Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Women's Shot - How Far The Mghty Have Fallen!

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by gh
    You willing to bet on that?
    Jon is willing to bet that Paula's 'ridiculous' (in a good way) 2:15 is clean. That's good enough for me. You do NOT want a discussion of who else we think is clean, because that means we're accusing everyone else of being dirty. Your words are enough for us to infer that you may think they are ALL dirty! I'm sure you don't mean to accuse every WR-holder of being dirty - that would break all your rules.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Marlow
      Originally posted by gh
      You willing to bet on that?
      Jon is willing to bet that Paula's 'ridiculous' (in a good way) 2:15 is clean. That's good enough for me. You do NOT want a discussion of who else we think is clean, because that means we're accusing everyone else of being dirty. Your words are enough for us to infer that you may think they are ALL dirty! I'm sure you don't mean to accuse every WR-holder of being dirty - that would break all your rules.
      Paula's record is from 2003. It fits neither the 2000 or 1990 cut off dates.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by donley2
        Paula's record is from 2003. It fits neither the 2000 or 1990 cut off dates.
        So are you willing to bet that EVERY record before 2000 is dirty?

        Comment


        • #34
          Nope. But I would be willing to bet greater than 95% of those that are dated before 1990 are. And I guess the difference in opinion is that you are unwilling to throw out even 1 valid record in order trash 25 or 30 PED aided ones and I am.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Marlow
            Originally posted by gh
            You willing to bet on that?
            Jon is willing to bet that Paula's 'ridiculous' (in a good way) 2:15 is clean. That's good enough for me. You do NOT want a discussion of who else we think is clean, because that means we're accusing everyone else of being dirty. Your words are enough for us to infer that you may think they are ALL dirty! I'm sure you don't mean to accuse every WR-holder of being dirty - that would break all your rules.
            You said pick a year, any year... there are many years pre-Radcliffe. Including many where steroids were legal (and in high use). And that was followed by many years where to the average athlete, breaking a steroid rule was something you laughed at, same as taking money under the table. Was all part of the game.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by donley2
              Nope. But I would be willing to bet greater than 95% of those that are dated before 1990 are. And I guess the difference in opinion is that you are unwilling to throw out even 1 valid record in order trash 25 or 30 PED aided ones and I am.
              The records are not even being 'thrown out', they are just put into a different box. It is not like scrubbing a performance from the historical record (like is done when an athlete is DQ on a drug offense and the performance is covered by that action).

              ........

              In a different connection to the OP, I was thinking about how the current performers from different countries compare with the 1980's era performers. Those countries that have not had the massive reduction are an interesting contrast with those that have seen that reduction, although East Germany is a special, non-comparable case. [I also realize that the end of strong national sponsorship also enhanced marks because of the identification and systematic and well-coached training.]

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by gh
                to the average athlete, breaking a steroid rule was something you laughed at, same as taking money under the table. Was all part of the game.
                So you ARE willing to go on the record that all the pre-2000 records were dirty?

                I think Bolt's 9.69 and 19.30 are as bizarre, anomalous and 'suspicious' as ALL the records pre-2000, but I certainly am not willing to say, on or off the record, that he's dirty. By asking to throw out all the pre-2000 records, without any facts in evidence to their uncleanliness, you are, in effect, UNJUSTLY (in the literal sense of the word) accusing all them of being dirty. Interesting. Seems to somehow transgress board guidelines.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Marlow
                  Originally posted by gh
                  to the average athlete, breaking a steroid rule was something you laughed at, same as taking money under the table. Was all part of the game.
                  So you ARE willing to go on the record that all the pre-2000 records were dirty?

                  I think Bolt's 9.69 and 19.30 are as bizarre, anomalous and 'suspicious' as ALL the records pre-2000, but I certainly am not willing to say, on or off the record, that he's dirty. By asking to throw out all the pre-2000 records, without any facts in evidence to their uncleanliness, you are, in effect, UNJUSTLY (in the literal sense of the word) accusing all them of being dirty. Interesting. Seems to somehow transgress board guidelines.
                  GH never mentioned a specific year. Only you did. I mentioned 1990.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by donley2
                    GH never mentioned a specific year. Only you did. I mentioned 1990.
                    Yes, actually gh HAS specified a year - 2000. He has talked about millennial records in previous threads.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Women's Shot - How Far The Mghty Have Fallen!

                      Originally posted by Omega4ul
                      Originally posted by bushop
                      Originally posted by nmzoo
                      My solution - Increase the weight of the shot 10g and start over!
                      When the implement weights are changed I'd rather see a drop in weight ... down to 3kg (or 2.5kg) for the juniors and 3.5kg for the seniors.

                      How heavy would a boy's shot have to be for the top HS throw in the US to be 52 feet (usually the top girl's throw)? Around 9-11kg? The women's shot puts are too heavy.
                      I think it is time to change the weight!
                      4K for High School and Juniors
                      4.5 or 5 K for the Pros
                      We all know that the old records were acheived during a dishonest period. Lets start fresh and add a little excitement to the event!
                      Let's not let records and all-time list dictate the parameters of the event (the NBA certainly doesn't, 3-pointers). The lighter implements will allow more participation. I don't care what any records are ... the female shot is too heavy ... it pushes too many youngsters out of the event.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Marlow
                        So are you willing to bet that EVERY record before 2000 is dirty?
                        For the women?

                        Yes, I'm willing to bet every single one set before 2000 is dirty.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by marknhj
                          Originally posted by Marlow
                          So are you willing to bet that EVERY record before 2000 is dirty?
                          For the women?

                          Yes, I'm willing to bet every single one set before 2000 is dirty.
                          Do you, as a high jumper, include Kostadinova? With Bergqvist at 2.08i
                          and Vlasic at 2.07, 2.09 looks more human than the other records.
                          (And, more generally, after a possibly ten year dip the overall level
                          of the event is about as strong as ever.)

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            We'll not be getting into names here.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Marlow
                              Originally posted by donley2
                              GH never mentioned a specific year. Only you did. I mentioned 1990.
                              Yes, actually gh HAS specified a year - 2000. He has talked about millennial records in previous threads.
                              Apples calling oranges. The current discussion was about whether or not there were years where all the records were dirty.

                              Any talk about 2000 was related to its utter logic as a starting point for new records; not only the round-number appeal of the millennium but also the foundation of WADA.

                              And, to clarify, I've never advocated throwing out the old records, merely the classification of the earlier ones as "old millennium" (era, whatever noun you want) and the others as "new X."

                              Do I think that all marks made since then are clean? To paraphrase Marlow paraphrasing Texas HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

                              But do I think they're a quantum leap cleaner? One need only look at the marks.

                              As donley2 said <<you are unwilling to throw out even 1 valid record in order trash 25 or 30 PED aided ones and I am.>>

                              Me too. The credibility of the sport is at stake.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by gh
                                But do I think they're a quantum leap cleaner? One need only look at the marks.
                                The credibility of the sport is at stake.
                                As to the former statement, it's all a matter of arbitrary perspective. I see where your perspective is, do you see mine? I find them equal in all regards.

                                As to the latter statement . . . I have always been a big fan of your sense of humor! :twisted:

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X