I think we had this discussion a while back. Didn't they tear down the track as well, meaning it was never measured?
I think we had this discussion a while back. Didn't they tear down the track as well, meaning it was never measured?
No name meet? It was the fricking national championships.
RFXCrunner wrote:
My guess is that nobody questions Radcliffe's performance becasue a lot of people actually watched her do it, it didn't happen at some no name meet in China(which also produced the #7 All-time womens 10k), she did it in the London Marathon... slightly different situation. Plus she has been running well since then. Junxia had one good season, set the WR by 30 seconds, where has she been since then?
The IAAF does not ratify world records on short tracks. If the track was short then the IAAF would have known before ratifying it.
If your entire team was on drugs and ran these incredible times that shocked the world, would you keep them on drugs as they started competing out of the country? Of course not, which is why they never ran those times again.
Now another question. She is given drugs, in strange concoctions among other things. She is beat by her coach, and not taking these concoctions(which she may have not even known had drugs) could have resulted in serious bodilly harm. Can we blame her? I know that is not the question, but it was not her fault she cheated. In a way she didn't. She survived, right? Her coach cheated.
dudududi wrote:
Now another question. She is given drugs, in strange concoctions among other things. She is beat by her coach, and not taking these concoctions(which she may have not even known had drugs) could have resulted in serious bodilly harm. Can we blame her? I know that is not the question, but it was not her fault she cheated. In a way she didn't. She survived, right? Her coach cheated.
irrelevant. if this is true the records are invalid either way. blame her, don't blame her. it doesn't matter. just remove the records.
The current IAAF certification process didn't exist before 1999. I can't find any reference to a certification system existing before then. There is also a pdf file on their website that lists the currently certified tracks http://www.iaaf.org/newsfiles/29293.pdf . Some interesting tracks are missing; IUPUI in Indianapolis (USATF champs this year and next), Sacramento, and Brussels, Belgium. Does that mean you can't set a WR there?
"concoctions of turtle soup, worm fungus, and gerbil semen"
great now everyone on this board and their mom will be trying it.
turncoat wrote:
No name meet? It was the fricking national championships.
Go back to China you red lovin' commy. And take your stupid STD's with you. Pedophile.
Did Want dope. You've got to be kidding!!
Every knowledgable person in the sport of T&F knows that Wang set her records while heavily doping. Her 10K world record is the #1 example of a preposterous time only obtainable thru doping. There is no better example.
Hundreds of articles have been written about Wang's doping and that of her teammates. Here are a quick few examples I've googled.
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0408.htm
http://washingtontimes.com/sports/20040613-125415-3822r.htm
http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/041204/3/7uxa.htm
If any of you think Wang didn't dope after reading the above links, you have to believe Marion Jones didn't dope, Tim Montgomery didn't dope, etc. After all none of these ever had a positive drug test.
It is okay to believe in ghosts and UFO's, but please folks, it's time to stop believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
The Chinese times from 1993 are a total joke. Any sane look at them--the number of performers and performances under the previous WR, and the number of performances in a few days--will make it quite clear that there is no historical precedent for them at all. Frankly, it's not at all clear that "drugs" along can explain these times. A short track would do very nicely. The idea of surgically-altered men would also do very nicely. Whatever the answer is, those Chinese times are worthless.
The track distance was certainly verified.
By who? It wasn't the IAAF.
J. R. wrote:
The track distance was certainly verified.
Sez who? Where, exactly, do we go for proof of this?
No need to expand.
J. R. wrote:
Who watched Radcliff run the time? I sure didn't.
Well I did, along with about a million other people. Plus those who saw it on tv. Not sure what your point is.
J. R. wrote:
Wang's 10k was the China National Championships. One-quarter of the world's population lives in China, so that's a lot of people. Many more than live in England or France.
Total irrelavence. A billion people live in India, wouldn't bet on a lot of them being at their national track champs. Again, not sure what your point is.
J. R. wrote:
Wang Junxia had several good seasons, including wins at the World Championships. She retired then later made a come back on her own, getting Gold and Silver at the Atlanta Olympic Games. What is Radcliff's best placing at Olympics?
Fair enough, many people seem to be forgetting that the Chinese did produce very strong performances outside of China too, just not in the same leage as the '93 champs.
J. R. wrote:
Also Radcliff trained with an altitude tent, that now is banned. Not so clean is she.
They are not banned. There has been a suggestion that they should be but they remain entirely legal, so your "not so clean is she" jibe is nonsense.
J. R. wrote:
Wang Junxia trained hard that's for sure, and didn't need any pills, tents or doctors to do it. I don't know of any runner who has trained faster, longer, run more hills and run faster in competitions than has Wang. To me that makes her the fastest and most outstanding all round woman's runner we have seen. There might not ever be another woman runner who is as good as was Wang Junxia. As far as I am concerned, Wang Junxia's times are legitimate.
I'm genuinely interested to know what info you have on her training, please pass it on.
I agree that it is worth putting the case that her performance was legit, but you have put it forward very badly indeed.
JR is a dolt wrote:
No need to expand.
And no need, whatsoever, to take your opinion seriously.
THe men ran on the same track and they did not have any outlier performances. The men's 10,000 was won in a little over 29" and the 1500 went in well over 3;40. The short track argument is weak.
old tymer wrote:
J. R. wrote:The track distance was certainly verified.
Sez who? Where, exactly, do we go for proof of this?
wtf wrote:
THe men ran on the same track and they did not have any outlier performances. The men's 10,000 was won in a little over 29" and the 1500 went in well over 3;40. The short track argument is weak.
old tymer wrote:Sez who? Where, exactly, do we go for proof of this?
Ths short track argument IS weak, no question, but you certainly don't prove it false. In large part, your argument simply is that Chinese men were lousy in '93. Well, the real question is: How lousy were they? And, if they were so lousy, why were the '93 women such worldbeaters?
I believe:
a) the '93 times are preposterous
b) "drugs" alone doesn't really explain it
What's left? A case for castrated men?
Results are here under National Games:
http://www.gbrathletics.com/nc/chn.htm
Men did not run outside 29 as stated above, but were consistent with other years.
Look at the performances of Jiang Bo in '97 on a different track:
1500m - 3:50.98
5000m - 14:28.09
The 1500 time is every bit as extraordinary as the times Wang Junxia record in '93 but I've heard nothing about these.
Given the rush of performances of this standard in the mid 90s, which has since completely dried up, it is clear than something was up. I have no idea what but the short track theory doesn't appear to hold water to me.
Londoner wrote:
Well I did, along with about a million other people. Plus those who saw it on tv. Not sure what your point is.
The point is 1/4 of the world's population lives in China. If they were all watching, then that's 1.5 billion people who watched Wang Junxia run her times. You say 1 million watched Radcliff. That's 1500 people to 1.
A billion people live in India, wouldn't bet on a lot of them being at their national track champs. Again, not sure what your point is.
Are you saying 1 million people were at the track meet run by Radcliff? What stadium was this in?
Fair enough, many people seem to be forgetting that the Chinese did produce very strong performances outside of China too, just not in the same leage as the '93 champs.
Olympic and World Championships gold medals.
I'm genuinely interested to know what info you have on her training, please pass it on.
None of your business turkey. : )