Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"New" World Records

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: 400m

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

    Leave a comment:


  • The King
    replied
    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...


    For you I have changed the original list...

    MEN

    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


    WOMEN

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: 400m

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon
    replied
    Re: Re:

    >The
    >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.

    Leave a comment:


  • slowcoach
    replied
    Re: Re:

    >Well, here are the sprints:

    100m: 9.78s
    >(Montgomery, 2003), 10.75 (Jones, 2000)
    200m:
    >19.71A (Johnson, 2000), 21.84 (Jones,
    >2000)
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: New WRs

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

    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
    >problem.

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re:

    "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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Alexander
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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......)

    Leave a comment:


  • tafnut
    replied
    Re: New WRs

    I smell a rat.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: New WRs

    At the time when they threw out my world record in the 50m 6.06, they let the 6.11 run by Marita stand. And how stupid that the world record and German national record isnt the same. Is Marita not a German citizen.
    Also the rule at the time was one had to test positive not admit to steroid use. I could have taken them to court which I can still do but really cannot be bothered. Also people whom I competed against who tested positive and blamed it on contaminated supplements and got off the hook. How could the govering body of our sport believe such nonsence.
    I wonder what will come of the doping scandal in the United States, will they erace all the results of those involved? will they even publish the exact numbers. What if its say 50 people . This will almost destroy the sport of Track and Field.
    They made such a sacrifice of Ben, its a shame. My god Carl Lewis tested positive for stimulants before the 88 Olympics so he should not have been there I do not hear the IOC asking for his medal. I guess Linford Christie should get the Gold Medal. now isnt this really funny
    cheers
    Angella

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: New WRs

    The IAAF has more than ample proof that the East Germans, including Marita Koch, were using drugs. Koch admitted as much in some correspondence found (in STASI files, I believe) after the collapse of the DDR, in which she was whining about rival Barbel Wockel getting more/better drugs than she was receiving. The IAAF's VERY hypocritical stance on this issue was to allow her, to this day, to retain the world 400 record. However, she isn't the German national record holder, because the German Federation, to their credit, threw out all the contaminated performances made by DDR athletes prior to reunification. Ruth Fuchs, Olympic javelin gold medallist in 1972 (and 1976?) admitted publicly to having taken drugs. She never had to hand over her medals. Canadian sprinter Angella Issajenko admitted to taking drugs and had her named erased from the list of medallists at the world indoor championships, and lost her world indoor 50 metre record. The IAAF doesn't apply its "rules" consistently or fairly, and it's pretty hard to take them seriously anymore.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X