Blessing Okabare 10.62!!!!!!! (+2.7)

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Think about all these insane times, and WHERE they were produced:

SAFP-hick meet in Jamaica

ET-hick meet in Jamaica

SCR-hick meet in Florida

BO-hick meet in Nigeria

CS-NCAA's

Not one of them has yet delivered an insane 2021 time on a big stage, at a major, where the setup is (hopefully) both accurate and reliable. The closest was CS who performed at the big NCAA meet, but hers was "only" a 10.86 basic.

It will be great to see CS and SCR at trials, hopefully conditions will be perfect and they can back up their times. As for the others, I won't believe it until I see confirmation in a well-run international meet--which at this point will probably be the Olympics.

Not getting into the doping debate, it is surprising how many fast 100m times have come from non-IOC, DL or IAAF sanction events. Kingston and even Clermont, FL head this list. It's interesting that many of the meets in both of these locations have limited and at times no drug testing. With that said, the meets at both of these location have had great competition.

Just ignore him.

He not only wrongly believes himself to be intelligent, but even worse...

...he believes himself to be clever.

And this coming from a guy who believes they’re all juiced.

Armstronglivs is an idiot. You will get nowhere arguing with an idiot.

***********

Yes those others were far behind her, but you assume linearity of timing, and also of potential errors.

I do agree that it is possible to bust one out at home, kind of like a great training session, especially if there is no outside pressure. But think about what that means: 10.7 BASIC. Wrap your mind around that. This is like Blake 9.69 BASIC.

If BO goes 10.7 BASIC, then SAFP and especially SCR, and even ETH, go 10.6 basic, which means 10.5 with a good legal wind.

Think about that in historical context. Insane!

burnin' down the house wrote:

You're the single stupidest poster on this board. You know nothing of what you yap about.

+1

That's you, Armstrongidiot.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Let's see, you started by saying no one PRd at 32 unless doped.

The you moved goal posts saying that it was running close to the world record.

Then you moved goal posts again, saying that it was sprinters.

Stop derailing every thread with doping accusations.

And we know that African athletes don't dope, dont we?

The thread is about a sprinter and my comments were only about sprinters until you introduced the irrelevant Nick Willis goal post. But you do irrelevance well.

You also seemed to have missed that the last hundred or so threads on Letsrun have been about a doper. So many "derailed" threads.[/quote]

You said an athlete doesn't PR at 32. Period. Not a sprinter. I showed you an example but I know it hit too close to hime.

Everyone on the thread knows you are stupid and ignorant.

Irrelevance is your middle name.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Yeah--even if he might be right on some things, on this he knows NOTHING. It calls into question everything else he has said, because it proves him to capable of complete bullcrap. And he makes the further mistake of doubling down on it. What a moran.

And you know for a fact that an aging sprinter who has made the biggest improvement on her best time in 8 years and is now only second fastest to Flojo can't be doping. What were you saying about bullcr*p?[/quote]

Were you ever a sprinter?

Have you coached sprinters from a young age to masters ranks?

You haven't. You are ignorant and a nuisance.

And you are totally dishonest because you are ignoring the wind and the possibility that the reading might even be incorrect.

I doubt any female sprinters on the top level are clean.

burnin' down the house wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Since you believe that sprinters can continue to improve indefinitely, and certainly into their mid-thirties, perhaps you can identify the world record holders in the 100/200, men and women (you can forget the E Bloc), who set those records in their thirties?

Perhaps you just don't have a clue about how far training and rest/recovery protocols have come, since then? And by rest, I don't mean taking time completely off.

I can say with all certainty that high-level training is better today than ever before. The understanding by high-level practitioners, is better than ever.

He laughed at someone (and obviously insulted their intelligence with his childish insults) on another thread who was talking about progress in middle/long-distance times due in part to modern training.

He doesn't believe that there is any difference in training since the late 1970s (when his country stopped being relevant in world athletics).

But he never coached and was never even a runner, let alone an athlete.

I'm not saying that shes not doping, but your definitely wrong about not being able to get faster after 32, I'd agree with 38, but any positive change in your training will cause you to get faster, this could be getting improving strength or power, doping, changing your mechanics, getting injured less, or somthing else.

I have a question is she doping now, but not when she ran 10.72 with the same amount of wind, and if she already was or was not doping is it impossible to shave off just .1 secs in 3 years by simply doing something else in training ?

im pretty sure they were already roided when they both ran 10.7's in their 20's.If thats the case,theyre not gonna run low 10.62 in their 30s,unless its a faulty wind reading.

aethsn wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Let's see, you started by saying no one PRd at 32 unless doped.

The you moved goal posts saying that it was running close to the world record.

Then you moved goal posts again, saying that it was sprinters.

Stop derailing every thread with doping accusations.

And we know that African athletes don't dope, dont we?

The thread is about a sprinter and my comments were only about sprinters until you introduced the irrelevant Nick Willis goal post. But you do irrelevance well.

You also seemed to have missed that the last hundred or so threads on Letsrun have been about a doper. So many "derailed" threads.

You said an athlete doesn't PR at 32. Period. Not a sprinter. I showed you an example but I know it hit too close to hime.

Everyone on the thread knows you are stupid and ignorant.

Irrelevance is your middle name.[/quote]

Life must be very difficult for you. We are on a sprinting thread when I said no one pr's at 32. So we are talking about sprinters. Context. But it clearly requires more cerebral context than you possess to understand that. But to clarify - no clean sprinter at the professional level who has competed throughout their twenties will pr in their 30's. As I asked previously in the thread - what world record-holder in the 100/200, male or female (but not E Bloc), broke the record in their 30's?

jeff tallon wrote:

im pretty sure they were already roided when they both ran 10.7's in their 20's.If thats the case,theyre not gonna run low 10.62 in their 30s,unless its a faulty wind reading.

But still 'roided.

aethsn wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Yeah--even if he might be right on some things, on this he knows NOTHING. It calls into question everything else he has said, because it proves him to capable of complete bullcrap. And he makes the further mistake of doubling down on it. What a moran.

And you know for a fact that an aging sprinter who has made the biggest improvement on her best time in 8 years and is now only second fastest to Flojo can't be doping. What were you saying about bullcr*p?

Were you ever a sprinter?

Have you coached sprinters from a young age to masters ranks?

You haven't. You are ignorant and a nuisance.

And you are totally dishonest because you are ignoring the wind and the possibility that the reading might even be incorrect.[/quote]

So you know for a fact she isn't doping? If you don't, then you are simply asserting wishful thinking as fact.

Further, there is no evidence the wind reading was wrong. What you think is "possible" has no basis in the known facts. Like most of your arguments.

Othersfinishers wrote:

Generally, to see if the winning time is dubious or not, you have to look at the other finishers...

The 2nd was behind in 11"07 and the 3rd in 11"11.

That's huge gap , which makes her run credible.

Remember, what made 10"49 dubious is also the fact that a bunch of other girls went 10"8 in that race despite being 11, 11"1 sprinters.

The 2nd, here, has an SB of 11"26 (+1.3) from May =>in that race :11"07 (+2.7)

The 3rd has a SB of 11"09 (+1.7) from March => : 11"11(+2.7).

These are not incredible improvements.

The wind is not the only factor. The huge gap makes the argument more credible that her performance was doped while her competitors weren't.

aethsn wrote:

burnin' down the house wrote:

Perhaps you just don't have a clue about how far training and rest/recovery protocols have come, since then? And by rest, I don't mean taking time completely off.

I can say with all certainty that high-level training is better today than ever before. The understanding by high-level practitioners, is better than ever.

He laughed at someone (and obviously insulted their intelligence with his childish insults) on another thread who was talking about progress in middle/long-distance times due in part to modern training.

He doesn't believe that there is any difference in training since the late 1970s (when his country stopped being relevant in world athletics).

But he never coached and was never even a runner, let alone an athlete.

Unless you were an Olympic athlete you're just another noise on a social media thread.

Neither you nor your dim pals here can get around the fact that there has never been a clean sprint world record-holder in their 30's. The absolute peak for the very best sprinters is their 20's. Only club hackers - and dopers - get faster in their 30's.

Since you believe that sprinters can continue to improve indefinitely, and certainly into their mid-thirties, perhaps you can identify the world record holders in the 100/200, men and women (you can forget the E Bloc), who set those records in their thirties?[/quote]

Perhaps you just don't have a clue about how far training and rest/recovery protocols have come, since then? And by rest, I don't mean taking time completely off.

I can say with all certainty that high-level training is better today than ever before. The understanding by high-level practitioners, is better than ever.[/quote]

So your answer to my question is there are none.

aethsn wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Yeah--even if he might be right on some things, on this he knows NOTHING. It calls into question everything else he has said, because it proves him to capable of complete bullcrap. And he makes the further mistake of doubling down on it. What a moran.

And you know for a fact that an aging sprinter who has made the biggest improvement on her best time in 8 years and is now only second fastest to Flojo can't be doping. What were you saying about bullcr*p?

Were you ever a sprinter?

Have you coached sprinters from a young age to masters ranks?

You haven't. You are ignorant and a nuisance.

And you are totally dishonest because you are ignoring the wind and the possibility that the reading might even be incorrect.[/quote]

This Armstronglivs poster is a classic piece of crap moran, who accuses people of doing exactly that which he does himself.

But does he ever take a look in the mirror? Hell no. Either he understands exactly what he’s doing and is just an argumentative a-hole, or he’s an oblivious self-absorbed moran. I choose the latter, as he hasn’t proven himself smart enough to be the former.

In any case, he is best ignored because no matter what you say to that kind of person, you will be met with the same type of merely vexatious hypocrisy that does nothing to advance a discussion. After all, that is not his aim.

Do not fall into his trap. Do not respond to his posts. Freeze him out. He is a dead end, and a total waste of time. Even if you agree that all these sprinters are doped and you are adamantly against doping, understand that he actually does your cause a grave disservice by bringing it into disrepute, by posing as someone who is after fairness and justice—when in reality he is simply a petulant and judgmental child.

He is not on your side, he is on his own side. Alone.

"If BO goes 10.7 BASIC, then SAFP and especially SCR, and even ETH, go 10.6 basic, which means 10.5 with a good legal wind."

"Think about that in historical context. Insane!"[/quote]

Yes, it is. You've gotten one half of the equation but the second part is beyond you.

Armstronglivs, I don't know if they were doped or not, but here can find some athletes who ran their PB in 100m after the 30 year of age :

Gatlin 9.74 (2015) age 33

Carl Lewis 9.86 (1991) 30y

Christie 9.87 (1993) 33

Patton 9.89 (2008) 31

Isaiah Young 9.89 (2021) 31

Patrick Johnson (AUS) 9.93 (2003) 31

Kim Collins 9.93 (2016) 40

In the past, the 3rd component of the US relay in Olympics was Mel Pender, 37 years old...

So, we can have a lot of examples. Again, you don't look at what there is BEHIND any performance, for example regarding the individual life and problems of everybody.

Athletes are persons, not machines with a well defined duration.