Armstronglivs wrote:
If a sprinter is faster in their 30's they are juicing.
BULLSHlT.
I know I said I wouldn't respond to this guy anymore-but I make this succinct comment not on my own behalf, but on behalf of all LR posters.
Armstronglivs wrote:
If a sprinter is faster in their 30's they are juicing.
BULLSHlT.
I know I said I wouldn't respond to this guy anymore-but I make this succinct comment not on my own behalf, but on behalf of all LR posters.
Florida Boy wrote:
I think she looked really great, but it looked pretty windy and I wouldn’t be shocked if the wind was stronger than the reading shows, but that’s just speculation from me
As it is, 2.7 is not an insignificant reading.
burnin' down the house wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
It says you are a tool. If a sprinter is faster in their 30's they are juicing.
Of course you will "question the track" - do you think she was running downhill? - and the wind gauge, although the reading was a modest 2.7. Anything but recognize another aging athlete is now entering Flojo territory.
BS. But, it's you, and that is completely expected. I ran 10.58 at 36yo... 10.64 in college. No juice... just big time understanding of speed/power training. I also develop athletes you've heard of to the highest levels of competition.
There was likely a lot of wind behind her, but she is training with the best coach on the planet. She will continue to get better for the next few years.
You're the single stupidest poster on this board. You know nothing of what you yap about.
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.
burnin' down the house wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
It says you are a tool. If a sprinter is faster in their 30's they are juicing.
Of course you will "question the track" - do you think she was running downhill? - and the wind gauge, although the reading was a modest 2.7. Anything but recognize another aging athlete is now entering Flojo territory.
BS. But, it's you, and that is completely expected. I ran 10.58 at 36yo... 10.64 in college. No juice... just big time understanding of speed/power training. I also develop athletes you've heard of to the highest levels of competition.
There was likely a lot of wind behind her, but she is training with the best coach on the planet. She will continue to get better for the next few years.
You're the single stupidest poster on this board. You know nothing of what you yap about.
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.[/quote]
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.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
If a sprinter is faster in their 30's they are juicing.
BULLSHlT.
I know I said I wouldn't respond to this guy anymore-but I make this succinct comment not on my own behalf, but on behalf of all LR posters.
ALL of them? They delegated that role to you?
Rastus wrote:
Florida Boy wrote:
I think she looked really great, but it looked pretty windy and I wouldn’t be shocked if the wind was stronger than the reading shows, but that’s just speculation from me
As it is, 2.7 is not an insignificant reading.
It's not insignificant, but we're talking 10.7 BASIC.
That is smoking fast. Yeah Olympics are coming up and she's peaking, it was on home turf, etc.
Tough to tell from the vid, but I thought she looked only OK, and that her maintenance never would have been that good had it not been for the good tailwind. She is not a balls-to-the-wall power runner like CS showed at NCAA's. In maintenance she did not have the greatest form, and for sure was carried by that wind more than someone who could put more power to the track.
Thing is, though, we don't know what kind of conditions we will see in Tokyo. Imagine a legit mid-10.6 if there is a max legal wind for her. Crazy! I mean, seriously, WTF.
I wish there was a better vid of the race, I wish there were splits, I wish there had been somebody else fast against whom to judge, etc. etc. etc. I can't stand waiting until they all meet head-to-head.
Seriously, the women's 100m now has to be one of the most anticipated races of the Olympics, along with something like the women's 1500m and 5000m. This is nuts!
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.[/quote]
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?
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.
The implication here is that only meets in what the US and Europe are well run? I know that Jamaica has been running track meets including international level meets for a long, long time. It is not that hard to set up a timing system to accurately record time. Also verifying the times from the video is not that difficult.
There was likely a lot of wind behind her, but she is training with the best coach on the planet. She will continue to get better for the next few years. (quote)
So when she improves from 10.62 to faster than 10.49 by the ripe old age of 35 I'll expect to hear you trumpeting the magnificence of her "clean" achievement. After all, she has "the best coach on the planet". (Not you?)
Armstronglivs wrote:
There was likely a lot of wind behind her, but she is training with the best coach on the planet. She will continue to get better for the next few years. (quote)
So when she improves from 10.62 to faster than 10.49 by the ripe old age of 35 I'll expect to hear you trumpeting the magnificence of her "clean" achievement. After all, she has "the best coach on the planet". (Not you?)
No, I'm not her coach. But, I know her coach, and his record over the past decade plus is as good as it gets... and no drugs.
The 10.62 is wind-aided, but I do expect to see her legal times getting better than what she has run with previous coaches.
No, that's not the implication. BTW ETH did hers in Florida, not Jamaica.
The implication is that smaller meets, especially only national ones, or club-type ones, may have less strict adherence to rules regarding equipment placement, recordation, etc., and even outright fraud, than would bigger international meets with the whole world watching, and a presumably international officiating corps.
Florida? Jamaica? Nigeria? We will see. I honestly hope that those times are all funny, because if they all back them up at something like the Olympics (in Asia, BTW), we will know that it is open season.
Check out this basic list this year:
SCR 10.69
SAFP 10.70
BO 10.76
CS 10.86
ETH 10.88
THAT is insane. SCR and SAFP leading the way at 10.7...BASIC. I won't go into it in detail, but this is the most epic women's basic year ever.
One thing I have noticed this year is the form they are running with--except for CS so far, it looks GREAT!
Man, I just don't know where this stuff is coming from. Even SAFP has changed her form, for the better IMO.
Olympic final will be an absolute clinic, if they can all execute. A vid to use in training, forever.
burnin' down the house wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
There was likely a lot of wind behind her, but she is training with the best coach on the planet. She will continue to get better for the next few years. (quote)
So when she improves from 10.62 to faster than 10.49 by the ripe old age of 35 I'll expect to hear you trumpeting the magnificence of her "clean" achievement. After all, she has "the best coach on the planet". (Not you?)
No, I'm not her coach. But, I know her coach, and his record over the past decade plus is as good as it gets... and no drugs.
The 10.62 is wind-aided, but I do expect to see her legal times getting better than what she has run with previous coaches.
But surely you are the best coach on the planet? It's nice to know that coaching now enables sprinters today to look forward to beating Flojo's times. And clean as a whistle - in every sense. You do know with complete certainty that none of them are doping or will be.
"Man, I just don't know where this stuff is coming from. Even SAFP has changed her form, for the better IMO."(quote)
No - I don't know where "this stuff" is coming from either - but its certainly good!
Sometimes, you are unintentionally hilarious.
Armstronglivs wrote:
burnin' down the house wrote:
No, I'm not her coach. But, I know her coach, and his record over the past decade plus is as good as it gets... and no drugs.
The 10.62 is wind-aided, but I do expect to see her legal times getting better than what she has run with previous coaches.
But surely you are the best coach on the planet? It's nice to know that coaching now enables sprinters today to look forward to beating Flojo's times. And clean as a whistle - in every sense. You do know with complete certainty that none of them are doping or will be.
I have a good resume of developing talent to the highest levels, but I wouldn't say I'm the best.
Yes, science should be helping coaches get their athletes to "beating Flojo's times"... so, yeah... coaching matters.
The coach we are speaking of, has a clean record, and lots and lots of Olympic and WC medals of all colors.
faulty wind reading,i say.Theres no way she could run 10.62,same with shelly ann fraser price.They didnt run that fast before,so theres no way theyre gonna do it in their 30s.10.9 to high 10.8 sure,but not low 10.6.
burnin' down the house wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
But surely you are the best coach on the planet? It's nice to know that coaching now enables sprinters today to look forward to beating Flojo's times. And clean as a whistle - in every sense. You do know with complete certainty that none of them are doping or will be.
I have a good resume of developing talent to the highest levels, but I wouldn't say I'm the best.
Yes, science should be helping coaches get their athletes to "beating Flojo's times"... so, yeah... coaching matters.
The coach we are speaking of, has a clean record, and lots and lots of Olympic and WC medals of all colors.
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?
jeff tallon wrote:
faulty wind reading,i say.Theres no way she could run 10.62,same with shelly ann fraser price.They didnt run that fast before,so theres no way theyre gonna do it in their 30s.10.9 to high 10.8 sure,but not low 10.6.
But if they are juicing they could. I'll go with that as more likely than faulty wind-gauges.
Armstronglivs wrote:
burnin' down the house wrote:
I have a good resume of developing talent to the highest levels, but I wouldn't say I'm the best.
Yes, science should be helping coaches get their athletes to "beating Flojo's times"... so, yeah... coaching matters.
The coach we are speaking of, has a clean record, and lots and lots of Olympic and WC medals of all colors.
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.