Talk:Carl Lewis

Tone

I just added the tone tag...a lot of material under "Athletic Career" does not seem written in an encyclaepedia-like fashion. 74.136.198.204 04:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific? Canada Jack 15:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been a while, and nothing specific has appeared, so the tag needs to be removed.Fconaway 00:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the first claim. This whole article is written with a lot of hyperbole and almost bias, and I think it can be toned down to be presented in a more matter-of-fact style. 71.202.212.94 (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I will start to do a clean-up, tell me if it helps. Canada Jack (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've completed a major clean-up, tell me if this resolves the above-mentioned issues. Canada Jack (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

various topics

This article is sort of lengthy. It could be made easier on the eyes with some pictures.

Carl Lewis also made a single record. I don't remember year or titel. The single was called "Break It Up" 1987. Was it a hit ?

I don't know much about his music, but I think, or I agree with many sport-fans, that Carl Lewis is the greatest sportsman all the times.

Carl Lewis has been exposed as having taken performance enhancing drugs, as almost every other athlete does, however his medals and records have not been revoked. Why? Why was Ben Johnson hung out to dry while others profited from the same practices? Greatest athlete of all time? I think not.

But than, tell me: who is the greatest? Nine Olympic gold, eight World Championsip's gold (let's remember: ewery 4 years, not ewery 2, like today), he repeat Jesse Owens, he repeat Al Oerter, first man on 100 meters under 10 sec on sea level, best series in long jump, ex world record holder in 100 m, current world record holder in long jump (indoor) and, of course, in 4 × 100 m relay. Nobody before him has not two Olympic gold in 100 m (o.k. second is after Ben Jonhson's drug test in Seoul), nobody before him has not two Olympic gold in long jump (he has four). That' facts! What else we need? About drugs? During four Olympic games ('84-'96), and during four World Championshios ('83-'93) what's result? We have not no one, even little, proof! That's facts! For me, the answer is - yes, only Carl Lewis is the greatest athlete of all time!

Here's my two cents' worth...

I'd hesitate to call Lewis the greatest athlete of all time.

Lewis absolutely is ONE of the greatest athletes of our time, as his impressive achievements at the Olympics and World Championships attest.

But, for me, what separates THE greatest from ONE of the greatest is the lack of dominance of his achievements once he retired. Though the numbers of gold medals surely is impressive, none of his athletic achievements have stood as long-standing records. None of his records stood for three years.

Indeed, unlike Jesse Owens, who held world records in the 100m, 200m and long jump, Lewis only held records in the 100m.

True, his indoor long-jump record stands after 20 years, but indoor meets are fewer and fewer these days, and that mark has been exceeded by three others besides Lewis outdoors. As for the relays, that is a reflection of the depth of American sprinting, and not a measure of the greatness of Lewis per se.

Since the argument against Lewis as being "greatest athlete ever" implies that there are more worthy candidates for this title, I'll supply one: Jesse Owens.

Owens' career took place during a time where someone of his race was subjected to routine discrimination; Lewis' achievements came during a time where this factor was much reduced if not completely eliminated.

Not only did Owens set world records in events where Lewis did not, Owens' records stood a long time, a generation in one case:

100 m - Set in 1936, not surpassed (though often tied) until 1956.

200 m - Set in 1936, not surpassed (though twice tied) until 1952.

Long Jump - Set in 1935, not surpassed until 1960.

Further, his achievement on May 25 1935 when he set three world records and tied another in a span of 45 minutes ranks as one of the greatest sports accomplishments in history.

One of the biggest reasons for Lewis' greatness was his longevity in the sport. Winning golds in four successive Olympics is an astounding feat. Owens was unfortunate to live in a time where world events meant there was not another chance to repeat his 1936 Olympic achievements until 1948.

Also, Owens after being famously snubbed by Hitler at the Olympics who refused to shake his hand, returned to an America where Owens later noted "I wasn't invited to the White House to shake hands with the president either." His life was limited by the highly restricted opportunities allowed a black man - even one with such impressive achievements - in stark contrast to Lewis was able to in large measure profit from his achievements.

Of course, Owens can't be given credit for not having had an opportunity to repeat his feats in later Olympics or be given extra marks for being a victim of discrimination, and Lewis' achievements aren't lessened by the fact he wasn't subject to the trials Owens was, but it should be noted that unlike with Lewis, Owens' records were the marks people were aiming for more than a decade later, and in the case of the long jump, for a full quarter century.

Lewis fully deserves to be considered one of the greatest athletes to have graced the world stage.

He falls short, in my opinion, of being the greatest, as his achievements fall short of at least one person I can think of.

Johnny Canuck 16:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

See e.g. http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=35325#537195 and the surrounding thread for another view.

88.77.138.97 (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the page to give what I hope is a more balanced view of Lewis, his achievements and his pitfalls.

Compared to the bio of Ben Johnson, for example, Lewis' bio was remarkably thin and tended towards hagiography.

The previous version seemed to want to almost ignore his competitors, despite the fact that he was probably most well-known for his rivallry with Ben Johnson. And, since the legendary duel with Mike Powell in 1991 ranks as arguably one of the greatest ever in track and field, I spent more time describing that competition.

I'm a bit new to this, so I am a bit concerned that I;'ve not properly cited sources here, so I'd appreciate a bit of help in what needs to be sourced and what doesn't, and how to insert those sources where needed.

--Johnny Canuck 16:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Johnny! I hadn't spent the time to review carefully, but it sure seems like you're doing great work. As far as sources go, everything needs to be sourced, ideally. A good start would be to add a == References == section to clarify what sources were actually used in writing the article (as opposed to == External links ==, which means "more stuff you might read"). Inline citations are the next step, and it's just kind of an art form deciding how many of those to have and where. A lot of people say you need one for any fact including a number or time, for example. WP:CITE is our page on the subject.

My other suggestions are organizational -- you could probably use a heading or two in there, to provide more structured organization. You also should try to combine paragraphs some: one-sentence paragraphs are too short. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, grapes!

I've done a minor bit of sourcing today, and will endeavour to work to get more of the times etc sourced.

As for your other comments, sounds like a good idea to get some more structure in terms of heading. I kinda prefer to use the one-line paragraghs for emphasis, but I recognize that that probably doesn't conform to neutral encyclopedia style... I will fix...

--Johnny Canuck 18:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I updated the palmares. Bronze medal at the Pan American games of 1979 and a gold medal at 4x100m relay (pan american 1987) were missing.

Michele --88.149.251.209 (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

1. Please sign comments with four tildes ( ~~~~ )

2. Please limit comments to collaboration on article content and improvement.

- Dystopos 17:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Actor

Apparently he has an acting career shouldn't this be included? See: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0507006/—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.48.6 (talk • contribs)

I'll add the link under the part containing external links but I really cannot be bothered commenting on it.--Greasysteve13 06:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Chicago Bulls

I'm assuming he didn't play. A bit of additional clarification about what happened would be nice. 66.93.12.67 21:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh my.

Quote: "Lewis, gaining momentum, put in a monster 8.83 m wind-aided leap in the third round, a mark which would have won every long jump competition in history, save two, but which ultimately would not be the winning mark today, nor even Lewis’ best of the day. Powell then put together a massive jump, but one that was never measured as it was a foul. Lewis responded to Powell by putting in yet another huge jump. The wind gauge indicated that it was a wind-aided jump, so it could not be considered a record, but it would still count in the competition. The result: 8.91 m. Lewis had surpassed Bob Beamon’s immortal 8.90 m world record leap with the greatest leap ever under all conditions. In the fifth round, all eyes were on Powell. How would he respond to Lewis, who was putting in the greatest individual long jump performance in history? Powell took his fifth jump, another massive one, this time not a foul, with a wind gauge measuring .3 m/s, well within the legal allowable for a record. The crowd exploded when the distance was revealed: 8.95, a new world record, beating the 23-year-old mark set by Bob Beamon. But Lewis still had two jumps left, and he seemed to be just as calm and resolved as he was before, despite having the daunting task of having to now best a world record to win gold. He leaped 8.87 m, which was a new personal record under legal wind conditions – indeed, it was done with the wind in his face - then he took his final jump and leaped 8.84 m. Despite the enormous pressure of having to best a world record, Lewis achieved the third and fifth greatest legal long jumps in history, and the second and third longest at low altitude, behind only Powell’s record leap. Lewis had put in the greatest series of jumps in history, even surpassing the old world record with a wind-aided jump, but lost the competition. So great was the competition that, 15 years later, Powell’s record still stands, and Lewis’ legal jumps rank as 3rd and 5th all-time, their marks ranked one-two-three all-time at low-altitude. Lewis’ reaction to what was immediately seen to be one of the greatest competitions ever in any sport in part explains why he never was truly appreciated by many for his remarkable athletic achievements. At a time when the public was probably ready to be more sympathetic to Lewis after his vindication in his rivalry with Ben Johnson and his new world record in the 100 m only a few days before, he didn’t seem to want to acknowledge Powell’s achievement, focussing instead on his series of leaps. "He just did it," Lewis said of Powell's winning jump. "It was that close, and it was the best of his life, and he may never do it again." (New York Times, Sept 4, 1991)"

Who wrote this? Reads like a wide-eyed high-schooler fanzine. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - not a kid's magazine.

I wrote it, but most grown-ups sign their names - why not you?

I'm doing a rewrite of the entire article taking into account the earlier points about headings and clarity.

I'm inclined to keep the detail on the above competition, just as it is one of the greatest track competitions ever taken place. As for the "fanzine" approach, what surprises me is that Lewis' page was so skimpy on details. Love him or hate him he is one of the recognized greats in sports, and this was arguably his greatest duel. If it is not appropriate to spell out the greatest competition by one of the greatest sports figures ever, then I wonder what is the function of this encyclopedia? SImply say Lewis jumped 8.70 four times or whatever but lost to Powell who set a record and leave it at that? Unless you know the sport, you likely would not be aware of the signifigance of what they did.

Any comments?

--Johnny Canuck 22:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Major Edit Complete

I've added extensive detail which, given the high rank Lewis' biography has been flagged with, is probably necessary.

I'm new here, so there are a host of formatting issues I've not figured out, like how to list or generate references and such, so I'd appreciate any input here.

And, as the "oh my" person points out, the NPOV aspect here is a bit new to me, I tried to back up every opinion with a quote and give a balanced view here. Hope I've succeeded.

This is my first real contribution, don't tear me to shreds.

BTW, as "Johnny Canuck" has been used by someone else and the sockpuppet issue has arisen, I've changed my name here as will soon probably be reflected...

--Johnny Canuck 04:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I did a lot of tweaking and editing, and I think I've finally sorted out all of the internal links and references, as well as adding a footnotes section to the end of the article. If there is anything that still needs to be worked on, let me know. This is my first time implementing a major edit on a wiki article, thanks. Should you decide to add any more references, here is how they work.

If you're listing a website, simply put it in brackets (sans quotes) such as "[www.reference.com]" If you are getting info from a magazine or news item, it should look like this (with no space between the brackets and ref):

"< ref>Reference Magazine, August 2006, Vol. 17 #8 p. 21-22</ ref>"

JohnnyRuin 04:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Johnny!

(I am now known as Canada Jack rather than Johnny Canuck)

Canada Jack 16:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here

I had not included the 2003 drug accusations which were mentioned in the previous version of the bio - so I have added a section on the controversy there. Canada Jack 16:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

GA

Congratulations. If the editors here want to move up to FA, I'd strongly suggest using a wider variety of sources in the citations. Durova 19:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm quite surprised at this. This was my first shot at doing an article and though I don;t feel it's perfect, I thought it showed Lewis in a more balanced light.

Thanks. I'll see what I can do to bump it up to FA considerationCanada Jack 20:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC).

Bias?

Despite his impressive athletic achievements, the American public never really warmed to him since they perceived him as aloof and egotistical. His self-congratulatory conduct and lack of humility made him unpopular with other track stars, particularly during his rivalry with Ben Johnson.[1]

Isn't this biased?

I would argue that the Ben Johnson reference is probably not precise, though the rest is documented. I used an Edwin Moses quote to illustrate the line "His self-congratulatory conduct and lack of humility made him unpopular with other track stars." And the previous line is illustrated most fully in the "Controversies" section with the 1984 long jump final.

But I think we should omit the Ben Johnson reference - his aloofness was a factor well before the rivaly, and continued well after Johnson was no longer part of the scene.

159.33.10.92 15:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn! I sign in and it un-signs me. I wrote the above, and I decided to modify the line somewhat as though I think the tone is defendable, the line about Johnson is not accurate.

Canada Jack 15:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a pretty casual fan and consider myself unbiased and would definitely consider the article too negative on the whole. Maybe someone went too far in trying to be even handed perhaps, but it's an entirely too negative of a bio overall. Quadzilla99 10:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I took it upon myself to redo the article as the way it stood beforehand it was a pretty skimpy and hagiographic account of Lewis' achievements which omitted mention of some like Ben Johnson, a rather glaring omission.

I am a fan of the sport and I feel that Lewis deserved far more acclaim than he has received, particularily in North America. Given his accomplishments, one has to ask why he hasn't been put on the same pedestal as other sporting greats like Michael Jordan have. I believe it was part of the function of the article to answer that basic question.

A lot of people openly disdain Lewis, but instead of dwelling on that I note the controversies and describe the actions or name the quotes which tended to diminish his standing in the media. Otherwise, one is left wondering why Lewis isn't treated as "royalty" the way other retired sporting gods are.

While noting his considerable achievements, I also gave credit where he is generally not given credit - in particular in terms of opening track up professionally. That is one reason that the public didn't warm to him, despite the fact subsequent generations, as Donovan Bailey said, owe Lewis a debt in this regard.

I believe this is a balanced bio of Lewis, but if you have some specific complaints, maybe you should air them to see if there is room for improvement. Canada Jack 22:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

NBA Draft

This article says that Carl Lewis was drafted in the 10th round on the NBA draft. I could be wrong, but I don't think the draft was ever that big. I think this fact may be erroneous.

Drug Allegations in opening paragraph

An anonymous individual has tried three times to include drug allegations which it is claimed "tarnished" Lewis' career, and we have reverted three times. Besides the POV assertion, this information is included in a section later and, since nothing came of the report, it doesn't, IMHO warrant mention in the lead (as opposed to other athletes who have been the subject of much more scrutiny).

The lead was the consensus. If you feel the need to include this, please state your case. Canada Jack 20:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. A non-story that is covered in depth later in the article.--Fizbin 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous user is repeatedly re-inserting this line about Lewis' drug-use allegations into the intro - at least 10 times, I believe. Is there a process to block this person as he or she is ignoring our requests to even discuss their rationale here, indeed ignoring what the consensus so far expressed on this matter is? Canada Jack 20:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have moved to block this person from their repeated changes. [1] Canada Jack 20:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've invited the user to discuss his changes here once his block expires by leaving a message on his talk page. --Yankees76 23:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, yankees. I hope the user will constructively engage us here, I've invited him to discuss changes with us to make this a better article. Canada Jack 14:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Behavior Section

For the record, this section is poorly named and poorly written. Rumors of homosexuality are not behaviors, and neither are receiving payments for appearances, performances or endorsements. The gay rumor section overlaps into the amateur/pro section. The amateur/pro section is not at all encyclopedic. The recently removed and brought back 'ambivalence' is contorted in this context at best. The edit without it made more intuitive sense. The article would be better served by removing just about the whole section.--Fizbin (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This was originally part of the career text but some saw fit to put this in a new section. It seemed to me that, for example, the stuff on the 1984 long jump controversy and his behavouir, seemed to flow together better in the original context. Instead, they are in three distinct sections and the flow is ragged. What do you think should be done? Put the stuff back into the career section, or just rewrite this section to make it clearer? Canada Jack (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the solution here is to reincorporate this into the text proper. It was not my idea to split this off and put a "behaviour" section which, I agree, isn't really germane to the context of rumours of homosexuality, etc. AS for the use of "ambivilance" which is said to be "contorted." The text quite plainly states that so-called "amateurs" were receiving huge fees and endorsements especially in Europe, and part of the hostility towards Lewis stemmed from the perception he was "cashing in," even though there was no similar hostility towards professionals like Michael Jordan or Wayne Gretzky for their "cashing in" activities. The cited article from the New York Times make the specific observation that Lewis likely suffered from that "ambivilance." I just went to double-check that reference and - guess what? - it has somehow been omitted.

The New York Times article where some of these quotes come from says this: "In Europe, where none of this pro-amateur ambivalence prevails and Lewis is wildly popular, he commands appearance fees of $50,000 to $100,000." It goes on to further note the "ambivilance" and how Lewis and amateurs have suffered by stating: "With the participation of an all-star N.B.A. basketball team at Barcelona, a 15-year movement to end the hypocritical division between amateur and professional is complete." Not sure how to cite this properly - could someone help me? - but here is the info from the New York Times which has been omitted: The New York Times "The Runner Stumbles," by Trip Gabriel, July 19, 1992. Here is a link: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3DA123FF93AA25754C0A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

I will endeavour to reinsert this text into the text proper unless others think this is not appropriate. Canada Jack (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

...and I will endeavour to do a slight rewrite here so concerns about "ambivilance" are dealt with. I believe it is a correct usage, but since at least two others here DON'T agree with me on this, the passage here has to be redone to either omit the word or rephrase so it is clear and obvious within the context, perhaps making specific reference to the NYT article. Give me a few days on this.

The section had always nagged at me, so it is good that some here saw fit to kick the tires and ask the right questions. I'll take a shot at this, but if someone else wants to, be my guest. But I do believe that the issues should be addressed - the intertwining issues of professional/amateur and Lewis' marketability. Canada Jack (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Carl Lewis in 24???

It has been stated that he will star in the seventh season of 24 and there is a link to the 24 wiki page as a reference. However, there is no mention of him on that page and it is not listed on imdb. Please double check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jko2001 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fastest anchor leg

I've added a "citation" tag for the claim that Carl Lewis has run the fastest officially recorded anchor leg in history, at 8.85s. I've done a bit of digging on this and I found a discussion page from 2003 [2] which includes a list where, indeed, Lewis is at the top of the list, tied with Bernard Williams who matched the time, though not in the anchor position. This doesn't count as a reliable source, so until we find an official source, the citation tag should stay. Canada Jack (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have since determined that Asafa Powell ran 8.84s at the 2007 WC, running the anchor leg. And that mark may have surpassed today at the Olympics, or perhaps Bolt did a faster leg running #3. Again, however, I've found this on a discussion board, I've not seen an official source for this. [3] Canada Jack (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Carl Lewis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found that this article has massive issues that need to be urgently addressed.

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

The prose is poor, perhaps 4/10. Many sections are messy, with short stubby paragraphs thrown in with no thought for flow or readability. There is the horror of a miscelleny section (which should never have passed a GA review) which must be converted into properly organised sentences describing Lewis' life outside of sports.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

Most of the online references are inproperly formatted, there are even in text jumps and a couple of "[ibid]" (which frankly looks like a particularly dim copyright violation). Some of those sources look unreliable. In addition, all references should come afte punctuation, not in the middle of sentences.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

No personal life section, which is instead appallingly covered by a "miscelleny"

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

So badly written that it is difficult to tell.

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN again. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. (If you are really busy, let me know and I'll give more time. I need to know however so I can see that someone is interested in addressing these concerns.) Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No action, so this article is no longer a GA. Delisted.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I was completely unaware of this assessment, so let me address some of these issues and then you can take a look? Canada Jack (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Emmiyan and sportsmanship

Why doesn't this article mention Robert Emmiyan? He jumped 8.86. Lewis never even had second best...

(portions of this comment removed per WP:TALK and WP:BLP --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC))

This article seems to me to give Lewis a LOT more credit than he deserves. 68.200.98.166 (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you didn't read the article. Emmiyan is mentioned in the "Ben Johnson emerges..." section, the 1987 World championships section (as history's second 29-footer) and the 1988 Olympics section. Canada Jack (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP concerns

I've asked for help on the WP:BLP issues here at WP:BLPN. I'll follow up here with details on the problems I see once I have a bit more time.

Please note that WP:BLP is very important and takes priority over most of the concerns I've seen expressed in edit summaries and the brief comments to date. Please discuss the issues further. --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I largely wrote this article and would like to make a few comments here. While I am not surprised that Mr Lewis would not like to see some of the various controversies dredged up here - for example his self-congratulatory conduct which overshadowed for many his remarkable achievements at the 1984 Olympics, and the 1996 relay controversy - I do agree that there is an over-emphasis on the drug issue (a section I did not insert). I have always felt that while it needs to be mentioned, to single out Lewis over all the other athletes who benefited from this at the time, indeed to suggest his achievements, accomplished between 1981 and 1996, are therefore all suspect when that is the published opinion of only a few, is over-reach here. The controversy needs to be mentioned and discussed, but I don't believe this rises to be a representative view that it should be used in the lede to suggest "the validity of his achievements [are put] into question." Canada Jack (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The lede was one of my greatest concerns. I'm removing it. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The information was added originally added 27 June 2008. --Ronz (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Before we get into an edit war on this, as Jack Rodwell re-inserted the drug stuff into the lede and I took it out, here is why I feel that the drug stuff does not belong in the lede. 1) Given the long career of Lewis (1979-96, 17 years) the lede speaks in general terms about his career, with no references to particular achievements or competitions, so to insert a single controversy is out of place. There are numerous controversies he was involved with and they, like this one, are covered within the text. 2) Since the most notable juxtaposition here in terms of the drug use is the fact that Ben Johnson was stripped of his medal at the very Olympics Lewis might have been otherwise banned at, but Johnson is not mentioned in the lede, we should therefore not mention it here unless Johnson was already referred to. But he wasn't. If one of the most famous sporting stories ever does not rise to the level of being mentioned in the lede, then surely neither does this. 3) If, for the sake of argument, Lewis had been banned for this offence, that still is only two years of his career and the ban itself would deserve only a fleeting mention such as: "...after serving a two-year ban for a drug infraction, Lewis returned to competition in 1991..." IOW, even if he was banned, it would barely rate mention in the lede. And certainly would not call into question his over-all career. Unless, of course, the IOC or the IAAF had moved to strip Lewis of his records/medals. But none of the relevant bodies made any movement to act on these revelations.

Anyway, that's my argument for leaving the drug stuff to the text. It's not like we are ignoring this - but I feel to put it in the lede elevates the controversy beyond its context into a lede which is addressing his overall career. Canada Jack (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with CJ. It's valid content, but it's of apparently small importance. Without WP:RS that his use had major impact on him/his career or on something larger than himself, it gets towards a BLP problem to make a big deal about this beyond what the content later in the article has. And it's WP:UNDUE to highlight it in the lede (excessive based on the amount of content in the article). DMacks (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Unable to verify Dillion reference

From what I can tell, the article should be in the the online archives of Daily News (New York). I've searched their archives and have found no such article. Additionally, general Google searches turn up nothing for Nancy Dillion and Carl Lewis other than copies of this Wikipedia article. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

2 + 2 = KFC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.243.43 (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Senate Run

I tried to clarify this in the piece without going overboard. The court is not considering whether Lewis meets the state's residency requirements. It's considering whether those requirements are constitutional. The court allowed him to be placed on the primary ballot, but his right to run and serve is still up in the air. Njsamizdat (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)