GiovaniMarcon
Mentor
Why have white men's fastest times in many sprints declined over the years? I usually come to two possibilities:
1 - the whites with fast times years ago used PEDs, where
as most white sprinters today do not
2 - young whites do not seek out sprinting opportunities in the same
numbers or with the same enthusiasm as in years past
Could Armin Hary have been on some kind of dope? How about Velery Borzov?
Anyway, Bobby Morrow and Dave Sime seem above suspicion, and even they -- in the 50s -- are faster than white guys today. What the $%^& is up with that?
Also, training today is supposedly better, and the track design is supposedly superior -- both of which are conducive to faster times. So, why are whites slower now?
When I ran college track (I ran the 5000 and 10000) the coach immediately, from day one, sort of stacked the blacks in short sprints and the whites in the distances. Could this have something to do with it? White guys with big bodies that might have been trained to run fast were encouraged to try field events (btw - they succeeded).
One more concern -- let's say a good white sprinter from recent memory (like, say, Morne Nagel or Matt Shirvington) drugged himself silly like some of the black sprinters who got busted drugged themselves. What might their PRs have been like? This assumes of course that they weren't already on drugs.
I see Matt running at least a hair under 10.00 in that case.
I really wish the cheaters -- white and black (ahem, mostly black though) -- would stop screwing up the field, because a lot of decent sprinters of all races never bother to try because the fake records seem untouchable.Edited by: GiovaniMarcon
1 - the whites with fast times years ago used PEDs, where
as most white sprinters today do not
2 - young whites do not seek out sprinting opportunities in the same
numbers or with the same enthusiasm as in years past
Could Armin Hary have been on some kind of dope? How about Velery Borzov?
Anyway, Bobby Morrow and Dave Sime seem above suspicion, and even they -- in the 50s -- are faster than white guys today. What the $%^& is up with that?
Also, training today is supposedly better, and the track design is supposedly superior -- both of which are conducive to faster times. So, why are whites slower now?
When I ran college track (I ran the 5000 and 10000) the coach immediately, from day one, sort of stacked the blacks in short sprints and the whites in the distances. Could this have something to do with it? White guys with big bodies that might have been trained to run fast were encouraged to try field events (btw - they succeeded).
One more concern -- let's say a good white sprinter from recent memory (like, say, Morne Nagel or Matt Shirvington) drugged himself silly like some of the black sprinters who got busted drugged themselves. What might their PRs have been like? This assumes of course that they weren't already on drugs.
I see Matt running at least a hair under 10.00 in that case.
I really wish the cheaters -- white and black (ahem, mostly black though) -- would stop screwing up the field, because a lot of decent sprinters of all races never bother to try because the fake records seem untouchable.Edited by: GiovaniMarcon