Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Veronica Campbell-Brown: Records ‘hurt’ women’s athletics

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Veronica Campbell-Brown: Records ‘hurt’ women’s athletics

    In an article today from BBC Sport, Jamaican sprinter Veronica Campbell Brown is questioning Flo-Jo's 100m record.

    Cheers,
    Jimmie
    400meteroval.com

  • #2
    She said basically same thing in this piece posted to front page on August 26

    http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/ ... orts1.html

    Comment


    • #3
      A blind, one-eyed Icelandic-American midget hermaphroditic albino will be President of the United States before Flojo's "records" blow away....
      Take good care of yourself.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Mennisco
        A blind, one-eyed Icelandic-American midget hermaphroditic albino will be President of the United States before Flojo's "records" blow away....
        I bet you a hundred dollars that you are wrong. (With an automatic
        tie if one of us dies before either happens.)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by imaginative
          Originally posted by Mennisco
          A blind, one-eyed Icelandic-American midget hermaphroditic albino will be President of the United States before Flojo's "records" blow away....
          I bet you a hundred dollars that you are wrong. (With an automatic
          tie if one of us dies before either happens.)
          I forgot to add "left-handed, incontinent, Republican and hopelessly addicted to the Bee Gees."

          Since I'm not likely getting out of this life anytime soon, take your vitamins, don't smoke, exercise, take Vitamin D, and don't bump with no big fat woman.
          Take good care of yourself.

          Comment


          • #6
            And yet, you will still find the occasional "poster" who believes it will happen as soon as the next 10 years.

            As has been noted on other threads, we missed a golden opportunity to start anew with at least the women's records at the end of the last millenium, although from a political standpoint, it would be difficult to wipe out the women's without doing so with the men's also. However, most of the men's records are arguably within reach of the current crop of male performers, although some of the men's field events are going to be very difficult to break.

            Ballyhooing records is very important to individual sports (witness swimming in Beijing, with interviews and replays ad nauseum). Of the 22 standard women's events (no walk), 7 have been broken since 2000. However, 4 of those, the pole vault, steeplechase, javelin and hammer, are events of very short historical duration, when records are expected to fall more rapidly, and post-date the era of unfettered PED use. Only 3 other events (the 5K, 400H, and marathon) have been updated since 2000. The men have updated 11, and are reasonably close in 4 or 5 others. Records lasting 10-15 years are one thing, 50-100 years (as with some of the women's eventually) is something else.

            Very few of the "every 4 year" track and field fans and viewers could name even one woman who won an event in Beijing, with the possible exception of Isenbayeva, who set a WR at the games (and even those could not pronounce her name). On the other had, many would know Usain Bolt and Jamaica.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by nmzoo
              .... Of the 22 standard women's events (no walk), 7 have been broken since 2000. However, 4 of those, the pole vault, steeplechase, javelin and hammer, are events of very short historical duration, when records are expected to fall more rapidly, and post-date the era of unfettered PED use. Only 3 other events (the 5K, 400H, and marathon) have been updated since 2000. .....
              And the three other events weren't added to the program until the '80s. When you look at the "mainstream" events that were firmly in place when the World Championships began, we're talking essentially no WRs since the '90s began. This is a far worse black mark on our sport than admitting there were problems and coming up with a new set. This way it looks as if the IAAF is in denial over reality.

              Comment


              • #8
                Makes me think they are in "cahoots".

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mennisco
                  A blind, one-eyed Icelandic-American midget hermaphroditic albino will be President of the United States before Flojo's "records" blow away....
                  Basically agree, although I might dispense with some of the qualifiers -- guaranteed to energize the ire of the righteously indignant.

                  I wrote not long ago that we should start over at 2000. Older marks/records would be consigned to some legacy category, only of interest to the idly curious or the pathologically perverse.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Since the IAAF blew the 2000 window, allow me to be the first (?) to suggest this to them: second-century records! Seriously, IAAF will celebrate its 100th birthday in 2012. New/different set starts with 2013.

                    (and since that will radicalize the face of the sport so much, at least briefly, take the occasion to at the same time tweak some of the event specs, as has been noted in other threads from time, relative to implement weights and hurdle heights/spans)

                    (and while we're on that subject, make the circles bigger: the current ones were created with sub-6-footers in mind; let's let the big guys truly unwind. And reduce the number of fouls at the same time; if they're concerned about false starts making track races look bad, ring fouls do just the same. Make both the rings 3m wide, sted of 2.135 and 2.50.... has never made sense that the hammer circle was smaller than the discus circle anyway)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by George P.
                      Originally posted by Mennisco
                      A blind, one-eyed Icelandic-American midget hermaphroditic albino will be President of the United States before Flojo's "records" blow away....
                      Basically agree, although I might dispense with some of the qualifiers -- guaranteed to energize the ire of the righteously indignant.

                      I wrote not long ago that we should start over at 2000. Older marks/records would be consigned to some legacy category, only of interest to the idly curious or the pathologically perverse.
                      starting over is only good if it can be known with ABSOLUTE proof who did and did not cheat and IF there is a 100% guarantee no one will EVER cheat again once the starting over takes place, but the reality is some will cheat and some wont, that is the way it has been in the past, in the present and almost certainly will continue into the future.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by gh
                        Since the IAAF blew the 2000 window, allow me to be the first (?) to suggest this to them: second-century records! Seriously, IAAF will celebrate its 100th birthday in 2012. New/different set starts with 2013.

                        (and since that will radicalize the face of the sport so much, at least briefly, take the occasion to at the same time tweak some of the event specs, as has been noted in other threads from time, relative to implement weights and hurdle heights/spans)

                        (and while we're on that subject, make the circles bigger: the current ones were created with sub-6-footers in mind; let's let the big guys truly unwind. And reduce the number of fouls at the same time; if they're concerned about false starts making track races look bad, ring fouls do just the same. Make both the rings 3m wide, sted of 2.135 and 2.50.... has never made sense that the hammer circle was smaller than the discus circle anyway)
                        I can see the point about redefining the implement specs and perimeter dimensions. This definately would give a positive spin onthe sport and allow for more palatable performances.

                        However, I am a tad concerned about the complexity in relating the new and the old marks; much like looking at imperial and metric measurements (can sometimes be such a headache in trying to instantaneously compare the two in your mind's eye). I therfore think if the considerations are taken into reality, then many substantial marks might be ignored when folks might decide to just disregard the old marks in effort to deal with the new marks.

                        The next thing is; I just don't see a substantial enough case existent to render records before 2012 to be overwritten. I think the IAAF should just balls-up and face the bull and erase those records which are highly suspect. I wouldn't mind if they first made it subjective then derive the justifications for such. And I would add that they tweak the current false start rule.

                        ...and dude, if keep taking off my posts I am seriously going to consider a hunger strike!! :lol:

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          This is an easy one for me but I know others will disagree. Remove records before out of competition testing began in 1989, everything before then was open to a level of cheating that we can't really predict or comment on - though I know that many people will have an opinion on.

                          I agree that it's unfair on those athletes that were clean during those years, however, the 'rules' surrounding the sport changed from that date on and to ensure a level playing field then we need to look at all the factors that effected our sport, no matter how painful that might be.

                          I know the IAAF would never do this as its run by some of the greatest athletes from that era and it would openly show that we had/have a drug problem in this sport.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I'm not in favor of removing records, but here is another idea. Before every year, the IAAF sets a mark for each event and if you beat that mark you receive the same prize money as if you had just broken the world record. It's not the same, but would anyone truly feel like a world record has been set when we know that 25 years ago, someone has already run faster, wind-aided, drug-aided or not ? Personally I can't.

                            And quite honestly, who can guarantee that we aren't going to see another era like the 80s again ? Politics play a major part in that and history might repeat itself at one point.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by gh
                              (and while we're on that subject, make the circles bigger: the current ones were created with sub-6-footers in mind; let's let the big guys truly unwind. And reduce the number of fouls at the same time; if they're concerned about false starts making track races look bad, ring fouls do just the same. Make both the rings 3m wide, sted of 2.135 and 2.50.... has never made sense that the hammer circle was smaller than the discus circle anyway)
                              Is T&FN offering to pay the cost of changing every circle in the world?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X