various 100m results around the globe

[PitBull]

I don't understand how you can type and blow your boyfriend at the same
time. Good luck with the sex change operation too. And isn't about time
you moved out of your parents' basement?

 

[Guest]

Hook em Horns is wrong. There was no segregation in most of the country in track & field. Whites routinely beat blacks in sprinting (and most other sports) into the 1960s.

I didn't say whites didn't race blacks AT ALL. I said once blacks got the opportunity to train and compete onan equal plane, which coincided with the 60's civil rights movement, they started beating everyone with consistency.Same with football and basketball.

Whites simply don't have the opportunities blacks have today with coaching, training, recruiting and scholarships (and steroids). In Europe, they do, and that is why all-black U.S. teams usually get beat by all-white European teams in basketball, boxing and other sports.

To say whites don't have the opportunities to train is laughable. They outnumber blacks in this country 6 to 1. There are hundreds of ALL-white schools with ALL-white track teams. Unfortunately, they're just not that fast. Like I said earlier, the creme rises to the top.


Lately, the US's upper echelon basketball players sat out international competition because they were bored of wiping up the courts with foreigners. It gave the euros a false sense of satisfaction and achievement. '08 is gonna be a rude awakening, because they (and you) actually think beating c-level talentissignificant. Beat our top players, and I'll be impressed.

When we have a level playing field we see very different results across the board. This is true even in sprinting where blacks have the most advantage over whites than in any other sport.

Hook em Horns, please read up on the forums and articles here on CF. You will see that there is no level playing field in any American sport. Black skin privilege is the norm.

There is a level playing field. Your brutalized ego just won't allow you to believe and accept it. So you and your ilk just regurgitate this tired "Caste" feelgood BS ad nasuem to make yourselves feel better. That's all.

 

[Guest]

I don't understand how you can type and blow your boyfriend at the same time. Good luck with the sex change operation too. And isn't about time
you moved out of your parents' basement?

Oh, my sides! Chihuaha will be appearing next week at Chuckles,ladies and gentlemen. Buy your tickets early.


That cornball sh*t isn't even worth responding to. Come a little harder next time, and I be more that happy to skin you alive.

 

[Don Wassall]

I didn't say whites didn't race blacks AT ALL. I said once blacks got the opportunity to train and compete onan equal plane, which coincided with the 60's civil rights movement, they started beating everyone with consistency.Same with football and basketball.

Then you believe in black supremacy and the status quo, which somehow is a color blind playing field in spite of the affirmative action which is instituionalized in all other areas of society.Edited by: Don Wassall

 

[PitBull]

You need to save your energy for tomorrow, buddy. Another day, another
shopping cart full of scrap metal that you can sell for cigarettes, crack
and booze! Believe me, every single guy on this board wakes up every
day and thanks God they are not black.

Speaking of sh*t that isn't worth responding to, go look in the mirror.

if we are all so delusional, why try so hard to prove us wrong? Because
you know we aren't, and that burns you, because if it isn't for sports,
blacks aren't really superior at anything at all. You know its mostly
favoritism and lab chemistry. And it eats at ya!

You know we are right on this thread. BTW, there's a big difference
between a Troy Glaus and Rick Ankiel taking steroids while not playing
and trying to heal up from injuries, and guys taking them and playing,
racking up big numbers. We know what the situation was before the PED
era started in the 1960's. You can talk all you want about discrimination,
but it never stopped a black from learning how to throw a baseball or run
in a straight line, and the record shows that they weren't any better at it
than whites before the PED and affirmative action eras began. Time to
get a new handle and shovel your sh*t all over again.Edited by: PitBull

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

His comment that blacks dominated whites starting in the 60's "after desegregation" in the NFL is laughable. Ever hear of Jim Taylor of the GB Packers and Paul Hornung? Those teams were pretty good you uninformed fool.

Jim Taylor even out rushed Jim Brown (the best ever) one year.

There have been so many great white RBs and WRs up until they were banned in the early to mid 80's. Lance Alworth, Steve Largent, John Riggins, Larry Zgonka, Jim Taylor, Marc Van Eeghen. The NFL was desegregated long before the south was in the 60's. Not all of us are racist on this board like the media would like you to believe, we are just tired of the bullsh*t.Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[Liverlips]

Hook em Horns:

Again, read up on the articles here. There is no level playing field in football, basketball and sprinting:

Why do whites own all the boxing titles in the heavyweight divsion (and most in the other higher weight divsions)?

Why do whites own 3 of the 5 titles in UFC?

Why did all-white Italy win the World Cup in soccer?

Why did all-white Spain win the World Cup in basketball?

Why do all-white schools routinely beat all-black schools in football and basketball and track at the high school level?

Why did white sprinters routinely beat blacks in the 1960s in California and in the North where there was no segregation?

Why are white sprinters almost never offered college scholarships? [sprinting is the 1 sport where I do think blacks in general have a genetic advantage, but it is not as great as people say and it really just manifests itself in the 100 and the 200).

Face it, when there is a level playing field in sports, top-level whites will almost always beat top-level blacks. The problem is that coaches, writers, officials, fans ...etc THINK blacks are more athletic. So they can watch a white RB or point guard outplay a black RB or point guard in practice. But who gets the starting job and the college scholarship (where the top-level trainig and coaching really sets in)?

That is the Caste System in a nutshell.

Again, please read up before commenting or at least provide some sources for your racist claims.

 

[albinosprint]

Hey Hook Em Horns,

ever think maybe there are less white in sport because we tend to make money with our brains and not with our brawn? think about it, why go out on a football field and get bruised and beat up when you can own the team. then all you got to do is watch blacks work for you enjoyment. I think one of your fellow brothers said it best, "if you want to succeed and make it in life you got to get to dancing or play basket ball or something. its either you sell drugs or you entertain white people." - Dave Chappelle

with that being said, I would like you to look up Armin Hary, Dave Sime, Bobby Joe Morrow, Livio Berruti. all these men were great white sprinters from the 50's & 60's when there werw allot of black sprinters.

 

[highschoolcoach]

The fact that the personal bests of white sprinters today seem to have declined, in general, from the best recorded times for white sprinters from the 1950s-1980s tells me that one or more of the following might be true:1. white sprinting prospects are not coached properly2. white sprinting prospects are never prospected for in the first place3. white sprinters from yesteryear used performance enhancing drugs4. whites do not even bother trying to compete anymoreIt seems inconceivable to me that no white sprinter today can run faster than Armin Hary did in 1960. Or faster than Japanese sprinters like Nobuharu Asahara (PB 10.02) and Shingo Suetsugu (PB  10.03). <span style="font-weight: bold;"></span>What's the deal?

This is a very interesting topic and one that i have given much thought. It's doubtful that there is any one definitive answer, so just about any opinion put forward will be true to some extent.

As one involved in high school sports, one cannot help but notice that there are three basic categories of programs: 1)perennial powerhouses, 2)middle of the pack, and 3) perennial losers. I find it hard to believe that the perennial powerhouses and the perennial losers have superior and inferior "gene pools", respectively, from which to draw. So what are the reasons that one program wins most of the time and the other loses most of the time? I think that the answer is relevant to the dominance of blacks in, in this case, sprinting.

First of all, the cream does TEND to rise to the top, but there are mitigating factors. I think (actually am 99% sure) that in some cases the best athletes achieve their potential and in others they do not. If you follow high school sports closely, you may notice that at some schools (the perennial powerhouses) there are consistently athletes who exceed the school record of the perennial losers. Because of a superior gene pool? I doubt it. I think that the main factor is attitude and expectations. In one case the expectations are high and the attitude is that those expectations can be achieved. In the other the expectations are low and the attitude is can't do, rather than a can do.

There are many blacks who are very fast runners. They don't do so well just because of affirmative action. Give them credit for their talent. But, it's very possible that the situation regarding white sprinters is skewed for reasons other than talent. Maybe, in the USA, the expectation for whites is that they just cannot beat blacks and, if you want to coach a winning sprinter, you have to recruit and train blacks. The conventional wisdom is that white sprinters are too likely to not be good enough, and black sprinters are much more likely to be better. And, the white athletes also select themselves out of sprinting because they percieve their chance of success as low.

So, that my two cents worth on the topic and all sensible replies will be greatly appreciated.

 

[Guest]

Lately, the US's upper echelon basketball players sat out international competition because they were bored of wiping up the courts with foreigners.

I don't want to get into this off topic thread too much, but when are people going to stop lying about this? It's getting annoying hearing about how the US 04 olympic team was not good.

I'm one of the only people on this board that pays close attention to the NBA and I can tell you that you are dead wrong about the US team at Athens. They were REALLY good. They simply lost.

 

[white is right]

The US sent a team orientated team in 05' to the worlds and it was the same result as the Olympics. So you can't say that it was because the team wasn't balanced or they lacked height or all of the other excuses that the pundits used for why the US lost in 04'. By the way pre 88' when was this a worry for the US? The rest of the world has gotten as good as the US, the only difference is that the US has unbelievable depth that the other countries can't rely on. As for sprinting the argument that post civil rights track reflected the natural order of things. Then why was the GOAT sprinter of the 70's a blonde Ukie? Why did the US not win gold in the 100,200 in either Munich or Montreal(a white Cuban even won the 400)? The recent US and Caribbean domination started around LA and we know from confidential papers that not too many of the champions of LA were clean.

 

[SteveB]

The recent US and Caribbean domination started around LA and we know from confidential papers that not too many of the champions of LA were clean.

You are correct, the 1984 Olympics started the sprint "arms race". Carl Lewis made a ton of money from his success and everyone wanted a piece of the action. Before 1984, the 10 sec barrier had only been broken a handful of times. If you look at the World Champs and Olympics from 1960 to 1984, the winning times are pretty consistent in the 10.0 to 10.2 range. Then all of the sudden, times started dropping like crazy and sprinters started looking like body builders.

It was also during this time when 4 of the top 5 high school 100m times of all time were set in Texas. I was a track athlete during that time and ran against Joe Deloach and Derrick Florence (#2 and #5 on the all time list). I saw the effects of PEDs first hand as those guys were monsters. Florence's body broke down in college from all of the PEDs. Deloach won the 200m in the 88 Olympics and shortly after retired from injuries. His hamstrings had gotten so large that the sheath around the muscle couldn't stretch any more. He required surgery and the doctor said that Deloach had the largest hamstrings that he had ever seen in an athlete. A sure indication of steriod use.

Performance enhancing drugs have created the incredible sprinters in the last 25 years. Other than Wariner, the only dominant white sprinter in the drug era has been Kenteris (Olympic and World Champion in the 200m) and he has been under suspicion of drug use.Edited by: SteveB

 

[yanling]

That's one thing I noticed immediately about Wariner -- he seems so much skinnier than the other 400 meter runners.

Maybe if he starts juicing like his competition he'll run a 43 flat

I always thought that Matt Shirvington could have gone under 10 seconds if he cheated as often as Maurice Green seems to have.

Worst part is, decent, non-doping sprinters get forgotten while cheaters get to be on boxes of cereal.

 

[spectator]

I know I haven't posted before, I just read what you guys have to say, but it seems to me that your opinion is that any black runner that runs a great time is on drugs and any white runner that runs a great time is just a great runner who's clean. Wariner and Pickering are two case points, I've read that any black runner that runs a 9.7? or 9.8? is juiced up and then you say you think Pickering will run a huge sub 10.00sec very soon, why? is he going to start on the same diet as the black runners. I don't see any consistency in some of your comments. Don't get me wrong I'm white and I believe a white runner can break the 10sec barrier and do it legally, but I also believe some white runners could be cheating like some of the others.

Take Wariner, and I'm not saying he is doing anything wrong but in 2002 he is 4th in the US junior champs in 46.10. The same year Darold Williamson is World junior champ with 45.37. In 2003 Wariner only runs the US junior champs again and wins in a time of 46.41, Williamson still a junior runs in senior champs and has a pb of 44.95. Only one year later Wariner wins the olympics in 44.0 and Williamson is lucky to be a relay runner. If this was the other way round and Williamson had the meteoric rise you all would have said he was on drugs, but because Wariner is white you think he is just a great runner who will be able to beat MJ's alleged juiced world record.

I'm not having a go at anyone I just thought I would finally add my two cents worth to the forum.

Ps. This may also be my last post....

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

I personally think that "many" not all of the blacks who have run sub 10's were on steroids. Just look at the Balco bust and the disgrace it caused America. It proved that there is a problem.

There is as much or more juicing now for the U.S and Carribean track stars as there was for the Soviet Bloc nations in the late 70's and early 80's IMO. I think these countries have been covering it up. I think there is less juicing now in Europe. For instance you don't see many top black European sprinters anymore even though some European countries have more than a token number of blacks nowadays.

I agree with you that there are more legitimate black sprinters who can go sub 10 than whites. Many of us on this site do believe blacks are "slightly faster."

I also do not believe that Pickering will ever run any better than 9.9-9.95 clean. Certainly he will not go sub 10 consistently clean. I believe this kid is special though and will eventually be able to post at least "a few" sub 10's without roiding. I agree it is possible that Wariner is on roids, I hope not. However, he has a much thiner build than most 400 meter guys. Whites are just as good as blacks IMO at 400 meters and 800 meters, but lag behind a little in the 100 and 200. Kenyans are a little better starting at 1500 meters IMO.

I would suggest to you to read the news article on white sprinters on the homepage. It is not a caste football article, but by a mainstream journalist. That article lead me to a more plausible theory that steroids may work a little better on blacks b/c of genetics. Certainly you can see that substances can affect different ethnic groups differently. For instance Native Americans don't tolerate alcohol well. Whites were at least competitive in short sprints until after the 1980 Olympics

I consider myself a moderate poster. I even have a good friend who is black and don't think many on this board share that similarity with me. I have found that blacks can have their blackathlete.com and black colleges, but if you cheer for white athletes and are white you are a racist. I am certainly not a racist.

It is certainly a double standard and you bet your bottom dollar that the Chinese in Beijing will be bringing their Chinese pride for Liu Xiang in the 110 hurdles. Are the Olympics a racist idea b/c people cheer for athletes of their ethnicity? "Most" of the posters on this board are not racist. Many are just fed up with the fact that many of the best RBs and Wrs of the 60's and 70's were white long after NFL integration, but whites have become extinct from those positions now.

I'll link for you some mainstream articles later on football discrimination and positional racial slotting so you can educate yourself more. One article even has a quote from Dungy that he believes that positional slotting exists. But right now I need some rest.

 

[Guest]

I don't think white sprinters use drugs - I know some of them use drugs. But not many do, because they know they will be immediately suspect should they run at the same speed as the fastest black sprinters.

I don't think anybody can run faster than 9.9 without drugs. A lot of black americans who ran 9.8 were clearly drug users.

With Wariner, he is not a lifelong runner. He played baseball, and only switched to running after he realized he would never be good on the diamond. People who get into sports late sometimes make big improvements like his drop from 46 to 44.

There is an american swimmer named Ed Moses who played golf before he got into swimming, he later became the NCAA champion in the 100 and 200 breaststroke and took silver in the 100 breaststroke at the 00 games.

 

[white tornado]

During the cold war the soviets were on a state sponsored steroid program I believe Borzov was on the juice but I'm not taking anything away from him because I believe that American sprinters have been taking roids for just as long as the Eastern Bloc athletes. I believe Alan Wells was clean because his wife was his coach and he trained with an archaic training system and did not even use blocs till he was forced to. The only modern thing he seemed to indorse was the track suit witch he was the first to ware. Kentris from Greece was on roids and he one a gold medal. Pickering needs to get on the juice or he wont ever win a major title assuming he's as talented as many here including myself think he is.

I totally disagree with the argument on that blacks are more likely to take steroids than whites because they are more likely to do drugs. Drugs are a problem for all races. Lots of white people take steroids, look at the Tour de France it's a hot bed of cheating . I think whites are just as likely to take roids as blacks and I don't roids work better on blacks either.


The black athletes that are winning sprint titles today have the best coaching and the best roids. The whites who even attempt sprinting don't get the free pass. Also the belief of black superiority cuts off whites from the best coaching.

 

[SteveB]

I know I haven't posted before, I just read what you guys have to say, but it seems to me that your opinion is that any black runner that runs a great time is on drugs and any white runner that runs a great time is just a great runner who's clean. Wariner and Pickering are two case points, I've read that any black runner that runs a 9.7? or 9.8? is juiced up and then you say you think Pickering will run a huge sub 10.00sec very soon, why?

I don't believe that any sprinter can run any faster than 9.9 without PEDs. I think that under the right conditions and with a little more maturing, Pickering can run in that range without PEDs. But what will that get him? Maybe 5th place in the Olympics. As I mentioned above, Kenteris is the only white sprinter to win a short sprint in a World Championship or Olympics since Allen Wells in 1980 and he was almost certainly on PEDs.

As for Wariner, I think the dramatic decrease in his time is due to his training with Coach Hart. The 400m is an endurance sprint where training can make a big improvement. In high school, he was more dominant in the 200m (ran a 20.48 at the state meet) and Williamson the 400m. All Wariner needed was a good training program to take his 200m speed and extend it out to the 400m.
Edited by: SteveB