Another one...Pettigrew

[Guest]

also, I meet pettigrew a few time and he made JW look like a anorexic.

Oh stop it. Why would you lie about something that could so easily be sourced? He looks like a malnourished Ethiopian.

Side by side:

And EPO oxygenates the blood, anyway. It doesn't build muscle. It's meant for endurance.


I'm not saying Wariner's a doper. I'm just using the same warped, backwards, Neanderthal logic you guys are feebly using to explain away black time disparities. Just playing devil's advocate.

 

[waterbed]

i did read that Armin Harry did run 9.9 9.8 and 9.7's but then he had to run again untill he runned 10.0 because they don't believed that you can run sub 10.Maybe + 0.24 but still fast.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

I just realized that I completely weakened my points by inncorrect data. The ammount of blacks going sub 10 in the current era is about 13 times more than the pre-Ben Johnson era not 8.5 times more. I reposted the correction in the above post. There is no way that this 1300% increase in sub 10 electronic times is legitimate.

Now lets look at the progression of sub 10 electronic times for blacks. Since 1976 all professional track times from 400 meters and under have to be electronic timed to be valid:

9.95: Jim Hines of the United States: Mexico City, Mexico October 14, 1968 (the only sub 10 electronic time before 1976. It bested Armin Hary's 10 flat hand-timed world record)

9.93: Calvin Smith of the United States: Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA July 3, 1983

9.93: Carl Lewis of the United States: Rome, ItalyAugust 30, 1987

9.92: Carl Lewis of the United States: Seoul, South KoreaSeptember 24, 1988

So after checking my facts I found that there was a mere 2 men to go sub 10 electronic timed from 1976-1988. Of course Ben Johnson doesn't count. That is 2 men in that 12 year span and there was only 7 times under 10 seconds total and 6 were by Carl Lewis. Blacks clearly weren't dominating track to the same extent prior to 1988.

Up until the 2004 Olympics there were 39 men that went sub 10 electronic timed according to an online article I read. Cancel out the 3 prior to 1988 as well as Tim Montgomery and Justin Gatlin for steroid use and that means a whooping 34 men went sub 10 from 1988-2004. Clearly there is something going on with the dramatic drop in top times.

So from 1976-1988 an average of 0.166 men per year went sub 10. From 1988-2004 and average of 2.125 men went sub 10. I don't believe that this huge jump in men going sub 10 is legitimate. The training and nutrition techniques that 100 meter runners use is the same from 1988 onward as from 1976-1988. Yet there are 12.8 times the amount of men going sub 10 today as from 1976-1988. Add to that the fact that most of the 34 men from 1988-2004 going sub 10 have done it more than once. From 1976-1988 there was but one man, Carl Lewis, to go sub 10 electronic timed multiple times.

So Texas Tech=Maximus why do you insist on coming on here and debating us and nitpicking our posts constantly! I think you really hate this site. Not all the posters on this site are racist like you and the PC crowd would like to believe. After reading my post I think you can see that it is a very logical argument that the "clean" elite black is only faster than the "clean" elite white by about 0.1 seconds over 100 meters=1 meter.

Where did I get my number of 0.1 seconds disparity? I got it from the fact that Carl Lewis ran a world record 9.92 in 1988! I think there is a very good chance that Carl Lewis' record was a clean one. From everything I know about Carl Lewis he seems to be a humble guy and a strong Christian. He could have just been that freak on the end of the bell curve that could do what he did clean. And even if Lewis was not clean; there is Jim Hines 9.95 electronic timed 100 meter in 1968, or Calvin Smith's 9.93 in 1983. The top 100 meter time for a white that was almost surely clean is Peitro Mennea's 10.01 in 1979. That would equate to a .09 second difference over 100 meters between elite blacks and whites (roughly 0.1 seconds or one meter).

Of course I considered the entire 60s up until the 1976 electronic timed 100 meter requirement started as well. Blacks had plenty of chances to compete in this time span, but did not dominate nearly the way they do today. If you consider the 1960s and 1970s average times of elite sprinters by race. The top blacks were faster than the top whites on average by roughly 0.1 seconds.

So most of us on this site are admitting that blacks are "slightly" faster than whites. So I ask you Maximus what is "the big deal" with hating our site?

Hey, at least you bring some legit arguments unlike that fool McBride that clearly believes that athleticism is determined 100% by straight lined track speed. If you read that defuses post, that is clearly what he is implying! I give you credit Maximus=Texas Tech for trying.

Just curious Texas Tech, are you African American? Is that why you hate this site so much? Because I admit there are a few extreme anti-black posters here. However, the majority of us are not anti-black, we are pro-white and against all unfair stereotyping in sports! And that would include against east Asians.

I just realized I weakened my argument by incorrect data. Jim Hines 9.95 electronic world record time in 1968 that surpassed white Armin Hary's hand-timed 10 flat world record time was before the rule that all professional track times 400 meters and under had to be electronically recorded.

So using simple math 2 black men went sub 10 electronic timed from 1976-1988 and 34 black men went sub 10 from 1988-2004. 2/2.66=12/16: Therefore about 2.66 black men would go sub 10 electronic timed in a 16 year time span prior to the the steroid era. 2.66/16=0.166 black men per year going sub 10 electronic timed.

However, when you look at today's numbers 34 black men have gone sub 10 from 1988-2004, the 16 year time span I am reviewing in the steroid era. 34/16=2.125: Therefore 2.125 black men go sub 10 electronic timed per year in the current era. 2.125/0.166= 12.8 times the ammount of black men going sub 10 electronic timed in the post Ben Johnson electronic timed era than the electronic timed era before Ben Johnson.

Maximus you aren't actually foolish enough to believe that there is a legitimate approximate 13 times increase in sub 10 electronic times. Clearly the great majority are steroid users. The training techniques and the proper nutritional diet for sprinters have been the same since the early 1970s. So again this brings me back to the point that the fastest white man can go no faster than 10 flat clean and the fastest black would go no faster than 9.9 clean. Therefore "clean" elite blacks have a 1 meter advantage over the "clean" elite white over 100 meters.

Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[SteveB]

Sorry TJR, but telling me Jim Hines ran a clean 9.95 *40* *YEARS* *AGO* pretty much sticks a fork in your silly theory.  Just because he was the fastest many moons ago, doesn't mean he would automatically be the fastest OF ALL TIME.  You do understand that, don't you?  Think about what you're saying.  Jim Hines can run a clean 9.95 in 1968, but Tyson Gay can't run a tenth of a second</font> faster (9.85) *40 YEARS LATER*. 

Jim Hines' 9.95 was hand timed the same as Armin Hary's and it was at altitude, so in my mind it wasn't relavent in this discussion. Of the eight sub 10s prior to 1988, Lewis ran 6 of them in 1983, 1984 (3 times), 1985, and 1987. Calvin Smith ran a 9.97 in 1983 (his 9.93 was at altitude so it doesn't count) and Mel Lattney ran a 9.96 in 1984. Compare that to Asafa Powell who has run under 9.80 5 TIMES, Maurice Green once, Justin Gatlin once, Tim Montgomery once, and Usain Bolt once. It wasn't 40 years ago, it was around 20 years ago that the times jumped significantly.

Lemme see if I've got this right. Marion Jones juiced 7 to 9 years ago, Antonio Pettigrew 8 to 11 years ago, Tim Montgomery 7 to 8 years aago, CJ Hunter 8 years ago, Dennis Mitchell 10 years ago, and Jerome Young 9 years ago.

Therefore..

every fast guy in 2008 is juicing.

Well let's see, if it took those sprinters 7 or 8 years to get caught, what makes you think that your 2008 heroes won't get caught in the near future?

If you take out those 2 times, and averaged their other 9 times, their averages were Woronin 10.16, and Mennea 10.20. Yepishin and Shirv easily beat those times, and, by the time Pickering, LeBlanc, and Connaughton are Tyson and Asafa's age, they will crush those times.

How do you know that Pickering, LeBlanc, and Connaughton will crush those times? It hasn't happened in 25 years, so what makes you think that it will happen now? If you take those guys with Yepishin and Shrivo and look at their average top times, it will be in line with Mennea and Woronin. Therefore whites have not made any significant advances in the 100m in the past 25 years. Whereas, blacks have increased by around 0.25 seconds in the same time frame. When Shirvo ran his 10.03, he was still young and everyone thought the he would easily crack 10 sec in his career. He never did.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

And Maximus, while you're at it, why don't you explain to us how, as far as track (we aren't talking about swimming here which I know nothing about), 1982 (right smack in the middle of the pre-steroid electronic time era) is so much different than 2008? I really don't see the difference. The only thing that is different is that the steroids are working far better on blacks than on whites.

Jim Hines was "one man" back in 1968 when he ran 9.95, when I agree the training and nutritional methods were "slightly" different. And as I said I think a black man could go 9.9 electronic "clean", which is better than Hines ever did. I think a white man can go 10 flat electronic clean. And who knows, of course I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but surely early on when the electronic timed method was just being figured out, Jim Hines 9.95 could have been an error.

Also Jim Hines time was apparently at altitude so it probably wouldn't have been sub 10 at non-altitude. I am using 1976-1988 as my argument for the pre steroid modern era because "all times" are electronic in that era. Jim Hines was the only sub 10 electronic time prior to 1976 according to Wikipedia.

And by the way I never said that all black sprinters are cheaters. Wallace Spearmon in my mind is clean. Everything I've heard about Spearmon indicates he is a health freak. Spearmon also has a very slender build compared to other black 200 meter guys. However it is very interesting that Spearmon has never run faster than 9.96 at 100 meters. That time would have put him up with Carl Lewis at the top of the track world back in 1984 and 1988. Today Spearmon would be unlikely to even medal with his top time if "the juicers" ran even an above average race. Spearmon ran a 19.65 personal best at 200 meters and he would be the fastest black man at that distance that I am very convinced is clean.

And if you are talking about Pietro Mennea's 19.72(where by all accounts he had the race of his life) being a former altitude record than that is true. He may have only run a 19.8-19.9 at non-altitude. Mennea's best at altitude is 19.96. So, there is an even bigger time gap between black and white at 200 meters. I will not count Kenteris's 19.80 as legit because he is a cheater, although as I said I don't think steriods help whites nearly as much as blacks. So you see, I am being completely fair in my evaluations.

And I am very skepticle of Michael Johnson's 19.32 200 meter record being clean because it is "drastically" above and beyond what any man has ever done. I think there is a good chance he cheated. I would be more apt to believe that Johnson was clean when he ran the 43.18 400 meter world record in the twilight of his career.

And sure Jeremy Wariner could very well be dirty to. He could be using EPO, human growth hormone or hemogloben enhancers. If he is cheating it wouldn't be with steroids as he is a slenderly built 400 meter guy, not a 200 meter guy. The juice doesn't help you at 400 meters. I don't give white guys a pass because I'm a fair guy.

But Maximus, I am also a realist and any person who watched track from the 1936-1984 Olympics and saw whites be very competitive would never have guessed that it would be coal black dominance at 100 meters and 200 meters today. This is just like how older people are shocked by the NFL glamorous tailback position being 100% black today. Back in the "pre-steroid" era there were Jesse Owenses and Calvin Smiths, but there were also the rare Armin Harys, Valeri Borzovs Pietro Menneas and Alan Wells who won at 100 and 200 meters.

The only one I think may have roided in this aforementioned group is Valeri Borzov. Borzov was from the USSR and they were known for being the mavericks of steroid abuse with their athletes. If Pietro Mennea used roids it was post career for working out with the rise of popularity of professional wrestling, muscle magazine and the bodybuilding craze. Mennea was just too slender to be roiding back in the 1970s. He is one of the most slender sprinters ever.

Clearly there is something going on with the current situation! And as long as there are masked steroids, in my mind the elite guys are always going to be juicing because of the temptation of the money you can get from winning. Until they can catch every single one of these cheaters with better detection methods, sprinters won't be convinced they can win at 100 meters or probably even 200 meters without "the juice".

Ben Johnson said it himself that he doesn't think it is humanly possible to go sub 9.9 without roids. I happen to agree with him. I think any elite black that has gone sub 9.9 is most likely dirty.

Maximus, I don't know why you feel the need to come on our board to tout your black supremacy theories on a white athlete board. Clearly you are some kind of black supremacist.

I am not a white supremicist and give blacks their due. I personally believe that the cream of the crop of blacks would continue to have a 0.1 second advantage over 100 meters over the elite whites. However, that would make the top white at least fairly competitive if they ran their best race and the top blacks struggled.

I also think that the elite blacks would have a 0.2-0.25 second advantage over the elite whites in your normal year over 200 meters. I am willing to give blacks their due. But athletics is more than straight lined speed and whites measure up in plenty of other areas or even out do blacks in some other skills in athletics. So Maximus=TexasTech why don't you get lost and go to your blackathlete.com. I'm sure your black supremacy theories would be much more accepted there.



Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[Guest]

I just realized that I completely weakened my points by inncorrect data.

Your argument isn't weakened by "data". You argument is weakened by a severe, profound lack of evidence. This "data" you choose to blame is a smokescreen. Watching you desperately trying to twist, and massage, and manipulate meaningless numbers in a feeble attempt to support your non-points is comical. I'm actually insulted that you think I'd fall for that song &amp; dance. I realize why you do it, though. It's your last refuge.


Pride is a very strong emotion, and is obviously impeding your rational thought processes and better judgment. It's forcing you to wax poetic about steriods without one stitch of proof. The basis for your argument is simply that YOU find it unlikely a 2008 sprinter can take .06 (6 HUNDRETHS OF A SECOND) off of a 1968 record when every other record, sprinting or otherwise, over that timeframe, has been oblitherated beyond recognition. Why? Because the only guys who can do it happen to be a different color than you.


Pride is what's forcing you to claim that elite whites run 10 flat, when they rarely, RARELY breach 10.15. And when they do, it's only once per season in favorable conditions. Even if elite blacks could only run 9.90 (which obviously is wishful thinking on your part) that's a .25 of a second spread.





Anyway, keep pumping out those #'s, though. They're sure to convince (confuse) other like-minded, proofless, prideful theorists.

 

[white is right]

maximus,


maybe Hines 9.95 was a mistake like Flojo 10.49. maybe the anemometer wasn't working correct that day. also, if Hines was breaking 10 in 1968 how come 10 wasn't broken again till 1983? the only real break through in the past forty years that would help a sprinter are the sprint spikes and the track surface. and please tell us again your Armin Hary theory. cause I would really love to read that piece of sh*t.

Because they weren't regularly using FAT times until the early to mid-80's. It could have been broken several times. There were 22 recorded manual 9.9's and 9.8's between 1972 and 1982. They ALL could have been sub-9.95 for all we know. Or none of them. That's why manual-timing is meant to taken with a grain of salt. That's why the IAAF instituted the FAT-only record policy.


Which ironically brings us to the Armin Hary myth. The IAAF *ADDS* .24 to all hand-times. Electronic timing and photo-finish equipment was used after his "10.0" was recorded, and his time was electronically clocked in at 10.25.


Not surprisingly, he won the 1958 Euro Championships with a 10.3, and the 1960 Olympics with a 10.2.


Might as well throw in Mennea and Woronin while I'm at it. Mennea's top 10 times: 10.01, 10.15, 10.15, 10.18, 10.19, 10.19, 10.20, 10.22, 10.24, 10.24. One of those times really stands out, doesn't it?


Woronin's Top 10 times: 10.00, 10.11, 10.14, 10.14, 10.15, 10.16, 10.17, 10.17, 10.19, 10.19. One of those times really stands out, doesn't it?


I don't buy those 10's.. just like I don't by Usain Bolt's 9.74. I think all three were result of faulty timing (home for Woronin), and altitude for Mennea. If you take out those 2 times, and averaged their other 9 times, their averages were Woronin 10.16, and Mennea 10.20. Yepishin and Shirv easily beat those times, and, by the time Pickering, LeBlanc, and Connaughton are Tyson and Asafa's age, they will crush those times.


As far as Usain, he set his personal best in Jamaica, IMMEDIATELY after Kerron Stewart (Jamaican, 10.96), Marshavet Hooker (11.01), and Bianca Knight (a college freshman, 11.11) set their personal bests. Four PB's in consecutive races is suspect.

Mennea did the 10.01 at altitude, anyway he wasn't a hundred meter specialist he was a 200 meter runner who dabbled in the century. Wronin had the max wind on his 10.00, so that would make it in line with his other times. Hines' time in Mexico city was in line with a sea level high 10.0X or low 10.1X so that was in line with the best times of his era too. As for Pickering being a 10.4 runner who could be juicing. He did a 10.2 at 18 with a relatively high body fat ratio. So that would make him a clean 10.2 runner as a junior. You have made some valid arguments, but just as many crazy ones too ie your assertion that could have been 36 Jessie Owens in 36' if the South wasn't segregated. After more black stars are caught on these space age PED programs I hope you come back here and write I was wrong, like many columnists do. I just don't think you will....

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Maximus...Pride? You have a hell of a lot more of an issue with pride than me. What are you a psychologist now? You clearly are selectively going through our posts and only addressing which arguments you want to. I will go through your post to point out 2 outright and utter lies. You are the one who is a twister and the manipulator who is arrogant enough to come on our board to tout your anti-white rhetoric.

Here is your manipulation number one:

"The basis for your argument is simply that YOU find it unlikely a 2008 sprinter can take .06 (6 HUNDRETHS OF A SECOND) off of a 1968 record when every other record, sprinting or otherwise, over that timeframe, has been oblitherated beyond recognition."

That was not the basis for our argument. As was stated by SteveB , Jim Hines 9.95 was at altitude, and as I already said "as far as I can tell it wouldn't have been better than 10 flat at non altitude." And even if it would be, he was but "one man". You are selectively picking through which issues to address to make your point stronger. Our point was the ridiculous amount sub 10 times from 1988-2008, compared to 1976 (when extensive electronic timing started and only electronic times could count as a records) through 1988. I just checked iaaf.org , it is 336 in the later time period compared to 8, or 50 men compared to 3.

You briefly addressed that there were 22 blacks that were hand-timed from 1972-1982 at 9.9 or 9.8 (most of them were 9.9 by the way). But you appear to be lying by omission, as you only addressed the issue with white Armin Hary that 0.24 is normally added to hand-times. So, it appears none of these mostly 9.9 black hand-times were sub 10. The fact is that blacks were slightly out-performing whites on average, but not outright dominating whites at 100 meters until the 1988 Olympics.

Plus, even if let's say 2 or so of these 22 black hand-times were sub 10, which is actually a generous estimate, that would make 10 total black sub 10s from 1972-1988, which is very recent history, compared to 336 from 1988-2008. And 6 of the 12 later times would still by one man Carl Lewis.

And if you don't buy Woronin's 10 flat time at home in Poland, then I guess you would have to throw out Javier Sotomayor's 2.45 meter high jump at a "very small" meet at home in Cuba. Add to that the fact that Xavier tested positive for cocaine, which is a performance enhancing stimulant, late in his career and then finally retired after a positive steroid test in 2001.

Add to that the fact that Stefan Holm is only 5'10 and has never been caught for drugs and Xavier is 6 ft. 4
& 1/2. So if you are going to bring in arbitrary information against white athletes I will bring in some about black ones. I guess you could make the argument that Stefan Holm is the better athlete because he hasn't been caught cheating and is a half foot shorter yet is only .05 meters behind Sotomayor for PR in the high jump.

Then you proceed to say (manipulation number 2).

"Why...(do you come up with these theories)? Because the only guys who can do it happen to be a different color than you."

So you didn't adequately address our main argument and then called me a racist and a liar. Clearly you are the one manipulating and lying. You are an outright arrogant schmuck to call me a racist and manipulator. You don't know anything about me, and all I know about you is that you hate Castefootball with a passion and hide behind your computer screen to brand people here liars and racists. You certainly don't like respectful debate.

And you're "theory" that "virtually every black sprinter" until the late 1970s didn't have the same opportunity as whites, as I believe you said, is way more laughable than my theories.

That's like saying "John Riggins was only allowed to run the ball in the late 1970s because all the brothers were being held down." It's all the white man's fault to you isn't it?

Jesse Owens opened the door for black sprinters pre-world War II. Sure, there were some blacks held back by racism and poverty in the segregated south, but what about northern blacks, mid-west or west coast blacks? People do run track in places like NJ, NY, Kansas, California and elsewhere. And there is such a thing as white poverty as well, especially following World War II. But it appears you only care about black poverty and black oppression.

There was lots of opportunity available to numerous blacks following World War II. As was said blacks did not totally and completely dominate the short sprints until the 1988 Olympics. And I never said it was an outright fact that steroids are working better on blacks than whites, but there is strong circumstantial evidence that something is going on.

How many will it take before you see that the majority are cheating? Two former world record holders are banned from using steroids and now a third Maurice Greene is getting linked through circumstantial evidence to buying steroids.

You must really loath whites coming on a white athlete board to tout your black supremacy theories time and time again "Texas Tech". Your hate really comes out in your posts. When you made fun of Casey Combest saying that "elite H.S girls would crush him" because of one "pathetically" bad time, (which could have been due to injury for all we know). I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were truly having a light hearted laugh about it.

Yet it appears to me that you were getting "sick pleasure" out of a white man who still holds the H.S record for 60 meters having his life fall apart! You must be salivating that the one white man who holds a H.S record in the short sprint (where there are far less steroids btw) is still struggling to get his life back after going to prison.

It's all the evil white men or rich white h*nkies holding the brothers down right? Speaking of rich whites, you could make the argument that many privileged whites have stayed away from track to find high paying white collar jobs as well in the past.

As I said I checked iaaf.org: There were eight sub 10 electronic times at non altitude from 1976-1988. I forgot to mention Mel Lattany's in my previous post. Six of them were by the same man Carl Lewis. From 1988-2008 there have been 336 sub 10 electronic times by 50 men, the great majority whom have done it more than once. Asafa Powell has run sub 9.8 a "mind boggling five times" by the age of 25 and has a world record time of 9.74 seconds. That's a 0.18 second improvement over Carl Lewis from the pre steroid era (Lewis had ran sub 10 six times as of the 1988 Olympics which started when he was already 27 and ran a world record 9.92 at that Olympics).

That's a 0.18 second improvement over the man whom many people called "the greatest track athlete to ever live" who I am old enough to have enjoyed his career and I am only barely 28 years old. This is very recent history.

The only other 2 men (who haven't been kicked out of track) other than Powell that have run sub 9.8 have done it once each. Maurice Greene is now linked through circumstantial evidence to steroid dealer Angel Heredia. And Usain Bolt like Powell is from Jamaica. Jamaica is a big time drug culture, where Ben Johnson is still a hero.

There is virtually no difference in track from the mid 80s to present day. Since you are such a dogmatist explain your "theory" on why there has been a "drastic" drop in times starting quite suddenly in 1988? The training methods and nutrition methods have been the same since the early 1970s.

Here is what Carl Lewis said about all the athletes right before the 1988 Olympics who were dropping their times like flies drop.

"There are a lot of people coming out of nowhere. I don't think they are doing it without drugs." He added, "I could run 9.8 or faster in the 100 if I could jump into drugs right away."

Ben Johnson said it himself after he got caught, that he doesn't think it is possible to go sub 9.9 without steroids and he sure knows a lot about what steroids can do.

So you can choose to not believe my theory, but don't come on our board and call a veteran poster like me a pride filled racist fool. That is the message I got from your nasty post.

Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Now here is what I will call you. You are a complete black supremacist and an outright liar. You claim that it is very specious reasoning that whites are even within 0.25 seconds of blacks at 100 meters; when any reasonable person, even a pro-black poster who can't do math like J. McBride admitted that there is approximately a 0.2 second difference.

There are only a couple elite blacks per year on average since 2000 running sub 9.9 per year. There are usually a couple elite whites every year running sub 10.15. That's a 0.25 second difference, which is much bigger than in the late seventies to mid 1980s.

Right now happens to be an anomalous transition period where the top two white guy's Matt Leblanc and Craig Pickering are very young. But even 0.25 seconds difference isn't enough for you so you have to lie again. I get the feeling you wouldn't be happy until whites are gone from athletics.

I cheer for white athletes in sports they are clearly underdogs in like short sprint track, or in football. In the later case It is because of racism. That doesn't make me racist. I think you're racist for having so much disgust for people like me who cheer for underdog white athletes that you have to come on here and malign us and every white athlete at every chance you get.

Two recent world record holders were brought down by the Balco bust (and the only other sub 9.8 guy, other than Powell and Bolt from drug infested Jamaica, Maurice Greene is now highly suspect). So why shouldn't I assume that Asafa Powell who broke their record right after isn't juicing?

Now here is another thing you wrote: "Even if elite blacks could only run 9.90 (which obviously is wishful thinking on your part) that's a .25 of a second spread. "

"Even if" what Ben Johnson said is the truth "that he doesn't think it is possible to go sub-9.9 without "the juice", that is but a 0.1 second off the white world record not 0.25.

My point is without "the juice" low to mid 9.9s would be run by blacks less than 10 times per decade. And sub 10.10s would be run by whites less than 10 times per decade, So, maybe I'll even agree that from looking at the history of white "consistency" in 100 meters that there could be a 0.15 second difference between the elite blacks and elite whites.

But I am totally sick of this argument. I don't know why you have so much hate for this site that you have to brand me and other posters liars and racists for theories that certainly have strong circumstantial evidence.

Why do you care so much that we have a difference of opinion than you when most of us have even admitted that blacks are a little faster?

Maybe it's because you don't want to consider that this sites message is the truth about sports. Get the hell off our site before you are banned! Reasonable debate is allowed, but when you start calling me a liar and manipulator for theories when you are the one manipulating you have crossed the line.

"Watching you desperately trying to twist, and massage, and manipulate meaningless numbers in a feeble attempt to support your non-points is comical. I'm actually insulted that you think I'd fall for that song & dance. I realize why you do it, though. It's your last refuge"

Last refuge? White athletes in the NFL don't have a refuge. Yet you try to manipulate things to make me look racist for cheering for underdog white sprinters, RBs and WRs; the few of them that there are.

Would a black hockey fan cheering hard for the few blacks in hockey be racist? Of course not, that would make him a man proud of his race who roots for underdogs. Yet you hate us so much that you time and time again keep coming on here "Texas Tech." You are clearly the one with hate in your heart!

Rant finished!
Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[white lightning]

Don't get too discouraged TJR. That is exactly what guys like Maximus want. If he goes too far, let me know and we will ban him from the site. They can talk all that they want but the tide is slowly turning.

I can't wait to see what people will say when Pickering goes sub 10 this season. You can hold me too this. Barring injuries, it will happen this summer. If only Michael LeBlanc could get back to health, he clearly has the potential as well.

If we can get more Jeremy Wariner types in sprinting in general, young kids will look up to them. Nic Macrozonaris got turned on to track by watching Bruny Surin win a gold medal. He then went outside and started sprinting. Kids need heros to look up to and aspire after. Especially sprinters or athletes that look like themselves.

This is going to be a very interesting year. I'm also waiting for Paul Hession to open up as he had a great season last year. He is by far the fastest irishman that I have ever seen.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

WL thanks for the post, I have been thinking about these arguments far too long. And btw, Hession is a good one to root for me as I am half Irish! The rest of me is a quarter Scottish an eighth English and an eighth Italian. So I am 3/4 Celtic! I agree with you that Pickering, if he can perfect his start a little more, has the potential to be the first to go sub 10. They will drug test him like crazy if he does. So I hope he's clean! The kid is a legit talent and may surpass Shirv and Macrozonaris and Woronin as the best 100 meter white man ever!

 

[Guest]

They can talk all that they want but the tide is slowly turning.

No offense, but the "tide" isn't "turning".





Usain Bolt just clocked a world record 9.72, legal wind by the way. I guess someone forgot to tell him that the "tide is turning", lol.


I admit I was wrong about him too. I thought his 9.74 earlier this month was faulty timing. I guess it was legit.

 

[albinosprint]

legit if you don't count the roids he is on. if you think this kid is clean, then I've got a bridge you can buy. its only a matter of time before he gets busted. just ask justin gatlin or marion jones.

 

[white lightning]

If you think the a guy like Usain Bolt can come out of no where and run two 9.7 times in a month while being clean, then I have some ocean front propeterty in AZ to sell you! They are doped to the gills and making the times that Ato and Mo ran look slow. Oh wait, I know that they are only taking Flinstone Vitamins. I'm sure they are all natural. Why don't you ask Ben Johnson or many others? You have to wonder how many sprinters period are on something. The times are just getting to the point of craziness. The coverup is on in my opinion. Those times just destroy your body.

They might as well let Montgomery out of prison, allow Justin Gatlin to run, and bring back Dwain Chambers. It will be the JUICE OLYMPICS!

 

[GiovaniMarcon]

I remember once in school there was this one guy who insisted on wearing a baseball hat in class, and every day the teacher would tell him to take it off because you couldn't wear caps indoors.

But then the next day he'd come in wearing the hat again, as before, and like before, the teacher would ask him to remove it.

This went on for some time, then eventually the teacher got tired of asking him to take off the hat, and he just wore it every day in class.

Needless to say, some of the other kids decided that they should get to wear hats, too, so after a while other kids started to show up to class wearing hats.

The teacher told them that they couldn't wear hats in class -- that the first kid was obviously incapable of learning, so we should just leave him alone.

The other kids thought that either everybody should get to wear hats, or nobody should get to wear hats.

Anything else is unfair. A rule is only a rule if everyone has to follow it and not just the honest people.


Oh yeah, my point -- either we should let everyone use roids and just stop caring, or else no one should use them.

Maybe Usain Bolt is legit, maybe he's not.

I happen to think he's not.

On a side note -- to Maximus -- I find your attitude to be very conceited, and when you say things like "no offense" ; when you speak of black athletes' various [questionable] achievements it sounds almost like you're living vicariously through them and not just proud of them.

Being proud of someone is one thing; but when you crow about other people's victories in the manner you've been doing it sounds like you have a very empty life.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong -- it's just how you sound to me right now.

 

[Poacher]

Bolt has come out of nowhere to run a 9.72. How many years before we find out he is/ was cheating?

What's next, an 8.75? F'n joke.Edited by: Poacher

 

[albinosprint]

he is pulling a Gatlin. Justin was dropping sub 10's like mad at the beginning of the season when he was caught on the juice. oh, I'm sorry, "when he was sabotaged". its only a matter of time before this kid comes up dirty.I also love the fact that Mo Greene is now linked with roids. he spent $40K on supplement for his team mates? sure you did buddy. next will find out that ato and fredricks were juicing. and I know that allot of people hear want to believe that MJ was clean due to the JW / Hart connection, but I believe he got on the HGH train when it was still hard to detect. he was what 32 when he ran those records. they said that the 96 Olympics were the HGH Olympics. and hart didn't really need to know about any of it. MJ knowing that hart was against it might have keep it to himself.

this was a neat article.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/sport/article-23488812-details /article.do?ito=newsnow&

 

[white is right]

All I can say is "unbelievable" and the double entendre is intended. The shoe may drop years from now, even after Bolt retires but something will pop up at some point. He made the world champion (who I have doubts about) look like he was running in army boots.....

 

[freedom1]

Bolt's personal best before this season in the 100 was 10.03.

Man, 3 tenths of second improvement in one year. That ranks right up there with Flojo.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Although I have serious doubts about Tyson Gay being clean, I am much more apt to believe that he is clean than Powell and Bolt from drug infested Jamaica. Tyson Gay's personal best is 9.84, which is .01 out of the range I think it is humanly possible to run. I have stated that 9.85-9.90 could be run by the most freakish black athletes on the end of the bell curve a few times a century. But basically the best times without roids from elite blacks per decade would be in the 9.90-10 flat range. The best white times per decade without the juice IMO would be 10.00-10.10, with a couple 9.95-10 flat times per century from absolute white freaks.

But truth is; we'll never know if our theories are fact, unless they find a better testing system to beat the steroid labs so steroids become extinct in track. then when the track stars know they will be caught they will have faith the field is clean. Then when we start seeing 9.90-10 flats win the finals at the Olympics for several Olympics we will know we were correct.

There was a good article in the NJ Star Ledger paper about how steroids have made track irrelevant to the American public. Marion Jones once used a full page in her auto-biographical book for one sentence stating

"I don't use performance enhancing drugs."

If Tyson Gay is clean than I give the man credit for being the utter absolute freak on the end of the bell curve that won't cheat his way to stardom. But there is virtually no doubt in my mind that Powell and Bolt are dirty and I can only hope they are caught so the guys that are legit have a chance.

And of course I could be wrong and Gay could be clean, but at this point I have a hard time believing he is clean.Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[Guest]

Bolt's personal best before this season in the 100 was 10.03.

Man, 3 tenths of second improvement in one year. That ranks right up there with Flojo.

I'm seriously starting to think you guys don't even follow this sport. Only a Johnny Come-Lately would say something that ill-informed.


FloJo didn't have that ridiculous speed spurt until she was pushing 30. That, plus the physical changes to her face and body, and her immediate retirement &amp; Madison Avenue cash-in are what made her numbers so suspicious. Young sprinterslike Usain Bolt, on the other hand, have those amazing spurts ALL THE TIME. It's a natural progressionduring their transition from late teens/early 20's to adulthood.


Those of us who aren't bandwagons jumpers realize this. Lemme throw some other names of people you may have heard of:


Daniel Batman


21 years old - 10.70
22 years old - 10.39 (a .31, 1 year improvement)]

Dariusz Kuc


19 years old - 10.45
20 years old - 10.17 (a .28, 1 year improvement)

Michael LeBlanc


19 years old - 10.60
20 years old - 10.17 (a .43, 1 year improvement)

Nicolas Macrozonaris


21 years old - 10.25
22 years old - 10.03 (a .22, 1 year improvement)

Andrey Yepishin


20 years old - 10.72
21 years old - 10.42 (a .30, 1 year improvement)

Females bodies mature a little earlier than men, as evidenced by the decade after decade dominance of teenage tennis players. They have incredible year over year spurts as well:


Ivet Lalova


18 years old - 11.59
19 years old - 11.14 (a .45, 1 year improvement)
20 years old - 10.77 (a .37, 1 year improvement)

Sally McLellan


19 years old - 11.36
20 years old - 11.14 (a .22, 1 year improvement)

Tezzhan Naimova


18 years old - 11.61
19 years old - 11.23 (a .38, 1 year improvement)
20 years old - 11.04 (a .19, 1 year improvement)

Yevgeniya Polyakova


23 years old - 11.45
24 years old - 11.09 (a .36, 1 year improvement)

Kim Gevaert


19 years old - 11.52
20 years old - 11.17 (a .35, 2 season improvement)

I could go on, but as usual, I've proven my pointvery adeptly. Very adeptlyto unbiased, non-agenda driven, observers, that is.

 

[Guest]

I'm seriously starting to think you guys don't even follow this sport.

Most of them don't.

I seriously doubt, for instance, that Tyson Gay is taking any drugs. He is under astronomical scrutiny in the current track atmosphere.

 

[Guest]

Bolt has come out of nowhere to run a 9.72

In exactly the same way Eamon Sullivan swam a 21.28 in the 50 meter freestyle.

 

[SteveB]

Bolt has only run the 100m in 5 races ever. Before 2007, he was a 200m runner. So a guy that has only run the 100m 5 times in competition is going to break the world record without PEDs? Give me a break.

I stand by my previous statement about Jamaica. With Powell and Bolt running such incredible times, I can see WADA setting up a headquarters down there. It will be a matter of time before they are caught.Edited by: SteveB

 

[SteveB]

Most of them don't.

Please don't insult my intelligence or the others here who are former athletes and follow the sport. You didn't even know who Trey Hardee was before I posted about him yesterday. Yep, you're a T&F guru.