kim collins personal best 9,96 at age 38

Barc I actually do know for a fact about the weight training. He is actually very famous for not lifting weights in the sprint world. I am in contact with him as I am in contact with him and other sprinters/coaches for a book I am currently writing. As for your non - commitment via the difference in training does concern me in respect to the validity to your opinion. I have coached the Army All American combine in the bench for rb/lb. On the opposite direction I coached the former high school record holder in the 5k. I mention this as I don't think many of you understand what can actually be accomplished as a track athlete. Most sprinters retire due major injury or lack of motivation. All of this can be a major reason for retirement and thus athletes not hitting these times. As for his lack of testing he runs one of the heaviest sprint schedules. This means lots of testing. Plus he ran indoors. His change to weight training has to do with his wife and her background in fitness.

Ryry - according to the scenario you present, Collins went his entire career without lifting, then started to fade in his 30s after what was already a long career for a sprinter. Then he started lifting weights, and was able to get back to his prime, and even better than ever. So, like, does he regret not lifting earlier now? In that scenario, it seems like a colossal mistake on his part, because it must be gaining him full tenths of a second over what he would otherwise be running now.

As I keep saying, I don't find it totally implausible, but I just am a little skeptical that somebody after 15 or more years as a pro athlete suddenly discovers the virtues of hard work. Collins' career trajectory reminds me a little bit of a different type of athlete - Roger Clemens. I pasted Clemens' career won-loss record below. It's like, he has a normal, really good career, starts to go into inevitable decline after a decade or so (he had an unremarkable 40-39 record from 1993 to 1996), then at age 33 or so, has a remarkable revival and pitches great for almost another decade.

How did Clemens explain his revival? this is from

http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080107/SPORTS06/812105550/-1/SPORTS12

:

“Grueling workouts,” we were told, a canard that Clemens repeated last night to explain his remarkable turnaround, as if all that kept Sandy Koufax from 25 years of dominance were a few more pushups.

1984 9 4

1985 7 5

1986 24 4

1986 1 1

1987 20 9

1988 18 12

1988 0 0

1989 17 11

1990 21 6

1990 0 1

1991 18 10

1992 18 11

1993 11 14

1994 9 7

1995 10 5

1995 0 0

1996 10 13

1997 21 7

1998 20 6

1999 14 10

1999 2 1

2000 13 8

2000 2 2

2001 20 3

2001 1 1

2002 13 6

2002 0 0

2003 17 9

2003 2 0

2004 18 4

2004 2 1

2005 13 8

2008-2011: 10.05, 10.15, 10.20, 10.00

Sorry, you're just looney. Bye.

After Gay's positive, it's hard for me to trust anyone, but I love this quote from 2004:

"Collins is an irresistible throwback to a more innocent age of sprinting. He avoids pumping iron - "it's too boring" - and if he wakes up feeling tired or simply lazy, he'll skip training. A little light partying, with the odd drink and plenty of dancing, often seems a much more sensible way of spending a day in St Kitts. "

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2004/jul/26/athensolympics2004.olympicgames

I certainly could ask him about that and see if he responds. It would certainly be an interesting conversation. Now that being said he did always work hard he just excluded weights from his program until recently. We actually gave him some trouble when he put a picture on his Facebook lifting weights. Rodger Clemens did benefit from his fitness program. Sadly we will never know how much of it was the drugs and how much of it was the training. Kim Collins is arguably the most consistent sprinter of all time.

Could the +2.0 wind have anything to do with it?

yyy wrote:

Drugs is a possibility. But we are not talking about a breakthrough at 38. He is now at the same level he was in his mid to late 20s. This is less suspicious than a generation ago due to the fact that people in general

age at slower rate.

Is this for real or do you actually believe that people are aging slower now?

Fanboys will come up with any

excuses for obvious doping .......

His strength is his stride frequency

and in this race was better than ever.

WHAT could be enhancing is nervous system

but being at peak peeak IGF-1 LR3 cycle.

ask BOLT , ASK a 17 year bolt ......

then went crazy with steroids and upped strength, power

and had that missing 2-3 metres at start of race

there is only a handful of athletes that if gave them

the same regime of steroids and strength increase

would be running close.

LEMAITRE is definite one.

Guadalajara is at 1500m, meaning for 2011, it should read 10.00A. Lausanne is also above sea level (600m), the track is very fast, and he had the maximum +2.0. Collins has been well-known for many years for doing absolutely minimal training, at least he said so in interviews.

Track Blazer wrote:

A little note I have not seen mentioned in this thread but all the marks in this race had reaction times under .10 except Collins who was .03 above but the rest were about .05 faster than they normally would be at BEST so if you add .05 to all to accept there was some gun malfunction in the race then his time while still impressive is not the sub 10 WOW that has everyone so excited. These times will not be accepted on the world list because of the reaction time error as 3 of the 4 finishers should have by rule been DQ'd on a false start

Well, apparently "Track Blazer"'s understanding of the rules is inadequate, as Collins' time now appears on the IAAF rankings list.

How about it, Blazer?