no way nope wrote:
are you trying to say wayde van niekerk is doping?
I think that's what you are implying....
That Wayde van Niekerk is doping is a given, one does not run a 43-flat 400 on Wheaties and milk.
Then again, the record he broke was set by one of the most notorious & successful dopers in modern athletics...
sbeefyk1 wrote:
I remember seeing his face after he saw the time. It was as if he was thinking "oops, I ran too fast and now I will get caught." That says it all.
Dumbest post of the year.
In what sense is the record a joke? That it would take drugs to run that fast from lane 8? It does make sense that the first guy to run sub 10, sub 20, and sub 44 would be the one to become the 400m world record holder.
Bad Wigins wrote:
malmo wrote:This is correct. If the seeding convention put the fastest teams in lanes 1, 2 and 8, you'd find that the fastest lanes would be 1, 2 and 8.
Red herring. Zlatan is pointing out that athletes prefer 4-6 because it confers an advantage, not merely that they perform better there.
If lane 8 really make a record more likely, then athletes capable of records would want to choose it. They don't.
I choose to run my 800's in lane 8. If I draw lanes 1 to 7, I cut outward after 100m. The turning radius is more gentle and it always seems like you get lots of fans yelling and screaming at/for you this way. Very inspiring. I usually finish last.
Which lane is the fastest depends on how much shorter and/or weaker your left leg is than your right. If your right leg is shorter/weaker than your left, you'll always be worse the further in you are, so lane 8 will be your best bet.
.[/quote]
Not a red herring at all. The reason why athletes "prefer" lanes 4-6 is because that's the way it always has been. It also makes sense that they would want to be close to their best competition I can guarantee you is the seeding convention put the fastest runner in lane 8 and all the other runners get to chose their lane, the other runners would want 7, 6, 5, 4 in that order.
Nowhere do I say that lane 8 is preferable over any other lane.[/quote]
400 is a pain / speed management event. We all would love to have more in the last 100 than we ever did have. So we like to manage each segment.
Middle lane draws are preferred, as they are not too tight, and you get to manage your speed via runners on either side. You can work on the outside guys and feel the inside guys.
You lose that in 8, but its no real disadvantage if you're mentally strong.
As an aside, while straight 200s have been incredibly fast, (T Smith) I don't know that straight 400s would be as fast as the current WR.
main point is what dope was needed ,whats changed ....
you know the peptide for speed ................................
where would this current south african track be without it
that national sports institute is doing great work !!!!!!!
but that last 100m is where real doping was done
previously all high hematocrit and epo or micera for wariner
why michael johnson his manager had such confidence in him at time
before summer 2008 when all chosen athletes got notifed to come off
like bekele and only ramsi was sacrificed but could keep world title as deal
and why had confidence never get close to his 400m record
as never see hct that high again but didnt factor in ever new peds
that gauranteed being able to hold speed over last 100m
where all sub ~43.70 have come form.
previously and now still keeps hct up at allowable threshold with epo
but not the difference
same ped combination that breaking current womens distance records
and 100mh and this 400m
that nervous sys. endurance that cant just call speed endurance
mildronate alpha
Michael Johnson won the 1992 Olympic Trials in lane 8. I remember he kept shouting "Out in lane 8!". But then he got sick from food poisoning in the Olympics. He would have to wait for 1996 to get his gold and WR.
1 2 3 green wrote:
Something I haven't seen brought up much is that he spent several months prior to the Olympics in Jamaica training with Bolt's coach. I believe Bolt's group to be dirty, so it's a red flag for me.
The usual red flag for me is when someone beats all the dopers and all the doped times.
Of course they are all dirty. We will all look back and say what were we thinking that bolt could run so fast! You heard it here first: Both of Michael Johnsons records will be reinstated. Wayde van Niekerk made that big leap after he went down to train with Bolt. I know this is not a drug thread. But the 400m was not a joke by any stretch.
"legendary American sprinter Carl Lewis, who himself tested positive in 1988, was quoted by the Sunday Times as saying “When people ask me about Bolt, I say he could be the greatest athlete of all time. But for someone to run 10.03 one year and 9.69 the next, if you don’t question that in a sport that has the reputation it has right now, you’re a fool. Period.†Lewis is referring to the amazing leap forward in performance that Bolt made in 2007."
History lessonz wrote:
Of course they are all dirty. We will all look back and say what were we thinking that bolt could run so fast! You heard it here first: Both of Michael Johnsons records will be reinstated. Wayde van Niekerk made that big leap after he went down to train with Bolt. I know this is not a drug thread. But the 400m was not a joke by any stretch.
"legendary American sprinter Carl Lewis, who himself tested positive in 1988, was quoted by the Sunday Times as saying “When people ask me about Bolt, I say he could be the greatest athlete of all time. But for someone to run 10.03 one year and 9.69 the next, if you don’t question that in a sport that has the reputation it has right now, you’re a fool. Period.†Lewis is referring to the amazing leap forward in performance that Bolt made in 2007."
Not trying to start an argument, but I reckon Lewis is dirty, a complete cover up. The LJ used be dripping with 8.60 jumps now 8.30 is futuristic, it's like the 5K, before stricter testing, sub 12:50s were more common, now one or two sub 13s a year is all we can hope for. Discus is the same.
Not trying to defend Bolt (the impossible) but he was running 19.7/8 for 200m when his pb was 10.03 which says that he had starting problems. But was capable of running 9.8-high. Still he did make a large, suspicious jump in 2008.
MJ can't possibly be as clean as what he maintains. And the Atlanta track was illegal.
WvN "went down to train with Bolt" wouldn't that be north to train with Bolt. But yeah, probably a drug camp. WvN still looks less doped than MJ sadly.
lol lol lol lol wrote:
no way nope wrote:are you trying to say wayde van niekerk is doping?
I think that's what you are implying....
That Wayde van Niekerk is doping is a given, one does not run a 43-flat 400 on Wheaties and milk.
Then again, the record he broke was set by one of the most notorious & successful dopers in modern athletics...
Here's my take.
1. Van Niekerk is technically way superior to Johnson.
2. WVN has more natural talent than Johnson.
3. Johnson was taking. He was a good but not great HSer, broke his leg and came back much, much better (and bigger).
4. Johnson was from a more notorious drug era.
5. WVN is clean. A clean runner can beat a dirty one if they are technically and/or genetically sufficiently superior, and I think WVN is. Also, and here is the big one, WVN is deeply, deeply religious. If you knew much about the guy, it's very hard to believe he is taking.
Karma Police wrote:
1. Van Niekerk is technically way superior to Johnson.
2. WVN has more natural talent than Johnson.
3. Johnson was taking. He was a good but not great HSer, broke his leg and came back much, much better (and bigger).
4. Johnson was from a more notorious drug era.
5. WVN is clean. A clean runner can beat a dirty one if they are technically and/or genetically sufficiently superior, and I think WVN is. Also, and here is the big one, WVN is deeply, deeply religious. If you knew much about the guy, it's very hard to believe he is taking.
1 + 2: Maybe.
3 + 4: Obviously.
5: Don't forget that WVN beat all the other talented dopers as well.
As for the religion: good joke. So I suppose your whole point 5 was ironic.
Mope Dealer wrote:
History lessonz wrote:Of course they are all dirty. We will all look back and say what were we thinking that bolt could run so fast! You heard it here first: Both of Michael Johnsons records will be reinstated. Wayde van Niekerk made that big leap after he went down to train with Bolt. I know this is not a drug thread. But the 400m was not a joke by any stretch.
"legendary American sprinter Carl Lewis, who himself tested positive in 1988, was quoted by the Sunday Times as saying “When people ask me about Bolt, I say he could be the greatest athlete of all time. But for someone to run 10.03 one year and 9.69 the next, if you don’t question that in a sport that has the reputation it has right now, you’re a fool. Period.†Lewis is referring to the amazing leap forward in performance that Bolt made in 2007."
Not trying to start an argument, but I reckon Lewis is dirty, a complete cover up. The LJ used be dripping with 8.60 jumps now 8.30 is futuristic, it's like the 5K, before stricter testing, sub 12:50s were more common, now one or two sub 13s a year is all we can hope for. Discus is the same.
Not trying to defend Bolt (the impossible) but he was running 19.7/8 for 200m when his pb was 10.03 which says that he had starting problems. But was capable of running 9.8-high. Still he did make a large, suspicious jump in 2008.
MJ can't possibly be as clean as what he maintains. And the Atlanta track was illegal.
WvN "went down to train with Bolt" wouldn't that be north to train with Bolt. But yeah, probably a drug camp. WvN still looks less doped than MJ sadly.
If Lewis doped then he is even more likely to know what it takes to run those times Bolt did. Youve got dopers running 9.8 so if clean they would be around 10.0 that makes Bolts 9.58 even more likely
A tall man would never have the strength to sprint like Bolt does without massively imporving strength. There was barely any testing in Jamaica back when Bolt set his records. Sine then he has slowed down and barely competes due to injury which someohow just clears up enough come championship time to somehow the beat rest of the worlds best half of home have a doping record anyway. Same trick Isenbeyeva did for latter years of here career.
Notice this new 400m WR guy has finished his season early as well!
ukathleticscoach wrote:
Mope Dealer wrote:Not trying to start an argument, but I reckon Lewis is dirty, a complete cover up. The LJ used be dripping with 8.60 jumps now 8.30 is futuristic, it's like the 5K, before stricter testing, sub 12:50s were more common, now one or two sub 13s a year is all we can hope for. Discus is the same.
Not trying to defend Bolt (the impossible) but he was running 19.7/8 for 200m when his pb was 10.03 which says that he had starting problems. But was capable of running 9.8-high. Still he did make a large, suspicious jump in 2008.
MJ can't possibly be as clean as what he maintains. And the Atlanta track was illegal.
WvN "went down to train with Bolt" wouldn't that be north to train with Bolt. But yeah, probably a drug camp. WvN still looks less doped than MJ sadly.
If Lewis doped then he is even more likely to know what it takes to run those times Bolt did. Youve got dopers running 9.8 so if clean they would be around 10.0 that makes Bolts 9.58 even more likely
A tall man would never have the strength to sprint like Bolt does without massively imporving strength. There was barely any testing in Jamaica back when Bolt set his records. Sine then he has slowed down and barely competes due to injury which someohow just clears up enough come championship time to somehow the beat rest of the worlds best half of home have a doping record anyway. Same trick Isenbeyeva did for latter years of here career.
Notice this new 400m WR guy has finished his season early as well!
The new 400 guy has a hamsring niggle. It was strapped for the WR.
lol lol lol lol wrote:
That Wayde van Niekerk is doping is a given, one does not run a 43-flat 400 on Wheaties and milk.
You're not in a position to know.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
A tall man would never have the strength to sprint like Bolt does without massively imporving strength.
Seems like a given.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
There was barely any testing in Jamaica back when Bolt set his records.
This always amazes me. That you think international testing community just sits on the sidelines and says, "it's too bad the world's number one athlete is in Jamaica. It's not like we could just fly there and test him." You can look at the IAAF's 2008 out of competition stats here:
https://www.iaaf.org/download/download?filename=e42dfc3c-8d79-4886-8e33-ab2fe188cd08.xls&urlSlug=2008-doping-control-programme-list-of-testeukathleticscoach wrote:
Sine then he has slowed down[ and barely competes due to injury
Not as fast and more injury prone as an older athlete? Never heard of it.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
Same trick Isenbeyeva did for latter years of here career.
She set her last world record in 2009 after no heighting at the world championships. She didn't compete at all outdoors in 2010 and then was sixth in Daegu and third in London, before getting the homecrowd boost in 2013 and then has been nowhere since, except for a 4.90m in Russia.
Bolt's selective, because he can afford to be, and has an image to protect, but he shows up for the major championships every time.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
Notice this new 400m WR guy has finished his season early as well!
Why go to Zurich to get beaten? He wasn't up for the Diamond League title, which is why some Olympic Champions, like Clement went to secure their entry for London next year. There's no way he's going to top winning the Olympics in WR time so call it a day and go home, especially considering that he's only been competing since March in South Africa.
Jeff Wigand wrote:
ukathleticscoach wrote:Notice this new 400m WR guy has finished his season early as well!
Why go to Zurich to get beaten? He wasn't up for the Diamond League title, which is why some Olympic Champions, like Clement went to secure their entry for London next year. There's no way he's going to top winning the Olympics in WR time so call it a day and go home, especially considering that he's only been competing since March in South Africa.
He's in WR shape. Maybe it doesn't technically "top" an Olympic WR, but he could lower his WR and maybe go sub 43. Several double WR seasons, Bolt, Kipketer, Rudisha off the top of my head.
Jeff Wigand wrote:
ukathleticscoach wrote:A tall man would never have the strength to sprint like Bolt does without massively imporving strength.
Seems like a given.
How is that a given? You guys are just making things up. Exactly how much more strength is required?