The Strange Case of Allan Wells

10.13 rubbish from Leonard in 80? 10.13 ? You seem clueless on the sprints.

If Americans had been there...as I already said, no Sanford at Moscow due to injury, so who cares? Latany, Lewis and Glance all slower than Wells in 80, lista rankings tell us that much...only one boycotter would've had a chance and that's the roider Floyd, but I'm not convinced he would've taken the pressure of the Olympics. After all Floyd ran his best in 80 stateside, and Wells was the first man to beat him all season, that and the fact Wells 10.11 would've rocked him as it did Mennea, Quarrie, Crawford, Lara in the 2nd round, which was the fastest in these Olympics...Floyd wouldn't of been able to handle it, bronze for USA at best in the 100, nowhere in the 2, and slower than the Russians in the relay.

A few posters have said Wells was not that fast. When he ran his 10.11 PB no one had had yet to go under 10 seconds at low altitude. There were only two sub 10 second 100 meter times (9.95 and 9.98) at this point and both were run at Mexico City. It would be almost three years later before Carl Lewis would run 9.97 seconds at Modesto. In context of his time Well's PB is not so slow.

This is a story about the steroid allegations concerning Lewis, Griffith Joyner, Floyd and others. There was never any confirmation.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1989-09-21/sports/8901150081_1_kersee-and-lewis-gordon-baskin-florence-griffith-joyner

is this a joke ???

can't you read or think ???

Bob ran 10.06 on dirt chewed-up by immediate prior finish of 20k walk before his race in lane-1

without that messed-up dirt, he wouda been looking at

~ 9.95 - 10.00

in same run

here is actual :

on synthetic of '68 onwards, worst he was looking at is

9.75 - 9.80

nonsense

he was 10.05 - 10.07 guy at peak

got beat 2 v 1 against floyd & lost zurich

legend

eh ???

are you are a fuucking idiot ???

if you had clue about 100m, you woud realise it was best ever run until Carl at least started running 100s

fact

eh ???

i damn well do !!!

how inept are you ???

guys in lane 2 - 8 had virtually virgin track but Big Bob got shafted with lane-1 where 20k walk just before had chomped it to smithereens

eh ???

do you have any clue about sprinting ???

he won it in most legendary run until at least '84

wells running 10.11 in prelim in '80 was utter drivel compared to Bob in '64

eh ??

what is this drivel ???

i am only happy with nearest to absolute truth

the absolute truth by end-'80 is that wells was 2nd best guy of year at best, after floyd, discounting injured Sanford, who, if uninjured, wouda probably run

~ 10.00

easing up in a prelim v wells 10.11pb

sanford was quantum leap better

utter drivel

have you not been able to comprehend brit documentary of pumping brit guys with drugs in '80 ???

idiot

he was kid

what previous you expect ???

what the fuuck was wells doing at 19y for 100 ???

idiot

he ran 10.07 in america

country where guys before had run 10.03 on domestic soil

country which produced

Riddick running 10.05 into a 1.2 !!! in Zurich !!! in '75 !!!

that last run was worth at worst a basic :

9.99

what the f***ck was wells' fastest in a zurich/brussels/rome/etc ???

nonsense

i only look at runs listed in history

eh ?

only of relevant

wells has non-similar reputation after broadcast

long gone with death of "supplier"...

clueless

huge number of allegations

why does wells never get invited to commentate on sprints for last 30+y ???

easy $ 5- 10k / year money for nothing effort ???

why is he is doing ? labouring work for past 30+y instead of invited by domestic tv to commentate on sprints ???

no

no one does

do you have clue about sprints ???

utterly clueless

200 is nonsense event

it took 19.32 to even get it look into ballpark of 100 interest, even with bailey running 9.84wr, that still got most press interest after games

"19.32" if he'd run 100 was in 9.7-low/mid shape off that & wouda whupped bailey, but no one was interested then or now

you have any clue about sprints ?

utter drivel

mo 6.39 / 9.79 was fantastic interest

woeful

clueless about sprinting

Alan Wells only started using blocks at the Moscow Olympics, and struggled to get used to them. And he had a bad back and had to be persuaded to compete.

And here he is running 10:11 in the quaterfinals at a time when nobody had broken 10 seconds yet at sealevel.

The drugs just got better in the 80's. HGH started to be used in 83 in the USA I think, co-incidentally when all the top American sprinters started breaking 10 seconds for fun.

In 1980 despite winning that Olympic 100m, it was American Stanley Floyd ranked number one in the world with Wells at number two, his highest ranking.

He was ranked from 79 to 83.