She understands the drive to use steroids, it won't lift mediocre athletes to greatness, it's already in line with other abuses that she and other athletes willingly endure regardless of cost.

I've come to the conclusion it is best to allow enhanced performance. Let the steroid-inflated compete. All they have to do is register as an enhanced performed, and sign a contract, and read a pledge, that states that they are not using any type of banned performance enhancing product, and that they understand that if they are found to be lying, the penalty is a lifetime ban from the sport. The personal morality of it is simply not a factor for Sey or many other athletes at her level. Regardless of the injuries and health consequences.

I've come to the conclusion that performance enhancing substances should not be banned. Rather, we should simply ask athletes to take a test to distinguish whether they are enhanced or not. The athlete swears to the validity of the test on their honor as an athlete - this is done in a ceremonial way, and videotaped, as well as signed, like a Declaration. Any athlete caught lying about their status as unenhanced is banned for life.

Then all athletes compete, like alwas. Performances from 'enhanced' athletes will be marked with an * in the record books. Performance from unenhanced ahthletes - no *. The public will, naturally, root for and prefer winners who are au natural. That might be enough to stop some athletes from doping. But even if they don't - everyone will always scan the list of winners and announce the first 'au natural' one to be the 'real' winner, while all the drug takers are dismissed as phonies.

Take away the incentive to lie by making it a personal choice to succeed by natural means or not.

thanks for the clairfication....I didn't realize it was you who had posted that 'breathtaking' quote of Edwards. I should have backtracked and checked.

I'm still puzzled why the story about Edwards is about what happened 2 years ago, and not the incident that broke the story - a now, in real-time hotel visit by Edwards to Hunter, that lasted all night. It doesn't look, to me, like the affair is over, and it casts suspicion on his claim not be be the father.

Normally I could give a rat's ass - I full accept that one's sexual pecadilloes are not, necessarily, linked to the ability to do some job well, political or otherwise. However - Edwards is making a big point of saying the affair is over, talking about the baby and its mother in extremely distancing terms....and this does not jibe with the cirumstances of his unveiling, so to speak.

A man that uses a public platform of apology to continue lying is beyond redemption, personally or professionally. I sincerely hope that this is not what Edwards is doing.

Edwards, too, worked hard to criminalize behavior he too was guilty of. He was quite vocal about Clinton's disrespect for the country, the office of President, his wife and children. Then he turns around and behaves the exact same way! Only worse! You can't expect to self-appoint yourself as moral judge, and then go judgement free when you violate the moral code you so vociferously stood for.

I agree that a politician's sexual life is not necessarily indicative of his ability to govern, develop intelligent policy, and lead. But lying and hypocrisy are different matters altogether. Edwards hypocritically condemned Clinton for behavior he found acceptable to risk, himself...and he wove his family inextricably into his own leadership narrative, using his devotion to them as a means of claiming a moral high ground that he both explicitly and implicitly said he stood for.

His affair wouldn't be such a big deal if he, himself, had not made such an event represent an enormous departure from the man he claimed to be. Had he kept his mouth shut about moral matters, both in the case of Clinton and in his own campaigning, I'd totally back the argument that this story has no place in the spotlight. But he didn't, and it is; he is, unfortunately, the sole actor that made possible the feeding frenzy he finds himself at the center of.

The thing that is bothering me is that this story broke when an Enquirer staffer photographed Edwards visiting Hunter in a hotel - and STAYING THE NIGHT. It appears to me that the affair was briefly rekindled. If that's true, then his Nightline interview is just a parody.

As others have noted - it is our business when a politician campaigns on his morality, and makes the members of his family an integral part of his political narrative. John Edwards presented himself as a certain type of man - a *better* man - and now he has to face the music when caught in the inevitable truth that he is, in fact, just an ordinary man who makes mistakes like everyone else.

When you set yourself up to be lionized, you can't really complain when the lions turn on you.

Well, apparently it is. My recommendation would be for the bridesmaid to be honest. Turn to the bride and say - your requests and recommendations are not taking my feelings into account. And in order for me to be happy, and not talk about you behind your back to everyone, my feelings have to come before this friendship or your wedding day - so maybe I'm not a good choice for being your bridesmaid."

Or, you know, she could just say "No Botox for me, thanks for the offer. Maybe you can just get me some nice face cream to use instead...or, I can avoid having any expression during the wedding or reception, so I look like all the other girls."