Was Ben Johnson faster than Powell?

That is the nerdiest thing I have ever seen.

HHH wrote:

Dude, did you see that race in Tokyo? He was out of the blocks first and no one was even close to him at any point in the race. The last 20m he ran with his arm in the air. Can you imagine how fast he would have run if he had just run the whole thing hard? Granted he was on drugs but somehow I doubt that today's sprinters are clean. But the way I see it, innocent till proven quilty. Congrats to Powell but I still Ben would have smoked him.

Tokyo???? I'm sorry sir, but you are an idiot. And no, not two arms up, one arm up, and only at about 93m or so, not with 20m to go.

God damn what is wrong with our society today.

According to that website the perfect 100m race would be 9.56 if you took the best 10m splits and added them up. I think Powell can take more off the record though. He may bring it down to 9.75 by the end of the year.

u say ben johnson celebrated, but have u seen the start ben had, it was shockingly gud, maybe the best start eva and asafa reaches top speed very late on in the race.

HHH wrote:

Granted he was on drugs but somehow I doubt that today's sprinters are clean. But the way I see it, innocent till proven quilty.

How do you prove that someone is "quilty"?

HHH wrote:

And yes, 9.77 is a faster time but the original question is was BJ faster than Powell. Potentially I think he was.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. That's one of the consequences of cheating, you never get to find out just how fast you could have gone 'for real'.

Unless we're talking electricity, potential means nothing. It's what numbers you put up in the real world.

In terms of drugs, I believe that most top runners are on something. I have no direct proof for this but this is my belief. Of course I would love the opposite to be true. So I guess my statement is a direct contradiction but I won't say that someone specifically is on drugs until they are actually caught. After all there is always a chance that a few (or perhaps even all) are clean.

Not to harp on it, but this is awfully ambiguous. You make a broad generalization ("most top runners") but want to avoid actually commiting to anything. How many is 'most'? 90%? 80%? 60%? If not all, can you name one person who you think isn't?

AG wrote:

This link is quite interesting:

http://run-down.com/statistics/100m_top_splits.php

I did the calculation... the top speed comes out to 27.3 mph.

not really young man wrote:

AG wrote:

This link is quite interesting:

http://run-down.com/statistics/100m_top_splits.php

I did the calculation... the top speed comes out to 27.3 mph.

Actaully, the top average speed over any 10m interval is 27.3 mph. I'd be interested to know what the top instantaneous speed that is reached is....

Yes Smarty, I made a mistake. It was indeed Seul, not Tokyo. And I already confessed to to exagerating the arm in the air. I also never said anything about 2 arms in the air (that would just look downright silly). Not sure what tell you about society but I personally blame the parents...

You don't. I just made a spelling mistake or hit the wrong key. Please forgive me!

STL_Runner wrote:

How do you prove that someone is "quilty"?

Asterix,

If you want to believe the opposite the choice is yours. I have been around this sport long enough to make my own decision. I know guys who have taken PED's at the high school and university level. There is a lot of money to be made at the Pro level and the temptation is just too great for most IMHO. Look at the Cathal Lombart case.

I am not saying that all are on drugs and I don't care enough to try and give a percent. Look at how many people got caught for drugs before/during/after Athens when a few new tests came out. The problem is that the testers are so far behind the users that it is almost certain that most will not get caught. Unless of course you have someone who provides evidence of a new drug like the whole Balco thing. But like I said, if you want to believe that the majority of top athletes are clean, all the power to you. I used to feel the same way and wish it was the case.

Surely it has become obvious in the 17y since Ben's race that he was indeed the best ever sprinter. Why?

1/Drugs have also played a part in sprinting. Nine out of ten finalists in 88 have been implicated in drugs (with good evidence if not always convictions). The exception being Stewart from Jamaica. Ben only stands out coz he was caught.

2/By comparison to todays methods and drugs Ben's botched stanazonal programme must seem like apple-drops.

3/Times have come down so little since (.02s)

4/By comparison to many (not all) drug programmes Bens was very amateur. Other have been more institutional (Balco etc).

5/Bens lifestyle was not condusive to good running. He tended to act like a football frat boy.

6/Ben is an idiot. He self prescribed an additional dose of st'zol 2 weeks before Soeul. How stupid and detrimental was that?

7/Ben has been vilified by the sport partly because he stole some limelight from Lewis, teh darling of the media. Dont forget that all drugs DQs have to voted upon by a board consisting of representatives from several nations. Canada was not represented, the US & UK were (think Lewis & Christie).

My personal view is that there hasnt been a WR a world Champion or an Olympic Champion better or cleaner than Ben since 1976.

Nobody is saying anything about the fact that this time was run on a faster track - is that not a factor which should be discussed?

I don't believe I've ever stated that I think everyone/most are clean. I also don't believe I've stated that I think everyone/most are dirty.

What one personally thinks without substantiation is one's private matter. When one explicitly states one's opinion (even if it is as contradictory as 'most are guilty but I'm assuming innocent'), then one can get called to support that assertion, hence why I've asked you to define 'most' or to specifically identify someone who is clean.

A public forum like a message board can only have much relevance if participants can back up their statements with conclusive reasoning or facts. Lacking those, and posts are really no better than 'Webb/Ritz/Goucher/your mamma sucks'. Kind of makes a discussion pointless and irrelevant.

Okay, I believe Mondor is clean. But I won´t put a number on most.[quote]Asterix wrote:

What one personally thinks without substantiation is one's private matter. When one explicitly states one's opinion (even if it is as contradictory as 'most are guilty but I'm assuming innocent'), then one can get called to support that assertion, hence why I've asked you to define 'most' or to specifically identify someone who is clean.

dmb wrote:

not really young man wrote:

I did the calculation... the top speed comes out to 27.3 mph.

Actaully, the top average speed over any 10m interval is 27.3 mph. I'd be interested to know what the top instantaneous speed that is reached is....

You are correct... the smaller the interval, the closer you will come to getting an "instantaneous" maximum top speed. Obviously a 10m interval is more accurate than a 100m interval (9.77 secs over 100m averages to 22.9 mph). I got an idea, why don't they simply have a radar gun aimed at the runner, like they do in baseball when they show you the speed of the pitch.

I wonder how that top speed of 27.3 mph compares to the fastest 10 metre segment of Michael Johnson's 19.32 200 metre world record in Atlanta?

Martin

I think any runner who sets a world record should under go extreme testing for a 1 year period. to ratify your record, you should be required to comply with all testing.

wannabekila -

Thanks for putting the discussion in an interesting perspective