Is sprinting dead?

Drugs and impossible times.

No one's stopped it for years and now you have people on another plain no one can cleanly get too.

9.58

NINE FIVE F***IN' EIGHT

Not dead...Bolt brought back a ton of excitement. But I would say "tainted." When Ben was popped in Seoul, it was a watershed moment. The 100m gold medalist was exposed to the public as a cheat. It was huge and devastating. Flo-Jo was the female equivalent of Ben, but I have always been of the opinion that after Ben's exposure, to show her as a cheat would have almost killed sprinting. So she was allowed to slide.

I don't get excited about truly exceptional performances because I wonder if they are clean performances. And I absolutely HATE thinking that, but I still do.

Drugs have greatly reduced interest in track and field. How does one admire a cheat? Drugs do nothing but damage the sport. Fast times will not save the sport - indeed, the drug induced times only exacerbate the situation.

Sad, sad, sad.

Roids were incredibly easy to get in the 60s and 70s and there was basically no testing. They didn't even have decent ooc testing until the late 90s/early 00s. What makes anybody think anybody under 10sec was clean? Mo was running 11s in high school, Bolt magically dropped half a second off his 100, Tyson ran basically the same time for 3-4 years in college, with the same coach,and improved more than a quarter of a second shortly after. Donovan Bailey ran 10.3 3 years in a row then magically went into sub10 territory. What makes you think any of those guys were ever clean?

lost in Boston wrote:

Drugs have greatly reduced interest in track and field. How does one admire a cheat? Drugs do nothing but damage the sport. Fast times will not save the sport - indeed, the drug induced times only exacerbate the situation.

Sad, sad, sad.

This is totally overplayed.

Track was waning before drug issues.

The society changed and the NFL became huge, with the NBA right on its heals, and then MLB...all the expansion in all those leagues...massive tv coverage...team aspect...

Track doesn't have teams, or the ability to attract money the way the other sports do.

Plus, frankly, unless you know what you are watching, and how to watch it, most of track and field is not that exciting.

Ergo:

Football: "Quasi-fascist allegory for war." All you need to know: These 11 guys are trying to run or throw that oblong ball across a line to score, those other 11 guys are trying to stop them.

Basketball: These 5 guys are trying to get the round ball throw that hoop against the other 5 guys who are trying to get it through the opposite hoop.

Baseball. Try and hit ball to free space and run around bases and score runs.

Track and Field...well their the 100meter fastest guy/gal WAIT WHAT'S A METER??? And then there is the 200m fastest guy/gal WAIT, WHY DO THEY START OUT PRACTICALLY LYING ON THEIR STOMACHES TO RUN? Then there is the 400m fastest guy/gal WHY THE STAGGERS, HOW DO WE KNOW WHO IS WINNING, WHAT'S THE STRATEGY? THE 800M HOW COME THEY RUN IN LANES PART WAY AND THEN CUT IN?

We could go on, now, let's not even get started on the Hammer Throw and field events.

We've all been there, a well meaning friend decides to watch a track meet with us...and asks nothing but a string of questions that it takes usually longer than the event to explain.

How long is 5,000meters? How do they know what pace they are running?

Once you know the sport, and have a friend who doesn't start asking you questions...it becomes pretty clear how the sport lost popularity.

Why are they clapping their hands for the long jump?

I am sure everyone hear can cite tons of funny questions friends have asked while watching track.

Now, the Olympics is different, people, and as ratings show, mostly female people, will watch anything in the Olympics because they love the personal stories of the athletes trying to reach a near impossible goal/dream.

And as others have said, as the society has gotten stupider, the sport has fallen in popularity.

Think if we could harness the sheer hate power of the haters here into energy for the good of the sport what might be achieved?

What goes around, comes around.

What started track on the downward slide: Ben Johnson...on drugs.

What started the recovery: Usain Bolt...on drugs (pretty obvious).

Does the average fan know anything about the drug issues?

Nope

Does the average fan care whether slugger A is on Andro, slugger B is on creatine, slugger C is on whatever Victor Conte put out?

Nope. He wants to see home runs, touchdowns, 105 yard kickoff runbacks.

Does the average fan "get" the drug testing is cleaning things up?

Uhh, uhh. He hears about more drug positives and he hears more drugs. And he tunes that sport out. He wants to hear about whether Lebron is better than Michael. And that's why you see less of track and field than swimming during the Olympics these days.

Spectacular sells. That's why people in London go Gaga over Bolt...and they're removing 10000 from Diamond League.

Also, how often does the best team in the AFC play the best team in the NFC?

Once A year, and that's how they should play up Bolt vs. Gay or Felix vs VCB (when not on Pissing Enchancing Drugs). Same with USA vs Jamaica in relays.

Creatine is not a PED... If you just seperate it from a food its not a PED. Protein is not a PED, amino acids are not a drug..

Technically NCAA it is against NCAA rules for a college team to give their athletes a piece of chicken after practice... some rules are just stupid

Ridiculous.... wrote:

Creatine is not a PED... If you just seperate it from a food its not a PED. Protein is not a PED, amino acids are not a drug..

Technically NCAA it is against NCAA rules for a college team to give their athletes a piece of chicken after practice... some rules are just stupid

I wasn't talking about NCAA, I was talking about Sammy Sosa, who is somewhat controversial with a drug allegation that was never proven, but he claimed to be taking creatine.

Yes I coach in NCAA, but I meant above:

Andro = Mark McGwire.

creatine = Sammy Sosa.

Conte stuff (steroids) = Barry Bonds.

And I don't know that the average fan cares who used what, as long as the ball flies out of the park. Now there ARE those baseball stats people who only care about their records.

thank the sarms baby .

these times are heavily dependant on 'em .

regardless of any other previous ped.

the womens 100m hurdles record will go

the way of the mens event .

and never thought that would be able to outdo

a heavily roided record in womens event .

and all thanks to better and better sarms and

thank you pharma tech industry .

Think about how little actual time elapses in even a couple tenths of a second. It's almost nothing. Then you start talking about differences of hundredths of a second and you're even closer than almost nothing. Ii'm not sure that a lot of people are going to get worked up about such small differences.

Sure, getting under 10 seconds would resonate with people and the prospect of getting under 9 seconds would probably create a sensation. Even getting under 9.5 might arouse some interest but I think the time differences are just too small to create a stir and it would be better if sprinting could market itself around competition.

But the other problem I see with sprinting is the incredibly short time the athletes are actually competing, though obviously that was the case in the past when there might have been more interest.

John Q Sportsfan doesn't give a damn. He just wants to see a spectacular show. And, yes, that (and the heavily top-weighted money) is part of what pushes athletes into drugs, but the fans really don't give a shit. And if you tell him that Bolt is on Sarms (probably is), he'll just go watch Michael Phelps (or Lochte or Lochte's replacement).

sarcasm wrote:

No one's stopped it for years and now you have people on another plain no one can cleanly get too.

plane

Plain Man wrote:

sarcasm wrote:

No one's stopped it for years and now you have people on another plain no one can cleanly get too.

plane

to

What Ben did to sprinting is nothing like how Lance Armstrong killed the Tour of France.

Random thoughts:

My dumb suggestion and i dont really want it is--

Just let track guys do whatever drug they want and the times are the times.

No one can really police it now.

As to whether or not Bolt does drugs.

Ive heard strong opinions both ways.

A prominent Div 1 track head coach told me he believes Bolt is clean, fellow Ncaa sprint all americans tell me they believe he is clean.

Yet so many just say he isn't. The logic being, no on can improve that ,much cleanly.

I have trouble getting excited about times because I know that so many athletes are doping. It does not impress me that drugs are better than they were ten years ago. I like the competition because it is exciting to see people battle for the win even if they are doped. The thrill of the race stays regardless of drugs but the times of the races become almost meaningless.

coach d wrote:

What goes around, comes around.

What started track on the downward slide: Ben Johnson...on drugs.

What started the recovery: Usain Bolt...on drugs (pretty obvious).

The real excitement is that it's not obvious that Bolt is doping. Furthermore, he's dusted those believed to be clean as well as known dopers.

The premise of this thread is kinda silly. We all know that due to Bolt, there is more excitement around sprints than at any other time in history. The highlight of the past two Olympics is a dead sport? Maybe dead in the U.S.A due to Balco but ask the rest of the world.

No, sprinting's not dead, and I don't think casual fans are concerned about doping until a lot of people get busted, and even then only for a month or two. I doubt if even half of players in the NFL, NBA, or MLB are really clean. Everyone knows you can't do what they do at that performance level for as long as they do, but nobody cares as long as it's kept under the rug.

I also think Bolt would be an all-timer clean or not. There's a reason he dominates everyone, and it's not that they're all clean.

Baseball and basketball attendance are going down and will continue to do so. Do you think parents get excited about taking their kids to watch the drugged out athletes? There is less respect for today's stars - with some exceptions - than at any point I can remember.

Boxing used to be tremendously popular. Now, few people even know who the heavy weight champion of the world is.

Drugs will damage any and all sports because they are the antithesis of what fair competition is all about.