52 year old former Olympian runs sub 50 400 meter

Bad Wigins wrote:

xcxcvvxcxcv wrote:

Edgardo Guilbe Correa is a university student who just ran 49.68.

Edgardo Guilbe Alomar is the former Olympian.

Well that sucks but the point stands it's still inevitable. Willie Gault's 200m marks show it's an easy target for the first former elite who keeps training seriously, which is apparently rare.

Willie's only results this year are the Penn relays 100m race in 11.84. That equates to a 53.46 for 400. The guy is a beast, year after year.

new category for the Olympics? wrote:

Great run.

In some way it does bring up the question as to whether the Olympics should now have a masters category. Over half of the world's population will soon be aged over 40 so why should this half of the population be discriminated against due the biological disadvantages of aging?

Guys like Guilbe who keep working hard and competing should be given another chance to compete in the Olympics.

While we’re at it, why discriminate against 99% of the population that are slow, uncoordinated, etc due to the biological disadvantages of being terrible at things? We should just let everyone into the Olympics!!!

YMMV wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

Well that sucks but the point stands it's still inevitable. Willie Gault's 200m marks show it's an easy target for the first former elite who keeps training seriously, which is apparently rare.

Willie's only results this year are the Penn relays 100m race in 11.84. That equates to a 53.46 for 400. The guy is a beast, year after year.

53 at 57 isn't really so special, Charles Allie would be well ahead of him. And Allie wasn't a great elite in the open 4 that I recall. None of them have really stuck around. Injuries? Burnout? Used up stem cell supply?

Bad Wigins wrote:

YMMV wrote:

Willie's only results this year are the Penn relays 100m race in 11.84. That equates to a 53.46 for 400. The guy is a beast, year after year.

53 at 57 isn't really so special, Charles Allie would be well ahead of him. And Allie wasn't a great elite in the open 4 that I recall. None of them have really stuck around. Injuries? Burnout? Used up stem cell supply?

I know what you mean. In fact, 53 is so "not special" that nobody in the world over 55 bothered to run it this year. 54.58 was the fastest 400.

What will they try next? wrote:

You are a dim bulb. How are people 40+ discriminated against? ALL PEOPLE are allowed to compete in the Olympics. Just off the top of my head I remember Lagat and Keflezighi competing in the 2016 Games at age 41, and that was just from the U.S. and just from distance running. There were probably close to 100 people Olympics-wide just in 2016 that competed at age 40+.

All people worldwide were ALLOWED to compete.

The point (which you seem to have missed) is that masters athletes are being held to the same standard of entry into the Olympics despite having a biological disadvantage. Women have lower standards of entry to be in most of the Olympic events and if they were to have the same standard of entry as the men then it would be considered as discriminatory against women.

new category for the Olympics? wrote:

The point (which you seem to have missed) is that masters athletes are being held to the same standard of entry into the Olympics despite having a biological disadvantage. Women have lower standards of entry to be in most of the Olympic events and if they were to have the same standard of entry as the men then it would be considered as discriminatory against women.

I know that it was a "thing" a few years ago. In XC races for example, they would have the masters start with the women. Obviously, 50 is the new 40, so think that they would have to be at least 50 y.o.

HVghghgjgj wrote:

new category for the Olympics? wrote:

The point (which you seem to have missed) is that masters athletes are being held to the same standard of entry into the Olympics despite having a biological disadvantage. Women have lower standards of entry to be in most of the Olympic events and if they were to have the same standard of entry as the men then it would be considered as discriminatory against women.

I know that it was a "thing" a few years ago. In XC races for example, they would have the masters start with the women. Obviously, 50 is the new 40, so think that they would have to be at least 50 y.o.

However, the problem now becomes: what do you do with 50 y.o. Women? Maybe they could run with boys and girls below the age of 12

This gets really complicated...

But maybe it would be more fair now for transgender to compete in the "women" category

new category for the Olympics? wrote:

Great run.

In some way it does bring up the question as to whether the Olympics should now have a masters category. Over half of the world's population will soon be aged over 40 so why should this half of the population be discriminated against due the biological disadvantages of aging?

Guys like Guilbe who keep working hard and competing should be given another chance to compete in the Olympics.

I’d certainly rather see Masters levels runners at the Olympics than the current women’s 800m travesty.

I think as the world progresses, we will see the benefit in having categories for masters athletes in championships. More people will age well and not want to be done with championship running at about 33.

Li’l Jimmy Norton wrote:

new category for the Olympics? wrote:

Great run.

In some way it does bring up the question as to whether the Olympics should now have a masters category. Over half of the world's population will soon be aged over 40 so why should this half of the population be discriminated against due the biological disadvantages of aging?

Guys like Guilbe who keep working hard and competing should be given another chance to compete in the Olympics.

While we’re at it, why discriminate against 99% of the population that are slow, uncoordinated, etc due to the biological disadvantages of being terrible at things? We should just let everyone into the Olympics!!!

If you really are being ironic in what you have written, then you should be considering eliminating women's categories from the Olympics. And you should also be considering removing the weight classes from events such as combat sports, weightlifting, or rowing as these classes are all giving people who are genetically disadvantaged a chance to compete within one type of event. Or you could make the Olympics even more extreme and just make it one event with no categories at all. Then every 4 years in advance, you draw a lot for what that event will be for the entire Olympics that year. If it turns out to be the 100 meter dash then marathon runners will have to accept that they are not genetically gifted to compete in the Olympics for that year.

On the other hand, many reasonable people think that the Olympics is about having many types of events to give many different types of people a chance to compete in a sporting festival. Given that nearly half of the world's population are now aged over 40 and the world's population will be aging for the foreseeable future, it only makes sense today to introduce a masters category at an event such as the Olympics.

We already have our own categories at the Olympics: ticketholders and spectators. And we have our own meets, including world championships. Please don't water down the Olympics even further.

So if they scrapped women's races and allowed women to compete in the men's if they were somehow fast enough, the Olympics would still be open to 'all people'? Do you not see a need for paralympic sport as disabled people are 'allowed to compete' in able bodied races (without their wheelchairs etc)?

The discrimination is (at least as I see it) the fact that disabled athletes are allowed to have their turn on the greatest stage yet older people, who are no less handicapped by biology, are not.

If somebody loses a leg due to illness, they can always aspire to compete in the paralympics and hence overcome their disability. If somebody loses their muscle and their collagen and their VO2 max due to the illness of aging, then they have to accept it as something inevitable it seems. Why?

And it's no rebuttal to suggest that Master's athletes had their chance when they were young. For various reasons many Masters never did, and the same logic would exclude somebody who developed their disability as an adult from competing in the paralympics.

There's a further form of discrimination as regards the paralympics and the lack of a Master's equivalent and the general attitude that aging is not a disablity but rather a fact of life. A disabled person could receive a TUE for a medication that restored his health and allowed him to compete as an able bodied person. And we know, of course, that this permission is being abused by healthy elite sportsmen. However, a 40 year old Master cannot take TRT in order to restore his vitality if he is to compete either as a Master or as a Senior. This discrimination will become ever more apparent as real rejuvenation therapies come on the market very soon, with senolytic drugs being the first generation.

new category for the Olympics? wrote:

Great run.

In some way it does bring up the question as to whether the Olympics should now have a masters category. Over half of the world's population will soon be aged over 40 so why should this half of the population be discriminated against due the biological disadvantages of aging?

Guys like Guilbe who keep working hard and competing should be given another chance to compete in the Olympics.

What the Olympics need is a Female category.

A. Moran wrote:

Doped to the gills.

Was he running from the cops?