Male 100 Meter Sprinters

[Benotti69]

Still goin' strong on this lame thread...

Go points some fingers where they're more appropriately placed - swimmers...Y'all will find more credibility in your speculation. Afterall, last I checked, top to bottom event-wise, swimming was much more an endurance sport than track and field...carry on, I'm sure...

is cyclings dirty image damaging your investment or something? if it is, i got bad news for you. until there is a real sea change from top, uci, down there will be no change

 

[BotanyBay]

I gots just one thing to say. You... betta... WORK:

 

[masking_agent]

how are they evading positive tests, simple their sporting bodies are simply covering it up, similar to the UCI.

 

[skidmark]

As already mentioned, epo use during training phase allows for more sustained quality training. Chambers talks about this in his book.

Sorry I don't know why the hell I missed this, I read every post in the thread. Yeesh.

 

[skidmark]

Still goin' strong on this lame thread...

Go points some fingers where they're more appropriately placed - swimmers...Y'all will find more credibility in your speculation. Afterall, last I checked, top to bottom event-wise, swimming was much more an endurance sport than track and field...carry on, I'm sure...

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion. I forgot that track and field is a silly sport in which to talk about drugs, and all of the scandals of the last 25 years have just been a smokescreen to hide the real enemy - swimming.

 

[Ferminal]

At least we know for sure that Female 100m Sprinters don't cheat.

 

[The Hitch]

At least we know for sure that Female 100m Sprinters don't cheat.

Ive been on this forum long enough to know that you are not posting that seriously.

But what i dont get is, whats your angle?

 

[Nick777]

Two points, second one first.

You quoted my post but you don't seem to have read it.

Here again is a list of records that lasted over a decade:

200m Pietro Menna (WR lasted 17 years) Michael Johnson (12 years)
400m Lee Evans (20 years)
800m Seb Coe (16 years)
110m Hurdles Colin Jackson (13 years)
400m Hurdles Kevin Young (18 years and counting)
Long Jump Bob Beamon (23 years), Mike Powell (19 years and counting)
Triple Jump Jonathon Edwards (15 years and counting)
High Jump Javier Sotomayor (17 years and counting)
Pole vault Sergei Bubka (16 years and counting)

That's all the sprints and all the jumps, not a handful. There's no frequent and incremental breaking going on there. The only one missing is the 100m, but I think that may now have it's long lasting record holder.

(You can bang on about Phelps all you like, but that's a completely different sport).


The second point. How can he beat all those dopers? Well here's an idea you won't see anywhere else on this forum - maybe the drugs don't work (for men). Or at least maybe they make far less difference than many people believe.

After all look, at East Germany. They were more drugged up than any team before or since. In the women's sprints they dominated, won almost everything -the drugs clearly worked. But the men? Well, they didn't really make any impression at all. The drugs didn't seem to help them much.

I pointed out on another board that some of the mens distance events (eg 3, 5 & 10k) WR times havent progressed much since the mid 90's (hmm I wonder why?). The improvements since then are certainly not in the same % league as previous decades. Granted, once times get to a certain level, it is harded to take chunks out, but things seem to have stalled somewhat.
There seemed to be resistance to the idea that EPO has been involved in mens' athletics.

 

[Nick777]

After all look, at East Germany. They were more drugged up than any team before or since. In the women's sprints they dominated, won almost everything -the drugs clearly worked.

I used to point out to some of my fellow Australians that a certain Aussie female 400m star's times were faster than many of those set by drugged up Eastern Bloc "ladies".

It didn't go over too well.

 

[Ferminal]

Ive been on this forum long enough to know that you are not posting that seriously.

But what i dont get is, whats your angle?

Ah... your inquisitive mind!

My angle: If the 100m for Men is so easily dominated by clean athletes, why isn't the Women's event the same?

Alternatively: How come it takes superdoped Women to set groundbreaking 100m times, but a Male can shatter the Earth whilst being squeaky clean.

 

[Merckx index]

Two points, second one first.

You quoted my post but you don't seem to have read it.

Here again is a list of records that lasted over a decade:

200m Pietro Menna (WR lasted 17 years) Michael Johnson (12 years)
400m Lee Evans (20 years)
800m Seb Coe (16 years)
110m Hurdles Colin Jackson (13 years)
400m Hurdles Kevin Young (18 years and counting)
Long Jump Bob Beamon (23 years), Mike Powell (19 years and counting)
Triple Jump Jonathon Edwards (15 years and counting)
High Jump Javier Sotomayor (17 years and counting)
Pole vault Sergei Bubka (16 years and counting)

That's all the sprints and all the jumps, not a handful. There's no frequent and incremental breaking going on there. The only one missing is the 100m, but I think that may now have it's long lasting record holder.

I can hold all those in my hand, but maybe I have bigger hands than you do. You don't seem to realize that this list is a tiny fraction of all Olympic events, even of all T&F events. You also ignore the point that some of these records, like Beamon's, were probably statistical flukes. Again, how many of these record holders consistently performed at a level far beyond that of any of their competitors? What we see in that list is one out of the ordinary performance followed by years of incremental performance as the pack--INCLUDING the original record setter--gradually approach that record. Followed, sometimes, by another statistical fluke, which becomes increasingly likely as the years go on.

The second point. How can he beat all those dopers? Well here's an idea you won't see anywhere else on this forum - maybe the drugs don't work (for men). Or at least maybe they make far less difference than many people believe.

With this statement, you've lost your credibility with me. There is so much evidence that PEDs do work for men that it would be ludicrous for me to cite it. Try Science of Sport, for starters. You might also ask why, if they don't help that much, male athletes risk so much to take them.

After all look, at East Germany. They were more drugged up than any team before or since. In the women's sprints they dominated, won almost everything -the drugs clearly worked. But the men? Well, they didn't really make any impression at all. The drugs didn't seem to help them much.

In the first place, that's not entirely true. Ask cycling track sprinters Mark Gorski and Nelson Vails, who took Olympic Gold and Silver in the Soviet bloc-absent 1984 Olympics--then watched as E. Germans swept them out of the running in the next WC. It was an all E. German semifinals, and Vails didn't even make the quarters.

In the second place, E. German men had to compete for sprinting titles with American men, who came from a far larger population pool and who were probably on the same doping program they were. Having such a small population to work with, the E. German sporting machine carefully allocated its resources, developing athletes they felt had the best chance to win medals. Unlike, say, Jamaica, which concentrates on finding and developing sprinting talent, E. Germany tried to field competitors in a wide variety of individual events. They did this very successfully, but it meant not focussing entirely on sprinting, where they were clearly at a major disadvantage at the outset. Consider other events:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v389/n6654/full/389911a0.html

[There is a] paradoxical and astonishing decline, since the late 1980s, in best distances achieved each year in all throwing events except the javelin. Thanks to some exhaustive detective work involving analysis of Stasi records3, that decline can now be put down unequivocally to the artificial inflation in standards by the state-promoted use of steroids by East German and other countries' athletes before out-of-competition testing was introduced in 1988. Since then, testing has become tougher and the Berlin Wall has come down. The pigeons are still coming home to roost, however, in the continuing emergence of ill health in the subjects treated with steroids.

It's true the E. German women did relatively better than men in these events, because, surprise, American women generally didn't want to risk the serious health effects that actually befell many E. German women when they were doped without their knowledge or consent. Of course they had a huge competitive advantage.

Back to my original point. I'm not arguing that there aren't exceptional athletes. In fact, I think the envelope constantly gets pushed, because as the world's population increases, the chances of an individual with genetic gifts greater than those ever produced before increase. Another way to put it is that as the population increases, the number of standard deviations beyond the mean of the most exceptional individual (by some criteria) increases.

So I don't deny that there have been and will continue to be clean performances greater than any clean performances of the past. But when everyone else is doping and you're still dominating clean? I have a lot of trouble believing that.

 

[veganrob]

I pointed out on another board that some of the mens distance events (eg 3, 5 & 10k) WR times havent progressed much since the mid 90's (hmm I wonder why?). The improvements since then are certainly not in the same % league as previous decades. Granted, once times get to a certain level, it is harded to take chunks out, but things seem to have stalled somewhat.
There seemed to be resistance to the idea that EPO has been involved in mens' athletics.

May be that the other times have not progressed so much is because the 100m is the money race. That is the one that gets all the publicity and endorsements.

 

[mad black]

...Again, how many of these record holders consistently performed at a level far beyond that of any of their competitors?...

Well, there's at least three in that list. Edwards in the triple jump, Bubka in the pole vault and Sotomayor in the high jump. All of whom DOMINATED almost every competition they entered by performing "at a level far beyond that of any of their competitors".

Bubka repeatedly hadn't even done a single vault until his entire competition was finished. And please spare me the same old (repetitive) story that he was doped, too. Or that he had a spring in the pole, or that he inhaled helium to increase buoyancy or ...

I guess the point being, which has been made in numerous previous posts, that that every now and then freaks of nature make us spectators awe in disbelief. But at the same time they also push the boundaries of what is perceived to be possible. It has always been like that and it will continue.

Or as Fox Moulder would say: I WANT TO BELIEVE!!!

 

[runninboy]

Well, there's at least three in that list. Edwards in the triple jump, Bubka in the pole vault and Sotomayor in the high jump. All of whom DOMINATED almost every competition they entered by performing "at a level far beyond that of any of their competitors".

Bubka repeatedly hadn't even done a single vault until his entire competition was finished. And please spare me the same old (repetitive) story that he was doped, too. Or that he had a spring in the pole, or that he inhaled helium to increase buoyancy or ...

I guess the point being, which has been made in numerous previous posts, that that every now and then freaks of nature make us spectators awe in disbelief. But at the same time they also push the boundaries of what is perceived to be possible. It has always been like that and it will continue.

Or as Fox Moulder would say: I WANT TO BELIEVE!!!

Bubka acknowledged at one point that he took the world record in the smallest increments possible because that way he could maximize the bonus structure. Why break the record a handful of times when you could break it over and over and make alot more money.

And speaking of dominance lets mention Sprinter Bob Hayes
he got the world 100 yd dash record after Owens had held it for close to 30 years and held it until artificial tracks came on the scene
also 100 meter record holder
undefeated in 49 sprints for one stretch of his career
(Um you guys do know tyson Gay beat Bolt last year right?)
anyway Bob ran the fastest 100 meters ever by a human
8.5 seconds on an old fashioned cinder trackat the Tokyo Olympic final
now that was during a relay split but it is STILL the fastest split ever recorded!
Bolts best split was 9.0

Now technically Hayes has to have his split converted to Fully Automatic timing like BOlts which makes Hayes only a 8.74
on a cinder track FIFTY YEARS AGO!
he wasnt doped btw

You guys need to learn T&F history
Jocelyn Delecour, France’s anchor leg runner, famously said to Paul Drayton before the relay final, “You can’t win, all you have is Bob Hayes”.

Afterwards, Drayton replied, “All you need is Bob Hayes”.

and again to reiterate, Bob Hayes relay split from fifty years ago is still faster than anything Bolt has run.
So tell me again about how you "know" Bolt is doped because he dominates?
He can't even dominate a clean sprinter from fifty years ago on a lousy chewed up cinder track(they ran other events previous to the relay and the spike marks from those events loosen up the surface making it slower as you sink in briefly trying to find traction)

 

[Ferminal]

Were they using automated timing fifty years ago?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Who here believes FloJo was clean? She never tested positive, was never directly linked to any doping.

Link to WR.

"Ahhh, can not be. No one can run that fast!"

But she did, and more than once. How?

 

[Ferminal]

Who here believes FloJo was clean? She never tested positive, was never directly linked to any doping.

Link to WR.

"Ahhh, can not be. No one can run that fast!"

But she did, and more than once. How?

Natural talent, extreme outlier.

 

[Fester]

I have to say, Flo-Jo flew too close to the sun... Much, much too close. At least our man Lance will probably live into his 70's.

So not only was her record drug assisted, but also wind assisted. UCI are saints among sports governing bodies!

 

[Cloxxki]

Why wouldn't there be new additives that work better than the illegal dope?
A friend of mine is in the additives business, and gets crazy feedback from customers and testers. Double blind testing with really huge precentages of speed increase.
Getting the lactate a few meters later can make a huge difference in time, when WR's are adjusted once in a few fews, by a fraction of a second.
I do think Bolt is an excceptional talent. Why could you not expect any other runner in the world to lose a meter, or two, per 100m?

Bolt may, simple as he is, be onto something. With the computer games (reflexes), and fast food.
I recently had a huge amount of high-sugar content food before runnign practice. My sprint repeats were astonishing. I was too tired to keep my eyes open properly (I had also done a hard XC ski session over lunch), but the legs were amazing. It just might offer a thin layer of super-glycogen fuel rather than the usual kind. I was to go home after the sprints, just feeling too beat up. Yet the last 2-minute repeat of the evening, I did go real fast again, following guys usually much faster than I.

Bolt may well dope, using the same stuff as for instance gay, but then still he's over 1m/100m more talented.
Until proof surfaces, do you believe Bolt doped at 15, and kept this special dope a secret to his competition all the way up to today?

I know people running PB's over 400m thanks to an additive they tried. Legal, tested for doping before use. There's stuff the Olympians are using (I know about rowing and track cycling), which they just won't go without to a big tournament. And the runner-up will likely never have heard from this additive.

I'm just today started trying Creatine Ethylester. Suppose to give the creatine muscle strength boost, less the weight gain, plus an extra signal to the brain which aids output. It works as a race additive, or as traditional creatine, just in much lower dosage. Some high school runners (science project) got double digit improvements with it (yeah I know, I wouldn't believe it either), blind tested against Taurin as the placebo.
There's so much out there that could work for you, while being legal...and still you're more likely to hear a pro talk about his current EPO usage than about creatine ethylester. Clean winners like the culture that way, they won't be caught, and when the competition dares not dope, they win being better prepared.

 

[runninboy]

Were they using automated timing fifty years ago?

No, hence the conversion from 8.5 to 8.74 to compensate for fully automated timing.

They also didn't have fast artificial surfaces like today. One could easily argue the difference between a cinder surface that had been used heavily before a sprint would more than make up for FAT(full auto timing)

that is debateable, but just remember the amount of force that is generated in each individual stride depends heavily on traction. For a sprinter that is key to running an optimal race, ie being in the optimum position in regards to foot placement to maximize output. The shorter the race the more crucial traction of each stride is.

Even at 8.74 and Bolt at 9.0 it shows Bolt does not have to be a doped athlete in order to beat his competition in his current manner.
an athlete 50 years ago was faster...

 

[roundabout]

You have to wonder why Hayes "only" did 10.06 in the 100 if he's apparently so much faster than Bolt "track-corrected".

 

[python]

No, hence the conversion from 8.5 to 8.74 to compensate for fully automated timing.

snip.

a lot of interesting contributions bravo !

i have a question for those who seem better informed...how reliable are those incredibly fast 'running start' times during the relays ?

i'd think it's less than a precise science to estimate accurately the distance a sprinter ran prior to handing over a button and the speed he/she obtained by then ? what am i getting wrong ?

 

[Nick777]

Natural talent, extreme outlier.

She wasn't an extreme outlier when she quit full time athletics & was working in a bank at 28...
You don't make the sort of gains she made when most other athletes are heading towards retirement. Same as Michelle Smith, the swimmer, and Inga De Bruin.

"Before the 1988 season, Griffith Joyner's best 100 meter time was 10.96 seconds. In 1988 she improved that by 0.47 seconds (or 0.35 sec for the non-wind aided time). Similarly, her pre-1988 best at 200 meters was 21.96. In 1988 she improved that by 0.62 seconds to 21.34, another time which has not been approached. Griffith-Joyner attributed the change in her physique to new health programs"

Talented? Yes. Outlier? Don't think so.

 

[blackcat]

Michelle Smith, Inga De Bruin, Griffith-Joyner and Dara Torres.

 

[runninboy]

a lot of interesting contributions bravo !

i have a question for those who seem better informed...how reliable are those incredibly fast 'running start' times during the relays ?

i'd think it's less than a precise science to estimate accurately the distance a sprinter ran prior to handing over a button and the speed he/she obtained by then ? what am i getting wrong ?

Nope pretty precise science actually,
you see there is a passing zone then the 100 meters starts. The time starts when you enter the actual 100 meter zone.
As far as speed obtained prior is a moot point because as anyone who follows sprints closely world class sprinters reach a top speed somewhere around 50 meters out and can only hold it briefly until gradual deceleration sets in. While Bolt look like he was accelerating at the end of his Olympic final he was actually just decelerating the least of the field.
There is some speculation amongst coaches and others that it might be better to reach less than your maximum speed and hold it for a greater distance. But in the real world the winner seems to usually be those that reach the fastest speed.
If you want to see the video here is a link

http://speedendurance.com/2009/03/25/bob-hayes-1964-olympic-4x100m-relay-in-hd-video/

He was famous for only running fast enough to win, he was 4 meters back when he got the baton and finished 4 meters clear of second place.
He ran a 9.91 auto timed 100 meters in the semi in tokyo but a a 5.3 meter per second aiding wind which only 2.0 mps is allowed for record purposes. However no one ever ran a faster time at the Olympics in more than 32 years(excluding doped Ben Johnson)
again on a cinder track.