No announcement yet.

"New" World Records


Unconfigured Ad Widget

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: New WRs

    I smell a rat.


    • #32
      Re: New WRs

      question (for scientists): is there any hope for developing performance-enhancing drugs that AREN'T life-threatening, or at least not 'bad for your liver, etc.' ? That's the solution to all this. Answer is 'no', probably - the human body must pay a price for anything that pushes it beyond natural performance. But if the organic problems could be avoided, and WR setters could expect to see their grandchildren, we could get this behind us. (Problem then would be, do you allow it at HS level? If the drugs are safe to health,.. yes. Just like popping vitamins. And shriveled genitals are no problem - you'll get 'em back once your athletic glory days are over......)


      • #33
        Re: New WRs

        Free doping would only put a new measure for talent. You could partially replace your genetic abilities to perform and gain from training by how well your body can take the medication. Even doping wouldn´t work the same way for everybody (a new weird "talent" would be up for measure). Eventually the winner will be the ones who can "take it", or do you see any safe limitation coming up..?
        I´d rather stick to anti-doping


        • #34

          "If" such a ruling ever comes up again and does pass, I would suggest that for whichever athlete has the best mark for that pivotal year the "new" records would take effect, that athlete's best mark from even before that year should be used. The idea being, they assumedly didn't dope to get the current record, so they get the benefit of the doubt that they didn't dope to get their PR/record from the past. That way someone like Wilson Kipketer can avoid the silliness of having the world record at 1:42 and a PR of 1:41.


          • #35
            Re: New WRs

            >I said this afew months ago, but I will say it

            Sad to say, but it's time to give up on
            >this issue. If people want to ingest something
            >into their bady that is not against the law,
            >well, it's their life. If they die , that's their

            Drop all restrictions on Drugs and
            >let 'em run/jump/throw.

            Prohibition did not
            >work in the USA in the 20's and Drug prohibitions
            >are not enforceable.

            So........ juice up and
            >go get 'em !!!

            Sure. Say goodbye to sponsor money, though. Coke & McDonalds don't want that kind of publicity. If we went that way our sport would become as ridiculous as pro wrestling. I don't think I'd ever watch an international-level meet again -- I'd just stick with HS and D-III college meets.


            • #36
              Re: New WRs

              >> If we went that way our sport
              >would become as ridiculous as pro wrestling.>>

              You mean we have weekly TV show(s), one of our guys could become governor and teenage boys all over the land would have posters of our performers all over their walls? Oh yeah, and we would draw 93,000 for an indoor meet?


              • #37
                Re: New WRs

                >>> If we went that way our sport
                >would become
                >as ridiculous as pro wrestling.>>

                You mean we
                >have weekly TV show(s), one of our guys could
                >become governor and teenage boys all over the
                >land would have posters of our performers all
                >over their walls? Oh yeah, and we would draw
                >93,000 for an indoor meet?

                Well, teenage boys and girls all over the land and the world already have track posters on their walls, and our government is littered with former tracksters (even if few of them were very good). Track filled the Oly Stadium in Atlanta quite a few times. But if that's what you want, go for it. Leave me out.


                • #38
                  Re: Re:

                  >Well, here are the sprints:

                  100m: 9.78s
                  >(Montgomery, 2003), 10.75 (Jones, 2000)
                  >19.71A (Johnson, 2000), 21.84 (Jones,
                  400m: 43.68 (Johnson, 2000), 49.11
                  >(Freeman, 2000)

                  With the exception of
                  >Montgomery's WR, looks like the Olympics brings
                  >out the best in people!

                  I thought you'd know better, JRM. Mo's 9.87 into a headwind is intrinsically better than Tim's 9.78. So the Olympics does bring out the best!

                  The real question is: Why should clean performances pre-2000 be struck from the record book?


                  • #39
                    Re: Re:

                    >real question is: Why should clean performances
                    >pre-2000 be struck from the record book?

                    Obviously, the proposal of erasing WRs before 2000 was never going to be accepted by the IAAF. The THG 'crisis' has shown that doping is still rife in athletics today and always will be. No-one knows for sure 100% (apart from the athletes themselves) who is clean and who isn't.

                    This proposal was first made before 2000, when people saw the millennium as a good benchmark for which to scrap the old WRs and start anew. Of course, if this had have happened, statisticians and track fans would always still compare the performances (and subsequently the WRs) post millennium with the records set pre-millennium. It would also mean extra time, effort and money for the IAAF, professional statisticians and everyone else directly involved to literally re-write the record books.

                    If people want to only focus on records set post-millennium, then that's their choice - leave them to it. Same goes for people who want to see a separate set of records for post-1989 (after random drug testing was brought in). Bottom line is - if ever the IAAF do decide to scrap a certain set of WRs, it's not going to stop people from referring to them - they've already been printed in record books, and in the media - we can't go back in time!

                    As long as there's going to be thousands of dollars at stake for winning an athletics event at GL and GP meets, then doping is going to be rife in track and field. That's been the way for ages and always will be. Time to accept it and move on.


                    • #40
                      Re: 400m

                      Didn't Anna Guevara run 48 plus at the Paris World Championships!


                      • #41
                        Re: 400m

                        >Didn't Anna Guevara run 48 plus at the Paris
                        >World Championships!

                        Yes, but that was 2 weeks after the above list was compiled.

                        So... I suppose Ana is now the post-millennium-400m-WR-holder..... woohoo. Her parents must be so proud...


                        • #42
                          Re: 400m

                          >>Didn't Anna Guevara run 48 plus at the
                          >World Championships!

                          Yes, but that was
                          >2 weeks after the above list was

                          So... I suppose Ana is now the
                          >post-millennium-400m-WR-holder..... woohoo. Her
                          >parents must be so proud...

                          For you I have changed the original list...


                          100m: 9.78 - Tim Montgomery
                          200m: 19.71A - Michael Johnson
                          400m: 43.68 - Michael Johnson
                          800m: 1:42.32 - Wilson Kipketer
                          1500m: 3:26.12 - Hicham El Guerrouj
                          1 mile: 3:44.95 - Hicham El Guerrouj
                          3000m: 7:25.02 - Al Saidi-Sief
                          5000m: 12:48.81 - Stephen Cherono
                          10,000m: 26.49.38 - Sammy Kipketer
                          Marathon: 2:04:55 - Paul Tergat
                          110mH: 12.97 - Allen Johnson
                          400mH: 47.25 - Felix Sanchez
                          4x100m: 37.61 - USA
                          4x400m: 2:56.35 - USA
                          HJ: 2.40m - Vayecheslav Voronin
                          PV: 6.05m - Dmitri Markov
                          LJ: 8.65m - Ivan Pedroso
                          TJ: 17.92m - Jonathan Edwards
                          SP: 22.67m - Kevin Toth (facing a possible ban)
                          DT: 73.88m - Virgilijus Alekna
                          HT: 84.86m - Koji Murofushi
                          JT: 92.80m - Jan Zelezny
                          Decathlon: 9026 - Roman Sebrle


                          100m: 10.75 - Marion Jones
                          200m: 21.84 - Marion Jones
                          400m: 48.89 - Ana Guevera
                          800m: 1:55.19 - Jolanda Ceplak
                          1500m: 3:55.33 - Süreyya Ayhan
                          1 mile: 4:24.40 - Natalya Yevkodimova
                          3000m: 8:21.42 - Gabriela Szabo
                          5000m: 14:29.32 - Olga Yegorova & Berhane Adere
                          10,000m: 30:01.09 - Paula Radcliffe
                          Marathon: 2:15:25 - Paula Radcliffe
                          100mH: 12.33 - Gail Devers
                          400mH: 52.34 - Yulia Pechonkina
                          4x100m: 41.71 - USA
                          4x400m: 3:20.65 - Jamaica
                          HJ: 2.06m - Kajsa Bergqvist & Hestrie Cloete
                          PV: 4.82m - Yelena Isinbayeva
                          LJ: 7.42m - Tatyana Kotova
                          TJ: 15.32m - Tatyana Lebedeva
                          SP: 21.46m - Larisa Peleshenko
                          DT: 69.44m - Suzy Powell
                          HT: 75.68m - Olga Kuzenkova
                          JT: 71.54m - Osleidys Menendez
                          Heptathlon: 7001 - Carolina Kluft


                          • #43
                            Re: 400m

                            I believe Geb ran a bit faster this year for 10k, and Powell still wont be ratified in the discus.