Fastest White Man (Charlie's Space)

[white lightning]

Here is a link to a page discussing the fastest white man in the world.


[url]http://charlie180.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/fastest-white-man /[/url]http://charlie180.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/fastest-white-man /Edited by: white lightning

 

[albinosprint]

the guy who wrote that is a lemon. I actually thought it was going to be a good article till he started with the "never break 10" sh*t. he had allot of wrong info in there, and his .25 for hand time is bogus. I've done test on hand timing versus FAT and also the effect of cinder to rubber tracks. hand timing accounts for about .15-.17 of a sec. the difference in cinder and rubberized tracks can make up to .2 of second. so its fair to say hand time on a cinder track is = FAT on rubber. its article like this that brainwash white people in thinking they can't compete with blacks. how about a article about all the blacks that broke 10 that weren't on roids.

 

[white lightning]

Good points albinosprint. I was on youtube last night and I watched alot of older track meets. The whites were always competetive back then. Even in the 80's , Allan Wells won so many races. He has one video where he pulls the double victory in the 100 & 200 meters. In another, Wells lost the 100 by an eyelash but blew away the field in the 200. Man did this guy have closing speed.


As for this guy and this website page article, he is another of the many brainwashed whites in the world. It makes it worse that these people constantly tell others how in their opinion whites can't run, jump, etc. It is disgusting how so many whites put down their own race. It makes me very angry. Wake up people. Whites are the some of the greatest athletes in the world.

 

[charlie180]

"he had allot of wrong info in there, and his .25 for hand time is bogus"</span>

Thanks Albinosprint, but I didn't pull that number out of my ass, it is the official IAAF rule on hand timed 100m!

Hand timing only matches automatic timing over 400m. Again, IAAF rules.

No brainwashing intended, just cold hard facts. No white man has ever gone under 10s, that is clear. In my opinion none will without wind or altitude assistance.

That said if any white man will in the near future, my money would be on Craig Pickering (white lightning's avatar?) but unfortunately he appears to have levelled out. Best this year of 10.15 (an Olympic year), last year 10.14. Besides, a Brit hasn't gone under 10s in ten years, white or black.

 

[white lightning]

So are you the same Charlie for starters as the website? Either way, welcome to the board. As far as your hypothesis that it isn't probable for a white to go sub 10, remeber back to when they said a man couldn't run the mile in under 4 minutes. It can and will happen and then we can get back to talking about whites having a place on the medal stand again some day in the short sprints. We have a ways to go but you have to start somewhere. The mental aspect of sprinting is huge and that is why I can't wait for Pickering to smash through the barrier. I hope Michael LeBlanc can return to health and others will suprise as well. Paul Hession could beat them all to the mark. You never know.

 

[albinosprint]

charlie 180,

regardless of what the IAAF says, I have done tests and research on the hand timing opposed to auto and also on cinder versus synthetic tracks. I've concluded that its is not .25, and I'll stick by my findings. also, the only way a white person won't break 10 is if whites start to believe they can't. the white sprinter is coming back. guys like Pickering and Wariner are helping chip away the stone that keeps white kids from wanting to compete. get more white kids out there trying the sprints and one will come around. once one does it, more will follow.

 

[Keith Lincoln]

This is racist BS. I don't follow the sprints but it seems a fair percentage of these super fast blacks eventually are found to have used PEDs. I don't believe blacks have any genetic advantage in sprinting Charlie 180. If there was a genetic advantage , a small island (Jamaica) of what? 5 million with inferior facilities but very loose testing for PEDs would not have outperformed US blacks at the olympics who number about 40 million and have superior facilities and coaching. If blacks originally from west Africa really possessed a genetic sprinting advantage ,West Africa with a population of well over 150 million would produce many more sub 10 second 100 meters runners as the relatively much smaller populations of the Carribean even allowing for other factors. But they haven't. The article by Roger McGrath that was posted here about a year ago proved when whites are interested enough, have the right weather ,facilities, and aren't at a big disadvantage if they don't use PEDs, they can break world sprinting records. "No white has broken 10 seconds in the 100 meters" is not really true. If the 100 yard times cited by Roger McGrath were converted to equivalent times for the 100 meters one of the whites he cited did break 10 seconds.
Edited by: Keith Lincoln

 

[charlie180]

Firstly, yes I am the same Charlie180 as on the page linked to at the top.

The main reason that I don't believe that white men will ever break 10s is because they haven't.

I don't agree with your four minute mile analogy, Roger Bannister broke the 4 minute barrier in 1954, just 46 days later it was broken further. It soon became commonplace.

The ten second barrier was broken in 1968, in 40 years only about 70 men have gone under, and all of them have been black. There have been some great white sprinters since 1968, none have even come close (that were not wind assisted, at altitude or dubious).

If it could have been broken, it would have, surely? Craig Pickering for example, while a great athlete isn't Britain's top white sprinter, Allan Wells time still stands (10.11) even though it is 28 years old. But there have been some good white sprinters since then.

I think that maybe things are different in the US, but in Europe white sprinters are pretty common, even in the 100m, they just very rarely do well.

Ian Mackie, who retired in 2005 had a PB of 10.17, even on the European circuit it is just not fast enough but there's a few white guys in the UK's All time 100m top 20.

In the UK 200m, 2 of the all time top 10 are white - (Wells and Walker). At 400m 3 of the top 4 fastest ever times are from white guys (including the top two - Iwan Thomas and Roger Black). White guys can compete in the sprints, just not at 100m.

You guys seem to make it sound like you are waiting for a great white hope but I think that the great white hope has been and gone, and he didn't break 10s.

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

charlie,

you appear to be sincerely interested in this topic and fairly knowledgable, as well. i have a question for you.

of the black athletes who have broken the 10-second barrier, how many have tested positive for banned substances?

it seems most if not all have, at least later on in their careers. this is a serious point to consider, and a serious question i submit.

 

[white is right]

I think Craig's pb is artificially high. Drug usage aside, if he just competed for Cuba or Brazil he would have a pb around 10.0X. He had a bunch of meets in 07' where he ran about a mid 10.1X in terrible conditions. Traditionally British meets have slow times because rain and cold weather. There is reason why world records have traditionally been set during hot muggy days. Craig has competed in very few of these meets. I agree that white sprinters in general are better at the deuce and the quarter. But just seeing guys from twenty five ago getting statistically within the wind margin of dipping under the 10 barrier shows that with luck it can be done. Also if these guys were consistently at that level they would break it. Patrick Johnson did it.

 

[charlie180]

Keith,

a small island (Jamaica) of what? 5 million with inferior facilities but very loose testing for PEDs would not have outperformed US blacks at the olympics who number about 40 million and have superior facilities and coaching. </span>

And PEDs too? Surely if anyone were to find a great performance enhancing drug it would be the US? I am not disputing that most of these athlete are on drugs, but I am sure that just as many whites are too, yet they still aren't performing.

Which is another point, why didn't athlete's from East Germany and the USSR, who were doped up to the eyeballs, break 10s or even compete with black athletes? The best they had were Valeriy Borzov who ran 10.07 in 72 (admittedly with no wind) and Frank Emmelmann who had a 1.9ms wind but only ran 10.06 in 85. I don't know whether Borzov or Emmelmann were taking anything, obviously, but most of the East German team were. Do steriods only aid the black athletes?

As I mentioned before white sprinters are common in Europe. Take Craig Pickering for example one of Britain's top sprinters with a PB of 10.14. His peers are Simeon Williamson (also 22) who has a PB of 10.03, Tyrone Edgar (26) with a PB of 10.06 and Harry Aikines-Aryeetey (20) with a PB of 10.10. Pickering is now Britain's fourth best sprinter (not including Dwain Chambers) and sadly isn't in the same class. You don't have to be a geneticist to see that there is a gulf between white sprinters and black ones.

If blacks originally from west Africa really possessed a genetic sprinting advantage ,West Africa with a population of well over 150 million would produce many more sub 10 second 100 meters runners as the relatively much smaller populations of the Carribean</span>

I am no expert but I am guessing that has more to do with what they eat and how they live. West Africa is desperately poor, few of the children there have enough to eat let alone be well fed enough to become athletes. That said, 3 of the top 15 100m runners of all time are West African born, Olusoji A. Fasuba, Frankie Fredericks and Francis Obikwelu. I am guessing that most of the potential athletes go into football instead as it pays far, far better.
<br style="font-style: italic;">proved when whites are interested enough, have the right weather ,facilities, and aren't at a big disadvantage if they don't use PEDs, they can break world sprinting records.</span>

Who, when and which ones?

If the 100 yard times cited by Roger McGrath were converted to equivalent times for the 100 meters one of the whites he cited did break 10 seconds.</span>

100 yards isn't 100m, it's 90m so the conversion doesn't work. Nor do conversions like that ever work - Linford Christie's PB at 100m was 9.87, meaning that he should have been able to run 150m in 14.81, but his PB was 14.97. His 200m time should have been 19.74 but it was 20.09. John Regis's PB at 100m was 10.15, at 200m it was 19.87. Converting just doesn't work out.

 

[charlie180]

Jimmy, I honestly don't know. As far as the world record goes, there have been three drug cheats, Ben Johnson, Justin Gatlin and Tim Montgomery. Then there was Dwain Chambers too. Carl Lewis and Linford Christie have also tested positive but not been banned. I am sure that there are many more similar cases.

Dwain Chambers famously said that with drugs you just can't compete unless you have a great day and that those taking drugs have a very, very bad day. So I am guessing most are, it's just that the dope testers are several steps behind as they don't know what they are looking for.

Drugs aren't just restricted to black athletes, white athletes take them too (just look at the Tour De France). Assuming that Chambers is right, any white athlete wanting to compete would have to be taking something, sadly it doesn't appear to be enough.

 

[white is right]

Jimmy, I honestly don't know. As far as the world record goes, there have been three drug cheats, Ben Johnson, Justin Gatlin and Tim Montgomery. Then there was Dwain Chambers too. Carl Lewis and Linford Christie have also tested positive but not been banned. I am sure that there are many more similar cases. Dwain Chambers famously said that with drugs you just can't compete unless you have a great day and that those taking drugs have a very, very bad day. So I am guessing most are, it's just that the dope testers are several steps behind as they don't know what they are looking for. Drugs aren't just restricted to black athletes, white athletes take them too (just look at the Tour De France). Assuming that Chambers is right, any white athlete wanting to compete would have to be taking something, sadly it doesn't appear to be enough.

I think it's much worse than that. Lewis who tested positive in 88' was given the world record when Ben was popped. His training partner Burrell beat it with a 9.90 he was rumoured to be on drugs because of his association and his whole Santa Monica club having mature athletes that all needed braces. Maurice Greene also had the record and he is on the court records in the Graham trial as a client from a drug supplier in Mexico. I think all of the record holders back to Smith could be dirty.

 

[jaxvid]

I think there are two issues being argued here. 1) are blacks better 100 meter sprinters and 2) will a white runner ever break 10 secs ? Certainly blacks are better sprinters by the evidence, however the idea that a white man will never run under 10 secs. is ridiculous. It's just an arbitrary number not a scientific constant. Some guys have come close and sooner or later someone will do it. It's not a big deal anyway. It'll just be another runner with a good time. I'm sure there are plenty of white guys that could break 10 secs they're just doing other things like playing hockey.

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

jaxvid's point is valid about whites playing other sports. there are several white soccer players around the world who have recorded official times of 10.2-10.5, and they don't workout to be track sprinters. they are simply naturally fast men who have pursued soccer because there are more opportunities (perceived or real, you make the call) for white athletes in that sport.

conversely, to say that black americans choose to play football instead of run track would not carry the same validity. to my knowledge, there has only ever been one world-class sprinter to play in the NFL. true, there have been some that were close (though most of those played for the Raiders in the 80s and weren't very good on the football field), but only one who had legitimate world-class speed during his era. his name was Bob Hayes, if i recall correctly.

likewise, the fastest football player in college is simply not very good. he is incredibly fast, though. his name is Trindon Holliday and is said to arguably be the fastest kid to ever play college football. his personal best time in the 100-meter is 10.02, which is smoking.

but he most definitely will not play in the NFL, and is only a reserve/part-time player even on the LSU football team.

so the arguments thus far indicate a couple of possible factors in the sub-10 question.

1) if it is true that most (all?) elite sprinters use PEDs (not just blacks), is it possible that black athletes respond better to said drugs?

2) until the late 1960s, American whites were competitive, often faster, than their black counterparts. since then, they certainly don't participate in the same numbers that they once did (nor in the same numbers their black peers do). so what has happened to the white American sprinters?

 

[white lightning]

To say that Pickering is done already is a complete joke. He was hurt most of the season and still ran some good races. When healthy, he can be as good as any of the other guys. Craig is actually more consistant than any of the black UK sprinters in my opinion. Guys like Williamson, AA, and Edgar ran some awful slow times. It seems to be like they are peaking on the juice while Pickering is natural. He can run in the 10.15 - 10.25 range all day long when healthy. People forget that he is just a kid. He barely turned 22 just this month. Injuries were the main reason he stayed in neutral last year, not his skin color. You really need to watch more track before you say that Craig is already peaked out at 22 years young. What a dumb statment. Sprinters don't even hit their peak until their late 20's to early 30's! Craig will be 26 when the olympics comes to his home country in Londan, England. I can't wait for him to try to acheive what Wells did. This kid is amazing. Give him time and you will see.

 

[Observer]

Charlie, thanks for the input/feedback/posts. A few things I will mention, some of which others have already mentioned:

- as mentioned by a commenter on your Charlie's space page, you need to fix up your article and incorporate Woronin's other fastish times.

- Nigeria is mostly a poor country, but it has lots of oil and has some very large, modern cities. Maybe it isn't the environment to produce top-quality sprinters, because there is no division of society along both ECONOMIC and RACIAL lines --- which seems to almost be a prerequisite for excellence in certain sports. Excellent sprinters who are both African-born and African-trained are rare.

- Is Frankie Fredericks "West" African? He's the all-time greatest sprinter in my estimation. Besides being from Namibia (which I kind of considered not part of West Africa), his name and features look mixed European. Actually, from head-to-toe he looks a lot like my Prussian grandpa.

- In my opinion, using the concept of "superiority of short sprinters of West African descent" is out-dated. Superiority of those from the Caribbeans and North America --- yes. But not West Africans generally, nor even descendants of the slave trade specifically. Maybe someone has analyzed this, but it seems like most of the top sprinters come from areas that originally had Anglo slaveholders.

- albinosprint has also made some other posts about timing, and also about old track surfaces vs. modern. Is the IAAF .24 actually a "conversion factor"? Or rather a "conversion factor + cautious factor"? A runner's reaction time from the blocks is about .15, and I don't see why the finger on a stopwatch should be so much different. As far as anticipating the finish, the stopper of the watch should be able to time this almost perfectly, unless the runner is his son or daughter, in which case he might be biased to anticipate the finish.

- It is silly to say that time conversions between 100 yards and 100m are not valid. There is no training or strategy difference between these distances, as there are at the other distances you cited. Besides that, if Linford Christie had run the 100m competitively 100 times and the 150m only 3 times --- which one would you expect to have the relatively better timing? So yes, the conversion from 100m way all the way up to 150m might actually be valid.

- As far as drugs effecting whites and blacks differently, there are reasons for concluding that this is indeed the case. Several on these forums have written about this. Lung capacity and oxygen-carrying generally work better in caucasians than west African blacks, meaning whites can recover better from hard training. Add drugs to the equation, and now the recovery rate is increased for both whites and blacks --- but the white can now do even more work, and thus increasing not only his strength, but also endurance --- the byproduct of which is moving the white toward longer events, or events where both speed, strength and endurance are necessary (longer distances such as 200, 400, 800; decathlon, Tour de France, rugby, strongman competitions). TJR, SteveB, and others have mentioned this. Here is a link to something I earlier wrote. [url]http://www.castefootball.us/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7630&K W=observer&TPN=2[/url]

- My guess is that drug use is not common among European tracksters. There are too many bad side effects --- banishments, etc. I've long felt that in the USA, sprinting, drugs, and American football go hand-in-hand: if the drugs don't make you fast enough as a trackster, at least they will have the other effect of making you big enough for football. And even if you are fast enough for track but get caught with drugs --- well, a second career in football awaits.

- Maybe Pickering has hit his plateau. I for one thought that Usain Bolt had hit his plateau by last year, because he wasn't getting any faster even after having healed from injuries a couple years earlier. Then he got "serious".
Edited by: Observer

 

[Keith Lincoln]

Charley ,why do you have such hatred of whites? You conveniently missed the phrase "very loose testing" for PEDs in Jamaica.
As for Borzov, he won his double gold medals 36 years ago</span>. I'm not too familiar with PEDs but there must have been much progress in effectiveness of PEDs in 36 years. If the state of medicine today is compared with that of 36 years ago, 1972 is in the stone age compared with today. How many blacks had sub 10 second 100 meters in 1972? I also remember Sports Illustrated in their pre 1972 Olympic issue predicting Borzov would win the 100 meters mentioning his times were slightly slower than the top 2 US 100 meter sprinters due to "slow" European tracks. As for East Germany, they were interested in one result : the number of medals they won. In the 1970s,and 80s,anabolic steroids were much more effective in females as evidenced by East Germany's medal haul in women's swimming beginning in 1976. There was no artificial Growth Hormone in the 1970s or 80s. In 1936, of the top 7 USA 100 meter sprinters ; 3 were black, one Frank Wyckoff was white Christian, and 3 were white Jewish. Did that prove Jews had a genetic advantage? Absolutely not. In 1936 ,they suffered significant , at times worse discrimination than blacks as evidenced by removing Marty Glickman and Sam Stoler at the last minute, in the 4 x 100 meter relay in favor of blacks in the 1936 Olympics. Your pseudo pseudo scientific theory about whites never breaking 10 seconds is incredibly ridiculous. Roger McGrath makes a good point . Even after blacks were allowed to fully compete in the sprinting events; from the late 1940s until the 1964 Olympics ; the 100 and 200 meters were dominated by whites.
"</span>100 yards isn't 100m" were you a math major?,
Edited by: Keith Lincoln

 

[SteveB]

Charlie, you have to remember that 10 sec was only broken a handful of times prior to Carl Lewis. Here is an excerpt from a post that I posted a few months ago:

Let's add a little perspective here. Prior to 1988, the year Ben Johnson was caught cheating, a sub-10 100m (wind legal, electronic timed, and not at altitude) was only run 8 times. Six of those eight times were run by Carl Lewis. Since then the 10 sec barrier has been broken over 250 times. It is hard to believe that all of the sprinters since 1988 could have accomplished what only one man could do (run multiple sub-10s as Lewis did) without PEDs. Don't tell me that it is training, because most of the modern training techniques were developed in the 60's and 70's. The modern tartan track surface was developed in the late 70's, so that couldn't be the answer. The only thing that changed was the widespread use of PEDs.

Prior 1988, 10.10 was only broken 81 times. 38 of those times (almost half) were by 3 men, Carl Lewis (24 times), Calvin Smith (7 times), and Mel Lattany (7 times). Take away Lewis' dominance in the event, and white sprinters are pretty well represented with about 15% of the total times under 10.10. Unlike today where there are no whites represented at the top of the elite sprinting world.

I am not arguing that white sprinters should dominate the 100m, but there should be some that can compete at the highest level, as they have prior to start of the steroid era in the mid 1980's.

As for Jamaican sprinters, you obviously have never been to Jamaica. You can't walk a block on any Jamaican street without being offered illegal drugs. It is part of their culture. Ben Johnson is a hero down there and owns a mansion on the hill overlooking Montego Bay. As I was riding in the cab on the road near his house, the driver told me that late at night you have to be careful because the drug smugglers use the road as a landing strip for their transport planes. To think that a young sprinter in that culture, after seeing the money that Ben Johnson made, is not using PEDs, you would have to be a very naive person.

Source: http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_100ok.htm#6

IMO, Carl Lewis' dominance in the 100m in 1983-1984 started "arms race" (or "drug race") among black sprinters to be the next Carl Lewis. Lewis made millions of dollars off his success and drug testing was non-existent during the early to mid 1980's. Other black athletes wanted to cash in like Lewis.

Look back at the high school times during this time. In Texas, where I grew up running track, there were a bunch of black sprinters breaking 10.30 seconds on a regular basis. That was unheard of just a few years earlier. Most of those times were run on old tracks, not newer tartan tracks. I remember a high school track meet where Joe Deloach (1998 Olympic 200m champ) was running and everyone was saying "he's the next Carl Lewis".Edited by: SteveB

 

[charlie180]

White is right - You're probably right. Once one champion starts taking something and gets away with it, everyone has to, if only to compete. The BALCO scandal shows just how far ahead they are.

jimmy - Certainly appears that the black athletes respond better to drugs, or they are just faster anyway, with or without drugs.

White lightning - Agreed, Simeon Williamson, the British No.1 was run out in a 10.2 quarter final at the Olympics, even though he'd run a 10.03 4 weeks previous, and I think that his average for the season was something like 10.4. Edgar's times this season have been all over, 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 and even a 10.5. But he also got through to the semi's in Beijing. I don't know what to make of that but it does seem suspicious.

I disagree about the times, apart from Linford Christie and Marlon Devonish, the entire British top 10 had their fastest times aged 25 or under. I am not saying that he has peaked exactly, I am saying that he hasn't shown enough potential to break 10.00s. If he breaks 10.1s I may reconsider. Williamson broke 10.1 aged 21, Aikines-Aryeetey aged 20, Chambers aged 19 and Lewis Francis aged 20. Allan Wells ran his best times aged 28, so you never know.

Observer - Still trying to get clarification on the Woronin times. While Namibia is on the West coast of Africa I was going more along the lines of sub-Saharan Africans, as that tends to the official distinction. Fredericks is definitely black, a lot of Namibians have his colouring and definitely one of the best sprinters of all time.

The IAAF do not accept handtiming at all anymore as far as I know, but I suppose it is unavoidable at lower levels. The official line is that it is a correction by adding .24s to the time.

Admittedly the 150m/200m comparison was a poor one, but if you just compare yards and metres straight, they don't match up. Allan Wells had a PB at 100 yards of 9.2, if this is converted into 100m that would have given him a time of 10.06. 100y races are rarely run, but Wells never got lower than 10.10 his whole career, despite running 100m races far more often. Conversely Linford Christie had a 100y PB of 9.14, again converting it to 100m would make it 10s dead, but his PB was 9.87. If we are working conversions, compared to the 100m record the 100 yards WR should be 8.8s, but it is nowhere near that. You can't just blindly compare times, besides, there hasn't been a 100y time that converts to a sub 10s 100m anyway so I still don't understand how 100y times are proof that a white sub 10 is possible?

Keith - I don't hate whites, I am just not blinded by my colour. I am guessing the reason for the white domination during this period was because there weren't many blacks in the Western World at that time. Most UK and European black arrived in the 50s and 60s and within a generation they were dominating the short sprints. I am no US historical expert but I am guessing the reason that blacks didn't excel from the 1940s onwards was due to segregation and poverty. I am sure that they wouldn't have had access to the same facilities or opportunities until the late 60s, from which point they dominated. Just look at the South African athletics teams during apartheid, not many black faces.

"100 yards isn't 100m" were you a math major?, </span>

Clearly you were not. In simple maths, sprinters run about 10m/s, 100 yards is about 90m, do the math.

If you have an instance were a 100y and 100m time match up please point it out or even proof that a white man ran a sub 9.2 100y?

 

[white is right]

White is right - You're probably right. Once one champion starts taking something and gets away with it, everyone has to, if only to compete. The BALCO scandal shows just how far ahead they are. jimmy - Certainly appears that the black athletes respond better to drugs, or they are just faster anyway, with or without drugs. White lightning - Agreed, Simeon Williamson, the British No.1 was run out in a 10.2 quarter final at the Olympics, even though he'd run a 10.03 4 weeks previous, and I think that his average for the season was something like 10.4. Edgar's times this season have been all over, 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 and even a 10.5. But he also got through to the semi's in Beijing. I don't know what to make of that but it does seem suspicious. I disagree about the times, apart from Linford Christie and Marlon Devonish, the entire British top 10 had their fastest times aged 25 or under. I am not saying that he has peaked exactly, I am saying that he hasn't shown enough potential to break 10.00s. If he breaks 10.1s I may reconsider. Williamson broke 10.1 aged 21, Aikines-Aryeetey aged 20, Chambers aged 19 and Lewis Francis aged 20. Allan Wells ran his best times aged 28, so you never know. Observer - Still trying to get clarification on the Woronin times. While Namibia is on the West coast of Africa I was going more along the lines of sub-Saharan Africans, as that tends to the official distinction. Fredericks is definitely black, a lot of Namibians have his colouring and definitely one of the best sprinters of all time. The IAAF do not accept handtiming at all anymore as far as I know, but I suppose it is unavoidable at lower levels. The official line is that it is a correction by adding .24s to the time. Admittedly the 150m/200m comparison was a poor one, but if you just compare yards and metres straight, they don't match up. Allan Wells had a PB at 100 yards of 9.2, if this is converted into 100m that would have given him a time of 10.06. 100y races are rarely run, but Wells never got lower than 10.10 his whole career, despite running 100m races far more often. Conversely Linford Christie had a 100y PB of 9.14, again converting it to 100m would make it 10s dead, but his PB was 9.87. If we are working conversions, compared to the 100m record the 100 yards WR should be 8.8s, but it is nowhere near that. You can't just blindly compare times, besides, there hasn't been a 100y time that converts to a sub 10s 100m anyway so I still don't understand how 100y times are proof that a white sub 10 is possible? Keith - I don't hate whites, I am just not blinded by my colour. I am guessing the reason for the white domination during this period was because there weren't many blacks in the Western World at that time. Most UK and European black arrived in the 50s and 60s and within a generation they were dominating the short sprints. I am no US historical expert but I am guessing the reason that blacks didn't excel from the 1940s onwards was due to segregation and poverty. I am sure that they wouldn't have had access to the same facilities or opportunities until the late 60s, from which point they dominated. Just look at the South African athletics teams during apartheid, not many black faces. &lt;span style="font-style: italic;"&gt;"100 yards isn't 100m" were you a math major?, &lt;/span&gt;Clearly you were not. In simple maths, sprinters run about 10m/s, 100 yards is about 90m, do the math. If you have an instance were a 100y and 100m time match up please point it out or even proof that a white man ran a sub 9.2 100y?

Concerning Christie he is part German or Dutch. His last name is German and he has Germanic features coupled with his skin hue it's obvious he is partially white. The 100 yard conversion times are going to be slightly faster because sprinters are slowing down from about the 60 meter mark. I think the peaking young thing is a sign of clean athletes. Dirty ones tend to peak later because of the fact that they seem to prolong their prime, because of the increased ability to handle a harder work load. Edited by: white is right

 

[white is right]

Also Anglo-Caribbean blacks are vastly out performing blacks from Latin America. Look at Cuba they haven't produced a world class 100 meter runner since the early 80's. Venezuela has never had a world class black runner as far as I know. Brazil with the biggest population of black people has had a few world class black 200 meter runners and some 400 meter runners, but as far as I know has never produced a world class 100 meter runner.

 

[charlie180]

SteveB - I agree but I don't understand why everyone on here seems to go on about blacks and steroids, whites take them too. It is highly probable that most, if not all of those that have gone under 10s were taking something, but the whites are surely exposed to the same PEDs?

white is right - Fredericks parents were Riekie Fredericks and Andries Kangootui, both were black. Many Namibians have similar features http://www.fff.org.na/images/sindney.jpg

I don't see any Germanic features. The name is due to the fact that Namibia was part of South Africa, heavily populated by Boers, Germans and the British. Nelson Mandela, who Fredericks bears a striking resemblance to, does not have an African name either, but nor does he have white ancestors.

The 100 yard conversion times are going to be slightly faster because sprinters are slowing down from about the 60 meter mark.</span>

The opposite is true. The converted times are slower. 60 metre times are also slower when converted. The 60m WR converted to 100yards would give a time of about 9.75s, over half a second off the record. At 100m it would be 10.65, almost a second off. The final 50m is the fastest part of the race, even so there would have to be an amazing speed increase over the last 10m for white 100y sprinters to have been capable of sub 10s.

If Pickering is clean, how long do you thing he could hold out whilst other, not so clean, athletes wipe the floor with him?

 

[Keith Lincoln]

. "Keith - I don't hate whites, I am just not blinded by my colour. I am guessing the reason for the white domination during this period was because there weren't many blacks in the Western World at that time. Most UK and European black arrived in the 50s and 60s and within a generation they were dominating the short sprints. I am no US historical expert but I am guessing the reason that blacks didn't excel from the 1940s onwards was due to segregation and poverty. I am sure that they wouldn't have had access to the same facilities or opportunities until the late 60s, from which point they dominated. Just look at the South African athletics teams during apartheid, not many black faces. "

</span>Blacks had more access to facilities and training in the the late 1940s, 1950s, and early 1960s, than in the 1930s.
Your ridiculous assertion whites are incapable of breaking 10 seconds in the 100 meters can only be true, if whites have a genetic disadvantage compared to blacks in the human physiology of running fast. Where is the proof? There is none.

However, there is very extensive proof of blacks genetic inferiority in intellectual functioning, which cannot be talked about in public.

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

charlie,

your assertion that all white sprinters are on PEDs is tenuous at best. other than Kederis from Greece, i'm not aware of any other white male sprinter in the modern era who has even been under suspicion. have i missed someone? and even Kederis never tested positive, he was just heavily and likely rightly suspected because he missed two tests.

and if no whites have ever tested positive, why assume that they are juicing?