Whatever Happened to Junxia Wang?

Her legs separated from her body at the all drug olympics.

if you knew anything about track in china then you would know that the national champs are the most important meet only to the olympics. local govt's take a lot of pride and want to do well since it effects their sports funding. so people are usually pushed to the max for good results. in that kind of pressure cauldron you're going to get good results, especially with one as big as china. with 14:30 5000m's becoming more common these days, it really isn't that out of control that this scenario bred some fast times. go stick your anti-asian sentiments on a hate-board somwhere old-tymer.

Um NOTHING in those articles said they dope. Only one says they were under suspicion thats all. Last time i checked suspision doesnt mean shit only facts and fact is they were never tested positive for PEDs so they were never on them. period.

Wang, Geb, High Sham, Bekele --- dope. But they only bounced the Asian girl. For now....

J. R. wrote:

Are you saying 1 million people were at the track meet run by Radcliff? What stadium was this in?

It's called the London Marathon.

cock ring wrote:

if you knew anything about track in china then you would know that the national champs are the most important meet only to the olympics. local govt's take a lot of pride and want to do well since it effects their sports funding. so people are usually pushed to the max for good results. in that kind of pressure cauldron you're going to get good results, especially with one as big as china. with 14:30 5000m's becoming more common these days, it really isn't that out of control that this scenario bred some fast times. go stick your anti-asian sentiments on a hate-board somwhere old-tymer.

"Anti-Asian sentiments"? Bullshit. I'm anti-fantasy, that's all. I'd say the same thing if Afghanis, Bolivians, Cubans, Danes, or any other group had done the same thing. In truth, the '97 performances are not that whacked out--14:28 for the 5000 was pretty much within the range of the expected. But the '93 races were truly off the charts--and not rationally explainable. Thirteen years after the fact, please tell me how many women today are running 8:06 for the 3000....or even 8:10.....or even 8:15.....or even 8:20...? How many today are running the equivalent of 8:06 at any other distance? I await your thoughtful response.

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.

____________________________________________________________

Your link says that these marks are from the National Games but the marks from the '93 championships aren't the ones listed. According to your link the winning time for the women's 1500 in '93 was 4:28.5, the 3000 was 8:27.68, and the 10,000 was 31:08. The times run in '93 were actually 3:50.46, 8:06.11, and 29.31.78.

According to your link the men's winner for the 1500 was 3:46.29, Steeple was 8:57.28, 5000 was 13:51, and the 10,000 was 29:40. In reality the times were 3:48.68 for the 1500 (tactical race), 8:24.97 for the steeple (a NR), 13:32.46 for the 5000, and 28:40.81 for the 10,000. Also the actual steeple and 5000 times are the fastest ever run at the national championships by fairly large margins. The 10,000 time is the 2nd fastest with the fastest only 1.5 seconds faster, they are the only 2 sub 29's ever at the national games.

The men also ran NR's at 400m and the 400 H while the women had national records at 400m, 800m, and the 400 H. With the exception of the men's 800 and 1500, every winning time from that meet is an outlier.

i dont see the point in responding to a racist but here goes. i made my point. 14:28 under those circumstances is not out of control. i am guessing by your silence on this issue that you agree with me. thanks for your support. racist.

Along. I'm agreeing with you you old fart. Take some time to read the post sand who they are replying to. Man, must be tough to be an angry old codger. When I refer to JR as a dolt it means I disagree with him. You're old. And your urine smells funny.

cock ring wrote:

i dont see the point in responding to a racist but here goes. i made my point. 14:28 under those circumstances is not out of control. i am guessing by your silence on this issue that you agree with me. thanks for your support. racist.

We agree on the 14:28. If you take the time to read my post above, I'm questioning (to put it mildly) the slew of '93 performances, most particularly the 8:06. And you can cool it with the racist nonsense. Race has nothing to do with this.

i think it has a lot to do with it. funny, how you are not denying your antipathy of the Chinese. I put forth several reasons why they had the performances they did. If you check the iaaf tables, the 8:06 isn't that far from the other times.

No, you haven't looked at the link properly. Scroll down, the *Chinese* champs are given first, this is where you have taken the times from, further down the *National* champs are listed, this is where the remarkable times can be seen.

cock ring wrote:

i think it has a lot to do with it. funny, how you are not denying your antipathy of the Chinese. I put forth several reasons why they had the performances they did. If you check the iaaf tables, the 8:06 isn't that far from the other times.

You are twisted. OK: I'm stating it: I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST THE CHINESE. THEY ARE WONDERFUL AND TALENTED PEOPLE.

And, further, I DO NOT BELIEVE FOR A MINUTE their 1993 performances.

Does that make you happy? Once again, race has nothing to do with this. If it was a group of Romanian women, or Ethiopian women, or Canadian women, etc., I'd be saying exactly the SAME THING!!!!!!!!!!! Can you grasp that?

How can you say that 8:06 is not that far off from "other times"? I repeat my simple question above. Thirteen years after the fact, how many women today are running 8:06, or 8:10, or 8:15, or 8:20?

Race is the default line when someone realizes that somebody cheated. Calling you a racist is tantamount to cock ring admitting that they all cheated. Consider his taunts of racism as a concession of defeat. Besides anyone who REALLY believes that the Chinese were not doped to the gills is an ass. Or trying to be funny.

Chinese Army wrote:

Race is the default line when someone realizes that somebody cheated. Calling you a racist is tantamount to cock ring admitting that they all cheated. Consider his taunts of racism as a concession of defeat. Besides anyone who REALLY believes that the Chinese were not doped to the gills is an ass. Or trying to be funny.

Quite correct. Calling someone a "racist" on a matter like this is simply a way to sidestep the real issue and to throw your "opponent" on the defensive. Presumably, if I'm a "racist" then anything I say about anything is automatically tainted. This tactic is genuinely insulting.

Back to 1993: I was stunned by those times then, and remain stunned now. I'm honestly not sure if "drugs" is the answer however. No drug yet known could produce that sort of massive improvement both in times and in depth of performances. And, if it was drugs, then why didn't runners in other camps adopt them later? For that matter, why didn't Chinese men benefit from them? Why only Ma's women? It's all very weird.

As far as I can see, the "logical" possibilities are:

1. short track

2. drugs

3. faulty timing

4. surgically altered men pretending to be women

5. ?

But, as others have commented, none of these "answers" is all that logical or obvious...

3 and 4 above are pretty absurd. And I suspect the IAAF would not ratify the record without measuring the track. 8:06 is a lot more suspect to me than 29:31. Women in general seem to be much closer to men in endurance capability. Having run quite close to the women's WR's in the 5 and 10, and not anywhere near 8:06 makes it hard for me to buy. Knowing that the Ethipioan women can kick 57.x 400's at the end of honestly paced 5k's and 10k's and still not run near 8:06 hurts Wang's case in my mind too. I don't want to villify her at all; I'm sure if she took drugs she didn't really have much choice.

B. Real wrote:

3 and 4 above are pretty absurd. And I suspect the IAAF would not ratify the record without measuring the track. 8:06 is a lot more suspect to me than 29:31. Women in general seem to be much closer to men in endurance capability. Having run quite close to the women's WR's in the 5 and 10, and not anywhere near 8:06 makes it hard for me to buy. Knowing that the Ethipioan women can kick 57.x 400's at the end of honestly paced 5k's and 10k's and still not run near 8:06 hurts Wang's case in my mind too. I don't want to villify her at all; I'm sure if she took drugs she didn't really have much choice.

I'm with you. I've run a second a lap quicker than women's 5k WR, reckon I could have got close to the 10k in the right race, but still wouldn't get near the 3k.

I think we will see women run sub 30 10ks, even champ races these days are often sub 30:30, they just need the right set up and it will happen. 8:06? No chance.

Radcliffe's 2:15 is every bit off the chart as Wang's 29:31 but, of course, nobody cares because she once said she'd supposedly freeze her blood.

Oh, and she's a blonde hair, blue eye, white girl.

listen racist. go back and read my original post. and then go and check the iaaf tables. surprise, surprise, you learn something everyday now. A long, long time ago a man ran 2:06, and it took another ten years before that kind of time was approached. Every now and then you are going to get a superb performance that is an outlier. that is how WR's work. check out Komen's 7:20 for example. I have listed very good reasons why the Chinese performed like they did in 1993, my argument still stands. And to the other poster, no I am not calling him racist because I am "losing an argument" or "have no other thing to think about" it's because he is.