Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alex Wilson SUI suspended (positive test)

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • 18.99s
    replied
    Originally posted by CookyMonzta View Post

    Word has it that the wind gauge was not properly warmed up or given a test run when it was activated for the straightaway races. Flo's 10.49 quarterfinal and Echols' 10.83 heat that followed were the first 2 heats of the day and the only heats with a zero reading, while at the same time the mTJ was loaded with wind-aided performances, including that infamous +4.3 reading.
    Yes, I know about all of that, plus video of things blowing in the wind in the tailwind direction.

    Leave a comment:


  • CookyMonzta
    replied
    Originally posted by 18.99s View Post

    Nothing inaccurate with that time per se, but something dubious about it being recognized as a world record.
    Word has it that the wind gauge was not properly warmed up or given a test run when it was activated for the straightaway races. Flo's 10.49 quarterfinal and Echols' 10.83 heat that followed were the first 2 heats of the day and the only heats with a zero reading, while at the same time the mTJ was loaded with wind-aided performances, including that infamous +4.3 reading.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Originally posted by 18.99s View Post

    And I was worried about the same thing happening with the 9.84, i.e. getting recognized officially based on inaccurate timing and/or wind reading because there wasn't enough admissible evidence to do otherwise.

    What stopped his 9.84 from being recognized? Was it the drug ban, the race video, or something else?
    timing data in the 9.84 wasn't up to snuff

    Leave a comment:


  • 18.99s
    replied
    Originally posted by gh View Post

    there was no concrete evidence that could have led USATF and IAAF to do anything but ratify it
    And I was worried about the same thing happening with the 9.84, i.e. getting recognized officially based on inaccurate timing and/or wind reading because there wasn't enough admissible evidence to do otherwise.

    What stopped his 9.84 from being recognized? Was it the drug ban, the race video, or something else?

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Originally posted by 18.99s View Post

    Nothing inaccurate with that time per se, but something dubious about it being recognized as a world record.
    there was no concrete evidence that could have led USATF and IAAF to do anything but ratify it

    Leave a comment:


  • 18.99s
    replied
    Originally posted by gm View Post

    There was absolutely nothing wrong with the 10.49. Wind? Maybe, maybe not. The time? Nope.
    Nothing inaccurate with that time per se, but something dubious about it being recognized as a world record.

    Leave a comment:


  • gm
    replied
    Originally posted by 18.99s View Post

    I didn't believe it was a real 9.84 either, but then again some dubious times have been officially recognized in the books like FloJo's 10.49 and Lalova's 10.77 so I was worried that it would have been made official.
    There was absolutely nothing wrong with the 10.49. Wind? Maybe, maybe not. The time? Nope.

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    Originally posted by 18.99s View Post

    I didn't believe it was a real 9.84 either, but then again some dubious times have been officially recognized in the books like FloJo's 10.49 and Lalova's 10.77 so I was worried that it would have been made official.
    It was analyzed by some knowledgeable people in terms of the distance between him and the times of the guys who finished behind him in the race. The conclusion was it was a 10.3ish run, which would be consistent with his other races this year.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cooter Brown
    replied
    If that specific steroid could make a over the hill, chunky guy run 9.84, they're gonna have trouble keeping it on the shelves.

    Leave a comment:


  • 18.99s
    replied
    Originally posted by polevaultpower View Post
    The 9.84 was already discredited before this news came out. I'm not sure anything ever came out in English about it. It was very clearly not a 9.84 lol
    I didn't believe it was a real 9.84 either, but then again some dubious times have been officially recognized in the books like FloJo's 10.49 and Lalova's 10.77 so I was worried that it would have been made official.
    Last edited by 18.99s; 07-28-2021, 07:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • polevaultpower
    replied
    The 9.84 was already discredited before this news came out. I'm not sure anything ever came out in English about it. It was very clearly not a 9.84 lol

    Leave a comment:


  • Wiederganger
    replied
    Originally posted by NotDutra5 View Post
    Now....there's a source for you.
    Well, its from the same guy who broke news of Sha'Carri Richardson's positive before news outlets, so he seems reliable...

    Leave a comment:


  • 1.609
    replied
    Originally posted by Vault-emort View Post
    That's one very high octane, sub tren 9.84

    Leave a comment:


  • 1.609
    replied
    Originally posted by NotDutra5 View Post
    Now....there's a source for you.
    They have a buy and sell section?

    Leave a comment:


  • NotDutra5
    replied
    Now....there's a source for you.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X