Should we consider pre-1990 results invalid?

[imaginative]

Should we consider pre-1990 results invalid as group when discussing
result levels? Cf. the discussion on
http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discuss ... 981#499981

[lapsus]

I voted no.

I don't know how to explain my position on old results - I'm not sure I can explain it to even myself - but maybe I can ask another question: would you consider results pre-2003 (real EPO testing) invalid as a group?

[EPelle]

No greater guarantee 1991-2000 were any better despite the OCC.

[croflash]

No, we can't act like they have never happened which would happen if those were erased. I think there isn't anyone who isn't taking some of the numbers with skepticism, but those were established at some point and even the "dirtiest" record is still a record. It's unfortunate for some athletes today because they will never come close to a WR, but it wouldn't feel like a true WR if you run a certain time that will be considered clean.

[doug091463]

no, some have been legit, some have cheated, that is the way it was before 1990, and the way it still is now, and unfortunately how it will probably always be in the future.

[NormZylstra]

not yet

[Frans Rutten]

Should we consider pre-1990 results invalid?

Drawing the line with 1990 is quite arbitrarely.

You can't erase those performances at face value.
These performances aren't invalid in the way strong wind-assisted times would be, if they were accepted. Or throwing a discus in a valley into a storm.

Marianne Koch did run 47,60s. Watching lately that race on video I really still got embarassed. There is at least circumstantial evidence at hand showing, that her race (corrected)) though wouldn't stand much chance to be the world's best 400m race ever. I realise that this question though can't be solved.

IMO the IAAF should draw a line at a certain point (2009) and get a fresh start.
Not that what this measure things would be solved, but further more accepting such really embarassing facts as a total of all-time XXXXX throws further than the winning Beijing's women's discus gold medal throw, is ridicous.

[Marlow]

No greater guarantee 1991-2000 were any better despite the OCC.

Change "2000" to "2008"

[EPelle]

USADA/WADA/USATF/IOC would like to have you believe 2008 is better, but...

Nevertheless, perhaps an "old standards" list and a "new standards" list could be in order, much like changing implements from one to another standard and maintaining two separate lists.

[az2004]

so, harder stuff before 1990, more synthetic aids since then...

who knows who's using what now and not getting caught...

NO is my vote

[Marlow]

We are stuck with the WRs we have. We can only hope to improve the testing and know that sooner or later all WRs WILL be broken and hope that the breaker is clean(er than before) . . . but who knows. Once Pandora's PED-box got opened, it can never be fully shut.

[az2004]

cheaters will always be ahead of the testers...

now, get their blood and perhaps in the future cheaters can be caught...

still, very soon, genetic engineering will eprmit you tp select the features of your child...

want a 30 foot long jumper...it's yours..

want another mozart it's your's...

this cheating notion will get fuzzier and fuzzier very soon

[Barto]

Despite what the internet would have you believe, drug use in 2008 is about 10% of what it was in 1988 and 50% of what it was in 1998.

And no, I don't think we should throw pre-1990 marks out, but the time period has to be taken into account. Sort of like NCAA All-Americans in basketball pre-integration.

[az2004]

or babe ruths numbers.....