Ben Johnson Question

[OwenSamuela15]

Re: Ben Johnson Question

"Ben was helped by his unusual start; my impression is that this technique requires great strength." -26mi235

You are correct in your statement. The 100 meter dash is broken into quadrants and Ben Johnson has had the fastest first quad ever. If he was able to open up after the first 40-50m the way Carl Lewis could, he might have ran a low 9.6 . His style as you stated relied completely on strength and power. He relied on his amazing start through the first two quadrants in order to carry him through the last two quadrants of the race.

[pv22']

Re: Ben Johnson Question

>PV22 you stated that you feel a 9.69 might have been possible. Quick question? Didn't Ben Johnson burn a 100m dash in 9.69 that was very wind aided? I remember him burning one prior to his 88 Seoul run that was amazing.<

i dont know about the wind aided 9.69, but with balco types he could it have done without wind.

[JRM]

Re: Ben Johnson Question

>Quick question? Didn't Ben Johnson burn a 100m dash in 9.69 that was very
>wind aided? I remember him burning one prior to his 88 Seoul run that was
>amazing.

That 9.69s was run by Obadele Thompson in '96. Wind was about 6m/s, and the race was in El Paso (about 1300m altitude). So, he had the best of both worlds, wind and altitude assistance.

Ben ran a 9.7s (hand-time) in Australia. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of?

[JRM]

Re: Ben Johnson Question

>i dont know about the wind aided 9.69, but with balco types he could it have done
>without wind.

Out of curiosity, why does everyone think the BALCO supplements are improvements over Stanazolol? They're both anabolic agents -- the only difference (as far as I know) is that BALCO's are engineered to be undetectable.

I think the BALCO times were fast *because* they were in a program similar to Ben's, not because the drugs are better. My opinion is that if Ben were involved in BALCO, he'd have run exactly the same times as he did (in effect, he *was* on a precursor to BALCO).

His times could show improvement because of other considerations: better track surfaces (geared toward sprinters), perhaps mild improvements in training. But over all, the program would make no difference.

[pv22']

Re: Ben Johnson Question

>Out of curiosity, why does everyone think the BALCO supplements are improvements over Stanazolol? They're both anabolic agents -- the only difference (as far as I know) is that BALCO's are engineered to be undetectable.<

right, nobody knows for sure what they do. well, i guess they help you run a 9.78

[JRM]

Re: Ben Johnson Question

>right, nobody knows for sure what they do. well, i guess they
>help you run a 9.78

Actually, the 2m/s wind and 0.104s reaction are what help you run 9.78.

[D.Advocate]

Re: Ben Johnson Question

<<BS, 10flat runner at best without the illegal assistance.>>

Even so that would be pretty good for 100m including 1988 and before.
If you exclude high altitude marks, and races in which Ben hadn't dragged others to fast times - how many sub 10.00 times are there?

9.96 Mel Lattany is one & the King?

[D.Advocate]

Re: Ben Johnson Question

<<Ben was helped by his unusual start; my impression is that this technique requires great strength. If so, take that advantage way first. Then the other effects also matter. He was able to train harder. Drugs help some athletes more than others, and Ben might have been one of those types (looking at his build, I would guess so)>>

*There are others who have/had better starts.
*Dwayne Chambers was bigger didn't help him.

[BisonHurdler]

Re: Ben Johnson Question

With all the new supplements and drugs that are sliding through Track and Field's front door undetected, does anyone have an opinion on Ben Johnson's probable success had he run in this era? <<<< That was my original question as PV22 pointed out. Please address it if you have an opinion.

PV22 you stated that you feel a 9.69 might have been possible. Quick question? Didn't Ben Johnson burn a 100m dash in 9.69 that was very wind aided? I remember him burning one prior to his 88 Seoul run that was amazing.

No, but he did "burn" a 9.7h in Perth in '87 (which is a FAR cry from a 9.69).

Obadele Thompson, however, did run a blistering (and hurricane-aided) 9.69 in '96.

[BisonHurdler]

Re: Ben Johnson Question

Out of curiosity, why does everyone think the BALCO supplements are improvements over Stanazolol? They're both anabolic agents -- the only difference (as far as I know) is that BALCO's are engineered to be undetectable.

I think the BALCO times were fast *because* they were in a program similar to Ben's, not because the drugs are better. My opinion is that if Ben were involved in BALCO, he'd have run exactly the same times as he did (in effect, he *was* on a precursor to BALCO).

By virtually all accounts (except, apparently, the one that mattered most), Ben wasn't using Stanozolol. He had experimented with it earlier in his career when he was first getting into PED use, and apparently found significant bloating and water retention (which are common with that drug) and experienced extreme stiffness in training. He immediately dismissed this drug, and apparently found several others that worked much better (like Dianabol).

That being said, yes one of the benefits of the BALCO crew was that they did not need to worry about drug clearance times. Ben (as well as anyone else during that time who was doping) had to ensure that they stopped taking the substances 20-30 days prior to major (tested) competitions. According to Charlie Francis, they typically went with a 4 week clearance time program, even though they knew that Dianabol (and whatever substances they were "stacking" with it) generally had a clearance time of closer to 2.5-3 weeks, just to be on the safe side.

Whether or not that would make a difference, however, is up for debate. Anabolics are not stimulants (although who's to say they weren't also taking stimulants for a race-day advantage), and their benefits are reaped over the many long months and years leading up to a race, not in the several days before, let alone several hours.

I guess it also comes down to how clean or how dirty you think the 1990-2005 era sprinters are/were. If you believe that the testing protocol has been effective in catching most of the cheats, then it makes Ben's performances look that much more artificially great; however, if you tend to think that many/most of the top guys are/were on the juice, it would suggest a more or less "level" playing field in terms of evaluations between BJ and the current ones, in which case Ben looks a lot better.

I'm not really sure which camp I fall in.

[Track fan]

I truly feel he is the greatest post anabolic sprinter ever. His dominance over his competitors was unmatched. I don't recall other probable dirty athletes dominating their competitors like him. He was unassailable in 86' to 88'......