Is sprinting dead?

I said in a thread weeks ago, which you can look up, there will not be any mind blowing times this year. Unless an athlete can somehow avoid out-of-competition testing, it is almost impossible to use an anabolic steroid (testosterone boosting) drug. USADA/WADA aren't even specifically looking for steroids anymore, abnormalities in your blood chemistry are a dead give away. Also, there are well known markers detected in the blood form the major Chinese and Mexican steroid producer/distributers.

The steroids era 'for the most part' is over with in t&f. The new things are some of the old things like blood doping, epo and stimulants. Sprinters benefit from getting more red blood cells by being able to train harder and recover faster and stimulants can increase your neuromuscular response on race day. These things are still hard to detect, but they don't give you the superhuman strength like steroids. What's on the horizon is gene/dna manipulation, which the Chinese have been working on for several years. You are also going to see female athletes who are just barely with in threshold of being female. Unfortunately WADA hormone thresholds/policies are still pretty lax. Don't be shocked it you see some mind blowing 800/1500 times this year. But, if I had to guess, no male sprinters are going to run faster than 9.7 and/or 19.5.

Btw, I did say "The steroids era 'for the most part'", --you can still successfully cheat if you can somehow avoid out-of-competition testing and that is the cat & mouse game being played right now.

9.7 is pretty damn mind blowing. The 80s had a whopping 1 athlete under 9.9 and break 10 was a big deal even up to 2004 and rarely happened. They were taking lots of anabolics throughout those periods.

I guess it's all relative, but 9.7 isn't mind blowing when someone has run 9.58.

TrackCoach wrote:

I guess it's all relative, but 9.7 isn't mind blowing when someone has run 9.58.

I don't really understand what your point is--sub 9.7 has happened only 5x in the history of the sport and all in the last 5 years. Yes, obviously 9.58 is the record. I don't understand how that relates to the fact that with all the drugs in the world breaking 10 was extremely rare less than 10 years ago. There aren't even 10 people to have ever broken 9.8 legally, even if you include Ben and Tim.

You sound like a f ucking moron.

Greg Lemon wrote:

What Ben did to sprinting is nothing like how Lance Armstrong killed the Tour of France.

Has it though? despite the many many drug scandals in cycling it still remains the most popular endurance sports (Obviously not up with the likes of Football and Tennis)

I think drugs is used as the easy option to shy away from an underlying problem affecting the popularity of track and field (outside of the Olympics)

9.7x is not fresh.

Ben did it 25 years ago, and Bolt already went 9.58

Ben started the era in which expectations of continued improvement became to be seen as reasonable. Rubbish. All of history piled up around 10-flat, and NOW 9.7x and below are reasonable? Rubbish.

A record should be something that lots of guys pile up against, not something that is destroyed by one, and only one, sprinter, be it Ben, Bolt, Merritt, whomever.

If and when moved, it should be moved only a tiny bit--like from 9.95 to 9.93A to 9.93 to 9.92 to 9.90--and that took 23 years.

It's actually nice that Blake and Powell are currently out of the stratosphere, leaving only Bolt and Gay. Hopefully they are out of it too, or maybe left only touching it.

We should forget about times and somehow try to mandate that guys race against each other more often. That 9.75 would have been a heck of a lot more interesting had it come at Bolt's expense, like Gatlin's 9.94 or whatever it was. Even Bolt's 9.9x was more interesting because it came at, for instance, Powell's expense, and because Bolt let up seemingly quite a bit.

We need freshness. Being white or Japanese or super-young are fresh in sprinting, those guys need to race more often. Super-fast times like 9.7x just aren't fresh right now, and we should stop looking to times for freshness. We should look to competition, and the best should compete against each other, and more often, the times be damned.

It kinda' sucks, actually.

Bolt is in a league of his own. Take him out and there would be some races.

I just found this in the comments section on a youtube vid.

It is pure hearsay, but it is not the alleged source that is important, it is the content:

"He train kids at york university here and i asked him about the race he himself in his own words said this when i heard him talking "Man, if i didn't put my hand up in the air in that 10m i would have ran 9.72. But I was going to run even faster at the next big meet to create even more hype because one you run a time that you can't run again, its not as interesting to watch". Those were his exact words."

Regardless of whether he would have run 9.72 or not (he wouldn't have, BTW, he could maybe have gotten 9.76/9.75 with a "perfect" finish), and regardless of whether or not he actually COULD have run faster in a subsequent meet, and regardless of who actually said and wrote this, the idea of it not being as interesting to watch when the best athlete can no longer run his previous time is what is important here.

In distance races, there is time for drama to develop, and the races have definite phases--even the crap 5,000m at 2013 US nationals. But in the 100m, it is over so quickly that by the time most people get into the race, it is already over, and all they are left doing is staring at a time, and watching replays.

For us hardcore sprint fans it's different, we know who is running and who is doing what, we know what to look for during the race, and because we are prepared for what will happen, we can process what is going on faster than the casual fan, so the race seems a lot longer to us.

We have already started to invest in the drama well before the race even begins, so that it's like a distance race with a finishing kick. For us it's just as good, even better, because the drama leading up to that finishing kick can last a week, a month, or a season--but for the average person, not so invested, it is a fleeting, ephemeral image that disappears, leaving only the times on the board.

Without that drama, there is only a finishing kick, and times on the board. For sprinting to be popular, an effort must be made by the powers that be to develop the drama, and to bring it to the people, so that they are invested, and so the race can last a week, a month or a season. Ben/Carl is the perfect example of this.

By the same token, Bolt is also dramatic, when he comes out sucking wind, and then goes on to set records and win golds later in the season--but Bolt is a one-man show, which is always less interesting than having a cast of characters who personify the good and the bad. Forget about "inner demons" and "personal challenges", give us a white hat and a black hat, something that is easy to understand, some basis that is easy to build a drama around.

The upcoming race with Vicaut, Kiryu, Dasaolu, Collins, etc. promises to be interesting to sprint fans. None of these guys is currently playing a lead role in the 100m, but in this case the parallel plots are more interesting than the main plot at the moment.

Anyway, sprinting needs someone who cares, and who can make other people care, because otherwise it's lame. For me, Ato's not doing it, and the people who write stuff are way too conservative. Places that publish things aren't going to pick up that sort of sanitized pablum, because it's just not interesting. Why didn't the media pick up on, and exacerbate, the tensions between Knight and Jeter when Knight suggested that Jeter was using?

We need good and bad, without it there is essentially no plot, and without a plot, there is no story, and without a story, there is no race, and without a race, there are just times.

And with just times, the only thing fresh is a better time.

youarejokingright wrote:

TrackCoach wrote:

I guess it's all relative, but 9.7 isn't mind blowing when someone has run 9.58.

I don't really understand what your point is--sub 9.7 has happened only 5x in the history of the sport and all in the last 5 years. Yes, obviously 9.58 is the record. I don't understand how that relates to the fact that with all the drugs in the world breaking 10 was extremely rare less than 10 years ago. There aren't even 10 people to have ever broken 9.8 legally, even if you include Ben and Tim.

You sound like a f ucking moron.

re: "You sound like a f ucking moron"

I don't have a problem with disagreeing, but that was unnecessary. What did I say that caused you to go there?

As one inside the sport the sprints are interesting and I am not turned off by the drugs issue because I know what can be done clean. I know the talk of what is going on in certain camps.

SG you make a good point about the "track media" being too conservative. We need someone like Tim Layden stirring up the water where there is blood in it like you mentioned or how guys who were busted in the past are coaching such as Dennis Mitchell and his wife Damu Cherry, both of whom served doping bans. With proper heat from media we could run these guys out of the sport who continue to dirty the water. Gatlin ran for 2 years after his ban with 2 different coaches to mixed success but he goes to Mitchell and magically he is at post age 30 faster than he was when on drugs. Hmmm!

Now we all know track athletes are among the most tested in the world of sports and the NFL is full of drug induced thugs who go around murdering their friends and getting into bar fights where they nearly kill someone and thats just today's 2 NFL headlines. But this nation is a violent nation and we want our action. Track will never be that however I do offer up one way to improve things.

Have meets on a regular time and place. People know when the NFL is going to be on TV and they set their schedule around it. Track will never be the NFL but it can be much better presented. How many ads were there leading up to the meet last week that it was going to be on? Hardly any. TV deals need to include more lead up. Thats where USATF needs to form a professional commish to push athletes onto the various media platforms to make the public more aware. Last weekend was a dead weekend for sports on TV. I heard from friends who said they went to Buffalo Wild Wings on Sat and Sun and asked the meet be put on (bad enough they had to ask!) and guess what? They reported that all, not most, but ALL eyes in the bar were watching track over the soccer games and baseball games being shown. Maybe they watched because they couldn't hear the horrid announcers but thats another thread!

An idea that should be tried is something along the lines of the Fed Ex Cup in golf or the NASCAR championship series and that is the Diamond League has 2 parts and the first part qualifies you for the 2nd part. The 2nd part could begin with London and include Zurich, Monaco, Brussels and a couple other meets in which every athlete has to earn advancement into a final race like we do now but only the top qualifiers would participate.

Call each portion something special like the sponsor name World Series of Sprints, the sponsor name Distance Cup, or some such. Incorporating the parts of the old Golden League where athletes had to participate more is only way to grow the sport. I would also place a limit on or a ban on appearance money and actually allow the segments to pay uneven amounts of money as the organizers would feel is fair in lieu of no or limited appearance fees. Appearance fees are killing the sport like it hurt tennis and golf which have been eliminated on the tour. While appearance fees are bad there has to be some adjustment for the sport to pay some events more as few go to watch the women's discus compared to the 100 or 1500.

I personally know that athletes can run 9.8's legal. How much beyond that I don't know personally. Before I was in such a position I used to think only a rare 9.9 was legal but I have seen many legal 9.9's.

Yes, in Syberia

Inside--

You make many good points IMO. As I have stated, I believe that athletes can run 9.8's cleanly.

Your suggestions focus on the sort of media "macro-environment", which may in fact be the most important factor in all of this. Likely, it is, and that's where efforts should be concentrated.

But I think the micro-environment is important, too. Look at wrestling--it's just a show, but a big part of it is the stories that are written and acted, the characters that are created, and the relationships among them.

The best thing to happen in sprinting recently was Gatlin talking it up before beating Bolt--but even at that, it was a kinder, gentler kind of talk. I'm not saying that interpersonal animosity should form the basis of every single story that is told, but sprinting IS mano a mano, except in the relays--and even at that, each leg is isolated and compared.

There need to be good stories, ongoing stories, that the macro-environment could use to sustain an increased effort at publicity. You need sound bites for ads. Somebody needs to point to the outfield, or run their mouth, or to trash talk...SOMETHING.

What we have at the top in the US now is an unending, featureless sea of beige. At least Bolt has some panache. US guys don't even have a shtick. Blake has groped unsuccessfully to find one. I swear, Gay, Lemaitre, Patton, and Powell have to be four of the nicest guys ever.

What do people remember about sprinting? They remember Carl Lewis trash talking, Ben doing drugs, Greene shooting his mouth off, the US relay antics, Bolt showboating en route to 9.69, FloJo's single-leg tights, Devers' nails.

The most interesting things now are guys with attitude like KBC, the rivalry between Ash and Weir, and Bolt's dismissal of the Americans. All Jamaican. More swagger, more attitude, less fear of putting themselves out there.

That's part of why it's bigger and better in Jamaica. They follow this stuff VERY closely, who is doing what, who is dissing who, what the coaches are saying, everything--it's just that they're so small and so poor that it doesn't matter. We could learn from the Jamaicans how sprinting can be interesting.

Maybe Americans have a failure of imagination. IMHO Jamaicans, and Caribbeans in general, are much more superstitious than the average American, and much more likely to read the tea leaves, to read things into scenarios that reflect who they are personally, and that give them a personal interest in outcomes. Americans seem to need to be taken by the hand and led to a conclusion, which is where your macro-level efforts are particularly important.

In any case, for sprinting, and t&f in general, to be popular in the US, these types of efforts will need to be made, and they will rely in part on the non-athletic contributions of the athletes themselves. I'm not seeing anybody in the current crop who could help generate the required level of interest--certainly not Gay, even though he goes 9.75

A Duck wrote:

Plus, frankly, unless you know what you are watching, and how to watch it, most of track and field is not that exciting.

Baseball. Try and hit ball to free space and run around bases and score runs.

Track and Field...well their the 100meter fastest guy/gal WAIT WHAT'S A METER???

Are you seriously suggesting that the 100m dash is more difficult to understand than baseball? Americans can be funny sometimes.

one doped chasmpion succeeds another in mens sprinting

maybe there's been a few clean guys along the way

but generally the dopers are winning thats the way it always been

if they clean up one place like jamaica

some other smarter doper replaces them

He wouldn´t have in Seoul. But he would have ran low 9.7 or even 9.69 in 1991 Tokio WC's. Do you remember that fast track in which Carl Lewis ran 9.86 (WR) Burrell, Mitchell, Fredericks and Stewart ran amazing times? and that wast the last Carl´s fast race.

Ben surpassed Carl by 0.13 seconds in Seoul and by 0.10 in Rome the prior year.

So, assuming that Ben always taked PED's and did his cycles training like a beast...you could assume that in 1991 with the new fast surfaces he coulda run under that 9.75 Seoul shape (because like you said, he was in 9.75 shape)

Agreed--and here we keep talking about it: times. What could he have run in Seoul? What could he have run later, in Tokyo and elsewhere?

We argue that all could have been better than 9.79, and THIS is the Ben effect.

The 9.83 followed by the 9.79 was the catalyst, the raising of the hand was just icing on the cake.

Before Ben, was there anybody else whose PR we would look at and speculate about "what they could have gone", or "how much faster they would go next time"? Not really, not on that same scale, especially not where that PR was also a WR. Ben not only demolished the WR, he demolished his OWN PR's in so doing, and made reasonable questions that, for any other athlete, were unreasonable.

We now seem to ask those unreasonable questions about all the top sprinters, because the expectations are unreasonable. Some STILL ask if Powell will go 9.6x, if Gay will go under 9.69, or even if Bolt will go sub-9.58

Totally unreasonable.

And check it out--even at that, Gay just ran a mere .06 behind his PR, with less wind than in his PR, and presumably he's not in totally peak form yet.

The upcoming races in Ostrava and Birmingham will be interesting, where none of the seasoned runners are expected to PR into the 9.7x range, and where it is still totally reasonable to expect that young and developing guys like Vicaut and especially Kiryu might improve on their earlier PR's.