Calling it now: the women's 100m will be infamous in the next few years

Those are some good questions! And I think the sample size as of now is just too small for us to know anything for sure since the sprint spikes came out so recently. Who knows, maybe athletes running these crazy times are just that good and the shoes aren't really any different. We'll have to wait and see what sprint times look like over the next couple years to have a better answer.

I think there are all kinds of things that can contribute to late career improvements - maybe someone struggled with minor injuries for years and finally figured out how to stay healthy, maybe they benefitted from some time away from the sport or learned a more mature approach to training, maybe they got a new coach or just had enough time doing good consistent uninterrupted training. Or maybe they started taking drugs. It is possible, and 10.61 is eyebrow-raising, but there are so many different factors in people's personal lives that for me, until I see a positive test, I think it's important to give athletes the benefit of the doubt. I know we've been burned before, I know a lot of pros have lied. But if we're mistrustful and too quick to jump to conclusions then we give up the possibility of just enjoying a truly excellent performance, and as fans, what else do we have?

P.S.

As far as late career improvements in the sprints, the first ones that spring to mind are Carl Lewis, Justin Gatlin and Darvis Patton. I know Gatlin is controversial, but I actually had a similar personal experience (not the ban, lol, just taking several years away from the sport and then coming back and running better) so to me it doesn't seem crazy that someone who spent 4 years out of competition could come back and improve.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Enjoy the rest of they olympics! They only come once every 4 (or 5? or 3?) years.

Cheers,

Hurdle Guy

High hopes wrote:

HurdleGuy wrote:

Not here to sling around wild accusations about doping just because someone runs fast, but I noticed they were all wearing the new nike sprint spikes with that weird looking cushion. Could end up being more like the Rio marathon than Seoul 88.

That crossed my mind as well. But then, why aren't we seeing great times from the Nike men? And why aren't any of the younger athletes hitting 10.7 other than Richardson? Others have suggested the track is quick but again, why aren't the men running fast?

I want to believe everyone is clean, it's just difficult looking at the progression over the last year of the top-4. When have we have ever seen clean late-career improvements of this kind? Mo Farah? Anybody at all in the sprints?

Those are some good questions! And I think the sample size as of now is just too small for us to know anything for sure since the sprint spikes came out so recently. Who knows, maybe athletes running these crazy times are just that good and the shoes aren't really any different. We'll have to wait and see what sprint times look like over the next couple years to have a better answer.

I think there are all kinds of things that can contribute to late career improvements - maybe someone struggled with minor injuries for years and finally figured out how to stay healthy, maybe they benefitted from some time away from the sport or learned a more mature approach to training, maybe they got a new coach or just had enough time doing good consistent uninterrupted training. Or maybe they started taking drugs. It is possible, and 10.61 is eyebrow-raising, but there are so many different factors in people's personal lives that for me, until I see a positive test, I think it's important to give athletes the benefit of the doubt. I know we've been burned before, I know a lot of pros have lied. But if we're mistrustful and too quick to jump to conclusions then we give up the possibility of just enjoying a truly excellent performance, and as fans, what else do we have?

P.S.

As far as late career improvements in the sprints, the first ones that spring to mind are Carl Lewis, Justin Gatlin and Darvis Patton. I know Gatlin is controversial, but I actually had a similar personal experience (not the ban, lol, just taking several years away from the sport and then coming back and running better) so to me it doesn't seem crazy that someone who spent 4 years out of competition could come back and improve.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Enjoy the rest of they olympics! They only come once every 4 (or 5? or 3?) years.

Cheers,

Hurdle Guy

These Olympics are shaping up to be one of the biggest dopefests in history! It wouldn't surprise me if the percentage of dopers in the track finals at this Olympics exceeds the percentage of guys on the sauce at the Tour de France back in Lance's heyday.

West africans and their ancestors sounds more like nazis everyday. Ironically while at the same time complaining about racism in a paranoid conspiratoric way.

I think that these Jamaican women very well could be clean, they but I have doubts that they have been so their whole career. I think the Jamaican federation has started to work against doping and nowadays are on par or better than most countries. I wouldn´t count on it that they were so 20-10 years ago.

The effects of steroids are greater in women and probably also the prolonged benefits.

I think track and field is slowly getting cleaner. Better training and equipment could also have a more pronounced effect in women.

It’s already notorious!

Haha… you got that right!

Look at the IQ tests.

Haha

Yep. It was a blatantly dirty race, but when has the 100 not been at this level? To pretend it was a clean race is insulting people's intelligence.

That said, the reason the 1988 race is infamous is that Johnson tested positive based on an in competition test and Canada conducted an official inquiry. That wont happen here, so you will have the same boosterism and deniability