Another one...Pettigrew

[white is right]

Well personally, even though that is true that whites were roughly half the 100 meter final on average in the 40s, 50s and 60s I still think that the top black sprinter without PEDs would continue to have .1 second advantage on average over the top white sprinter in todays world.

No offense, TJR, but you can't be serious. Back in the 40's, 50's, and 60's, blacks were more concerned about avoiding the violent fire hose spray, vicious police dog attacks, being lynched, and surviving the pre-civil rights era, rather than sprinting and other athletics. The level of participation was miniscule in comparison to whites in the country. Same with basebalIl, basketball, football, and every other sport.


As the nation evolved, and opportunities for a free college education began to present themselves, blacks became more involved in the sport. Once the playing field leveled out, and they were allowed to train the the same trainers and facilities, and their times responded accordingly.


To this day, the overwhelming majority of high school sprinters are white. The Oregons, the Kentuckys, the West Virginias, the Vermonts, the Maines, et als are 90% white. The elite of the elite white sprinters just simply aren't as fast as the elite blacks in the states with a larger black population. That's why they disappear by the time they hit college. They win state and district titles on the state level, but can't compete on the national scene.

If black s were lost to sprinting it was because of poverty in the south and being forced to work as near slaves in manual labour (Also whites were lost in the south to sharecropping too). I doubt the civil rights movement had anything to do with the lack of black domination of 100 meter times in the 40's and 50's. Also since sprinting was an amateur sport athletes that were poor probably gave up track because they needed to earn money and pursued the only two professional sports in America, boxing and baseball(The NBA and NFL were only semi-pro at the time). The reason why amateur sports were originally adopted was so that men of means could compete and that the poor who had to eat and pay rent would be shut out from competing. This form of discrimination was originally used against poor whites. It's also the reason why in England they had professional sprinters in the late 19th century.Edited by: white is right

 

[SteveB]

Maximus,

You can't be serious. The modern white sprinters are basically running the same times today that Mennea was running in the mid to late 70's. Mennea sure wasn't on steroids as he was about 130 lbs with the arms of a long distance runner. If today's white sprinters are juicing, it isn't working.

On the other hand, there are a number of modern black sprinters (as you outlined above) that are running 0.25 seconds faster than Carl Lewis was running in the early to mid 1980's. The margin would even be higher if you compared the times to other elite black sprinters during that era, as Lewis was totally dominant. We are not talking about the 40', 50's, and 60's, but the 80's when colleges were actively recruiting black sprinters.

If you look at the average elite times from the 70's and early 80's, the margin between white and black was about 0.05 sec, about 0.5 of a meter difference over a 100m race (supporting TJR's argument that blacks on average are very slightly faster in a short sprint). Today's margin is 0.31+, as you pointed out. Your argument has no merit, because all of the modern times are chemically enhanced. How many more sprinters have to be busted for PEDs before you see the truth?

 

[Guest]

maximus,


scientifically speaking though blacks on a whole are faster due to there higher percent of fast twitch muscle fibers, it doesn't mean that there are white out there just as fast. as for the fact that blacks were afraid to get lynched, I pretty sure Jesses Owens made it expectable for blacks to compete in athletics.

There could have been 3 dozen Jesse Owenses, but blacks weren't allowed to excel and shine during the Jim Crow Era. Jesse Owens was the chosen one. The others weren't fortunate enough to have the same opportunities he did.


The situation mirrors what Jackie Robinson experienced. The only reason he was the chosen guy was because he was willing to put up with the virulent racism, and racial invectives being hurled at him. He was nowhere near the elite of the Negro Leagues. He only played one average year, and was a 28 year old journeyman who just happened to be in the right place at the right time to be called up by the Dodgers.


The pre-civil rights era skewed black athletic accomplishment as a whole. Referencing that era in comparison to today is meaningless. After baseball integration began, from 1949, black players won9 of the first 11, and 11 of the first 14 national league MVPs. And there were only a few black players at that point. Just because no one won itin the first 50 years, doesn't mean blacks weren't capable.. just means they didn't have the chance.


Six of the top 7 home run hitters of all time are black even though whites have been playing 50 years longer. Who's to say it wouldn't have been more had it not been for our discriminatory history. There's no reason to believe track & field athletics wouldn't have been any different as well.

if you took your black and white 100m time averages and did it from 1940-1960 you would see that the numbers are the same. the only thing that changed was the brainwashing of white kids not to compete in the "black events".

That's simply not true. From 1936 to 1956, 10.3 was breached by 8 sprinters. Six of them were black. From 1956 to 1960, 10.2 was breached by 4 sprinters. All black.


There is no "brainwashing" of white kids. That's wishful thinking andmake believe. They compete at MUCH greater numbers than blacks. Like I said earlier. The OVERWHELMING, OWERWHELMING MAJORITY of high school sprinters are white. The OVERWHELMING number of state title winners, by the district (which are usually deliniated by suburbs and cities), are white.


Also, sprinting is a religion in Europe, and whites practically compete from the womb in MUCH greater numbers than blacks. Almost EVERY SINGLE SPRINTER inItaly, Germany, Sweden, the former USSR, Ireland, China, Japan, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Greece, Norway, Finland, Australia, and almost every other predominantly white country, is NON-black. Almost every single sprinter. However, when they face blacks in short distance sprints, they can't make it to the finals. A geneticquirk in blacks simply make them faster than others. A genetic quirk in Jews make them more prone to Tay-Sachs disease than others. A genetic quirk in blacks make them more prone to sickle cell anemia than others. Redheaded Irishmen and women are more prone to having freckles than others. Asians are more prone to having straight black hair than others.


It is what it is. But so what? I don't see the big deal.

Even though there are a sh*t load of white sprinter in high school right now, that doesn't change the fact that white kids mature a bit later then blacks, and that is why white kids get over looked by collage recruiters

Again, the white and Asian kids in all of those countries I just mentioned don't face this imaginary obstacle you claim US white sprinters face. Sprinters overseas train right up untiladulthood, but still can't compete in international competition.. well after they've "matured".

If a black kid runs a 10.5 he goes to collage and runs the 100m. if a white kid runs a 10.5 he goes to collage and runs the 400m. I can speak all this from experience. I can also tell you that in the state of New York I was one of a handful of white sprinters and I was also one of the fastest sprinters in the state.

White kids don't run sub-10.50. I'd venture to guess white high school sprinters outnumber black sprinters at least 4 to 1.


In 2008, *1* white kid went sub 10.50, and that was without a wind-gauge. 27 black kids went sub-10.50, andthat was while 10.23 Rynell Parson, 10.32 Jeremy Rankin, and 10.39 Charles Saseun were injured this season. It could have been 30.


In 2007, *1* white kid, Shane Crawford, went sub 10.50. He got a scholarship to Purdue, but after a decent indoor season, didn't due anything in the 100. About 25 black kidswere sub-10.50.


In 2006, *2* whites went sub-10.50, and both JT Scheuerman, who was a beast in high school, and Ronald Arajs, are both scholarhip sprinters. Another 25 to 30 blacks went sub-10.50.



Your theory about sub-10.50 white sprinters not being recruited to sprint just isn't true. The 1, and occasionally 2 white kids who do go sub 10.50 ARE recruited for short sprints. They just happen to be few and far between.

I don't know, maybe blacks that live in New York aren't that fast. over the years I've made allot of black friends being in this sport, and almost all of them think that people like Powell and Gay are juicing. oddly enough, none of my black friends think that Liu takes drugs.

Cold weather cities aren't a breeding ground for speed. Those guys are concentrating on football and basketball. The sheer volume of athleticism down south forces the non basketball and football players to run track when the football and basketball teams run out of spots.


Cold weather cities like NY, Chicago, Detroit, and Phillyarehotbeds for basketball talent.Almost every single elite sprinter comes from warm-weather climates.


[url]http://www.dyestat.com/index.php?pg=rankings_dyestat_elite_a ll&l_query=t&l_season_id=10&gender=b&l_event _id=1[/url]



I don't know who's juicing, and who isn't. Until someone gets caught, I'm not gonna throw him under the bus because he could be clean. People on ths board, who are very prideful in white athletes, WANT TO BELIEVE black athletes are juicing, becasue that's the only way than can explain away the disparities in times without admitting the obvious. Thecavernous time disparities exist at every age level.


Also, China has a long history of doping, but I have no reason to believe he's doping without a dirty test either.

 

[albinosprint]

maximus,

what about armin hary, david sime & Peter Radford. they went 1-3 at the 1960 Olympics to beat out 3 blacks. all of them had broke 10.2 in there career with armin hary running the wr of 10.00 three times. now if whites were running 10.00 in 1960 why do we not have them breaking 10.00 now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2j-Zfug4iA

you like throwing around BS facts to try and prove your point. I would love to get into more of a debate with you, but its growing old and we are diverting from the topic. here is my suggestion to you... find yourself a nice black athletic forum you can post on cause you really don't fit in here.

 

[yuri malenkov]

The doping era ended for whites in the late 1980's when the east bloc fell apart. Now the only doping power is the usa.

in 1984 woronin (POLAND) population 30million ran 9.997 and lewis (******* america) population 30million ran a 9.993 and won a gold at the boycotted olympics.
******* america has all the white tax payers money(white americans pay 93% of federal tax money collected even though they make up 57% of the us population

) and all the white technology and coaches, chemists etc. as their support staff.

The times of today are all steroid times< clean athletes still run around 10.0, like shirvington (white)< ashahara(asian), collins (black)

no ******** born , raised , trained in west africa have ever broke the 10.0 mark. no ******* american could break the 10.0 if it actually became an independent country, even in the warm climate of the us south>

 

[Guest]

maximus,

what about armin hary, david sime & Peter Radford. they went 1-3 at the 1960 Olympics to beat out 3 blacks. all of them had broke 10.2 in there career with armin hary running the wr of 10.00 three times. now if whites were running 10.00 in 1960 why do we not have them breaking 10.00 now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2j-Zfug4iA

I already explained both theArmin Hary myth, and the reasoning for the dearth of elite blacksprinters before thew civil rights era manifest itself.No need to do it again.

you like throwing around BS facts to try and prove your point. I would love to get into more of a debate with you, but its growing old and we are diverting from the topic. here is my suggestion to you... find yourself a nice black athletic forum you can post on cause you really don't fit in here.

Yea, I know i know.Those devilish little facts do sting.Perhaps from now on I'll just livein theland of make believe, and feelgood imagination.

 

[white is right]

Eddie Tolan won the 100 meter dash in 32' and Ralph Metcalfe came 2nd to him in the same year. Back in 28' a black Caribbean sprinter named Jack London made the finals. Way back in 1912 the first black sprinter medaled in Olympic history(I forget his name). Like the previous white athletes he was an elite scholar who later got a post graduate degree. It's not a coincidence that the best athletes in track in field from Western countries were men who achieved academic success post track and field as the corruption in track and field wasn't anything like what we see now in track. Ps the corruption in track is minor compared football and basketball. This argument that Owens was MLK of track and field isn't entirely true.

 

[albinosprint]

maximus,

so you explained Hary, but did you explain Sime, Radford, Patton, Morrow, Baker, Wells, Mennea, Borzov, & Norman. so what your saying is because the blacks got equal rights white people stopped getting faster? or is it just because blacks on a whole are faster white people stopped participating? this site exist to debunk white stereo type. "white man can't jump" but we have the triple "jump" WR. also, your facts are wrong. you post facts that don't represent the truth. come on man, get your head out of your ass and find another site to visit. you really don't belong here.

 

[yuri malenkov]

my point is that if ******* americans were off the "teet" and had no white people to deal with period and had there own country they would not produce any sub 10.0 sprinters.
I ran the 800m run from 1972-1977 and have seen with my own eyes the elite 100m men and they can be of any racial background and win an olympic medal with the right support staff/money/coaches/drugs etc.
anyhow, since people dont really understand the sport, track and field is a team sport scoring wise, there are 22 individual events and you get 8 points for first, 7 for second... down to 1 point for eighth place.
as for gold medals at the last olympic games(or 8 points for first) : whites had 14 blacks had 6 other races had 2. whites won the meet on points, medals etc. and its always been so.
whites excell at every event,they are the only group that do so. east africans only excell at the 3000m steeplechase,road marathon,10000m and 5000m, 1500m and 800m. thats only 6 of 22 events.
west africans brought to the americas as slaves who still remain unmixed with other populations excell in the 100m,200m,110h, 400h, 400m and long jump. thats 6 of 22 events.
this population only sets the standard for the 100m, and even then whites come along and beat the best from time to time.

today a white 100m man is up against 1.a whole population of pure black west africans brought to the americas as slaves who still remain unmixed(tons in jamaica but not cuba because cuban ******** are largely mixed.) 2. a caste system in america that has a sinister agenda 3. an american drug system that is way more advanced than the east bloc was.
4. this population lives in a hot/tropical climate.
and most importantly 5. tons of other sports in europe that pay way better than sprinting, unless you are a world record holder.

there are almost no young boys in eastern europe who desire to be a 100m champion, why train when the odds are huge against you? ******* america has so many fools in its population, especially the male population that many hold on to a sports dream until around 40

 

[Deadlift]

Texas Tech,


Your prodigy Larry Raper ran a paltry 10.87 recently. It must STING to know that a "White Boy" somewhere ran a faster time!

Palmer defeated another talented football player in Larry Raper. Raper, a rising senior committed to Clemson, finished fourth with a 10.87.


http://hsnorthcarolina.scout.com/a.z?s=404&p=2&c=753928

We mustn't bury our heads in the sand!!

 

[Guest]

Antonio Pettigrew has admitted that he took drugs.

ESPN article

Let's close the thread now, since it has gotten way off topic.

 

[SteveB]

Another one bites the dust.

SAN FRANCISCO -- Olympic gold medalist Antonio Pettigrew admitted publicly for the first time Thursday that he used performance-enhancing substances during a long, successful sprinting career in which he passed all drug tests.

The admission came during the last day of testimony for the government in the trial of his former coach, Trevor Graham, who is accused of lying to federal authorities investigating doping in sports. Graham has pleaded not guilty.

It was also revealed Thursday that Olympic sprint champion Justin Gatlin worked undercover for authorities investigating doping in sports, according to the testimony of IRS agent Erwin Rogers.

Rogers testified that Gatlin, who once shared the world record in the 100 meters, secretly recorded several telephone calls with Graham. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston barred Rogers from disclosing any more details of the calls.

Gatlin, who has served half of a four-year ban for doping, tested positive for excessive testosterone at the Kansas Relays in 2006, his second doping violation. He has maintained he never knowingly took a performance-enhancing drug.

Gatlin has asked the Court of Arbitration for Sport to cut his suspension nearly in half so he can compete at the Beijing Olympics. Gatlin, like Pettigrew, was once a member of Graham's Sprint Capitol USA team in Raleigh, N.C., which also included sprinters Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery - both of whom are now imprisoned.

Pettigrew testified that Graham encouraged him in 1997 to inject human growth hormone and the oxygen-boosting drug EPO, both banned in track. Soon after, Pettigrew said, he began buying the drugs from Angel "Memo" Heredia, an admitted steroids dealer from Laredo, Texas.

Once he began taking the banned substances, Pettigrew said he was able to run 400 meters in the 43-second range for the first time.

"I was running incredible times as I was preparing for track meets," Pettigrew said during 30 minutes of testimony. "I was able to recover faster."

Pettigrew initially lied to federal investigators and denied doping when they first talked to him in February 2005. But he finally confessed behind doors to cheating when confronted with documents in October 2006 strongly suggesting drug buys from Heredia.

Thursday was his first public admission.

Pettigrew won a gold medal as part of the 1,600-meter relay team at the 2000 Sydney Olympics. He retired from track in 2002 and is now an assistant coach at the University of North Carolina.

It is unclear what sanctions, if any, Pettigrew will face for his confession. University officials in Chapel Hill, N.C., said they are reviewing the matter.

"In our view, if Mr. Pettigrew, or any athlete who competed in the finals of the men's 4x400 meter relay during the 2000 Games, did so while using a banned substance, that would undermine the validity of the result the team achieved," U.S. Olympic Committee Chief Executive Officer Jim Scherr said in an e-mail. "If an athlete who ran in the finals knowingly and purposely engaged in cheating, the medals won by the entire team are tarnished and, in our view, should be returned."

Scherr said any decision to strip Pettigrew of his medal rests with the International Olympic Committee and the International Association of Athletics Federation.

The other members of that gold medal relay team were Michael Johnson and brothers Alvin and Calvin Harrison. Also on the team, but not running in the final, were Jerome Young and Angelo Taylor.

The IOC tried several years ago to strip Johnson and the other members of the team of their gold medals after Young tested positive for drugs and was banned for life. But the USOC appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which overruled the IOC and said the entire team should not be disqualified. That allowed Pettigrew to keep his medal.

The two officials with the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency attending Graham's trial, including managing director Dr. Larry Bowers, referred calls to the agency's chief executive Travis Tygart on whether Pettigrew will be investigated for cheating. Tygart and other officials at USADA headquarters in Fort Collins, Colo., didn't return telephone calls.

Three other disgraced track stars who also were coached by Graham followed Pettigrew to the stand to testify about their own drug use.

Garfield Ellenwood said Graham got steroids for him after the two discussed the sprinter's desire to break records, which never occurred. He also testified that Graham introduced him to Heredia, which is important because Graham is also charged with lying about his relationship with Heredia.

Graham told investigators that he talked to Heredia on the telephone only once in 1996. But prosecutors contend Graham and Heredia worked closely over several years to supply Graham's athletes with performance-enhancing drugs.

Ellenwood said he now is the coach of the Liberian Olympic track team and will attend the Beijing Games. He is also the head track coach at Bethune-Cookman University in Daytona Beach, Fla.

Ellenwood also testified that after he retired in 2002 he obtained prescriptions from Dr. Ramon Scruggs for a variety of steroids, EPO and human growth hormone, all of which are legal to take with a doctor's prescription.

A federal grand jury indicted Scruggs in April on steroid distribution counts, alleging he dealt drugs to major league baseball players. Scruggs has pleaded not guilty.

Young and Dennis Mitchell, both of whom won Olympic gold medals, each testified that Graham introduced them to Heredia, who then became their drug supplier.

The government called its last witness Thursday and the judge refused Graham's lawyer's request to toss out the case. Graham's lawyer, William Keane, said he is undecided about whether he'll call any witnesses. The jury could began deliberating as soon as Tuesday.

Graham's Tarnished Stars

The details of prominent Trevor Graham-trained track and field athletes who have been suspended for doping and/or tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs:

Justin Gatlin: 2004 Olympic 100-meter champion was banned for four years in January by the American Arbitration Association over a 2006 positive test for excessive levels of the male sex hormone testosterone. Gatlin, who has maintained he never knowingly took a PED, will have his appeal of the ban heard next week by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Marion Jones: Former U.S. track star was sentenced to six months in prison in January for lying to federal investigators about her steroid use and misleading them about her knowledge of a multimillion dollar check-fraud case involving her former boyfriend Tim Montgomery. She was stripped of her five Olympic medals and wiped from the Olympic record books.

Antonio Pettigrew: Pettigrew admitted publicly for the first time Thursday that he used performance-enhancing drugs during a period in which he won Olympic gold in the 4x400 U.S. relay team at Sydney 2000.

Tim Montgomery: Father of Jones' oldest son, Montgomery was stripped of the 100 meters record he set in 2002 after admitting using steroids and HGH from BALCO. Montgomery pleaded guilty in New York in 2007 to taking part in a bank fraud and money-laundering scheme.

C.J. Hunter: Former husband of Marion Jones, Hunter failed four tests for the steroid nandrolone in 2000 and missed the Sydney Olympics. He retired and was suspended for two years in 2001.

Dennis Mitchell: Member of the 400-meter relay team that won gold at the 1992 Olympics, Mitchell tested positive for testosterone in 1998 and was banned for two years. He contended the elevated levels were a result of heavy beer drinking and sex.

Jerome Young: The U.S. sprinter was stripped of his 2000 Sydney Olympics 4x400 relay gold medal after it was revealed he tested positive for nandrolone in 1999. He was banned for life in 2004 after testing positive for EPO.

 

[white is right]

maximus,

so you explained Hary, but did you explain Sime, Radford, Patton, Morrow, Baker, Wells, Mennea, Borzov, & Norman. so what your saying is because the blacks got equal rights white people stopped getting faster? or is it just because blacks on a whole are faster white people stopped participating? this site exist to debunk white stereo type. "white man can't jump" but we have the triple "jump" WR. also, your facts are wrong. you post facts that don't represent the truth. come on man, get your head out of your ass and find another site to visit. you really don't belong here.

What was this biased idiots view on Hary? Maybe the last great clean sprinter.....Oh right if Jim Crow laws weren't around in 60' Ray Norton wouldn't have overshot the exchange zone and would have pulled it together to sweep the century and the deuce.....

Edited by: white is right

 

[GiovaniMarcon]

It's clear that no matter what anyone says, deep down, no one's opinion is really going to change on this issue, so each person is just preaching to their own choir and it's useless to argue about it.

Sort of like how you can show step by step how OJ is guilty, but if the person you're talking to wants to think he's innocent, you're wasting your time.

If you think black people are faster, you're always going to think that, no matter what.

Obviously, some people are preaching to the wrong choir here.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

A genetic quirk in blacks simply make them faster than others. A genetic quirk in Jews make them more prone to Tay-Sachs disease than others. A genetic quirk in blacks make them more prone to sickle cell anemia than others. Redheaded Irishmen and women are more prone to having freckles than others. Asians are more prone to having straight black hair than others.
It is what it is. But so what? I don't see the big deal.

You seem like a smart guy, so I don't know why you insist on nitpicking our arguments. You said it yourself that there are genetic quirks, so why is it so hard to understand that we may also have valid points about genetic quirks?

It is certainly possible that whites mature a "slightly" slower, (there was a valid genetics article posted about this on our site not long ago) which could be the reason for the fairly significant disparity between white and black 100 meter runners in high school, when steroids are used far less. In addition whites are often pushed by high school coaches into the middle distance events because of stereotyping. It is certainly possible for these two reasons that some of the top white talent at 100 meters is lost and never goes on to be recruited by Division I.

But I see that you completely failed to address SteveB's main argument. Both me and SteveB believe that steroids work better on people of west African decent than people of European decent; for bulking up a higher rate of fast twitch muscles to slow twitch muscles than whites. That could certainly also be a genetic quirk, just as alcohol affects Native Americans differently.

Up until 1988 when Ben Johnson shocked the track world with a startling 9.83, the 10 second mark had only been breached 8 times and 6 of them were by one man Carl Lewis. Certainly with how dominant Ben Johnson looked in that run, it could have pushed many new runners into juicing for 100 meters because of the money it can bring.
Ben Johnson said it himself, that he doesn't think it humanly possible to go sub 9.9 clean.

In addition Carl Lewis could have been a cheater as well. Giovanni posted a link to an article about the U.S Olympic committee covering up a failed test by Lewis for a banned stimulant in a cold medication. The U.S Olympic committee was notorious for this kind of stuff and that is part of the reason that the independent U.S anti-doping agency took over regulation because of the tarnished reputation.

Also as of 1988 the 10.10 mark had only been breached 81 times electronicly and 24 of them were by the same man aforementioned Carl Lewis. Take away Carl Lewis's big time dominance and whites made up roughly 15% of all-time sub 10.10s. Surely there is a difference, but not to the extent of today, where we "never" have seen a white man in the Olympic finals at 100 meters since if I recall 1984

The thing that strikes me the most about the fact that steroids don't work on whites the same way they do on blacks is that white sprinters are running the same times now as they did in the 1960s when steroids were unheard of in track. Lets look at the top performers from each decade:

1960: Armin Hary: 10 flat (hand-timed): Yes you may be right that the hand-time could have been off a little. However, it couldn't have been off so much that it was not at least sub 10.10.

1972: Valeri Borzov 10.07: I will include Borzov in my review, despite not being the fastest of his decade, because he was the most dominant sprinter of the early 1970s and an Olympic gold medalist. There is certainly a chance that even as early as 1972 Borzov could have been one of the first to cheat. As we have admitted the Soviet Bloc nations were known to be the mavericks of steroid cheating. However, their labs were not as advanced as the ones today and Borzov was not jacked the same way sprinters from the American continent are today. And Borzov ran no faster than Hary who was definitely clean.

1979: Pietro Mennea 10.01 (at altitude, likely would have been a 10.10 or so at non-altitude): Mennea was almost without a doubt clean. Meenea had a very slender build for a sprinter. Mennea's build "drastically" contrasts with the sprinters of today. I don't believe Italy was into cheating in the 1970s like the Soviet Bloc nations either who made sports dominance part of the Cold War Politics against the United States.

1984: Marion Woronin 10 flat: It is certainly possible that Woronin cheated, but Poland is not a former Soviet Bloc nation and the world hadn't seen what steroids could do until Ben Johnson ran a ridiculous 9.83 in 1988.

1998: Matt Shirvington 10.03: There is a pretty good chance that Shirvington was a cheater as he is post 1988. I know little about his character and personal life. If I read more about him, I might find out that he is a man of deep conviction.

2003: Nic Macrozonaris 10.03: A very good chance Nic is a roider. Just like Ben Johnson Nic is from Canada and cheating on this side of the Ocean is huge IMO. There are few dominant black 100 meters runners from Europe despite the fact that there are a significant number of blacks in countries like England, France and the Netherlands now.

As you can see steroids have done nothing for white sprinters. As far as time improvement.


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, but it was at altitude. It likely would have been mid 10.0x at non-altitude. 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 3 men to go sub 10 from 1976-1987. Of course Ben Johnson doesn't count. That is 2 men in that 12 year span and there was only 8 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 and a whopping 36 men went sub 10 from 1988-2004. Clearly there is something going on with the dramatic drop in top times.
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. Add to that the fact that most of the 36 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 elite black is only faster than the 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 Calvin Smith's 9.93 in 1983. The top 100 meter time for a white that was likely clean is Marion Woronin's 10 flat in 1984. That would equate to a .08 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. 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.






Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[white is right]

I would say Borzov was juiced as the Soviets were innovators in juicing, Woronin competed for a nation that was a member of the Warsaw Pact, so he was a juicer too. Also Mennea admitted steroid use (post career). But I pretty much know that Macro is clean. He is tiny and doesn't have the look of modern juicer ie small and relatively fat. If you don't have access to the modern drug plans or have a guru like Charlie Francis working with you you won't win though. Sprinters take crazy cocktails of EPO, mixed with roids and HGH. A club sprinter will most likely get popped for an older steroid and not know how to take the other drugs. Also like Riggins said I know Ben Johnson just had a body that was designed for roids. As a junior he didn't dominate The America's scene. Johnson was routinely beaten by Carl Lewis and wasn't even his main rival.

 

[BrianLeonard23]

The drugs they take these days are crazy. This is what Dwayne Chambers took:

human growth hormone, the blood-boosting drug EPO, insulin, a testosterone/epitestosterone cream, a drug called modafinil used to promote alertness, and liothryonine, a synthetic form of thyroid hormone.

 

[albinosprint]

great post Riggins! you hit the nail on the head. I believe that Carl Lewis was clean for most of his career. I also believe as he got older he had to juice. sort of a "can't beat them join them" scenario. hence his 9.86

white is right,

I have to disagree about Brozov. although he was from the USSR, he was just to skinny to be on riods. back then the riods weren't as high-tech as today and he would have looked allot thicker. if you watch some of the old footage of him on youtube, he like a distance runner.

 

[white is right]

You have a point about the type of steroids. But supposedly the Soviets had a boat in the harbour of Montreal that tested all of their athletes for steroids and illegal stimulants. Anyway what I really wanted say is guys like Minimus think it's Manifest destiny for black sprinters to dominate the sprints when things are a lot more complicated then they appear.

 

[Guest]

Marion Jones..


Antonio Pettigrew..


Tim Montgomery..


C.J. Hunter..


Dennis Mitchell..


Jerome Young..

Lemme see if I've got this right. Marion Jones juiced 7 to 9 years ago,Antonio Pettigrew 8 to 11 years ago,Tim Montgomery7 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 2008is juicing.





Surely you see the flaw in thatlogic, no?

 

[Guest]

But I see that you completely failed to address SteveB's main argument. Both me and SteveB believe that steroids work better on people of west African decent than people of European decent; for bulking up a higher rate of fast twitch muscles to slow twitch muscles than whites. That could certainly also be a genetic quirk, just as alcohol affects Native Americans differently.

Actually, I did address it, but the post mysteriously vanished, and I didn't feel like typing it again.To this day, you haven't proven to me that Tyson Gay, Asafa Powell, Usain Bolt, Xaviar Carter, Wallace Spearmon, Derrick Atkins,and the rest of the elite black sprinters are even using.Whatever imaginary effect youwant to believe steroids have on blacks as opposed to whites is100% irrelevent until you can even PROVE THAT THEY'RE EVEN USING IN THE FIRST PLACE!I don't mean to sound obnoxious, but I seriously don't think you guys know what the word "proof" means.


While you're at it, PROVE TO ME that today's elite white sprinters AREN'T juicing. How do we know Craig Pickering andMichael LeBlanc aren't naturally 10.40-10.50 guyswho juiced their way to 10.15?


Wariner's times are MUCH faster than elite white 400m runners in the '80s, aren't they? Using the warped logic conveyed in this thread, I guess that means he's juicing too!Antonio Pettigrew's just as much of a stringbean as Wariner, so perhaps they use the same stuff! [/sarcasm off]

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).

Sorry TJR,but telling meJim Hines ran a clean 9.95 *40* *YEARS* *AGO* pretty much sticks a fork in your silly theory.Just because he wasthe fastest many moons ago,doesn't mean hewould automatically be the fastestOF ALL TIME. You do understandthat, don't you? Think about what you're saying. Jim Hines can run a clean9.95 in 1968, butTyson Gay can't run atenth of a second faster (9.85) *40 YEARS LATER*. The absolutefastestanyone can or will ever run wasclocked *40YEARS AGO*. I'm sorry, bro, but that's just ignorant. You just murdered your own argument for me. I honestly don't even think you fully thought that through. You'retrying to throwrandom, meaningless facts into the mix to fit your desired, predetermined conclusion, and ended up burning yourself in the process.


Lets stop and explore howabsurd that is. Michael Wenden swam a world record100 meter freestyle at the 1968 Olympics. His time was 52.2. According to you, Alain Bernard's 47.50 back in March was OBVIOUSLY enhanced by PED's. It's IMPOSSIBLE a swimmer can take 5 secords off the record in a mere 40 YEARS.


Let's continue. Jonty Skinner swam a world record 50 meter freestyle in 23.86 back in 1976. Every swimmer who brought that time lower to it's current 21.28 did so by using steroids.


Also, you can't seriously believe that a 2008 sprinter'straining regimen, facilities, and and nutrition can't improve over *40 YEARS*, can you? In 1984, there were 8 players in the NFL over 300 pounds. By 1987, there were 27. By 2006, there were 570.


The average football player was 245 pounds in 1970. In 2006, it was 270. The average offensive lineman is 62 pounds heavier now, runningback 17 pounds, quarterbacks, 26 pounds. Doctors mostly attribute it to better nutrition, better training, and natural progression by generations. We're also living longer, and healthier. 30's the new 20, 40's the new 30, and so on. Athletes are bigger, stronger, and faster than 20 years ago, much less 40 years ago.Track is obviously no different.


And another thing. How do you know Jim Hines was even the fastest guyin '68? How doyou know hedidn't run a 9.85 in practice? Or that other guys didn't run 9.85's in practice? There could have been dozensof other people faster than him, but couldn't start as well as him. There could have been dozens of people faster than him but opted to go into bigger money sports (Bob Hayes ran a 10 flat to tie the100 meter world record at the 1964 Olympics, and quit trackat 22 years old to play football the next year) and missed their calling.Justin Gatlin ran a 4.45 at Tennesse's Pro-Day. Chris Johnson ran a 4.24 at the combine. How do you know if Chris Johnson didn't actually trainprofessionally that he couldn't run a 9.73? Or a 9.69?


Rickey Henderson was an All-American running back in high school. How do we know he wouldn't have been better than Walter Payton had ne never given up football for baseball? You see where I'm going with this? Just becauseJim was thebest sprinters of theirtime, (a) doesn't mean he had the most potential, and (b) doesn't mean he's automatically gonna be the fastestof all time.





Lastly,that .1 disparity is nonsense. Three, and occasionally 4 white sprinters a year go sub-10.20, and it's usually only once or twice. If 30 black sprinters are faster than the fastest white, and dozens are clusteres under 10.20. The more white sprinters you add, the slower the times get, and thelarger thedisparity grows.Edited by: Maximus

 

[Observer]

After Hasely Crawford ran 10.06 in the 1976 Olympics, the track statisticians claimed that this was the fastest 100m ever after adjustments were made for altitude and wind. I can't remember what position on the list Jim Hines' altitude-aided 9.95 was, but it was not number 1. (Also, Borzov's 20.00 200m was the fastest ever when these adjustments were made.) The track statisticians did not make adjustments for the conditions of the actual running surface, which would certainly have lowered the earlier sprinters' times, and may have offset the discrepancy betweeen auto- and hand-timing (which was considered to be a largish 0.24).

I used to subscribe to Track & Field New, and I remember that 10.25 used to win big meets right until my subscription ended in 1981. Stanley Floyd running a 10.11 was a big highlight. A few laters I picked up a Sports Illustrated in the dentists' office, and here is Carl Lewis running all of these sub-10 times. And then the trickle began, and then the flood-gates.

It is interesting to look at the Olympic 100m heats in 1956 and 1960 and to see the variety of the skin colors excelling. North Americans and Caribbeans of west African descent did well, but so also did caucasians, a Japanese runner --- and even EAST Africans! There was a good Kenyan 100m sprinter and also a Ugandan. I don't know the genetics of these two particular runners, but today it would be almost unthinkable to see a good east African 100m sprinter.

Also, as has been noted in these posts numerous times, track & field has been integrated since the beginning, long before Martin Luther King or Jackie Robinson. If you don't believe it, ask the Robinson family --- Jackie's brother Max took silver in the 1936 Olympics behind Jesse Owens in the 200m.

Maybe in 20 years, the west Africans living in North America and the Caribbeans will be running 100 meters in 3.01 seconds, I don't know. But this does not explain the anomaly of the caucasian going backwards time-wise. It must be global warming.

 

[albinosprint]

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.

 

[albinosprint]

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

 

[Guest]

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.