state of uk 100m, men.

I know this topics been done, but i was browsing the power of ten rankings and it doesnt make good reading. No men have managed to break 10 seconds, and the only 1 realy capable of it right now(dwain chambers) wont be around much longer. So the question is, when will uk sprinters catch up with therest of the world? And who will replace DC as the topdog once he starts to slide or hangs up the spikes for good?

Didn't Chambers clock 9.98 this year?

Also where did you find this? The only way I can find the Brits rankings in on all-athletics which you have to pay for.

No his best is 10.01. Well thats what it is on power of 10. Its an all british ranking site in all events, usually accurate. Jus type power of 10 into google.

Just wait for all the wild racial accusations of drug abuse to come in on this thread. Accusations of systematic doping across the caribbean and the USA.

I can hear it already, "they are all on drugs - they've all been tested a millions times, it is because the corruption is so big that everyone is involved." But now the problem is that the athletes are bigger than the sport so, nobody wants to admit that they are on drugs... etc... Now that i've said all of that for you. Can this debate continue on about the state of our sprinters?

True thanks for getting all that out of the way. I would honestly just like a debate about the state of our sprinting scene. Personally i was quite excited about harry AA when he was first coming on the scene after his junior career, but he seems to be another 1 who has just fell at the final hurdle and failed to progress into the world class sub 10 second group. To many of our sprinters seem to be stuck around the 10.1 mark, him included.

Simeon Williamson was destined to break the 10 second barrier until he got injured.

If he can return to full fitness, watch this space.

I think he has the potential to run in the high 9.8

ryanbailey wrote:Just wait for all the wild racial accusations of drug abuse to come in on this thread. Accusations of systematic doping across the caribbean and the USA.

I can hear it already, "they are all on drugs - they've all been tested a millions times, it is because the corruption is so big that everyone is involved." But now the problem is that the athletes are bigger than the sport so, nobody wants to admit that they are on drugs... etc... Now that i've said all of that for you. Can this debate continue on about the state of our sprinters?

I've only recently started posting on this board but I must say.. that guy is like a dark cloud.. swoops in on anything positive and turns it into a negative, and does it all in the most patronising, derisory, mocking tone one could ever imagine.

Anyway, how is Craig Pickering getting on?

He's went downhill since 2008. I actually thought he would push on but seems to be going backwards, literally.

I think Harry AA needs to lose some muscle mass, he has got incredibly large over the last couple of seasons. Do you think its the athletes that aren't progressing or is it something to do with coaching?
Pickering broke through and had 1 great season and hasnt really been close since

emancipate: I'm the opposite of a dark cloud - i just saw the topic, and thought i'd better shut up the tyrants before they start - sorry if it came across that way.

I'm all for a good chat about athletics without the other stuff. Please note waht lfc91 stated - thanks for getting it out of the way.

Craig got his funding withdrawn and has found it tough since. I think its mental issue, he tenses and stresses too much, whereas he needs to relax more to get the best out of himself.

HAA, has always been big, but i don't see it as an issue. He just needs the right conditioning now, a bit like Craig. Relax more and properly work on stride length. Needs to be more agile, nimble, flexible and less of a power house.

Look at Bolt/Powell running, he's like a cheetah. He has the perfect dimensions/agility and muscle mass. Gay is more of a powerhouse, and relies on this to get his speed.

Just hope they are getting the right coaching.

Actually forgot about simeon williamson because hes been out so long. I agree he was definatley capable of sub 10. As for craig pickering i think hes probably ran as quick as hes ever going to run. Lets just hope the london olympics inspires a whole new generation of athletes.

Ryan, I wasn't referring to you. Your posts are positive, informative.

James dasalou posted a 10.09 last season if im not mistaken, and a 10.11 this season. Hopefully he pushes on a bit more next season. I would just love to have a british sprinter who can go sub 10 regurlarly to cheer on...instead of men who you know are going to make semi finals at best at major champs!

James dasalou posted a 10.09 last season if im not mistaken, and a 10.11 this season. Hopefully he pushes on a bit more next season. I would just love to have a british sprinter who can go sub 10 regurlarly to cheer on...instead of men who you know are going to make semi finals at best at major champs!

boys

how can you have a discussion about the 'state'of uk sprinting without mentioning drugs?
it makes no sense
a month ago you would have been bemoaning the fact that we were miles behind athletes such as mullings and rodgers. now they've been banned.
Once again (for the nth time) you are comparing ped assist times against clean time. What in all reality do you expect to discover?

ryan, how is being opposed to drug taking racist? East Germans were cheating long before jamaicans were

But there are alot of athletes who can run sub 10 regularly without PEDs. British athletes cant even break 10.1!(bar chambers). Once hes gone there doesnt look like theres anyone on the current scenecapable of break 10 seconds. I hope im wrong though.

'But there are alot of athletes who can run sub 10 regularly without PEDs'

and they would be?


y i man
nice editing, apologies to you

Find ur way over to the iaaf 100m rankings and just take a look. Although as i write that i realise that to you everyone who breaks the 10 second barrier regularly is on PEDs.

english_osprey wrote:boys


a month ago you would have been bemoaning the fact that we were miles behind athletes such as mullings and rodgers. now they've been banned.
Once again (for the nth time) you are comparing ped assist times against clean time. What in all reality do you expect to discover?

if you look back it was me started the thread questioning mullings sudden rapid improvements, so i certainly wouldnt have been 'bemoaning' that.

lfc my friend - thanks for the direction to iaaf's website. Unlike yourself I've had a good look at it


61 times under 10.00

9 x once
2 x twice

if you want to count 3 times as regularly under 10, then the list is


9 x powell
8 x blake
7 x mullings
5 x bolt
5 x rodgers
4 x carter
4 x lemaitre
3 x gatlin
3 x frater

mullings and rogers are banned, blake suffered a ban, gatlin suffered a ban

so after removing the obvious tainted by drugs we are left with 6 sprinters 'regularly' under 10. 5 jamaicans and a single solitary european


'But there are alot of athletes who can run sub 10 regularly without PEDs'

that's not my definition of lots
and
just take a look at that again. You were right to be suspicious about mullings. Aren't your critical faculties even slightly aroused by these results?
From the entire population of the world, 1 european and five inhabitants of a tiny island?

Firstly would add gay to that list. And what about dix? No time to do the necessary legwork but would have thought he would be in that group.
Now why havent the regulating bodies found any of the rest of them testing positive? Common sense would dictate to test the athletes running these fantastic times more regurlarly. The only reason i was suspicious of mullings was because he improved by 0.2 seconds at the age of 28! If i can see evidence of gradual progression over several seasons im happy to give the benifit of the doubt!

Would add makusha aswell, as he competes in the long jump too, which probly means he doesnt get as many chances to run in top class 100m races.

dix and gay are in the list under x 1!

i would have agreed with you until i checked.


becaus i would imagine that those who are cheating are on something in advance of the testers or that the testers don't want to catch them (as mentioned lots of times on previous posts)

i see that you avoid the point i made regarding the spread of times. any ideas?

makusha's in it under x 2
everybody you know is in it

I meant i would still count gay, as he clearly would have posted many more without the injury. Well apart from the genetics thing which people always seem to argue as the reason...i would also say the just want it more! British youngsters have so much more options where as for jamaican kids see this as there big chance so work so much harder. Similar to kenyan runners who see it as there only way out of poverty!

english_osprey wrote:lfc my friend - thanks for the direction to iaaf's website. Unlike yourself I've had a good look at it


61 times under 10.00

9 x once
2 x twice

if you want to count 3 times as regularly under 10, then the list is


9 x powell
8 x blake
7 x mullings
5 x bolt
5 x rodgers
4 x carter
4 x lemaitre
3 x gatlin
3 x frater

mullings and rogers are banned, blake suffered a ban, gatlin suffered a ban

so after removing the obvious tainted by drugs we are left with 6 sprinters 'regularly' under 10. 5 jamaicans and a single solitary european


'But there are alot of athletes who can run sub 10 regularly without PEDs'

that's not my definition of lots
and
just take a look at that again. You were right to be suspicious about mullings. Aren't your critical faculties even slightly aroused by these results?
From the entire population of the world, 1 european and five inhabitants of a tiny island?

Tyson Gay has run sub 10 seconds 27 times according top the IAAF website Top lists. I call that pretty regular.

And sub 10 second 100 metres have been recorded by athletes from USA, Jamaica, Canada, France, GB, Trinidad, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Norway, Ghana, St Kitts, Dutch Antilles, Australia, Cuba, Bahamas, Portugal, Barbados, Namibia, Qatar ... apologise to any athletes from countries that I might have missed.

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=o/age=n/season=0/sex=M/all=y/legal=A/disc=100/detail.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That's the direction of the point EO was making icecold - it might be quite a walk though, you seem to have missed it by a long way.

I am very sure that the Jamaican, Marocan and Kenyan athletes have had a very high frequencies of outer competition tests by WADA in 2010 than most countries, including Britain, Russia, china and USA.

I have no suspicion about the athletes times.

Check this out:
http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Antidoping/TestingStatistics/05/94/35/20110301092933_httppostedfile_IAAF_015F-1_REV1_IAAFOOCTListofAthletes-110301_23693.pdf

sportykeppy-1 wrote:I am very sure that the Jamaican, Marocan and Kenyan athletes have had a very high frequencies of outer competition tests by WADA in 2010 than most countries, including Britain, Russia, china and USA.

I have no suspicion about the athletes times.

Check this out:
http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Antidoping/TestingStatistics/05/94/35/20110301092933_httppostedfile_IAAF_015F-1_REV1_IAAFOOCTListofAthletes-110301_23693.pdf

It makes more sense to target the successful athletes and nations for frequent out of competition testing and not bother so much with the minnows.

But it still is a little disturbing that an athlete of the calibre of Dai Greene wasn't tested out of competition at all in 2010!

God knows what the mud-slingers would be saying on here about a Jamaican 2011 World Champion who wasn't tested out of competition by WADA even once during the preceding year .....

The words 'field' and 'day' come to mind.

Erm no.

WADA don't carry out any OOC tests. The tests are carried out by the IAAF.

The numbers are completely skewed because the IAAF are forced to carry out OOC testing in these countries because the national anti-doping systems in places like Jamaica and Kenya are non-existent. The UK anti-doping system is trusted by WADA so the IAAF don't have to do any extra work there.

Simple stuff. (Field and day, words coming to mind when speaking you people)

lfc

you bewilder me

first you tell me that 'lots' of people have regulaly run under 10 this season and tell me to refer to the iaaf site. I do and then prove no more than 6 have done so, even if doing it three times is hardly regularly. You can't count gay on anybody else you think might have run under 10 because the stats say otherwise. That's the reality of this discussion, my evidence is objective and your theory is subjective.

Then you tell me that jamaicans 'want it more'. With respect that is complete nonsense. How do you know they want it more? Your theory is pure speculation unless you hav something concrete to back it up.

Like many posters on here you start with your own theoy and then try to retrospectively prove it. I tell you that this season almost all the 'legitimate ' under 10 times have been run by the inhabitants of one tiny island and wouldn't that be even a little suspicious?

you ignore that but come back with an unproveable idea. Doesn't that seem a little lame to you?


icey
similarl with you. if lfc is browsing the power of 10 he's looking at this seasons results and bemoaning the fact that we appear to have few (if any) world class sprintes.
in response to him I've outlined all the under 10 performances this year. Once again you are deliberately confusing the issue by including all time under 10 performances.
One again almost all under 10 performances THIS SEASON have been run by the inhabitants of one tiny island. I was making the point that if you were to discard that statistcal anomaly then our (and indeed several other countries) sprinting doesn't look too bad.
Cheating by a few countries grossly distorts any discussion regarding certain events. It's impossible to discuss the state of UK sprinting without touching on drugs.


keppy

'I have no suspicion about the athletes times'

Hold onto that thought. You obviously know what you're talking about. As if the iaaf would cheat or lie. The very thought of it!

The point of the jamaicans wanting it more, that was merely because you asked me for an IDEA and i gave you an IDEA! I didnt state it as fact it was merely a theory. Although isnt it true that there are sprint camps in jamaica you have to be pretty dpecial to even get in to? Are there many of those in the uk?(thats a genuine question, as i honestly dont know)
And if your discounting people that have previously taken drugs from your list of sub 10 second runners, then we can discount chambers from the uk athletes rankings and say we have no world class sprinters, as the majority of them struggle to break 10.2 with much regularity. I think theres around 5.(again cant make the necessary legwork right now)

djlovesyou wrote:

The numbers are completely skewed because the IAAF are forced to carry out OOC testing in these countries because the national anti-doping systems in places like Jamaica and Kenya are non-existent. The UK anti-doping system is trusted by WADA so the IAAF don't have to do any extra work there.

Presumably Dai Greene is trusted by WADA so the IAAf don't feel the need to test him at all whereas the likes of Paula Radcliffe, Jessica Ennis, Christine Ohuruogo, Philips Idowu, Mo Farah etc are such suspicious characters that the IAAF must double check UKAD (1-3 times per athlete)?

in response to him I've outlined all the under 10 performances this year. Once again you are deliberately confusing the issue by including all time under 10 performances.
One again almost all under 10 performances THIS SEASON have been run by the inhabitants of one tiny island. I was making the point that if you were to discard that statistcal anomaly then our (and indeed several other countries) sprinting doesn't look too bad.
Cheating by a few countries grossly distorts any discussion regarding certain events. It's impossible to discuss the state of UK sprinting without touching on drugs.

The remarkable thing is not that Jamaican athletes are running sub 10 second times. The remarkable thing is that athletes from other countries are no longer able to achieve a feat that used to be relatively commonplace!

I included the all time list to show that running sub ten seconds has been done many times in the past from the best sprinters all over the globe.

Drug testing has improved. More substances are detectable and more in competition and out of competition testing is occuring.

The Jamaicans are continuing to run sub 10 second times, so is Tyson Gay, Walter Dix. Christophe Lemaitre has joined the party.

Where is everyone else? What were they up to in the past that they cannot get away with any more?

but as you put it with the exception of a few Americans and Christophe Lemaitre, the rest of the world has fallen away. Why?

What were athletes from these other countries getting away with before that they can no longer get away with now?

Why aren't current UK sprinters a patch on someone like Jason Gardener (9.98 in 1999)?

Not as talented? Not as hard working? Or something more sinister?

Why has Mark Lewis-Francis (9.97 in 2001) been not even close to reproducing that form ever since?

Bad luck? Injuries? Lack of motivation? Something more sinister?

Why can't Paula Radcliffe get within eight minutes of her former world record that was asterisked out this week?

Bad luck? Injuries? Something more sinister?

Who knows? Who cares? Until they fail the dope test they are all winners in my eyes.

i meant any ideas why the jamaicans have almost all the world's sub 10 times this season despite having a population which is less thanWales.

NB I am certainly not suggesting that the Welsh should have superior sprinters. It's merely an attempt to illustrate the truly tiny population that lives on jamaica in terms that even the dim can understand.

In fact jamaica is the worlds 140th country by population, 0.039% of the total world population. And yet...and yet they have virtually all the worlds sub 10 performances and, if that wasn't enough 5 of the 7 fastest times OF ALL TIME, and all done in the last 4 years. Go figure

It's called random testing icecold.

If your number doesn't come up, you don't get tested. British athletes need the minimum number of OOC tests from the IAAF.

If you come from a country that doesn't test their own athletes, they need it routinely.

I apologise if this is a difficult concept for you to grasp.

(Why spoil your comments by pretending you enjoy watching British (white) athletes perform well, we all know it's not true. It just undermines your points)

People will be selectively suspicious if they are generally negative. I would never for one moment believe that countries like Britain, USA, Russia would allow Jamaica to rule/control IAAF. No way, they are way too proud, if one is to say IAAF is too soft on Jamaica.

I am sure that if you add up the entire population of the various territories of the Westindies together it would not be equal to that of Britain, India or Pakistan but yet still they have produced many more top players in cricket and had beaten every cricketing nations comprehensively between the late 70s and early 90s. Would anyone be suspicious of them? Were they on drugs? Are the British cricketers on drugs now?

You're getting confused between purely physical sports and technical sports again. There isn't a drug that helps you compile a hundred on a green top.

Jamaica doesn't rule the IAAF, but the IAAF know that if someone like Bolt (or Bekele) gets busted, they're going to be hit in the pocket. Why would they try to bust them?

All they can do is try to keep them at least a little bit straight so they don't fall into a BALCO like situation which had nothing to do with drug testing.

while countries serious about drug-taking have increased the pressure on cheats. eg marion jones going to prison and the balco boys doing likewise
certain others, such as jamaica really don't give a toss. Which explains away the demise of traditional challengers such as the uk and most of western europe.
i am sure that you know what I say is true, you feel obliged to defend the indefensible at all costs
'Who knows? Who cares? Until they fail the dope test they are all winners in my eyes' sad really.


'What were athletes from these other countries getting away with before that they can no longer get away with now?'
This is classic you, misinformation masquerading as something deep. You're saying that other countries used to be able to cheat and now can't. And yet jamaicans are not only faster than the acknowledged cheats (and they were cheating) but they are clean as well. It don't really stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

What about my point regarding british athletes barely breaking 10.2. There are six who have barring DC, and i think maybe 2 have done it moe than once.(harry AA being the only one im confident has). Not even taking into account other countries performances i still think thats quite poor.

The bottom line on the drugs issue is i cant prove they arent taking them just as much as you cant prove they are. But as of right now there considered innocent...if it comes out there all cheats il happily acknowledge my mistake.

english_osprey wrote:
'What were athletes from these other countries getting away with before that they can no longer get away with now?'
This is classic you, misinformation masquerading as something deep. You're saying that other countries used to be able to cheat and now can't. And yet jamaicans are not only faster than the acknowledged cheats (and they were cheating) but they are clean as well. It don't really stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

Really? East German women used to dominate the sprint events with only the Americans and Jamicans putting up any kind of resistance. The Americans and Jamaicans are still dominating and where are the East Germans? We all know the reason why they have fallen away.

Testers learned a lot from the BALCO fiasco and have tightened the noose on the cheats. EPO is detectable including CERA, blood samples in major events are being kept for eight years, a new blood test for autologous blood doping will be ready for 2012 and lo and behold in the last ten years certain people's performance levels in events from the sprints to the women's marathon have fallen off of a cliff .... which makes you wonder what they were up to before that they cannot get away with now.

Meanwhile the Jamaicans, Tyson Gay, Walter Dix etc just keep going unaffected by all of these stricter enforcements and getting faster and faster as each generation stands on the shoulders of the previous one, as you would expect.

I repeat, it is the athletes and countries that have fallen off a cliff who (potentially) have questions to answer not the athletes and countries whose performances have remained consistent.

If your number doesn't come up, you don't get tested. British athletes need the minimum number of OOC tests from the IAAF.

Dai Greene should play the lottery with that kind of luck.

the problem is when debating with EO people tend to debate the poster (cynical, miserable old so-and-so ) and not the points he is making. If you have a careful read through some of the points they are quite valid.

1) Jamaica have five of the top 7 sprinters of all time. That's a ridiculous proportion for such a small country. Even if the cricket argument were valid (WI produced more great cricketers per capita than any other nation), that's like saying roughly 8 out of a world all time XI would be West Indian, and all from the same generation too. My world XI always has at least two WI in it, usually three, but never eight. In fact less countries compete at the highest level in cricket than in sprinting, so the sprinting proportion seems even more ridiculous.

2) increased pressure on drug cheats in most countries has produced a drop in general performance. Compare to cycling (average speeds in the TDF dropping since cycling started its clean-up). Compare to various women events (WR hasn't been even remotely troubled in a number of events since it became harder to be doped out of your mind on testosterone).

3) IAAF doesn't hunt particularly hard for high profile cases. Marion Jones - never tested positive but ended up in court. Carl Lewis - positive tests swepts under the carpet. The number of high profile athletes testing positive and getting a significant ban is extremely small.

Unfortunately, people can't (won't?) see that these are valid points. It just seems so much of an "all or nothing" debate (reminds me of the tennis boards over on 606)...

Mad for Chelsea wrote:1) Jamaica have five of the top 7 sprinters of all time. That's a ridiculous proportion for such a small country.

Look at this all time list:

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=o/age=n/season=0/sex=M/all=y/legal=A/disc=MAR/detail.html

24 out of 25 of the best times ever set by athletes from just two small countries? How ridiculous is that?
And it is not a technical event that requires expensive equipment. Anyone can put on a pair of shoes and run.
They must have a systematic undetectable doping program. It is the only possible explanation.

2) increased pressure on drug cheats in most countries has produced a drop in general performance. Compare to cycling (average speeds in the TDF dropping since cycling started its clean-up). Compare to various women events (WR hasn't been even remotely troubled in a number of events since it became harder to be doped out of your mind on testosterone).

Have you considered the possibility that maybe the Jamaicans, Kenyans, Ethiopians are not drug cheats and that could be why their general performance has not dropped. Furthermore, in these countries where running / sprinting is the national sport (a bit like skiing for the Austrians) they are getting faster because the competition is fierce right from grass roots level?

3) IAAF doesn't hunt particularly hard for high profile cases. Marion Jones - never tested positive but ended up in court.

Marion Jones was taking (at that time) undetectable substances. When the IAAF was tipped off, it wasn't buried under the carpet. She was thrown to the wolves. What more should they IAAF have done?

Carl Lewis - positive tests swepts under the carpet.

By the Americans not the IAAf and how long ago was that? What does that have to do with the current administration of athletics? Just how far back do you want to go for evidence of corruption / lax administration .... maybe to the 1930s when athletes were told to bring their own drugs as they wouldn't be provided by the organizers?

The number of high profile athletes testing positive and getting a significant ban is extremely small.

Which proves what exactly? Nothing. Maybe far fewer athletes are using illegal drugs than you imagine. Who knows?

I'll answer these points more in the morning, but briefly:

I find it just as ridiculous that 24 of the top 25 performers are from two countries TBH, even if those two countries ar larger than Jamaica and actually have a tradition of success at the events.

My second point was poorly phrased (the drugs cheat bit). I was trying to say that EOs argument about why British sprinting (and sprinting in other countries) isn't as good as it used to be could be valid by comparing with other sports (and events). Didn't mention Jamaica once in this point, so not sure why you brought that up.

Marion Jones was thrown to the wolves, but not by the IAAF (though I could be wrong about this). Find it interesting that you do admit there are undetectable drugs

Lewis, Kenteris and Thanou, more recently Fraser, Blake, Christie, Greene (Maurice), I could go on...

Your final point is quite valid, I'm a sceptic, not a cynic, and I dislike the "everyone's on drugs line" as much as I dislike the "everyone's clean" line, but I think given the sport's history, it's reasonable to be slightly sceptical of the current situation. I also think that it would be good if posters debated the points and not the poster, and that was the point I was trying to make. If you like, I'll go over your posts and give you a list of the valid points you make

Going back to what was, more or less, the original question; what's up with British sprinting...

For the 100m, a performance by a British athlete of under 10.2 secs is regarded as good. Sub 10.1 clockings are rare. We've long since gotten used to not expecting a sub 10 secs run.

Possibly the best performance by a British athlete we've had in recent times was at the UK Trials in Birmingham, in 2009, when Simeon Williamson ran 10.05, whilst running into a -1.8m headwind...so when we had someone running well enough to set a great time, conditions conspired against him / us ( that run was probably equivalent to a low 9.9secs perhaps ). From interviews, it was clear Williamson was chasing, desperately, a sub10 clocking. It is the world class benchmark. I'm sure Williamson was desperately disappointed and seemed to struggle for the remainder of that season, if I remember correctly.

Would be good if anyone knew what he was up to and the likelihood of him returning to competition next year etc

Doesn't Williamson do his winter training in Jamaica for the last few years???

But so did Christine Ohuruogu, and that didn't seem to work. What has happened to her??? A lot of our other runners go to the US for elite level training.

We have some talented sprinters from the UK, but we lack the coaches/coaching methods and the elite knowledge that is going to take us into the worlds best.

Just look at the stature of our sprinters, look at the running styles of our sprinters. They are not trained properly. They are not instructed on their diet/how best to train/which muscle groups they individually need to work on. Not much video analysis of their styles... i could go on. it just isn't happening here. Thus we are not producing the goods. That is why athletes are looking to go abroad for that elite level coaching.

Look at Mo, it worked. Look at Williamson, it worked for him-until he got injured.

Yes Williamson trained in Jamaica , even Asafa Powell called him lazy!

But williamson got potential- Harry Aitkines-Aryeetes also got potential. But they need rigth training, and coniditoning- and the rigth environmnt and conditions. They also need right people, coaches and other athletes to challnge and inspire them.

SJ

Jus had a look at williamsons 2009 season and he was posting very good times, to bad about the injury. Looks like he only had a few races this season, failing to break the 10.3 barrier. I hope he comes back strong next year.
I tend to agree with the people who say harry AA needs to lose a bit of muscle mass...but he obviously has qualified people around him advicing him, who know better than me.

Germany which is 1.4x the pop. of GB are also quite poor at this event, lots of facilities too!

Williamson posted some good times on 2009, but closed out the season in a disappointing way. Didn't do great at the worlds, and the remainder of the season then became a struggle...been injured since...