets Janet Evans made. She has
>also done intense middle-distance freestyle sets, such as 8 300s with 2
>at 3:45, 2 at 3:25, and 2 at 3:20. During school vacations, she does
>slightly more, 14,000 to 15,000 a day rather than 13,000 to 14,000. I
>think these were long course. But I am not sure. Nevertheless quite
>impressive.

>As for Heenan, who said Bud McAllister hasn't coached anyone else to
>greatness. He is the only coach I know of with 2 women below 4:40 in
>the 400 IM. Kristine Quance and Janet Evans are both McAllister
>protegees, and right now, Japan's Suzu Chiba <1:59.40 in the 200 free
>this year> is too. I believe he is coaching at Golden West right now
>where he has some very good distance freestylers.

>Well, you have seen some of my arguments. Feel free to post your own.
>But I feel that Janet never has used performance enhancing drugs. Make
>your own decision. There is something to the flexibility issue. Get
>this. Matt Biondi was not the most powerful swimmer on the Cal team,
>but he had 60 percent more range of motion in his shoulders than anyone
>else on the team. Janet Evans is the most energy-efficient swimmer ever
>tested, and so she was faster. Plus she put in a hell of a lot of hard
>work. She earned everything she won.

>----Josh----