Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #31
    ...And Owens STILL did 10.2.
    I'd say thats better than Hayes' 10.06
    Better starter with NO blocks....or real spikes.

    Nuff said.

    Comment


    • #32
      [quote=scratchman]
      Originally posted by Texas
      Originally posted by scratchman
      Originally posted by Texas
      Originally posted by scratchman
      Originally posted by "Texas":26xvg2pm
      On Surin...
      I never said he was superior to Mitchell. I said in THAT PARTICULAR RACE, he was on another level as a bend runner. The other thing I stated clearly is that there are runners who dont fair that well in open events, but on relays bust races wide open, sometimes beating people faster than they are. Is that true or not?
      ~~~~~~~~~~

      I don't see Surin running a better bend than what Mitchell would have ran in that particular race. Mitchell was the superior 200m man as well.

      As far as Owens/Hayes/Lewis goes. I see Hayes as being the more "naturally gifted" and all things being equal the best of them. He was certainly the more powerful. He was the more physical and was in with far better talent than what Owens faced. If we but him in the 80's at around 26-28 on those tracks with Lewis I see him being his superior in the 100m. Keep in mind Hayes was only 21/22 in 1964. We never saw him with years of experience like we did Lewis.
      What made him more naturally gifted than Carl or Owens?
      Especially since they both did more track events, namely the long jump...and took gold. Owens even hurdled at one point. And Carl most certainly couldve triple jumped or high jumped. I could agree with Hayes' power. But I disagree with him being more of natural than Carl. No way! I agree if Hayes had stayed in track, there's no telling what he'd have done.
      .....But what if Carl only focused on the 100?
      Hayes was not only a star trackster he was also a star in baseball, basketball and football. He just happened to be the world's fastest human.....also. He was the better all around athlete and had that power. If all three had been born and raised on some farm in Idaho it would have been Bob Hayes who would have been the stud athlete. Put the three together in any era and Hayes rules. everything but the hurdles and the long jump.
      When I said naturally gifted, I meant in track.
      I'm sure Hayes was a better all around athlete when you add in other sports.
      ...But we're talking track, right?
      Hayes' natural ability in track was not superior to Carl's or Owens'.
      I don't see Hayes "ruling" Carl in any era.
      Period.
      That's your opinion, I have a different one. We saw Hayes run far faster than Owens did on dirt tracks. We saw Lewis in his 30's while only seeing Hayes in his early 20's. Hayes was faster than Owens on dirt and faster than Lewis at 22. Once again.."all things being equal"...it;s Hayes.
      Not that equal.
      Hayes had blocks....Owens didnt.[/quote:26xvg2pm]

      Do you honestly believe with blocks Owens is a 10.06/9.1 guy.....come on! The world had never seen anything close to Bullet Bob Hayes when he showed up. A 5.9 indoor WR, A 200 WR, he ran 9.1 4/5 times. All that before 22 years of age. When Track & Field News did their "World's Fastest Human Ever" meet, guess who won it?

      Comment


      • #33
        [quote=Texas][quote=scratchman]
        Originally posted by Texas
        Originally posted by scratchman
        Originally posted by Texas
        Originally posted by "scratchman":32aebtko
        Originally posted by "Texas":32aebtko
        On Surin...
        I never said he was superior to Mitchell. I said in THAT PARTICULAR RACE, he was on another level as a bend runner. The other thing I stated clearly is that there are runners who dont fair that well in open events, but on relays bust races wide open, sometimes beating people faster than they are. Is that true or not?
        ~~~~~~~~~~

        I don't see Surin running a better bend than what Mitchell would have ran in that particular race. Mitchell was the superior 200m man as well.

        As far as Owens/Hayes/Lewis goes. I see Hayes as being the more "naturally gifted" and all things being equal the best of them. He was certainly the more powerful. He was the more physical and was in with far better talent than what Owens faced. If we but him in the 80's at around 26-28 on those tracks with Lewis I see him being his superior in the 100m. Keep in mind Hayes was only 21/22 in 1964. We never saw him with years of experience like we did Lewis.
        What made him more naturally gifted than Carl or Owens?
        Especially since they both did more track events, namely the long jump...and took gold. Owens even hurdled at one point. And Carl most certainly couldve triple jumped or high jumped. I could agree with Hayes' power. But I disagree with him being more of natural than Carl. No way! I agree if Hayes had stayed in track, there's no telling what he'd have done.
        .....But what if Carl only focused on the 100?
        Hayes was not only a star trackster he was also a star in baseball, basketball and football. He just happened to be the world's fastest human.....also. He was the better all around athlete and had that power. If all three had been born and raised on some farm in Idaho it would have been Bob Hayes who would have been the stud athlete. Put the three together in any era and Hayes rules. everything but the hurdles and the long jump.
        When I said naturally gifted, I meant in track.
        I'm sure Hayes was a better all around athlete when you add in other sports.
        ...But we're talking track, right?
        Hayes' natural ability in track was not superior to Carl's or Owens'.
        I don't see Hayes "ruling" Carl in any era.
        Period.
        That's your opinion, I have a different one. We saw Hayes run far faster than Owens did on dirt tracks. We saw Lewis in his 30's while only seeing Hayes in his early 20's. Hayes was faster than Owens on dirt and faster than Lewis at 22. Once again.."all things being equal"...it;s Hayes.
        Not that equal.
        Hayes had blocks....Owens didnt.[/quote:32aebtko]

        Do you honestly believe with blocks Owens is a 10.06/9.1 guy.....come on! The world had never seen anything close to Bullet Bob Hayes when he showed up. A 5.9 indoor WR, A 200 WR, he ran 9.1 4/5 times. All that before 22 years of age. When Track & Field News did their "World's Fastest Human Ever" meet, guess who won it?[/quote:32aebtko]
        Absolutely!!!!
        You flat out cant argue he was more explosive than Hayes.
        ...You come on!
        Without blocks...a 10.2???
        The world had never seen anybody do the things Owens did either. And didnt see it again until LEWIS!!!!!!!!!!!
        Whats age got to do with it? Lewis was 23 when he won 4 golds.
        ...So was Owens.
        What year did T&F state this proclamation....I mean....opinion?

        Comment


        • #34
          [quote=scratchman][quote=Texas][quote=scratchman]
          Originally posted by Texas
          Originally posted by scratchman
          Originally posted by "Texas":eu8wbe4l
          Originally posted by "scratchman":eu8wbe4l
          Originally posted by "Texas":eu8wbe4l
          On Surin...
          I never said he was superior to Mitchell. I said in THAT PARTICULAR RACE, he was on another level as a bend runner. The other thing I stated clearly is that there are runners who dont fair that well in open events, but on relays bust races wide open, sometimes beating people faster than they are. Is that true or not?
          ~~~~~~~~~~

          I don't see Surin running a better bend than what Mitchell would have ran in that particular race. Mitchell was the superior 200m man as well.

          As far as Owens/Hayes/Lewis goes. I see Hayes as being the more "naturally gifted" and all things being equal the best of them. He was certainly the more powerful. He was the more physical and was in with far better talent than what Owens faced. If we but him in the 80's at around 26-28 on those tracks with Lewis I see him being his superior in the 100m. Keep in mind Hayes was only 21/22 in 1964. We never saw him with years of experience like we did Lewis.
          What made him more naturally gifted than Carl or Owens?
          Especially since they both did more track events, namely the long jump...and took gold. Owens even hurdled at one point. And Carl most certainly couldve triple jumped or high jumped. I could agree with Hayes' power. But I disagree with him being more of natural than Carl. No way! I agree if Hayes had stayed in track, there's no telling what he'd have done.
          .....But what if Carl only focused on the 100?
          Hayes was not only a star trackster he was also a star in baseball, basketball and football. He just happened to be the world's fastest human.....also. He was the better all around athlete and had that power. If all three had been born and raised on some farm in Idaho it would have been Bob Hayes who would have been the stud athlete. Put the three together in any era and Hayes rules. everything but the hurdles and the long jump.
          When I said naturally gifted, I meant in track.
          I'm sure Hayes was a better all around athlete when you add in other sports.
          ...But we're talking track, right?
          Hayes' natural ability in track was not superior to Carl's or Owens'.
          I don't see Hayes "ruling" Carl in any era.
          Period.
          That's your opinion, I have a different one. We saw Hayes run far faster than Owens did on dirt tracks. We saw Lewis in his 30's while only seeing Hayes in his early 20's. Hayes was faster than Owens on dirt and faster than Lewis at 22. Once again.."all things being equal"...it;s Hayes.
          Not that equal.
          Hayes had blocks....Owens didnt.[/quote:eu8wbe4l]

          Do you honestly believe with blocks Owens is a 10.06/9.1 guy.....come on! The world had never seen anything close to Bullet Bob Hayes when he showed up. A 5.9 indoor WR, A 200 WR, he ran 9.1 4/5 times. All that before 22 years of age. When Track & Field News did their "World's Fastest Human Ever" meet, guess who won it?[/quote:eu8wbe4l]
          Absolutely!!!!
          You flat out cant argue he was more explosive than Hayes.
          ...You come on!
          Without blocks...a 10.2???
          The world had never seen anybody do the things Owens did either. And didnt see it again until LEWIS!!!!!!!!!!!
          Whats age got to do with it? Lewis was 23 when he won 4 golds.
          ...So was Owens.
          What year did T&F state this proclamation....I mean....opinion?[/quote:eu8wbe4l]

          You do realize that's a 10.2 hand timed...right? Owens was beaten by Eulace Peacock many times in the 100 and even lost the long jump to him. Metcalfe beat Owens a few times. James Johnson beat Owens. No way Jesse Owens hangs with Bullet Bob Hayes under any circumstances.

          The "World's Fastest Human Ever" was done in the early 80's. Yes before Lewis.

          The age deal is that we never saw Hayes as a 26-28 sprinters. No telling what he might have done. Obviously he hadn't peaked out at 22.

          Owens at the Nationals...

          1936
          1. Jesse Owens 10.4 =MR
          2. Ralph Metcalfe 10.6e
          3. Samuel Stoller
          4. Foy Draper
          5. Marty Glickman
          6. Ben Johnson
          1935
          F: 100 meters; S/F: 6/6; D: 04 JUL; W: +7.8 mph
          1. Eulace Peacock 10.2w
          2. Ralph Metcalfe 10.3ew
          3. Jesse Owens 10.3ew
          4. George Anderson 10.4ew
          5. Foy Draper
          6. Milton Holt
          Heat 2: Peacock 10.2w.
          1934
          F: 100 meters; S/F: 6/6; D: 30 JUN
          1. Ralph Metcalfe 10.4 MR
          2. Jesse Owens 10.4e
          3. Eulace Peacock
          4. Charles Parsons
          5. Louis Salvato
          6. Ralph Sickel
          1933
          F: 100 meters; S/F: 7/7; D: 30 JUN
          1. Ralph Metcalfe 10.5 MR
          2. James Johnson
          3. Jesse Owens
          4. Paul Starr
          5. Hudson Hellmich
          6. Don Bennett

          While Owens did run a 10.2PR he usually ran in that 10.4ish world.

          Comment


          • #35
            "If you recall Mitchell was the top American in 96 and a monster on a third leg of a 4x1. Probably the best ever at that position."

            My all-time favorite third legger has to be Calvin Smith. I just loved to see him run that curve. To me he was money in the bank on the third leg.

            Comment


            • #36
              [quote=Texas][quote=scratchman][quote=Texas][quote=scratchman]
              Originally posted by Texas
              Originally posted by "scratchman":10x8j3a4
              Originally posted by "Texas":10x8j3a4
              Originally posted by "scratchman":10x8j3a4
              Originally posted by "Texas":10x8j3a4
              On Surin...
              I never said he was superior to Mitchell. I said in THAT PARTICULAR RACE, he was on another level as a bend runner. The other thing I stated clearly is that there are runners who dont fair that well in open events, but on relays bust races wide open, sometimes beating people faster than they are. Is that true or not?
              ~~~~~~~~~~

              I don't see Surin running a better bend than what Mitchell would have ran in that particular race. Mitchell was the superior 200m man as well.

              As far as Owens/Hayes/Lewis goes. I see Hayes as being the more "naturally gifted" and all things being equal the best of them. He was certainly the more powerful. He was the more physical and was in with far better talent than what Owens faced. If we but him in the 80's at around 26-28 on those tracks with Lewis I see him being his superior in the 100m. Keep in mind Hayes was only 21/22 in 1964. We never saw him with years of experience like we did Lewis.
              What made him more naturally gifted than Carl or Owens?
              Especially since they both did more track events, namely the long jump...and took gold. Owens even hurdled at one point. And Carl most certainly couldve triple jumped or high jumped. I could agree with Hayes' power. But I disagree with him being more of natural than Carl. No way! I agree if Hayes had stayed in track, there's no telling what he'd have done.
              .....But what if Carl only focused on the 100?
              Hayes was not only a star trackster he was also a star in baseball, basketball and football. He just happened to be the world's fastest human.....also. He was the better all around athlete and had that power. If all three had been born and raised on some farm in Idaho it would have been Bob Hayes who would have been the stud athlete. Put the three together in any era and Hayes rules. everything but the hurdles and the long jump.
              When I said naturally gifted, I meant in track.
              I'm sure Hayes was a better all around athlete when you add in other sports.
              ...But we're talking track, right?
              Hayes' natural ability in track was not superior to Carl's or Owens'.
              I don't see Hayes "ruling" Carl in any era.
              Period.
              That's your opinion, I have a different one. We saw Hayes run far faster than Owens did on dirt tracks. We saw Lewis in his 30's while only seeing Hayes in his early 20's. Hayes was faster than Owens on dirt and faster than Lewis at 22. Once again.."all things being equal"...it;s Hayes.
              Not that equal.
              Hayes had blocks....Owens didnt.[/quote:10x8j3a4]

              Do you honestly believe with blocks Owens is a 10.06/9.1 guy.....come on! The world had never seen anything close to Bullet Bob Hayes when he showed up. A 5.9 indoor WR, A 200 WR, he ran 9.1 4/5 times. All that before 22 years of age. When Track & Field News did their "World's Fastest Human Ever" meet, guess who won it?[/quote:10x8j3a4]
              Absolutely!!!!
              You flat out cant argue he was more explosive than Hayes.
              ...You come on!
              Without blocks...a 10.2???
              The world had never seen anybody do the things Owens did either. And didnt see it again until LEWIS!!!!!!!!!!!
              Whats age got to do with it? Lewis was 23 when he won 4 golds.
              ...So was Owens.
              What year did T&F state this proclamation....I mean....opinion?[/quote:10x8j3a4]

              You do realize that's a 10.2 hand timed...right? Owens was beaten by Eulace Peacock many times in the 100 and even lost the long jump to him. Metcalfe beat Owens a few times. James Johnson beat Owens. No way Jesse Owens hangs with Bullet Bob Hayes under any circumstances.

              The "World's Fastest Human Ever" was done in the early 80's. Yes before Lewis.

              The age deal is that we never saw Hayes as a 26-28 sprinters. No telling what he might have done. Obviously he hadn't peaked out at 22.

              Owens at the Nationals...

              1936
              1. Jesse Owens 10.4 =MR
              2. Ralph Metcalfe 10.6e
              3. Samuel Stoller
              4. Foy Draper
              5. Marty Glickman
              6. Ben Johnson
              1935
              F: 100 meters; S/F: 6/6; D: 04 JUL; W: +7.8 mph
              1. Eulace Peacock 10.2w
              2. Ralph Metcalfe 10.3ew
              3. Jesse Owens 10.3ew
              4. George Anderson 10.4ew
              5. Foy Draper
              6. Milton Holt
              Heat 2: Peacock 10.2w.
              1934
              F: 100 meters; S/F: 6/6; D: 30 JUN
              1. Ralph Metcalfe 10.4 MR
              2. Jesse Owens 10.4e
              3. Eulace Peacock
              4. Charles Parsons
              5. Louis Salvato
              6. Ralph Sickel
              1933
              F: 100 meters; S/F: 7/7; D: 30 JUN
              1. Ralph Metcalfe 10.5 MR
              2. James Johnson
              3. Jesse Owens
              4. Paul Starr
              5. Hudson Hellmich
              6. Don Bennett

              While Owens did run a 10.2PR he usually ran in that 10.4ish world.[/quote:10x8j3a4]
              Ha!Ha!
              So no great sprinter ever lost in their prime?
              Lewis? MJ? Greene?
              And about the hand time thing....What else could they've gone by back then?
              How many more times did he beat those same dudes he lost to?
              How many Oly golds did those guys get? ....and then some?
              The fact still remains Hayes' conditions were much better than Owens'. And if you'll recall, I still said I'd give Hayes an edge over Owens...but not Carl.
              And if you knew T&F ranked Hayes The GOAT before Carl, Greene, Bolt, etc. came along, why did you even bring that ish up????? :roll:
              That further solidifies the fact that you just have a jones for Hayes, and thats all there is to it. You cant/wont accept that he was NOT the best ever at the distance.
              Way to hang in there!

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by EPelle
                Originally posted by eldrick
                rough rule i get from seeing a lot of anchor splits & comparing to open 100s is that the flying leg takes away the start &

                your anchor + 1.00s

                is ~ what you shoud run in an open 100 with excellent start
                Originally posted by epelle, [05.06.18 12.07
                ]Fresno Relays announcer April 1989 stated on the end of the men:s 4x100m relay that Quincy Watts ran his anchor leg in 8,6 seconds (in a close runner-up race to the finish with TCU:s Raymond Stewart -- who ran a 9,97 open four weeks later in Waco).
                Watts was a 9,6-9,7 guy?
                looks very suspect timing

                whatever it was, add 0.24s for auto

                then you have unknown factor of wind - modern, enclosed stadums don't go more than +1 to +2 thruout - not same case with fresno - who knows if it was 4 or 5m/s ?!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Neither. I raced there just prior to this particular race, and don't believe it picked up from ca 0,5-1,0 m/s to +4/+5 m/s. Say Stewart anchored TCU in 8,8 to 8,9; 9,97 four weeks later with an allowable wind seems to fit your +1; Watts, on the other hand, not a chance he'd have hit 9,6 ... 9,7 ... or even 9,8.

                  He did have the greatest relay carry I have ever witnessed in my life, and brought USC to a near dead-heat with TCU, but couldn't pass Stewart.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    without a wind-gauge for the race you don't know & fresno has been a windy place in the past

                    another factor apart from timing value itself is where they took the timing from - we assume from 300m mark, but timer for watts may have mistakenly taken it from when watts received the baton & that may have been ?302 or 303m mark, whereas the one for ray timed it properly from 300m mark

                    anyhows, for "proper" cases, look at number for safa's "anchor wr"

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by scratchman
                      And if you'll recall, I still said I'd give Hayes an edge over Owens...but not Carl
                      gotta go with this

                      my gut feeling is that King was at his absolute best in '83/'84 at aged 22y/23y & deteriorated after ( but not much, but didn't get better )

                      evidence ?

                      10.06 -2.2 Carl Lewis USA 01.07.61 1 Los Angeles 17.06.1984

                      that is probably his best career 100m, worth

                      - 9.92 basic

                      - 9.87 in rome with a +1.0 ( ran 9.93 in '87 )

                      - 9.87 in seoul with a +1.1 ( ran 9.92 in '88 )

                      - 9.86 in tokyo, with a +1.2 ( ran 9.86 in '91 on albeit illegal track )

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Texas
                        Bob Hayes was using PED's? Hahahahahahahaha....that's funny :lol: The guy was runing fast as a little kid, he was a stud in high school. Do you honestly believe a guy who knew he wasn't going to be a pro trackster actually saw a need to.....hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Come on man..sheesh!

                        Hayes went to Florida A&M. Do you really believe his coach......

                        Come on man!
                        Drug use was widespread in US track and field even then, and taking off elsewhere. I think you're kidding yourself. Just accept your heroes' accomplishments regardless.

                        All the great sprinters who have been caught for drug use had to be good to begin with - certainly at least international class.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Ha!Ha!
                          So no great sprinter ever lost in their prime?
                          Lewis? MJ? Greene?
                          And about the hand time thing....What else could they've gone by back then?
                          How many more times did he beat those same dudes he lost to?
                          How many Oly golds did those guys get? ....and then some?
                          The fact still remains Hayes' conditions were much better than Owens'. And if you'll recall, I still said I'd give Hayes an edge over Owens...but not Carl.
                          And if you knew T&F ranked Hayes The GOAT before Carl, Greene, Bolt, etc. came along, why did you even bring that ish up?????
                          That further solidifies the fact that you just have a jones for Hayes, and thats all there is to it. You cant/wont accept that he was NOT the best ever at the distance.
                          Way to hang in there!

                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                          Jesse Owens was in that "The World's Fastest Human Ever" race is why I brought it up.

                          They went as far as to saying Hayes would have ran a 9.86 in 1968 if he'd stayed in track.

                          I've seen Hayes many times and Lewis. Bring Hayes up to 84-88 and yes he's the superior 100m man. He was stronger than Lewis, had a better start (5.9WR) and would now be running on those fast tracks. A 10.06 on a bad dirt track in 1964 doesn't tell you anything? It should!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Rog
                            Originally posted by Texas
                            Bob Hayes was using PED's? Hahahahahahahaha....that's funny :lol: The guy was runing fast as a little kid, he was a stud in high school. Do you honestly believe a guy who knew he wasn't going to be a pro trackster actually saw a need to.....hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Come on man..sheesh!

                            Hayes went to Florida A&M. Do you really believe his coach......

                            Come on man!
                            Drug use was widespread in US track and field even then, and taking off elsewhere. I think you're kidding yourself. Just accept your heroes' accomplishments regardless.

                            All the great sprinters who have been caught for drug use had to be good to begin with - certainly at least international class.
                            I think you're kidding yourself and it's sad to think you have to go there. So tell me just what was Hayes on and when did he start and who else was on drugs in that 64 final? What...you don't know? That's right you don't know.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Texas
                              Originally posted by Rog
                              Originally posted by Texas
                              Bob Hayes was using PED's? Hahahahahahahaha....that's funny :lol: The guy was runing fast as a little kid, he was a stud in high school. Do you honestly believe a guy who knew he wasn't going to be a pro trackster actually saw a need to.....hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Come on man..sheesh!

                              Hayes went to Florida A&M. Do you really believe his coach......

                              Come on man!
                              Drug use was widespread in US track and field even then, and taking off elsewhere. I think you're kidding yourself. Just accept your heroes' accomplishments regardless.

                              All the great sprinters who have been caught for drug use had to be good to begin with - certainly at least international class.
                              I think you're kidding yourself and it's sad to think you have to go there. So tell me just what was Hayes on and when did he start and who else was on drugs in that 64 final? What...you don't know? That's right you don't know.
                              Of course I don't know, and nor do you. But given that drug use was already a phenomenon in the sport, and this enabled people to train harder to get faster, and he was fastest of all, it is likely he was one of the many using.

                              It wasn't against the rules at that point and I don't think it denigrates his achievements, but I do believe it would have given him an advantage over Owens.

                              In any case Usain Bolt is a level above either.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Rog
                                Originally posted by Texas
                                Originally posted by Rog
                                Originally posted by Texas
                                Bob Hayes was using PED's? Hahahahahahahaha....that's funny :lol: The guy was runing fast as a little kid, he was a stud in high school. Do you honestly believe a guy who knew he wasn't going to be a pro trackster actually saw a need to.....hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Come on man..sheesh!

                                Hayes went to Florida A&M. Do you really believe his coach......

                                Come on man!
                                Drug use was widespread in US track and field even then, and taking off elsewhere. I think you're kidding yourself. Just accept your heroes' accomplishments regardless.

                                All the great sprinters who have been caught for drug use had to be good to begin with - certainly at least international class.
                                I think you're kidding yourself and it's sad to think you have to go there. So tell me just what was Hayes on and when did he start and who else was on drugs in that 64 final? What...you don't know? That's right you don't know.
                                Of course I don't know, and nor do you. But given that drug use was already a phenomenon in the sport, and this enabled people to train harder to get faster, and he was fastest of all, it is likely he was one of the many using.

                                It wasn't against the rules at that point and I don't think it denigrates his achievements, but I do believe it would have given him an advantage over Owens.

                                In any case Usain Bolt is a level above either.
                                Unless you can do a little beter than.."of course I don't know"...you might wanna cool the drug talk..ok? If you're going to accuse people of anything you need some proof. All you have is... well.....nothing.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X