Another one...Pettigrew

[Poacher]

Antonio Pettigrew named in report as having used PEDs.

[url]http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/trackandfield/news/story?id=33 79638[/url]

 

[white is right]

Not a shock that Dennis Mitchell is on this list either. He of the hair trigger temper and the dog ate my homework excuses for testing positive.

 

[GiovaniMarcon]

How ironic.

I remember reading in Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It (a piece of garbage book written by a piece of garbage author, Jon Entine) about how Soviet male athletes were a "bunch of drugged up cheaters" and how that was the only way they were able to run stride for stride with black sprinters throughout the 60s to 80s.

Seems now that maybe everybody cheated at best, and that it was the other way around at worst.

Just watch -- once everybody is clean in the sprinting world, you'll see everyone's (read: every black man's) time decline, and white men winning -- or at least appearing in the finals of any given race -- much more frequently.

 

[Angelcynn]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/7382810.stm

I just read about it the newspaper today and It really p!ssed me off! Roger Black (My second faveourite athlete as a kid after Jonathan Edwards) was pipped by Pettigrew into 2nd place in the 1991 Takyo World Championships. The sheer cheek of it!

Funnily enough a load of other black athletes who were trained by Trevor 'the cheat' Graham have admitted to using PED's. How many more may I ask????????????

Has this new case of a Afro American cheats made much headlines in the American media or has it been nicely swept under the carpet?

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

How ironic.

I remember reading in Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It (a piece of garbage book written by a piece of garbage author, Jon Entine) about how Soviet male athletes were a "bunch of drugged up cheaters" and how that was the only way they were able to run stride for stride with black sprinters throughout the 60s to 80s.

Seems now that maybe everybody cheated at best, and that it was the other way around at worst.

Just watch -- once everybody is clean in the sprinting world, you'll see everyone's (read: every black man's) time decline, and white men winning -- or at least appearing in the finals of any given race -- much more frequently.

Good point: Jon Entine's book was not based on any respected Scientific study. According to most geneticists the human race's genes are fairly homogeneous across ethnic lines and we have all shared a common relative w/in the last 80,000 years. Geneticists haven't been able to decipher any important survival genes as far as intelligence or athletic ability (fast twitch muscles etc.) that cross racial lines. Basically there are only very small genetic differences between ethnic groups.

And looking at the 100 meter: Whites were at least competitive at that distance until about 1980 the last yr. a white (Allan Wells of Scotland) won the gold. You gotta figure some of the Americans started cheating in the 70s, but I actually think their was a higher rate of Euro's cheating at that time from the old Soviet Bloc nations b/c athletic supremacy over the Americans was more politically important to them.

Now it seems the other way around. The European community has a lot more respect for track and field today IMO. You almost never see blacks from Europe in the 100 meter finals.

Personally I think "clean" the best time a black could run is 9.9-9.85, the best time a white could run at present day "clean" would be 10 flat-9.95. That is a difference of 1/100th of the length of the track. That means the fastest black man would usually beat the fastest white man by about 3.35 feet; roughly a meter. This would mean you'd probably see an average of one or two whites in the 100 meter finals w/o the American continent roiding epidemic. With an average timed difference of only 0.1 seconds we would see a white win the 100 meters about every 4 Olympics or so if he got a great start and the blacks didn't.

What is my reasoning for this you may ask? My reasoning is looking back at history of what the 100 Meter Finals at the Olympics used to look like from Jesse Owens onward until the modern roiding era started in the early 70s!

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

This is also a shame b/c the 100 meter argument has become one of our opponents most influential arguments of why white RBs aren't as good as blacks. Our opponents seem to forget that their is more to football than straight lined speed and even in that department whites are "competitive" with blacks.

There are lots of successful black RBs in the NFL who run 4.6s. Yet Brian Leonard who ran his best time of 4.49 at the NFL combine was listed as a FB by most sites and called too slow to turn the corner by Footballsfuture. If sites couldn't deny his speed he was casted with language like "doesn't play as fast as he times." Even if that is the case he has to play faster than a guy like large framed 3rd round pick Tony Hunt who ran a 4.68, but was never mentioned as a FB.

And how many times do you see runs over 40 yards in the NFL? It is very rare. Some of the top runners don't even average one a season. Giant sized runner Eddie George had two 40+ yard runs in his entire 10,000 yard career, w/ a paltry 3.6 YPC average; is he a FB?

How often does it come down to a footrace in a straight line "the entire field" between a RB and a CB. And even if it does happen many RBs are often run down by the fastest position in football (the CBs). I saw super-man Barry Sanders, one of my favorite players, get caught more than a few times from behind on long runs.

Football is a game of angles. Agility drills show that whites have just as good and probably a better 5-10 yard burst on average than blacks, whites have equal vision, very comparable agility and some of the best tackle breakers were traditionally white b/c of our gift of strength.

A perfect example of a great skill player is Eric Weddle. Weddle's 10 yard dash time of 1.42 tied the Combine electronic timed record for the last 10 years until it was broken this year by Chris Johnson. Weddle's 40 time of 4.48 is equal to 1st round CBs Aqib Talib and Antoine Cason this year. Weddle played CB his senior year at Utah and held, the second pick of last year's draft, WR Calvin Johnson to one catch in a match up. Weddle's shuttle time and 3 cone times are phenomenal b/c of his elite burst and change of direction skills. Yet the NFL found a way to caste Weddle as a Safety because of his race, despite being more of the size and frame of a CB.

I guess he didn't have the magic "hip wiggle" all though his on field performance, short shuttle and 3-Cone time say otherwise!

This is a translation of the racist message the NFL is giving us: Blacks are so different than whites, that only blacks are fit to run the football. There is not a single white man that can even be an adequate contributer to a team's rushing attack! And my friend has the nerve to call me racist for my beliefs, when I'm the one who believes in human similarity across racial lines. This is a friend who had the nerve to say to me:

"You honestly think whites can play RB in the NFL? That's ridiculous, just look at the black RBs, they're athletic freaks. Hey, we all have our strengths; maybe that's way blacks completely suck in the classroom!"

Apparently he's the racist one!

 

[Guest]

Personally I think "clean" the best time a black could run is 9.9-9.85, the best time a white could run at present day "clean" would be 10 flat-9.95.

I dunno, to me it seemsa bit of a stretch to naturally presumea "clean" white sprinter could run a sub-10, whena "dirty" white sprinter has neverdone it.


Also, the overwhelming majority of doping participantsin the Tour de France and other cycling eventsescape detection due to their chemists. Howdo we know that the European sprinters aren't using the same masking agents or undetectable 'roids theircyclists are?

 

[Don Wassall]

And how many times do you see runs over 40 yards in the NFL? It is very rare. Some of the top runners don't even average one a season. Giant sized runner Eddie George had two 40+ yard runs in his entire 10,000 yard career, w/ a paltry 3.6 YPC average; is he a FB?

The "electrifying" Reggie Bush, he of all the commercial endorsements and endless media hype, has an NFL long run of 22 yards after two seasons.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Personally I think "clean" the best time a black could run is 9.9-9.85, the best time a white could run at present day "clean" would be 10 flat-9.95.

I dunno, to me it seems a bit of a stretch to naturally presume a "clean" white sprinter could run a sub-10, when a "dirty" white sprinter has never done it.


Also, the overwhelming majority of doping participants in the Tour de France and other cycling events escape detection due to their chemists. How do we know that the European sprinters aren't using the same masking agents or undetectable 'roids their cyclists are?

My evidence is that prior to the roiding era: Jesse Owens up to 1972, the start of the Olympic roiding era, there were some huge white victories in the 100 Meter (Armin Hary etc.) Then when Europe was probably cheating more than Americans were cheating in the 1970s Valeri Borzov was the best 100 meter man in the world. We see virtually no black Europeans win 100 meter races. It's mostly on this side of the Ocean. Believe me it's only a matter of time until the next Balco scandal, these sprinters over here are dropping like flies.

Kenteris (a Greek) is highly suspected of being a juicer from a disappearance before a drug test where he faked an accident. He won at 200 meters in 2000 and has one of the fastest 200 meter times ever. He is the only big time Euro track star that has been suspected of steroid use and low and behold he won! Looking at the history of track, something just doesn't measure up to the larger current disparity.

If Armin Hary could go 10 flat almost 50 years ago (before the roiding era) setting a record at the time, I figure a white with better training could go 9.95 now. But it's very hard for whites to have confidence in their abilities at 100 meters under the current climate. (BTW Marion Woronin ran a 9.997 that was rounded up to 10 flat, but he is from the roiding era so we don't know for sure he was clean).

Of course the larger disparity between black and white could be that maybe, just maybe, roids just work a little better on West Africans the way alcohol affects Native Americans differently than whites...who knows?Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[white is right]

Jamaica may be the new America, Soviet Union, East Germany, People's Republic. Usain Bolt just ran a 9.76 and did it early in the season and he has been a 200 meter specialist who has dabbled in the long sprint. Supposedly Jamaica has ignored their athletes roiding and the times that Jamaicans have been dropping in the last few years reflect it....

 

[white is right]

Personally I think "clean" the best time a black could run is 9.9-9.85, the best time a white could run at present day "clean" would be 10 flat-9.95.

I dunno, to me it seems a bit of a stretch to naturally presume a "clean" white sprinter could run a sub-10, when a "dirty" white sprinter has never done it.


Also, the overwhelming majority of doping participants in the Tour de France and other cycling events escape detection due to their chemists. How do we know that the European sprinters aren't using the same masking agents or undetectable 'roids their cyclists are?

Some are and have been caught. But if you look at the body types of German sprinters compared to the Americans you can see who juices and who doesn't. When the 200 meter finals happened in Athens all 3 Americans were so much larger than the rest of the field why is that? In the 100 Gatlin and the Cheetah man toyed with the field until the semis. They even had one moment which was total black comedy(no pun intended

) where the two juice clowns taunted the rest of the field and exhorted each other to beat the pack by 40+ meters plus.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

And how many times do you see runs over 40 yards in the NFL? It is very rare. Some of the top runners don't even average one a season. Giant sized runner Eddie George had two 40+ yard runs in his entire 10,000 yard career, w/ a paltry 3.6 YPC average; is he a FB?

The "electrifying" Reggie Bush, he of all the commercial endorsements and endless media hype, has an NFL long run of 22 yards after two seasons.

And a career YPC of 3.7 & only 10 TDs in the last 2 seasons to go along with his 22 yard long run. And they call this guy the type of "new age" speed back that all us whites can never match. Oh really?

Let's see what he does in the future, if he continues to far under-perform for a 2nd overall pick will he become the equivalent of the black Mike Mamula bust? Somehow I highly doubt it.

 

[GiovaniMarcon]

Personally I think "clean" the best time a black could run is 9.9-9.85, the best time a white could run at present day "clean" would be 10 flat-9.95.

I dunno, to me it seems a bit of a stretch to naturally presume a "clean" white sprinter could run a sub-10, when a "dirty" white sprinter has never done it.


Also, the overwhelming majority of doping participants in the Tour de France and other cycling events escape detection due to their chemists. How do we know that the European sprinters aren't using the same masking agents or undetectable 'roids their cyclists are?

A few years ago it was assumed that it was physically impossible to run a sub-13 minute 5000 meters.

Then in 1981 David Moorcroft (British, and white) ran almost as 13:00 flat.

Then people began speculating which WHITE man would be the first to crack 13 minutes.

Then the first person to actually do it was an East African.

Then a few other East Africans cracked it, too. People waited for a white man to do it but for several years, none did.

A lot of "experts" started to say that it was unlikely for a white to ever beat 13:00 minutes.

Then Dieter Bauman did it, then after him Bob Kennedy, then Craig Mottram (the latter is currently a runner and a legit medal threat this summer).


My point is that Armin Hary ran a dead 10 seconds in the 100 meters, and back in 1959 a lot of people were speculating which WHITE sprinter would dip under ten seconds for the hundred meter race.

Maybe whites won't do it as often as blacks, or won't dip as far under 10 seconds as blacks, but I think it will happen someday, if not sooner then later.

But not never.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

And how many times do you see runs over 40 yards in the NFL? It is very rare. Some of the top runners don't even average one a season. Giant sized runner Eddie George had two 40+ yard runs in his entire 10,000 yard career, w/ a paltry 3.6 YPC average; is he a FB?

The "electrifying" Reggie Bush, he of all the commercial endorsements and endless media hype, has an NFL long run of 22 yards after two seasons.

And a career YPC of 3.7 & only 10 TDs in the last 2 seasons to go along with his 22 yard long run. And they call this guy the type of "new age" speed back that all us whites can never match. Oh really?

Let's see what he does in the future, if he continues to far under-perform for a 2nd overall pick will he become the equivalent of the black Mike Mamula bust? Somehow I highly doubt it.

Or how about "huge bust" Ron Dayne who was drafted in the 1st round by my NY Giants despite running a 4.65. Dayne has a 3.8 YPC average and sucked in NY even with above average blocking. You can clearly see his lack of mobility as he tries to dance around opponents with his huge frame rather than run through them. Dayne lacks good agility, isn't fast and isn't powerful. So what tools does he have that mandate carrying the ball in the NFL. How is Dayne still getting carries in this league, when no white is fit to even be a backup?

The "Ungreat Dayne" isn't the only example of a crappy runner who still get carries. I honestly wonder how many Pro-bowl white RBs there would be in the NFL when I look at the special treatment of guys like Ron Dayne.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

And if Ron Dayne is the 11th overall pick (who still gets starts BTW when he's barely a solid 3rd teamer), than what should Jake Sharp be or Sam McGuffie be? Once they finish padding their resume with good college production on top of their amazing natural ability, that would make them 1st overall picks wouldn't it?Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[Guest]

Personally I think "clean" the best time a black could run is 9.9-9.85, the best time a white could run at present day "clean" would be 10 flat-9.95.

I dunno, to me it seems a bit of a stretch to naturally presume a "clean" white sprinter could run a sub-10, when a "dirty" white sprinter has never done it.



Also, the overwhelming majority of doping participants in the Tour de France and other cycling events escape detection due to their chemists. How do we know that the European sprinters aren't using the same masking agents or undetectable 'roids their cyclists are?

My evidence is that prior to the roiding era: Jesse Owens up to 1972, the start of the Olympic roiding era, there were some huge white victories in the 100 Meter (Armin Hary etc.) Then when Europe was probably cheating more than Americans were cheating in the 1970s Valeri Borzov was the best 100 meter man in the world. We see virtually no black Europeans win 100 meter races. It's mostly on this side of the Ocean. Believe me it's only a matter of time until the next Balco scandal, these sprinters over here are dropping like flies.

Kenteris (a Greek) is highly suspected of being a juicer from a disappearance before a drug test where he faked an accident. He won at 200 meters in 2000 and has one of the fastest 200 meter times ever. He is the only big time Euro track star that has been suspected of steroid use and low and behold he won! Looking at the history of track, something just doesn't measure up to the larger current disparity.

If Armin Hary could go 10 flat almost 50 years ago (before the roiding era) setting a record at the time, I figure a white with better training could go 9.95 now. But it's very hard for whites to have confidence in their abilities at 100 meters under the current climate. (BTW Marion Woronin ran a 9.997 that was rounded up to 10 flat, but he is from the roiding era so we don't know for sure he was clean).

Of course the larger disparity between black and white could be that maybe, just maybe, roids just work a little better on West Africans the way alcohol affects Native Americans differently than whites...who knows?

No offense, butthat's still a huge stretch. You'restill assuming something that's never ever ever happenedas being the norm(or should bethe norm).Armin Hary's "10 flat" washand-timed 50 years ago. There's a reasonhand-timing, especially with inferior 1958 and 1959timing equipment, is cosidered unreliable. It's not recognized as an all-time best for that very reason. You already acknowledged Woronin's time occured during the steroid era. The sheer dearthof sub-10.10 white times (20 total)would lead the casual observer to believe Macro, Shirvington,and the other few who've done it (most only once) may have been juiced up too. How do we know every white sub-10.10 in the steroid era wasn't dirty?


If we're going to assume the fastest black sprinters (Tyson Gay, Asafa Powell, Usain Bolt, Maurice Greene, Donovan Bailey, and Bruny Surin) are dirty because of their top times,why would we not alsoassume the top white sprinters are dirtybecause of their top times as well?

 

[GiovaniMarcon]

Personally I think "clean" the best time a black could run is 9.9-9.85, the best time a white could run at present day "clean" would be 10 flat-9.95.

I dunno, to me it seems a bit of a stretch to naturally presume a "clean" white sprinter could run a sub-10, when a "dirty" white sprinter has never done it.


Also, the overwhelming majority of doping participants in the Tour de France and other cycling events escape detection due to their chemists. How do we know that the European sprinters aren't using the same masking agents or undetectable 'roids their cyclists are?

My evidence is that prior to the roiding era: Jesse Owens up to 1972, the start of the Olympic roiding era, there were some huge white victories in the 100 Meter (Armin Hary etc.) Then when Europe was probably cheating more than Americans were cheating in the 1970s Valeri Borzov was the best 100 meter man in the world. We see virtually no black Europeans win 100 meter races. It's mostly on this side of the Ocean. Believe me it's only a matter of time until the next Balco scandal, these sprinters over here are dropping like flies.Kenteris (a Greek) is highly suspected of being a juicer from a disappearance before a drug test where he faked an accident. He won at 200 meters in 2000 and has one of the fastest 200 meter times ever. He is the only big time Euro track star that has been suspected of steroid use and low and behold he won! Looking at the history of track, something just doesn't measure up to the larger current disparity. If Armin Hary could go 10 flat almost 50 years ago (before the roiding era) setting a record at the time, I figure a white with better training could go 9.95 now. But it's very hard for whites to have confidence in their abilities at 100 meters under the current climate. (BTW Marion Woronin ran a 9.997 that was rounded up to 10 flat, but he is from the roiding era so we don't know for sure he was clean). Of course the larger disparity between black and white could be that maybe, just maybe, roids just work a little better on West Africans the way alcohol affects Native Americans differently than whites...who knows?

No offense, but that's still a huge stretch. You're still assuming something that's never ever ever happened as being the norm (or should be the norm). Armin Hary's "10 flat" was hand-timed 50 years ago. There's a reason hand-timing, especially with inferior 1958 and 1959 timing equipment, is cosidered unreliable. It's not recognized as an all-time best for that very reason. You already acknowledged Woronin's time occured during the steroid era. The sheer dearth of sub-10.10 white times (20 total) would lead the casual observer to believe Macro, Shirvington, and the other few who've done it (most only once) may have been juiced up too. How do we know every white sub-10.10 in the steroid era wasn't dirty?


If we're going to assume the fastest black sprinters (Tyson Gay, Asafa Powell, Usain Bolt, Maurice Greene, Donovan Bailey, and Bruny Surin) are dirty because of their top times, why would we not also assume the top white sprinters are dirty because of their top times as well?

An athlete's misfortune to be in his prime during a suspect era does not mean that he was a cheater. Many black athletes have been exposed as nothing more than huge frauds, therefore their records, their personal bests, and various glories are worthless. They betrayed the sport; they got caught, that's their problem.

I think that any white athlete who is similarly caught cheating and betraying the spirit of clean competition should be similarly vilified by history.

I think your assertion that "the sheer dearth" of whites who have passed under 10.10 is cause to suspect that they're cheaters could be read in the opposite way -- that the sheer number of black athletes who have gone under 10.10 (and really, there haven't been all that many, despite the media's efforts to build up all black sprinters as people as regular breakers of the 10 second barrier when in reality not that many have) and have subsequently been busted as phonies is cause to suspect that the difference between a fake "9.9" and a legit "10.12" is closer than we realize.

It's not fair to assume the white guy's 10.05 is a fraud just because his black peer's 9.95 has been exposed as drug-assisted.

If I see one kid cheating on a test, it doesn't mean all the kids cheated on the test.

 

[albinosprint]

the difference is the "look". Borzov, Macro and Shirvo don't look all jacked up like Gay, Powell and Bolt. Borvoz is the perfect example. here is a guy who has the body of a distance runner and has put up 10.10 or better many time over 30 years ago. so there should be a handful of white athletes doing better then that now. Ben Johnson has said the is impossible for a human to run faster then 9.90 without steroids. and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell you Bolt is on roids. click the link below to see what a clean athlete looks like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvV2TAqyu4

click this link to see a cheat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u7YGSZxAOA

 

[albinosprint]

for the broken link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvV2TAqyu4

 

[Guest]

An athlete's misfortune to be in his prime during a suspect era does not mean that he was a cheater. Many black athletes have been exposed as nothing more than huge frauds, therefore their records, their personal bests, and various glories are worthless. They betrayed the sport; they got caught, that's their problem.

Yes, agreed. THE ONES WHO WERE CAUGHT are worthless. But to presumeevery OTHER top sprinter is dirty is absurd, and based on fallacious logic.We're all individuals in this world, andare (or should) be judged on our own merit.

I think your assertion that "the sheer dearth" of whites who have passed under 10.10 is cause to suspect that they're cheaters could be read in the opposite way -- that the sheer number of black athletes who have gone under 10.10 (and really, there haven't been all that many, despite the media's efforts to build up all black sprinters as people as regular breakers of the 10 second barrier when in reality not that many have) and have subsequently been busted as phonies is cause to suspect that the difference between a fake "9.9" and a legit "10.12" is closer than we realize.

Justin Gatlin tested dirty, Dennis Mitchell tested higher than average testosterone in hismid-30's at the end of his career,Tim Montgomery was connected to Balco, and Ben Johnson tested dirty twice. What other American orCanadian 100M male tested dirty? Or even aroused suspicion?Or ANYJamaican? 100m males coming up dirty is the biggest myth out there.


Females are a little different. Some are just naturally born with more testosterone than others. Females track & field athletes, white and black, feel more pressure to compete against their more, for lack of a better word, "manly" counterparts. But untilthe elite male 100m sprinters actually start testing dirty, admit they're dirty, or people with intimate knowledge of their doping activities testifies under oath, it's all speculation and wishful thinking.

It's not fair to assume the white guy's 10.05 is a fraud just because his black peer's 9.95 has been exposed as drug-assisted.

Again, when was Tyson Gay "exposed"? When was Asafa Powell "exposed"? When were Andre Cason,Ato Boldon, Bernard Williams, Bruny Surin, Calvin Smith, Carl Lewis, Davidson Ezinwa, Deji Aliu, Derrick Atkins, Donovan Bailey, Francis Obikwelu, Frank Fredericks, Jim Hines, John Capel, Jon Drummond, Leonard Scott, Leroy Burrell,Maurice Greene, Michael Marsh, Obadele Thompson, Olapade Adeniken, Olusoji Fasuba, Patrick Johnson, Seun Ogunkoya, Shawn Crawford, Tim Harden,Usain Bolt, Vincent Henderson, or Walter Dix EVER "exposed"?Wishing, hoping,and praying they've been "exposed", for the sole purpose of propping up white sprinters, simply doesn't make it so. It just sounds like sour grapes.


10.10 has been breached over 1,400 times.. and only 21 times by white sprinters. Shirv has 4 of those times (including 2 10.07's and a 10.09), Vitaliy Savin has 2 (a 10.08 and a 10.09). The other 15 only did it once in their careers,almost always near 10.10, andusually crushing their 2nd best time.I'm not saying they're guilty, but it's so incredibly rare, thathow could it NOTarouse suspicion? To assume 9.95 is the natural high for white sprinters, as TJR did, with all of this evidence is extremely generous.

 

[albinosprint]

whats up with the trolls!

 

[GiovaniMarcon]

Yes, agreed. THE ONES WHO WERE CAUGHT are worthless. But to presume every OTHER top sprinter is dirty is absurd, and based on fallacious logic. We're all individuals in this world, and are (or should) be judged on our own merit.

I was strictly speaking only of the ones who were caught, not all black sprinters in general. That was the basis for my assertion.

Justin Gatlin tested dirty, Dennis Mitchell tested higher than average testosterone in his mid-30's at the end of his career, Tim Montgomery was connected to Balco, and Ben Johnson tested dirty twice.What other American or Canadian 100M male tested dirty? Or even aroused suspicion? Or ANY Jamaican? 100m males coming up dirty is the biggest myth out there.


Females are a little different. Some are just naturally born with more testosterone than others. Females track & field athletes, white and black, feel more pressure to compete against their more, for lack of a better word, "manly" counterparts. But until the elite male 100m sprinters actually start testing dirty, admit they're dirty, or people with intimate knowledge of their doping activities testifies under oath, it's all speculation and wishful thinking.

Again, I wasn't suggesting that all sprinters are dirty, however the exposure of several big names has cast suspicion on the whole sport. Konstantino Kenteris, one of the lone white short-sprint medalists of recent Olympics, has been suspected of cheating. If he's guilty I have absolutely no problem with him having his medal taken away and his subsequent humiliation on the world stage for dishonesty.

It's not fair to assume the white guy's 10.05 is a fraud just because his black peer's 9.95 has been exposed as drug-assisted.

Again, when was Tyson Gay "exposed"? When was Asafa Powell "exposed"? When were Andre Cason, Ato Boldon, Bernard Williams, Bruny Surin, Calvin Smith, Carl Lewis, Davidson Ezinwa, Deji Aliu, Derrick Atkins, Donovan Bailey, Francis Obikwelu, Frank Fredericks, Jim Hines, John Capel, Jon Drummond, Leonard Scott, Leroy Burrell, Maurice Greene, Michael Marsh, Obadele Thompson, Olapade Adeniken, Olusoji Fasuba, Patrick Johnson, Seun Ogunkoya, Shawn Crawford, Tim Harden, Usain Bolt, Vincent Henderson, or Walter Dix EVER "exposed"? Wishing, hoping, and praying they've been "exposed", for the sole purpose of propping up white sprinters, simply doesn't make it so. It just sounds like sour grapes.

I don't think anybody in the history of this website -- I could be wrong, since I'm pretty new myself -- has ever even implied that whites can generally run faster than blacks, insofar as the short sprint is concerned. In fact, I've seen in numerous posts the clear admission that the fastest short-sprint blacks are generally faster than the fastest short-sprint whites. That doesn't sound like sour grapes to me. It sounds like an honest evaluation of a real situation. I also don't think anyone is "hoping" that black sprinters who have run well in the 100 meters will be exposed as frauds.

I don't know any white man who says to himself "gee, I wish the standards were lower so that I would have a chance to surpass them." Either in science, academics, war, SPORTS or any other field.

If we lose, we lose -- we shake hands and move on. The human race progresses -- which means in reality we all win.

We have something to strive for, a goal. To think otherwise would be tantamount to wishing there were no such thing as gunpowder just because white people didn't invent it.

I don't know about otherraces being able to say the same thing, however. But that's just my opinion.

It is not, however, "wishful thinking" to assume that on occasion -- say, for example, every twenty years or so -- there just happens to be a white sprinter who is faster than everyone else, white or black. That's not wishful thinking, that's just statistical probability. Jeremy Wariner in the 400 is just such an example, though the best sprint times between white and black in the 400 and 800 blur a little more than in the 100 and 200.

Negative stereotypes about white sprinters and exaggerated beliefs in black athletic supremacy have brainwashed three generations of whites into thinking there will never be that white anomaly who is faster than everyone else. So white kids stop trying to be him. And coaches stop trying to look for him.

Why should a white kid aim for 9.9, since 9.9 is "SLOW" compared to 9.76? Unless 9.76 is a fraud, and maybe it is, quite possibly. Steroids have caused us to raise our expectations and at the same time the end result is that achievements mean less because we know many people have cheated to get there.

I think any "wishful thinking" here is relegated only to the wish that all cheaters, white and black, simply stop cheating since they're mucking up the record books for everyone involved. It's psychologically unnerving for a sprinter to look at the world record and think "okay, 9.76. I've got to train myself to get as close to beating that as possible" and then realize that it's a fraud. Then he'll think, "all right then, what's the REAL world record? Have I beaten it already and just don't know it?" Then we get into the mess where sprinters want to beat the "dirty" world record while "running clean."

10.10 has been breached over 1,400 times.. and only 21 times by white sprinters. Shirv has 4 of those times (including 2 10.07's and a 10.09), Vitaliy Savin has 2 (a 10.08 and a 10.09). The other 15 only did it once in their careers, almost always near 10.10, and usually crushing their 2nd best time. I'm not saying they're guilty, but it's so incredibly rare, that how could it NOT arouse suspicion? To assume 9.95 is the natural high for white sprinters, as TJR did, with all of this evidence is extremely generous.

Again, this is hardly surprising as it's been acknowledged that in a pure short-sprint race the best blacks will usually triumph over the best whites. By how much, and how often is the variable.

The occasional "freak" white who is extremely fast further complicates the equation.

I actually don't think assuming a 9.95 is an unreachable goal for white sprinters. As many have stated before, the fastest whites of all time have run 10.00.

If we are to assume the best black times are clean until proven not to be, we must assume the best white times are also clean until proven not to be. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to think that the best white sprinter -- that rare "freak" outlier at the end of the curve, with improved training and conditioning can improve slightly on the best white time of 20 years ago, or 10 years ago.

The best black times 30 years ago were no better than the best white times. What, are we to simply accept without question that blacks have since improved their best times, but whites should not be expected to, even slightly?

It's not a surprise that 10.10 has been surpassed over a thousand times by black athletes. How many black sprinters are there in the world, in their primes? Hundreds of thousands? Many of those sub 10.10 times have been "repeat performances" by the same athletes. Which could mean A) those athletes are just really special; good for them B) the same athletes cheated on multiple occasions; bad for them, and the sport C) the number of different black athletes who have beaten 10.10 at least once is further reduced. No matter what, C is true.

The percentage of blacks who have run 10.10 or lower is minuscule compared to the total percentage of black male sprinters in the world today and of all time aged 18-32.

There are fewer elite white athletes who even bother to take up sprinting. In that case, "21 times" for all time doesn't sound as bad to me as it did three minutes ago.

Those who have beaten 10.10 are freaks -- the best of the best, just as the whites who have beaten 10.10 are freaks.

I'm by no means saying that the best white athletes will run faster than the best black ones. I think however that cheaters further discourage whites from participating because they (cheaters) and their fake times make the world records seem so out of reach for anyone, white or black -- but especially white, since whites in America are discouraged even from trying.

Okay, so only 21 occasions have whites beaten 10.10. Let's say for the sake of argument, TWO THIRDS were "cheating times", which is an astronomical stretch of the imagination and highly liberal. So now only seven times have white freaks done it clean. In all the world. Ever.

And let's say out of 1400 occasions where blacks have done it, one third were cheating, which is also a stretch. So now there have only been 700-800-odd times it has been done, ever. In all the world. Still a very small club!

The world of elite sprinting is partly the act of "finding that genetic freak" -- that marvel who is an outlier in the bell curve of speed.

If you can run 10.10 -- hell, if you can run 10.50 in the hundred and do it clean -- you're an athletic wonder, whether you're white or black. It's something very few people of any race can do.

There have been/are millions of sprinters all over the world. Most of them won't even catch a whiff of even 10.30 in all their career.

What many don't like is the fact that black superstar athletes like Tim Montgomery have raised the bar artificially and made a lot of otherwise decent sprinters, white and black, seem that much slower.

So we have seven (ahem, 21) occasions where white sprinters have beaten 10.10.

Armin Harry will not be the fastest white man of all time forever. Borzov will not be the fastest white man of all time forever.

The cheaters in this sport have turned off a lot of potential white sprinters from even trying, and a lot of coaches from even looking at white kids trying out.

The white sprinter who can do 9.95 is out there. It's too bad that he'll be accused of cheating the moment he crosses the finish line.

The cheating sprinters -- white and black, though right now it's the black ones who've been caught -- have seen to that.

On a side note, tt is worth mentioning that the ultimate test of all-around athletic prowess -- from speed, to strength, to agility, to balance and strategy -- is with few exceptions the province of the white male European athlete.

If blacks were more successful at the decathalon it would receive bigger press. Since they are not -- try as they might -- the sport is dismissed as "white" and therefore not a sport at all.Edited by: GiovaniMarcon

 

[white is right]

An athlete's misfortune to be in his prime during a suspect era does not mean that he was a cheater. Many black athletes have been exposed as nothing more than huge frauds, therefore their records, their personal bests, and various glories are worthless. They betrayed the sport; they got caught, that's their problem.

Yes, agreed. THE ONES WHO WERE CAUGHT are worthless. But to presume every OTHER top sprinter is dirty is absurd, and based on fallacious logic. We're all individuals in this world, and are (or should) be judged on our own merit.

I think your assertion that "the sheer dearth" of whites who have passed under 10.10 is cause to suspect that they're cheaters could be read in the opposite way -- that the sheer number of black athletes who have gone under 10.10 (and really, there haven't been all that many, despite the media's efforts to build up all black sprinters as people as regular breakers of the 10 second barrier when in reality not that many have) and have subsequently been busted as phonies is cause to suspect that the difference between a fake "9.9" and a legit "10.12" is closer than we realize.

Justin Gatlin tested dirty, Dennis Mitchell tested higher than average testosterone in his mid-30's at the end of his career, Tim Montgomery was connected to Balco, and Ben Johnson tested dirty twice.What other American or Canadian 100M male tested dirty? Or even aroused suspicion? Or ANY Jamaican? 100m males coming up dirty is the biggest myth out there.


Females are a little different. Some are just naturally born with more testosterone than others. Females track & field athletes, white and black, feel more pressure to compete against their more, for lack of a better word, "manly" counterparts. But until the elite male 100m sprinters actually start testing dirty, admit they're dirty, or people with intimate knowledge of their doping activities testifies under oath, it's all speculation and wishful thinking.

It's not fair to assume the white guy's 10.05 is a fraud just because his black peer's 9.95 has been exposed as drug-assisted.

Again, when was Tyson Gay "exposed"? When was Asafa Powell "exposed"? When were Andre Cason, Ato Boldon, Bernard Williams, Bruny Surin, Calvin Smith, Carl Lewis, Davidson Ezinwa, Deji Aliu, Derrick Atkins, Donovan Bailey, Francis Obikwelu, Frank Fredericks, Jim Hines, John Capel, Jon Drummond, Leonard Scott, Leroy Burrell, Maurice Greene, Michael Marsh, Obadele Thompson, Olapade Adeniken, Olusoji Fasuba, Patrick Johnson, Seun Ogunkoya, Shawn Crawford, Tim Harden, Usain Bolt, Vincent Henderson, or Walter Dix EVER "exposed"? Wishing, hoping, and praying they've been "exposed", for the sole purpose of propping up white sprinters, simply doesn't make it so. It just sounds like sour grapes.


10.10 has been breached over 1,400 times.. and only 21 times by white sprinters. Shirv has 4 of those times (including 2 10.07's and a 10.09), Vitaliy Savin has 2 (a 10.08 and a 10.09). The other 15 only did it once in their careers, almost always near 10.10, and usually crushing their 2nd best time. I'm not saying they're guilty, but it's so incredibly rare, that how could it NOT arouse suspicion? To assume 9.95 is the natural high for white sprinters, as TJR did, with all of this evidence is extremely generous.

Okay let me go over these names and state who most likely doped here and I will state why. Cason was a doper he shattered his femur and subsequently retired in the early 90's and he also had unusual muscularity. It looks like Boldon was clean as the letter I copied and posted in the thread. Boldon did train with a dirty track club that has had a bunch of sprinters busted. There is no evidence against Williams(I don't think he was clean as he and the other 200 meter finalists in Athens were much more muscular than the other competitors). Bruny Surin never failed a steroid test but he grew late in his career and suddenly could dip under 10 seconds with ease in 99' and by 2000 was breaking down like a race horse that was overworked. The next two sprinters were lower profile Nigerians so I can't say anything about them. Derrick Atkins is Bahamian I don't know much about him, I do know that all of sudden Bahamas is sprint power and before they never had runners place at world events. Thompson always looked clean to me, but he is married to the biggest female fraud since Flo Juice. The next guy is African and I don't know much about him. There was a a rumour all over the internet that Fasuba was asking about roid cycles on bodybuilding boards and registered with his nickname. The next guy is a Nigerian I barely know about. Then it's Crawford who's training partner was dirty and Crawford had a obviously too muscular physique. Also he has mysteriously slowed down since his coach has been popped. He blamed it on bunions, anybody with a brain could put 2 and 2 together and figure out why. There is no evidence Johnson doped, but he peaked very late (28 or 29) and never has discovered that form since. Timmy Harden I have never heard a word about him doping. He also wasn't unusually muscular. I don't care but I don't believe the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus was my dad. Bolt is dirty he popped a 9.76' in May? He also was never a hundred meter sprinter and he trains in country with lax drug testing standards. Both Leonard Scott and Greene are going to be exposed as drug cheats in this trial coming up. I have talked a club level sprinter and we talked about Bailey and we both laughed that he was juicing for the same reasons as Surin and he told me story that in his training camp he had fridge in his rented house(in Texas) that had syringes sitting in them. I could go on but this is sufficient for the passionate troll.......

 

[Van_Slyke_CF]

Giovani, this is real good stuff. It deserves to be printed again.

"I don't think anybody in the history of this website --I could be wrong, since I'm pretty new myself -- has ever even implied that whites can generally run faster than blacks, insofar as the short sprint is concerned. In fact, I've seen in numerous posts the clear admission that the fastest short-sprint blacks are generally faster than the fastest short-sprint whites. That doesn't sound like sour grapes to me. It sounds like an honest evaluation of a real situation. I also don't think anyone is "hoping" that black sprinters who have run well in the 100 meters will be exposed as frauds.

I don't know any white man who says to himself "gee, I wish the standards were lower so that I would have a chance to surpass them." Either in athletics, science, academics, war, SPORTS or any other field.

If we lose, we lose -- we shake hands and move on. The human race progresses -- which means in reality we all win.

We have something to strive for, a goal. To think otherwise would be tantamount to wishing there were no such thing as gunpowder just because white people didn't invent it.

I don't know about otherraces being able to say the same thing, however. But that's just my opinion.

It is not, however, "wishful thinking" to assume that on occasion -- say, for example, every twenty years or so -- there just happens to be a white sprinter who is faster than everyone else, white or black. That's not wishful thinking, that's just statistical probability. Jeremy Wariner in the 400 is just such an example, though the best sprint times between white and black in the 400 and 800 blur a little more than in the 100 and 200.

Negative stereotypes about white sprinters and exaggerated beliefs in black athletic supremacy have brainwashed three generations of whites into thinking there will never be that white anomaly who is faster than everyone else. So white kids stop trying to be him. And coaches stop trying to look for him."

"And coaches stop trying to look for him."

This is a key point related to much of what Caste Football stands for. Like Giovani, I have not been posting here for a long time, either, but I think I understand this site and the men here well enough to state my opinions confidently.

The men on this site repeatedly post evidence that whites have been discriminated against in so many sports for decades now in the U.S. At the same time, we see whites from other countries doing so well in sports that white Americans used to stand out in in much greater numbers-boxing, basketball, track and field to name but a few-and we know that the root cause of so much of this is racial discrimination against whites.

Moreover, we darn well know there is racial discrimination against whites in our true national pastime, American football. We are not saying that whites should be able to replace every black RB/CB/WR etc. on the football field, not by a longshot, but the fact that they have virtually ceased to exist is nothing other than due to pure, unadulterated racism against whites.

 

[waterbed]

white americans are brainwashed and discrimaned.Look at running backs they are all black.But in 100 meter sprints i have never seen that blacks are faster than whites over the first 30 or 40 meter and 40 yard is 36 meter so why not white running backs.only slighty better top speed and deceleration with make like 2 meter difference. And this difference is inclusief brainwashed whites in US and a climate in Europe that is not so good for sprinting.