Few seem to recall that Mitchell-Blake ran faster at last year’s trials.
https://mobile.twitter.com/NethaneelMB/status/1013563179295797248
Few seem to recall that Mitchell-Blake ran faster at last year’s trials.
https://mobile.twitter.com/NethaneelMB/status/1013563179295797248
Britain's Finest wrote:
In a word - Lack Of Drugs.
British Sport is completely clean. Just today Froome quite rightly cleared of any wrong doing. Then you've got the untouchable, yet clean, Sir Mo Farah. Further back, the wonderful Dame Paula Radcliffe.
The Brits are simply the most honourable sports men / women on the planet. In that context, 20:24 seems quite correct. A legitimate best humanly possible time for running 200m. Everyone going faster is obviously a cheat.
I saw what you did. Well done
sprint fan wrote:
I'll tell you how. Cause they are a third-rate sprint nation.
A white girl won the women's 200 today. When is the last time a white woman won a US sprint title?
It happened a few weeks ago and in 2005 as well. Jenna Prandini both times.
http://usatfoutdoor.runnerspace.com/eprofile.php?event_id=49&do=photos&photo_id=918559Before that it was a while, 1953.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6592620Fake news!
Agreed. +1
The UK are probably stronger in terms of depth in the sprints, than they have been in decades.
The only time I ever click on a sprint thread is to see if sprintgeezer finally came back to drop some knowledge. I miss him.
Think a little harder here. In Britain all the top athletes/sprinters play soccer. I'd wager some of those soccer players if properly trained for several years have the natural talent for sub 20 easy.