imagine Bolt Vs Gay Vs Dix Vs Blake 200m

by dammage7 Sat 17 Sep 2011, 11:27 am

First topic message reminder :

I think This race would get someone below 20s

im just glad to be witnessing these fast men!!!!

by gary Mon 19 Sep 2011, 10:17 pm

My opinion is. Besides training methods and talent, athletics now is a game where ,if you find a magic pill - you win , if not, - take what is left for you.
Thats true people. With all talent , there are 8 people in the race, equal , strong,fast,determined. Some show their level, some jump over head.

I am sure there are stimulants that can dramaticaly increase results for athletes over 30 years old. Kim Kollins is 35 , and he is running better and more stable than 6-7 years ago. He wanted to retire already, than finnaly oops... But he has terrible technique,thats why he runs only 10.01 -10.10.

by Izzymiyagh1 Mon 19 Sep 2011, 10:25 pm

Nore Staat wrote:I have heard an argument that I am unable to answer - so I throw it out here.

If it is the science of athletics that has improved the most, shouldn't the more technical events e.g. hurdles, javelin, triple jump etc have progressed more than the less "technical" events (e.g. sprinting) in recent years?

I am not really sure how to answer this unless perhaps the assumption that the sprints are not as technical (in the breakdown) is false.

Another theory I call the "london bus theory" - there seems to be a tendency in various countries and regions of a "group of athletes" coming through to dominate/do well at a particular event / sport - perhaps associated with the fruits of some junior programme - with a type of group inspiration propelling each of them forward (e.g. in Britain, there was Coe/Ovett/Cram/Elliot/Moorcroft).

It is useful question; in my unscientific view Shocked

it may well be that, a few years back, with performances and levels in the srpints standing as they did, the greatest room for improvements lay in these 'less technical' events. We would not have know that then. And we are not necssarily all the much wiser now. But it could be that the view back then, that these events were less technical led to an approach did not allow for the full potential of sprinters to be realised. With the throws and jumps, there's always been a technical dimension. Focus on the technical aspects of the throws and the jumps, much earlier, would have led to these events reaching their respective peaks - upper limit performances - earlier, with improvements to come likely to be proportionately smaller from there on in.

With the sprints, there may have been so much more potential to unlock if the prevailing view previously were that these events were less technical, and if a less scientific view were being taken. There are a range of areas of focus in the sprints now. The sprints are talked about in a very different way than they were a few years back. You need only listen to Michael Johnson speak to get an understanding of how techncial and scientific the sprints have become...

May be we're seeing the potential being unlocked in recent years...

by Izzymiyagh1 Mon 19 Sep 2011, 10:34 pm

Could it be that Jamaican sprinters are coming to the fore, now more strongly then ever, in numbers, because the money in the sport enables way more facilities and support than were possible in previous decades?!

by ryanbailey Mon 19 Sep 2011, 10:42 pm

english_osprey wrote:'The Jamaicans have always been in the sprints - its in their genes.'

No, it's in the genes of their west african ancestors
----------------------
You show your callous nature now. Yes they are descendant of them, hence it is still in their genes. Yet the slave trade picked the strongest of those to go to Jamaica - learn your history young man EO.
-------------

Here's a genuine fact for you. No jamaican coached and living in jamaica won an olympic sprint medal for 28 years between Quarrie and Bolt

---------
Again, you objectively pick olympic to suit your own gain and bias. Hence your argument is invalid.
------------------

the point we are trying to make, which for some reason you won't accept is that jamaica is at present a power in sprinting but hasn't been in the past. as you know this is crucial to your argument and to all other drug defenders. if they haven't(which i have just explained) then where has the sudden dominance sprung from? Surely you see that?
---------
The point you are trying to make is that you are jealous of the Jamaicans, and are in fact a racist.

By what other criteria would you measure sprinting success at a world level? Times? The first Jamaican national to hold the world 100m record?
In the history of the event? Powell in 2005
-------
Look back at world rankings year on year - using times. this gives the best accurate figure of a countries level in the world at an event.
-------------------------------

Back to the same point, jamaica has always had good sprinters, but utter world dominance from a tiny island? never
How so now? You know that as well.

Great Britain a set of tiny island once dominated the world for a very long time. A remarkable unbelievable achievement - much great a feat than what jamaica has achieved... yet... it Britain did really manage it.

EO, your arguments are fundamentally flawed, and you are highlighting your lack of knowledge about athletics/training/history and generally anything to do with general intelligence. Yo are however showing that you do not like jamaicans.

Why not look into a few of the facts i've told you over the last few months. do some research before you declare every jamaican sprinter at present a drugs cheat.

Ps. sorry to stop as low as you in terms of arguments, but you still resort to digs and jibes, its very ugly.

by icecold Mon 19 Sep 2011, 10:49 pm

gary wrote:My opinion is. Besides training methods and talent, athletics now is a game where ,if you find a magic pill - you win , if not, - take what is left for you.
With all talent , there are 8 people in the race, equal , strong,fast,determined. Some show their level, some jump over head.

Why equal?

Watch horse racing. In a top class race you will see the best bred, best trained, best cared for thoroughbreds that money can buy and yet a horse like Frankel turns a top class race into a complete procession.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghUY0k4YX1k

If that was a human race the nay sayers would all be yelling doper. Doh

The rest of us are just saying "wonderhorse".

So Frankel must be being given an undetectable "magic pill" that the other trainers cannot get hold of according to your logic Gary?

So why isn't the trainer Henry Cecil giving this undetectable magic pill to all of his horses to dominate the entire horse racing calendar if it can have such a startling effect on Frankel?

Could the truth simply be that Frankel is an astounding freak of nature with an unbelievable talent that puts him so far ahead of the competition? As you put it: "some jump ahead".

Why should humans be any different? We are made of the same stuff, have similar biological processes? Why should it be shocking or suspicious that some very rare human athletes are so far ahead of even the best competition?

Why assume that the eight on the start line are or should be even approximately equally talented?

by Guest Mon 19 Sep 2011, 11:11 pm

Izzy good points thumbsup

On a separate issue Jamaican athletes must be rigorously targeted for drug testing in the various international race meetings and championships. As far as I can tell there are no special issues of concern with regard to WADA or IAAF on drug testing of Jamaican athletes. Presumably they are also having their blood stored (tests taken in major championships??) as newer and more sensitive tests become available. On the other hand there are discussions regarding relaxing some of the tests for those compounds found in food and in normal medication (clenbuterol, some pain killers etc).

by english_osprey Mon 19 Sep 2011, 11:36 pm

ryan

are you slowly losing your senses?

britain did once dominate the world due to their 50m or so population, their enormous oversesa territories, india for example and the fact that they enjoyed the first industrial revolution amongst very many other reasons.
What this has to do with jamaican sprint dominance however is anybody's guess

why is my argument flawed? can you give me an example? My lack of athletics knowledge/training/history? I think you'll find I know quite a lot. Go back through my posts and you'll find it's me giving the history lesson. Have you ever supplied anything but unsupported opinion rather than fact?

i certainly don't dislike jamaicans, only cheats. There has certainly been plenty of uk drug cheats. the problem is that jamaicans are so high profile. The title of this thread includes 2 jamaican names. I certainly haven't accused any jamaican sprinter by name. This is just to remind you not to try and play the race card again. Really, you just come across as a boy with no ideas when you resort to that.

I don't recall any 'facts' that you have provided. Perhaps you could remind me? You do know that facts are things that actually happened don't you? Not things that you imagine are true because you say they are?

Where have I said that all jamaicans are drug cheats? Please show me. Obviously not all jamaicans are drug cheats. Some of them are completely clean and innocent of any wrong-doing.

so in conclusion i have answered all your points but i notice apart from abuse you haven't attempted to answer mine. Why not have a go at that

by english_osprey Mon 19 Sep 2011, 11:58 pm

ice

you do know that horses are routinely doped don't you? sadly it's as rife with horses as with athletes. so once again not a good example

however, and this is unusual i found myself nodding with something you did say! I will state with complete certainty that uk athletics in the 80's (when I was running) was completely awash with peds. Many of that periods stars were undoubted drug cheats.
I would say that the uk was one of the first countrys into peds which I think partially explains the successes and popularity of the sport in that period. Which might explain why any comparison of performances of that time with now is difficult. Which is back to my original point that drug-taking horribly distorts any attempted analysis of the sport but on the other hand makes it relatively easy to spot cheating hotspots. Eg East Germany and the eastern block generally in the 70/80. USA and UK in the 80'/90's. Spanish middle-distance, Chinese women middle/long-distance. The list goes on and I am sure others could add to it

by sportykeppy-1 Tue 20 Sep 2011, 12:34 am

Why would a small country like Jamaica be able to discover or develop a drug/pill that no other scientifically powerful nation cannot detect? What tremendous controls has Jamaica had over WADA to enable them to turn a blind eye to drug cheat? Wouldn't it be easier for powerful nations like Britain, America, China, Russia(who would have had the scientists and technology and riches) to be able to develop something for their own athletics to take than a small fry like Jamaica? Especially when these countries would at all cost do everything possible to be superior in sports? I do not buy it that Britain, America, etc would make that happen.

by sportykeppy-1 Tue 20 Sep 2011, 12:52 am

I do not buy into, that because a country is small it cannot produce great feats.

Look at Serbia, it is so small yet it produces two female and one male NO 1 tennis players. Are they on drugs?

Sweden produces some very great athletics(the heptathalon springs to mind) even though it is relatively small, Were they on drugs?

by ryanbailey Tue 20 Sep 2011, 5:57 am

EO, all you ever do is spout your pathetic opinion. You have no facts. I've givn facts and links to back things up. You truly are a little numpty.

My reference to the UK dominating the world politically was that if UK can do that, it is possible that the Jamaicans can dominate the world in sprinting. Simple logic but i guess someone of your low IQ wouldn't get that.

You have inability to believe that anyone other than yourself could be right. You come across as an arrogant *******. You never listen to anyone's opinions, you never read their posts when they post facts with links and backed up with evidence. The thing is EO, we in the UYK are 15 years behind in coaching track adn field. Why do you think our elite athletes go aborad for coaching?

It is fact that they need that bit extra that the foreign coaches are offering. Look at what has happened for Mo.

Anyway, there is no point discussing issues with you, as you just accuse people of - that is your opinion, you don't actually read the posts (you don't understand the knowledge that other people have). You assume you know everyting.

Reality is.... or has already eluded you. Goodbye. I'll leave you to your pathetic miserable world to rot and be left behind in your pessimistic sorrow of wondering why your track and field is so far behind.

by ryanbailey Tue 20 Sep 2011, 6:02 am

EO, now you pretend you are an expert of horse racing.... come on you ****. Just stop it. You presume everything, stating opinion all the time. You won;t listen to anyone!

You are coming across as a little know it all, but you know nothing! It is plain to see! Have you been there when they are doping the horses, or have you read it somewhere on the internet, because you never even leave your house? When was the last time you did something for track and field?

"you do know that horses are routinely doped don't you? sadly it's as rife with horses as with athletes. so once again not a good example"

I bet you know that racing pigeons are doped too???

by icecold Tue 20 Sep 2011, 9:44 am

english_osprey wrote:ice

you do know that horses are routinely doped don't you? sadly it's as rife with horses as with athletes. so once again not a good example

Yes, I do know that doping is not uncommon in horse racing.

My point is, if there is an undetectable pill that makes Frankel ridiculously better than the best horses in Europe, why isn't Henry Cecil (the trainer) giving it to all of his horses? If he were, they would all be winning like that.

Why doesn't Khaled Abdullah (the owner) move his entire multi-million pound stock of horses to Henry Cecil to benefit from his uniquely expert knowledge of undetectable doping? Why leave his ridiculously expensive horses with other trainers who don't know how to dope like Henry Cecil?

The only thing that makes sense is that drugs have nothing to do with Frankel's jaw dropping superiority. He is simply a genetically gifted wonderhorse.

Humans are no different. The fact that a human is so much better than the rest of the competition (Michael Johnson, Paula Radcliffe, Jonathan Edwards, Usain Bolt etc) is obviously no proof of doping. Is it not possible that the simple explanation for these athletes' brilliance is that they are the human equivalents of Frankel; genetically gifted wonderhumans who have worked hard with the right trainers to exploit their phenomenal talent to the max?

by icecold Tue 20 Sep 2011, 9:45 am

sportykeppy-1 wrote:Why would a small country like Jamaica be able to discover or develop a drug/pill that no other scientifically powerful nation cannot detect? What tremendous controls has Jamaica had over WADA to enable them to turn a blind eye to drug cheat? Wouldn't it be easier for powerful nations like Britain, America, China, Russia(who would have had the scientists and technology and riches) to be able to develop something for their own athletics to take than a small fry like Jamaica? Especially when these countries would at all cost do everything possible to be superior in sports? I do not buy it that Britain, America, etc would make that happen.

Great post. clap

by english_osprey Tue 20 Sep 2011, 10:11 am

"Why would a small country like Jamaica be able to discover or develop a drug/pill that no other scientifically powerful nation cannot detect"

I am sure jamaica could not develop such a drug.
But try this, their athletes/coaches/managers buy it from a country that can!!!
Cunning hey? I am surprised you didn't think of that yourself

jamaica can't control wada (probably) but they can certainly control their own (non-existing) drug testing procedures

by english_osprey Tue 20 Sep 2011, 10:23 am

ryan

where you stamping your tiny feet in rage when you sent those last posts. It's so infuriating when you can't think of anything sensible to say isn't it?

'we in the UYK are 15 years behind in coaching track adn field'

Also apologies for not realising you are from the UYK. I didn't know that English wasn't your first language, that's maybe why your posts make no sense.
And if I might give some advice? If you are 15 years (how did you come to that number)behind (behind whom) just chill and start doing peds. That should resolve it.

Cheers mate, if you have any other problems in UYK don't hesitate to get in touch.

by english_osprey Tue 20 Sep 2011, 10:53 am

izzy

you know me, i hate to be critical but with the greatest respect how does this make any sense?

'it may well be that, a few years back, with performances and levels in the srpints standing as they did, the greatest room for improvements lay in these 'less technical' events.'

I am not even sure what you are trying to say. But surely this is pure speculation? If you think that performances a few (how many?) years ago were relatively poor, on what criteria are you basing that? Poor in relation to other events or poor to what they are now?

I suspect you are trying to explain away the huge recent advances in sprinting by suggesting that standards were relatively low. But what evidence do you have for this apart from your gut feeling and a desire to 'prove' that technical advances rather than drugs explain the phenomenal gains of recent years?

The reson for such improvements is surely more prosaic. Sprinting is the easiest event to drug. There are no extraneous pressures such as barriers take off legs or tactics to worry about. Simply bang in the power (thank you peds) align that with genetic foot speed and a modicum of technique and away you go.

Which might also explain jamaica's staggering lack of talent at any event not sprint-related.

by english_osprey Tue 20 Sep 2011, 11:09 am

ry my old mate

'Have you been there when they are doping the horses, or have you read it somewhere on the internet'

if only you could have checked your rage for 3 hours or so you could have read the following from our resident racing correspondent

'Yes, I do know that doping is not uncommon in horse racing' (mr icecold)

I stand exonerated, straight from the horses mouth as it were.

I think that could be referred to as general knowledge my good friend.
However no need to apologise. Although to be honest your ranting has upset me a little. Would your mother be happy to hear you using that sort language ryan? Would she?

by icecold Tue 20 Sep 2011, 11:22 am

So English_Osprey, simple question.

Do you believe that Frankel was able to obliterate a world class field like that because he had some "magic pill" as Gary puts it and the others didn't?

by english_osprey Tue 20 Sep 2011, 11:48 am

Who knows mate, do you?

I don't really see how your horse/man analogy works to be honest with you.

For example as i understand it horses have a stud history going back many generations. Horses are specifically bred to produce the desired outcome. I don't believe athletes are
Also can't you just buy success by simply spending millions on the 'right' yearlings? Again I am struggling to see the relevance of that to athletics

If we are to carry your analogy further, yes every so often a wonder horse is thrown up by genetic chance. Once again however they are not, as far as I know all born on the same small island within a few miles of each other. In fact imagine the furore in the racing world if they were!!

so again, with respect I fail to see the connection between the two

by sportykeppy-1 Tue 20 Sep 2011, 12:14 pm

Who is to say that Britain, France, etc have a greater drug testing approach than Jamaica? I do not believe that they do. I am sure that WADA would not leave it all up to the individual nations to do their own testing.

Like I said before, some countries would do whatever it takes to be supreme. Some countries are good at sports that hardly any other participates in, in order to win medals at the Olympics. Sports like Sailing, Cycling, Rowing, Archery and Swimming are done by a very few countries. Why would they let Jamaica get away with winning the hardest of medals?

Every athlete was tested at the last World Championship. In Berlin 2009, some athletes like Bolt, Tyson, Powell and other high profile athletics were tested repeatedly. This was done to the point where some of the athletes said that they feared that they would be too weak in order to perform at their best, because so much blood was being taken fron them there.

I enjoy sports, especially athletics. You will always have people possessing greater talents than some in some fields. Newton, Einstien were way more talented than their peers in Mathematics/Engineering/Science.

by Izzymiyagh1 Tue 20 Sep 2011, 12:20 pm

EO - you ask for facts and evidence; on a number of occasions, I have provided adequate examples. But you have chosen to ignore these. You do this repeatedly, whilst claiming that I have not provided any supporting information. These examples, which I provide, are for you to explore and check, and to get further information if you wish to more properly connect with what I am saying, including if you want to establish an opposing argument. I am not going to post every last detail. We have the internet. If I post some ideas or examples, and you want to seriously dispute the validity of my arguement or the example itself, then follow these up and come back to me.

Regarding the issue of;

'it may well be that, a few years back, with performances and levels in the srpints standing as they did, the greatest room for improvements lay in these 'less technical' events.'

The point I was trying to make was, it is likely that when we go back a few years, say to the 1980's - given the standards in terms of performances across all events, it is likely that performances in the throws and jumps were closer what we might refer to as the absolute limits; my view is that the technical nature of those events, from the outset, had allowed athletes to get nearer their and events full potential, than an event that migth have been erroneous perceived as 'less technical'. It is clear that in athletics today, the spints are not seen as less technical, and that a change in philosophy and outlook has had an important impact on the track. In other words, there is a hell of a lot more work put in than you give you credit for...hence, your rather unsophisticated attempts at deriding the many present day progress in the sprints...

You approach me with your tone, without necessarily having fully appreciated the nature and spirit in which the original question was asked...and the nature and spirit in which I have responded back. Indeed, I believe that I am the only poster who had attempted to respond Nore Staat's specific post / question...

by icecold Tue 20 Sep 2011, 12:43 pm

english_osprey wrote:Who knows mate, do you?

I don't really see how your horse/man analogy works to be honest with you.

For example as i understand it horses have a stud history going back many generations. Horses are specifically bred to produce the desired outcome. I don't believe athletes are

Controversial I know but during the time of slavery black people were treated like animals and in many cases specifically "bred" by plantation owners to produce a desired outcome.

Also can't you just buy success by simply spending millions on the 'right' yearlings?

No! Many a million dollar yearling with an exquisite bloodline has turned out to be a dud. The 'right' yearling is a gamble.

If we are to carry your analogy further, yes every so often a wonder horse is thrown up by genetic chance. Once again however they are not, as far as I know all born on the same small island within a few miles of each other. In fact imagine the furore in the racing world if they were!!

But modern racehorses do all share the same bloodline. They are all part of the same family descended from just three stallions.

"All modern Thoroughbreds can trace their pedigrees to three stallions originally imported into England in the 17th century and 18th century, and to a larger number of foundation mares of mostly English breeding." - wiki

Concentrating the gene pool with thoroughbreds has produced horses with exceptional speed and agility and the occasional wonderhorse like Frankel.

Is it not possible that a concentrated gene pool of slavery survivors on a small island like Jamaica has produced over many generations a nation of exceptional sprinters and the occasional superman like Usain Bolt?

The most naturally talented free divers in the world are probably The Bajau people. They can stay underwater for minutes on just one breath while fishing. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12151830

Again, it looks as if concentrating the gene pool has over many generations produced an incredible talent located in a very specific area of the world.

by english_osprey Tue 20 Sep 2011, 12:54 pm

1. As usual you make a point without even a shred of evidence. I appreciate what you are saying but that doesn't meanthat it's true. Just having an opinion doesn't necessarily make it a valid one. Could you give ANY evidence at all for your theory?

2. I like the fact that you have used the 80's as an example. A quick perusal of the record books will show you that the womens 100m, 200m and 400m were set in that decade. They don't appear to have improved much. Or is it that `a change in philosophy and outlook' (a pleasantly vague term) only applies to male athletes and not female?

by english_osprey Tue 20 Sep 2011, 1:10 pm

icey

you make a good point there and I agree with you. The reson that jamaicans are amongst the world's best sprinters is their enviable genetic heritage.

However - That's not my point and I think you know that. My point is that there are so many of them from such a small population sample.

To stretch your horse analogy further it's as if one tiny yard has produced a freakishly brilliant horse. Tht's just about acceptable, however imagine if that horse missed the start of the biggest race of the year for whatever reason? Does the tiny yard panic? No, it sends another freakishly brilliant horse from the same small yard which wins the biggest race of the year. If that wasn't enough the original freakish wonder horse recovers to win the second most important sprint of the year. Added to that the top ranked horse of the year was injured and didn't even make the big race at all, guess which yard he was from? Yep, the same

If that scenario was transferred to the horse world their would be absolute uproar and cries of 'fix'. How has one small yard produced so many winners?

Don't even get me started on the fillies race.

Now do you see my point? It's not really about jamaicans even. Current times are just too fast and too commonplace to be realistic.

by Izzymiyagh1 Tue 20 Sep 2011, 1:17 pm

EO - I provided perfectly good examples in earlier posts...you should have followed those up...I ain't here to spoonfeed anyone Cool

by english_osprey Tue 20 Sep 2011, 2:07 pm

No you didn't

I don't want to get into a 'you did, I didn't' argument but really I've gone back through your posts on this thread and there are no examples of any evidence

perhaps i've missed it? could you point me to it?

by gary Tue 20 Sep 2011, 2:44 pm

english_osprey. We think in same way with you. We try to say people,that despite huge talent from the nature. Some group of athletes just leave no chance for the others in major competitions.
As a proffesional, i can see the difference in athlete's race, when he is run normally and when he is flying,like he has no weight. that's not only talent.
I want you all to remember Marion Jones. She was as big icon as Bolt now. And what happened finally. I do not blame athletes, they just want to win and live. its people around proffesional sport, who ruine it - scientists,who create new and new drugs. And if don't want to be a looser, you have to use them just to stay on the field.
Until Blake's 19.26 i was sure Bolt is a phenomenon, after that and Dix's 19.53, i am not anymore.

by djlovesyou Tue 20 Sep 2011, 2:59 pm

Most drugs that athletes used were developed for medical purposes. You can blame pharaceutical companies for a lot of things, but you can't really blame them for the rise of PEDs in sport.

It's greedy athletes/coaches/agents and doctors who are the problem. I certainly don't let the athletes off the hook, they should be totally responsible for what goes into their body.

by Izzymiyagh1 Tue 20 Sep 2011, 3:38 pm

EO - how about you actually make a useful contribution, rather than trolling the boards, and picking at everything you see...

For example, my response to Nore Staat's initial question - I didn't see you have the balls to step up to the plate and have a go Very Happy

by Mad for Chelsea Tue 20 Sep 2011, 3:50 pm

the reason the Radcliffe/Edwards argument is flawed is that they'll always be freak individual performances and "freak" (in a nice way) individuals. The problems arise when you suddenly have a whole generation of "freaks" coming from the same country, and training together.

Edwards - freak
Radcliffe - freak
Michael Johnson - freak
Rudisha - freak
etc.

When Bolt first came along I thought he was a freak too. He may well be. But then you get about five Jamaicans who can run under 9.8 (which had never been run clean until a few years ago) - Blake has already tested positive, but has now ran the second fastest ever 200m, beating a time which many thought would stand a very long time. Mullings showed a similar massive improvement earlier this season, and promptly tested positive again. The coincidences worry me, that's all...

by ryanbailey Tue 20 Sep 2011, 4:42 pm

english_osprey wrote:ryan

where you stamping your tiny feet in rage when you sent those last posts. It's so infuriating when you can't think of anything sensible to say isn't it?

'we in the UYK are 15 years behind in coaching track adn field'

Also apologies for not realising you are from the UYK. I didn't know that English wasn't your first language, that's maybe why your posts make no sense.
And if I might give some advice? If you are 15 years (how did you come to that number)behind (behind whom) just chill and start doing peds. That should resolve it.

You are a biggot. And you prove it. You are also a racist. You are also very arrogant. You have no idea who i am, yet you jump to conclusions and then try to belittle me. I ask why? The answer is simply that i do not agree with your point of view.

I am not 15 years old, i don't have tiny feet. English may or may not be my first language. But heck, what does it matter to you, beause your point scoring is childish and pathetic and you show it in every single one of your pathetic posts.

Cheers mate, if you have any other problems in UYK don't hesitate to get in touch.

by english_osprey Tue 20 Sep 2011, 4:43 pm

That' because I'm still waiting for youto come up with your statistacal proof that sprinting standards were lower in the 80's than they are now.

That's quite some undertaking and I'm really looking forwards to seeing how you do it. What technique are you going to use?

I'm no expert with stats (unlike yourself evidently) but I would assume that you'd have to pick a year (or 2 or 3 perhaps?) and establish the world record for each event in that particular year and then the real hard work. Are you going to establish the best say 10 performances in each event, then perhaps take an average and then compare that time with the world record in that year thus establishing some sort of standard deviation ?

Again I'm not sure the best way to do it but looking forward to your analysis all the same.

Either that or you could just guess I suppose. That would be quicker...and less trouble...and easier I imagine!

Whatever, good luck with that!

nore's question was interesting wasn't it?

by english_osprey Tue 20 Sep 2011, 4:45 pm

ry

thanks for reposting my stuff mate. it was quite funny wasn't it?

by ryanbailey Tue 20 Sep 2011, 4:48 pm

EO, you clearly have never had anything to do with athletics, except sit on your lazy fat butt and watch it on tv.

You attempt to dictate your feeble opinion on people on this board like you are some kind of evil little imp with Jamaica envy. It is hilarious to read your posts.

I think you are suffering from delusions of adequacy. Why do you feel this envy???

Anyway, how about the Kenyans? Are they blanket doping all of their athletes?

How about listing names of people in the sprinting events that you believe are dopers?

by Izzymiyagh1 Tue 20 Sep 2011, 4:51 pm

EO - You are indeed the greatest Mass-Debater Very Happy

by ryanbailey Tue 20 Sep 2011, 4:59 pm

EO, your posts are growing old and stale and stink of racism, bigotry and jealousy. You are sending us all to sleep, so just go back to your cave.

Jamaica will rule the sprints for a long time. And it will not because of doping. It will be because of hard work, dedication, biomechanics, and technical awareness.

And there is nothing you can do about little EO, or should we say Eor??

by english_osprey Tue 20 Sep 2011, 4:59 pm

ry

i can hear the stamp of tiny feet again!!!

just read back, i dont say that you are 15 anywhere

i believe bigot is one g rather than the two in your post

racist? what colour are you? what colour am I ? not that it matters at all but i've had a go at jamaicans, americans, brits, spaniards and the chinese in this thread alone! We've discussed this before and didn't we agree that playing the race card is the last refuge of the ignorant? Didn't we?

Anyway, why are you still here? You said this at 5.57 this morning
'Anyway, there is no point discussing issues with you'

I'm glad you are here though. I'd miss you if you weren't. What were you doing up at 5.57am by the way?

by ryanbailey Tue 20 Sep 2011, 5:02 pm

english_osprey wrote:ry

i can hear the stamp of tiny feet again!!!

just read back, i dont say that you are 15 anywhere

i believe bigot is one g rather than the two in your post

racist? what colour are you? what colour am I ? not that it matters at all but i've had a go at jamaicans, americans, brits, spaniards and the chinese in this thread alone! We've discussed this before and didn't we agree that playing the race card is the last refuge of the ignorant? Didn't we?

Anyway, why are you still here? You said this at 5.57 this morning
'Anyway, there is no point discussing issues with you'

I'm glad you are here though. I'd miss you if you weren't. What were you doing up at 5.57am by the way?

EO, I don't think i've ever agreed with you. I'm not telling you what colour i am, next you'll be asking for my phone number... oh you.... I like you.

lol... 5.57???? Are you checking on me now honey? You have no idea where i am, or what i do. Training...

by english_osprey Tue 20 Sep 2011, 5:11 pm

ry

take it easy mate. you're going to rub all the skin off your tiny feet if you go on like this!
Fair play to you though you're one hell of a fast typist. Probably all that wrist power that you teens are so famous for!

Back to business
'Anyway, how about the Kenyans? Are they blanket doping all of their athletes?'
Probably, and the Ethiopians

'It will be because of hard work'
You're so right. Jamaicans are world-famous for their dedication to hard work

And for a reality check read Gary's post and Mad for chelsea's.
Good post, agree wih both of them.

izzy nice one, you're a very witty man

by icecold Tue 20 Sep 2011, 5:14 pm

english_osprey wrote:
To stretch your horse analogy further it's as if one tiny yard has produced a freakishly brilliant horse. Tht's just about acceptable, however imagine if that horse missed the start of the biggest race of the year for whatever reason? Does the tiny yard panic? No, it sends another freakishly brilliant horse from the same small yard which wins the biggest race of the year. If that wasn't enough the original freakish wonder horse recovers to win the second most important sprint of the year. Added to that the top ranked horse of the year was injured and didn't even make the big race at all, guess which yard he was from? Yep, the same

That scenario regularly occurs in the long distance races where for example, one dominant wonder human (Bekele) isn't fit enough to do his best and in comes Merga from nowhere with a devastating turn of foot to defy Mo Farah. Ethiopia, Kenya seem to have a never ending conveyor belt of talented long distance runners. Are they all doping too?

Secondly, Jamaica has three top class male sprinters, Powell, almost a veteran now, Bolt and now the emergence of Yohan Blake. Nesta Carter and Frater are not in the same league as those guys IMO. Yohan Blake won the biggest race of the year in 9.92 seconds and his PB is 9.82, again super fast but not putting him into the super freak territory of Bolt and Powell (at his best).

Then there is Tyson Gay of the USA. Second on the all time list with a super freakish 9.69. If your thesis is that sub 9.80 second times can only be produced using PEDs then clearly the knowledge of how to do this and get away with it lives in the US too. So where are the rest of the Americans? Why aren't they running these times?

Current times are just too fast and too commonplace to be realistic.

a) I dispute this. It is still an achievement to run even a sub 10 seconds (hence the hoo haa around Christophe Lemaitre / UK athletes achieving it)

b) How can you be so sure where the limit to human achievement is?

So much has changed in sports science and nutrition in the last decade or so. Even at consumer level you can easily buy WADA legal supplements that help you to work harder and recover faster than you would do otherwise. Which means you can train intensely more often and the benefits are cumulative. (Glutamine is god!)

I am sure in 1912 when the IAAF started recording records that the idea of a man running a 100m in 10 seconds would have seemed an absolute joke. The best in the world could manage 10.6 in 1912. Humans have stayed the same but tracks have changed, equipment has changed, nutrition has changed, training methods changed, the whole sport has become professional, knowledge of physiology and bio mechanics has improved etc. It should be no surprise that times are still getting faster.

The problems arise when you suddenly have a whole generation of "freaks" coming from the same country, and training together

Like the Ethiopian and Kenyan distance runners?

P.S. The Jamaican athletes don't all train together either.

by ryanbailey Tue 20 Sep 2011, 5:26 pm

english_osprey wrote:ry

take it easy mate. you're going to rub all the skin off your tiny feet if you go on like this!
Fair play to you though you're one hell of a fast typist. Probably all that wrist power that you teens are so famous for!

Back to business
'Anyway, how about the Kenyans? Are they blanket doping all of their athletes?'
Probably, and the Ethiopians

'It will be because of hard work'
You're so right. Jamaicans are world-famous for their dedication to hard work

And for a reality check read Gary's post and Mad for chelsea's.
Good post, agree wih both of them.

izzy nice one, you're a very witty man

EO, i love your posts because of how you come across as such a lovely kind person.

by Izzymiyagh1 Tue 20 Sep 2011, 5:54 pm

EO - you show your true colours Cool

by djlovesyou Tue 20 Sep 2011, 7:09 pm

I have my doubts about all the Hermans/Rosa related Ethiopians. A doping agent and a doping doctor fully in control of a load of super clean and nice African athletes running ridiculous times.

by english_osprey Tue 20 Sep 2011, 7:14 pm

Thanks you cheeky pair of numbskulls

But don't waste your time with me,

ry- you must have some sort of schoolwork to take care of?
izzy - don't forget that research of yours explaining about the 80's, just dying to read that. Could you hand it in sometime tomorrow?

by Izzymiyagh1 Tue 20 Sep 2011, 7:17 pm

FullEnglishBreakfast - can you show me how to research?! Especially stuff from the 80's?!

by english_osprey Tue 20 Sep 2011, 7:34 pm

Didn't you say that you had done all this in order to 'prove' your fatuous theory regarding the low-standards of sprinting in the 80's?

Don't say you made it all up in order to suggest that the increses in sprinting was somehow due to the aforementioned 'low-standards'?

Are you now willing to admit that you said pretty much the first thing that came into your head without any sort of thought?

How could you izzy? It's so unlike you

While we are on this topic how do you explain that all the womens world sprint records were set in the 80's. Please don't ignore this as you did in the earlier post. Is it that you don't take womens sprinting into consideration? Or is it that as usual you have no idea?

by Guest Tue 20 Sep 2011, 8:53 pm

My children,

It is time to end this petty squabbling..

Allow The Emancipator to guide you out of this misery..

There shall be no more petty sqaubbling..

As it has been foretold, so it shall come to pass..

Emancipator has spoken..

ghost

emancipator - temporary moderator on this day the twentieth of September, 2011, Gregorian calender, corresponding to the ninth hour of the doomsday clock.

by djlovesyou Tue 20 Sep 2011, 10:23 pm

The athletics board is built upon petty squabbling.

If you take that away, the place is as dead as the moon.

More petty squabbles, I demand it.

by english_osprey Wed 21 Sep 2011, 10:06 am

i quite like petty squabbling

icey

'Ethiopia, Kenya seem to have a never ending conveyor belt of talented long distance runners. Are they all doping too?'

Probably, don't you see the same jamaican style hot-spot repeated? And where was Merga during the season? Did he run in any of the diamond meets?

'Secondly, Jamaica has three top class male sprinters'

I think you're being very modest. jamaica in fact has 5 of the 7 fastest men of all time, and all within 3 years of each other.
And you might recall jamaica winning the world 4x100 without 2 of them in a wr time
plus all the female sprinters of course

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres

'So where are the rest of the Americans'
a)the women?
b)scared of going to prison?

'It is still an achievement to run even a sub 10 seconds'

i agree, but the jamaicans and americans do it so easily as if it's no big deal

i dont know what the level of human achievement is of course but there are obviously limits. it is exciiting to see these human limits extended. Unfortunately the jamaicans have crushed rather than pushed the limits

I refer you back to nore's intelresting post
if techniques have improved so much, why have there relatively bigger improvements come in sprints rather than 'more technical' events?

I know the jamaicans don't train together, I was stretching the horse analogy to its credible limit. I'll bet they and their coaches all know each other though.

I accept that tracks have changed but it appears that only the jamaicans and usa get the fast lanes!

I appreciate your intelligent post but to me it just supports the ped abuse thing even more. You talk about improved training and nutrition but surely that's available to everybody for example. You can tie jamaican sprinting superiority to jamaican genetics but surely other similar countries have similar genes. None of them have 5 of the fastest 7 of all time. Show me any concentration of successful horses in that ratio

Just imagine a situation where a few countries had a very advanced ped situation. The one I am describing. Almost everything that has happened in athletics over the last few years can be explained by that 'imaginary scenario'.

super-fast sprinting times
enormous dominance in certain events (but not others)by certain countries
several low-level masking agent type drug failures (blake and fraser)
the occaisional medium profile bust (mullings)
the relatively poor showing of countries that take drug testing seriously

by Sponsored content