Re: t-and-f: IAAF GP Final Results
In a message dated 00-10-05 20:56:56 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: P 100 METRES HURDLES - WOMEN Wind: Pts 1 Devers Gail USA 12.85 24.0 2 Alozie Glory NGR 12.94 21.0 3 Ennis-London Delloreen JAM 12.96 18.0 4 Morrison Melissa USA 13.00 15.0 5 Couch-Jewell Sharon USA 13.06 12.0 6 Freeman Michelle JAM 13.11 9.0 7 Burrell Dawn USA 13.23 Shishigina Olga KZKDNF WOW! Gail sure rebounded nicely from her Olympic injury...or cramp...or whatever you want to call it. Larry A. Morgan Elizabeth Heat TC
Re: t-and-f: Comment from list member
Mr Rohl and fellow listmembers, Though I have great sympathy for the harassment you have suffered as a walker on a list composed largely of very immature distance runners and a few precious honest athletics fans, I think that your personal message to Mantis--whether private or shared--was completely out of line. There are many ways of dealing with harassers, and becoming one yourself is not included within those options. If Mantis' harassing actions, whatever they may have been, were immature and offensive, yours appear to be criminally malicious and inexcusable. Is it somehow more reasonable that it was sent privately? To me, that makes your threat even less acceptable. I write to the whole list to make the point that I hope our list will never degenerate into a web of personal vendettas. Nary a post goes by without at least two or three people responding negatively, often with no pertinent information on the topic other than, "your athlete is doped and your event is stupid." Just witness the responses to Mr Hunt's assessment of Suzy Hamilton's fall--you may disagree with Mr Hunt's assessment, and you may think that he is short of information. But almost all of us are certainly even shorter of information, for many of us have never been elite coaches, or even athletes, and the number of people on this list who have mastered physiology seems quite small. I am humoured by the responses to Mr Hunt's diagnosis, which (a) state that he is too far removed to explain Ms Hamilton's fall and then (b) offer an explanation. My point is, I joined this list four or five years ago with the intent of reading a wide array of results and hearing what experts and other honest fans had to say about the world of international athletics. I did not join it to be susceptible to the kind of silly answers most posts receive, or the violent vendettas of disgruntled members. A G Beaver
RE: t-and-f: Comment from list member
I agree lets keep it civil Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Adam G Beaver Sent: 06 October 2000 11:08 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Comment from list member Mr Rohl and fellow listmembers, Though I have great sympathy for the harassment you have suffered as a walker on a list composed largely of very immature distance runners and a few precious honest athletics fans, I think that your personal message to Mantis--whether private or shared--was completely out of line. There are many ways of dealing with harassers, and becoming one yourself is not included within those options. If Mantis' harassing actions, whatever they may have been, were immature and offensive, yours appear to be criminally malicious and inexcusable. Is it somehow more reasonable that it was sent privately? To me, that makes your threat even less acceptable. I write to the whole list to make the point that I hope our list will never degenerate into a web of personal vendettas. Nary a post goes by without at least two or three people responding negatively, often with no pertinent information on the topic other than, "your athlete is doped and your event is stupid." Just witness the responses to Mr Hunt's assessment of Suzy Hamilton's fall--you may disagree with Mr Hunt's assessment, and you may think that he is short of information. But almost all of us are certainly even shorter of information, for many of us have never been elite coaches, or even athletes, and the number of people on this list who have mastered physiology seems quite small. I am humoured by the responses to Mr Hunt's diagnosis, which (a) state that he is too far removed to explain Ms Hamilton's fall and then (b) offer an explanation. My point is, I joined this list four or five years ago with the intent of reading a wide array of results and hearing what experts and other honest fans had to say about the world of international athletics. I did not join it to be susceptible to the kind of silly answers most posts receive, or the violent vendettas of disgruntled members. A G Beaver
RE: t-and-f: Comment from list member
Adam et al, The responsibility for this was Mantis's - he forwarded a personal note to a public forum, something which is ALWAYS wrong and ALWAYS a severe breach of etiquette. I don't care what the Rohls and Mantis say to each other in private and it is not the place of ANY of us to pick Mike up on what language he chooses to put in his private messages. Frankly, this private spat is their own concern, not yours, mine or anyone else's. Which is why Mantis should have kept it private, and why you and the rest of us should refrain from getting involved. Justin -- From: Adam G Beaver Reply To: Adam G Beaver Sent: Friday, October 6, 2000 11:08 am To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Comment from list member Mr Rohl and fellow listmembers, Though I have great sympathy for the harassment you have suffered as a walker on a list composed largely of very immature distance runners and a few precious honest athletics fans, I think that your personal message to Mantis--whether private or shared--was completely out of line. There are many ways of dealing with harassers, and becoming one yourself is not included within those options. If Mantis' harassing actions, whatever they may have been, were immature and offensive, yours appear to be criminally malicious and inexcusable. Is it somehow more reasonable that it was sent privately? To me, that makes your threat even less acceptable. I write to the whole list to make the point that I hope our list will never degenerate into a web of personal vendettas. Nary a post goes by without at least two or three people responding negatively, often with no pertinent information on the topic other than, "your athlete is doped and your event is stupid." Just witness the responses to Mr Hunt's assessment of Suzy Hamilton's fall--you may disagree with Mr Hunt's assessment, and you may think that he is short of information. But almost all of us are certainly even shorter of information, for many of us have never been elite coaches, or even athletes, and the number of people on this list who have mastered physiology seems quite small. I am humoured by the responses to Mr Hunt's diagnosis, which (a) state that he is too far removed to explain Ms Hamilton's fall and then (b) offer an explanation. My point is, I joined this list four or five years ago with the intent of reading a wide array of results and hearing what experts and other honest fans had to say about the world of international athletics. I did not join it to be susceptible to the kind of silly answers most posts receive, or the violent vendettas of disgruntled members. A G Beaver ** Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by them. Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited. Registered in England. Registered Number 1935786. Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE. Telephone 020 7616 3500. Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] **
t-and-f: Re: TF: Qatar Meet
It's as simple as looking at a globe. Australia is at the opposite side of the globe for both Europeans AND Americans. A heck of a long way. How's the best way to get home? For Europeans, Qatar is a convenient refueling and stretch-the-legs stop. For Americans, Hawaii is a convenient refueling and stretch-the-legs stop. Qatar is completely the wrong direction. Put the meet in Hawaii and Europeans would have been bailing out in droves, but there would have been a much better chance of getting Maurice Greene. RT
Re: t-and-f: Re: TF: Qatar Meet
- Original Message - From: R.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's as simple as looking at a globe. Australia is at the opposite side of the globe for both Europeans AND Americans. A heck of a long way. How's the best way to get home? For Europeans, Qatar is a convenient refueling and stretch-the-legs stop. For Americans, Hawaii is a convenient refueling and stretch-the-legs stop. Qatar is completely the wrong direction. Most flights from Europe to Australia stop at Singapore (or thereabouts). Qatar is out of the way for everybody; it means booking extra flights and reserving two or three days at a Qatari hotel, depending on flight schedules out of Qatar. It is probably easiest for East Africans en route from Sydney. I think Kenyans travel via the Arabian peninsula. West Africans are unluckier; no matter where they want to go, they usually have to fly to a West European destination first. A Nigerian who wants to go to Tanzania has to fly to London or Amsterdam first (if memory serves ... there might also be a Kenyan Airways flight to Nairobi from Lagos, though I don't think so ). Put the meet in Hawaii and Europeans would have been bailing out in droves, but there would have been a much better chance of getting Maurice Greene. That didn't stop a good number of US Olympians from competing -- Jones, Devers, Taylor, the usual lineup for the 100m, and not to mention practically the entire Jamaican and Bahamian contigent, who also had a long ways to go. I think that Greene wasn't planning on competing regardless of the location. Definitely not in Hawaii, a group of tiny islands thousands of miles away from anywhere ;-) Cheers, Elliott
t-and-f: Comment from list member
About time someone said something like this. I don't object so much to the bad language but to all the negativity. Randall Northam Mr Rohl and fellow listmembers, Though I have great sympathy for the harassment you have suffered as a walker on a list composed largely of very immature distance runners and a few precious honest athletics fans, I think that your personal message to Mantis--whether private or shared--was completely out of line. There are many ways of dealing with harassers, and becoming one yourself is not included within those options. If Mantis' harassing actions, whatever they may have been, were immature and offensive, yours appear to be criminally malicious and inexcusable. Is it somehow more reasonable that it was sent privately? To me, that makes your threat even less acceptable. I write to the whole list to make the point that I hope our list will never degenerate into a web of personal vendettas. Nary a post goes by without at least two or three people responding negatively, often with no pertinent information on the topic other than, "your athlete is doped and your event is stupid." Just witness the responses to Mr Hunt's assessment of Suzy Hamilton's fall--you may disagree with Mr Hunt's assessment, and you may think that he is short of information. But almost all of us are certainly even shorter of information, for many of us have never been elite coaches, or even athletes, and the number of people on this list who have mastered physiology seems quite small. I am humoured by the responses to Mr Hunt's diagnosis, which (a) state that he is too far removed to explain Ms Hamilton's fall and then (b) offer an explanation. My point is, I joined this list four or five years ago with the intent of reading a wide array of results and hearing what experts and other honest fans had to say about the world of international athletics. I did not join it to be susceptible to the kind of silly answers most posts receive, or the violent vendettas of disgruntled members. A G Beaver
t-and-f: ATFS annuals
I'm looking for the ATFS annuals before the 1982 edition. I have already found the 1975, 1976, 1978 editions. Ciao. Ivan Italy
Re: t-and-f: Chris Huffins - class act
Dan- I have to respond to your allegations that one must be arrogant to be a winner. When in HS, we had a guy on the team who was a mediocre 440 runner, but a champion wrestler. He was the kind of guy who would throw freshman in the lake on a sub freezing day just for fun, laughing the 3 miles back to school. The coaches condoned this behavior, saying that was the championship mentality they liked. I have always felt that one could have a tremendous inner drive, and still act like a decent person. Did you see the Lance Armstrong interview after the time trial? Do you question his drive when he stated one must be a genleman also?? Or does the fact that he has won a few tours override that statement? Here in western PA we periodically have coal fires burning very deep and very hot for years. No one knows their full extent- you can't see them as they consume the coal in the area, until one periodically comes close enough to the surface to detect. Nice guys can get the job done, despite what the NFL and WWF want us to believe. Dave Sobal Head Cross Country Coach Point Park College
Re: t-and-f: grand prix query
From: Post, Marty [EMAIL PROTECTED] An AP story on the GP final said, "Hattestad... gained bonus points with two world records this season..." I thought they only got bonus $$$ for WRs in Grand Prix meets, but these kind of points for Hattestad would be a way unfair advantage. It seems pretty absurd to award the same kind of bonus points to someone who needs to top a pre-2000 WR of 68.19m in the [new] women's javelin as opposed to say 10.49 in the 100 meters. Nobody beat 10.49 this season. It might be an issue if there were other records involved, but there aren't. Some records may be nigh unbeatable in this day and age, but that's hardly Hattestad's fault. A WR is a WR is a WR, and WRs are basically what the crowds want to see. Granted, women's javelin and pole vault have an advantage over the women's 100m or men's 200m, but how does one measure the "freakiness" of a world record? By the quality of a record or the quality of the challengers? Besides, it's a no-win situation; if many athletes can come close to a particular record that record is called "easy"; if an athlete sets a mark so far ahead that no-one else stands a chance, that record is called "drug-enhanced". greets, Elliott
t-and-f: Interior 1000 Issue
I just wanted to pop in here to say that Alan Shank a few days ago, notwithstanding a little flak he took, had some validity to the statistical point he was making. I wrote, on the women's Olympic 1500: If there is any explanation there with respect to exhaustion, it may be the interior 1000 of 2:39.3 between 400 and 1400, leaving her still 100 short of the finish. To match Merah-Benida at the tape, Suzy would have required (1) a 2:38.3 over the same 400 to 1400...and here's the possible point...(2) a continuance of that same 1000 pace without slowdown over the final 100 for a total of 1100. If that is really THE Kathi Rounds lurking out there... SNIP James Fields responded: To appreciate a 2:38/2:39 in the interior of a women's 1500m, consider an Olympic final-size field of this year's top 12 performers from 1000-meter races without a preceding 400 or following 100. This list is topped with 2:37.22 by the silver medalist at Sydney. 2:37.22 Violeta Beclea-Szekely, Romania SNIP Alan Shank quarreled: Come, now. This is like a list of 5K runners' "best 400." How many really hot kilometer races with a pacemaker do you see on the circuit each year? None. The record is 2:30, IIRC, and that's not a strong record, either. It's true, though, that it takes more energy to run 1400 meters with a 70.6 400 + 2:37 kilo than it is to run 1400 in that time in an even pace. James countered: Forgive me, but I fail to see your 5000m to 400m ratio as comparable or relevant to Mr. Kuykendall's 1500m to 1000m discussion. Kathi Rounds, mentioned in my original post, chipped in with: Thankfully, I've only run 2 1500's in my life (and I think it took me 2:38 to go through the first 800) so I don't know how it feels. My guess is that it hurts : ) That's an incredible 1000 in the middle of a 1500. * * * * * I agree with James, not Alan, on the 5000/400 ratio business. However, James probably got his 2000 performance list for the 1000 from the IAAF website. It continues to omit an apparent 2:35.96 by Anna Jakubczak of Poland, from September 17 in Australia... http://www.athletics-online.co.uk/000917bailey.htm ...before the Olympic track field got underway. My thought originally on the interior 400-1400 came from an unfamiliarity with 1000 times. If, for instance, there had been an interior 300-1100, an 800, of 2:00.25, we all would have been impressed. I didn't know whether I should be impressed with a 2:38.3 to 2:39.3 as a possible explanation for what happened. Alan WASN'T impressed, and the simple math lit up in my brain the other day that in the circumstances everybody was expecting (tiptop shape, no prefatory dehydration), he's correct not to be. That is, multiply the faster of these two times by 1.50 to go from 1000 meters to 1500. You're adding to the 2:38.3, essentially, half of another 2:38.3, or 1:19.15. Summing those figures gives you, for a full 1500: 3:57.45 Sound familiar? Bislett maybe? Suzy's 3:57.40? So, if, as we heard was the case from Suzy's September 12 diary entry at her website... http://www.SuzyFavorHamilton.com/diary.htm ..., she considered herself as strong or stronger than for Oslo, the interior 2:39.3, even a 2:38.3, should have been doable and would have to be discounted as a single-factor explanation. This is all moot, I think, because of her October 3 diary revelations and the subsequent analysis by Coach Hunt. It's the 2:39.3, or the general pace of the race, plus a physiology status that WASN'T in fact ideal. The alternative explanation, pursued by some posters over on Schiefer's list, is esentially that Suzy fell because (1) she's just a sissy and (2) was covering up by giving us an Oscar-level acting performance. There are reasons I don't think this alternative hypothesis holds up under scrutiny, but that will have to be a different post, if I get around to it. In any event, I think I can now recognize after the fact the difference between simple oxygen-debt finishing leg-cement and/or wobbliness and what Coach Hunt has described. I don't really care to ever see the latter again, with ANY runner. (Ed Eyestone in the 1996 Olympic Trials 1 is another example of the same sentiment, whatever was the physiological explanation in his case. In the stands, we were all yellling for the meet doctors to rush the heck out onto the field where he was staggering around.) So if I were given a choice between a guarantee that I'd never again see it, and a guarantee that the athlete in question would win an Olympic gold medal, I would definitely go with the first guarantee and leave the gold chase to somebody else. Alan also was critical of my remarks on Mary Decker Slaney (basically, my retreading 1984 and totally ignoring 1983). I semi-agree with his comments, and may or may not post later on that subject. Chris Kuykendall Austin, Texas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: Scientific Facts for Suzy
It is most interesting that there are types of "facts". Here we have" scientific" facts, others talk about " true" facts, and we have the ever present "known" fact. Is there a difference between these types of facts? I thought that science is a proceedure that one uses to reach a conclusion, but that the conclusion is not fact.Certainly the "facts" that I grew up with are not "facts" today. The fact is I love to watch Suzy run. John Lunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This was passed on to me from Coach Jim Hunt, All American Long Distance Running Coach -- From "Dr. Hunt!" Bill, you asked for it. Suzy Favor Hamilton collapsed in the finals of the Olympic 1500 due to complete glycogen depletion. Suzy does not possess the basic speed that some of the other competitors possess. In order to run as fast as she was attempting to do, she had to run at a velocity that was too high of a percentage of her basic performance speed for too long. The glycogen demanded by her muscles to do the work that the brain was commanding of them was completely depleted. As to the dehydration effect, it takes 4 lb. of water to produce 1 lb. of glycogen. Oxygen must mix with glycogen in order to produce energy. Glycogen is stored in the liver, muscle cells and blood stream and must receive oxygen in the amount demanded by the working muscles to continue to work at a desired level. When stored glycogen is depleted, the body will attempt to make more. The process of making glycogen requires a large quantity of water which would lead to further dehydration. In addition to the depletion of fluid, her body could not deliver sufficient oxygen to produce the muscular contractions that her central nervous system was commanding. Suzy could not extract enough oxygen from the air and deliver it to the working muscles in the amount necessary to be able to continue with the high rate of velocity that she needed to run. In Suzy's attempt to run for 4:00 at a velocity of 6.25 meters per second, complicated by the lack of body fluids, her heart rate soared to a new maximum causing her body temperature to rise to possibly as high as 105 degrees-106 degrees. Her body's cooling system was not prepared to dissipate this much heat. This high temperature coupled with the panic of seeing her competitors fly by her caused her body to go into traumatic shock. Traumatic shock causes the large arteries to expand, literally robbing the working muscles and the brain of oxygen carrying blood. When traumatic shock occurs, the mechanisms causes the body to go into a prone position in an attempt to restore oxygen to the brain. Once in a prone position, enough oxygen returned to her brain for her to muster the energy to stand up. Her tremendous desire to win had programmed her body to move forward to the finish line. When Suzy reached the finish line the energy again was completely depleted. At this point, her body's protective mechanisms caused her to collapse again into a prone position. After several minutes of intravenous fluids, electrolyte restoration she was able to quietly leave through the back door without any further assistance. This traumatic experience will most likely make it extremely difficult for Suzy to ever push her body hard enough again to get close to world record time. Her central nervous system will never forget the torture that her body went through and the protective organisms of her body will resist any attempt to duplicate this act in the future. Alberto Salazar was an exceptionally determined athlete who could withstand severe pain for long periods of time. He was able to force his body to work to near death in two separate marathons before his body said "no more, Al." Good luck Suzy. We all appreciate what you have done for track and field. "makes sense to me!" Bill "maddog" Scobey
Re: t-and-f: devers at GP Final
Phil Weishaar wrote: 100 METRES HURDLES - WOMEN Wind: Pts 1 Devers Gail USA 12.85 24.0 2 Alozie Glory NGR 12.94 21.0 3 Ennis-London Delloreen JAM 12.96 18.0 4 Morrison Melissa USA 13.00 15.0 5 Couch-Jewell Sharon USA 13.06 12.0 6 Freeman Michelle JAM 13.11 9.0 I guess TF has reached a level that I will never understand. phil weishaar - Isn't that the truth That is exactly what I was saying last week in a post I made about the Olympics and all of the individuals that had various excuses and didn't even seem to try .. Many didn't even step foot on the track .. I said it privately to some folks last week and will say it now with conviction - Devers did not seem to be hurt in her Olympic semi and I'm sorry but if she were she wouldn't still be kicking everyone's butt in this meet .. One thing seems clear - few are competing for the love of the sport any more .. While I have not been a big Donovan Bailey fan in the past, he did show up and run .. He was eliminated early, but he gave it a shot .. So many DIDN'T give it a shot .. At the Olympics of all places .. That once in lifetime place for most where dreams are supposed to come true .. Oh wait a minute .. That was in the old millennium .. This is the new millennium .. The one where money rules .. Where drugs apparently reign .. And where you can't tell the players without a dope sheet (pun intended) .. And where its hard to tell if an athlete isn't competing somewhere due to a) injury, b) fearful of drug test, c) not enough money being offered, or d) some combination of the above .. I saw it coming when Carl Lewis and the SMTC squad quit running at Nationals because they couldn't make money .. Since then it has evolved to what we have seen in the last month - between the Olympics and the Grand Prix final .. I love track and field .. Always have .. Always will .. Strip away the bullshit and it is a beautiful sport .. Something for everyone .. A chance for all to excel .. The height of human competition .. Excitement galore .. But if this is what money is doing/has done to the sport, well I don't know .. I know before the money there were lots of big time track meets here in the state of California .. Since the money there are only a couple .. Before the money I could watch the best sprinters in the world almost every weekend right here in California .. Since the money maybe once every couple years .. Before the money people would cut off a leg and run with just one to be able to run in the Olympics .. Now if it don't feel right you just pass on the opportunity .. Hell, why did we want the sport to have more money anyway ?? Conway Hill[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: Re: TF: Qatar Meet
--- Elliott Oti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is probably easiest for East Africans en route from Sydney. I think Kenyans travel via the Arabian peninsula. Don't most Olympic-caliber East Africans live in Europe much of the year? Dan = http://AbleDesign.com - AbleDesign, Web Design that Can! http://Run-Down.com - 8,500 Running Links, Free Contests... @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (lifetime forwarding address) / / (503)370-9969 phone/fax __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free! http://photos.yahoo.com/
Re: t-and-f: devers at GP Final
Netters Phil Weishaar wrote: 100 METRES HURDLES - WOMEN Wind: Pts 1 Devers Gail USA 12.85 24.0 I guess TF has reached a level that I will never understand. Conway added: "This is the new millennium .. The one where money rules .. Where drugs apparently reign .. And where you can't tell the players without a dope sheet (pun intended) .. And where its hard to tell if an athlete isn't competing somewhere due to a) injury, b) fearful of drug test, c) not enough money being offered, or d) some combination of the above ." It is possible that it may even be more sinister then that. With both Devers and Inger (who had to know she was not going to win either the 100 or 200) They effectively sabotaged Marions's efforts towards 5 Golds. They both pulled out before her long jump. How much did it mean to have 4 vs. 3 Golds? BTW anyone see the distance that Marion had on that last jump? It looked to be out past 7.5 meters! To bad she fouled. That is a good example to compare to the walks. She had the longest jump but a judge called a foulsound familiar? Good Training, Michael Rohl
Re: t-and-f: Interior 1000 Issue
CHRIS KUYKENDALL wrote: I just wanted to pop in here to say that Alan Shank a few days ago, notwithstanding a little flak he took, had some validity to the statistical point he was making. I wrote, on the women's Olympic 1500: If there is any explanation there with respect to exhaustion, it may be the interior 1000 of 2:39.3 between 400 and 1400, leaving her still 100 short of the finish. To match Merah-Benida at the tape, Suzy would have required (1) a 2:38.3 over the same 400 to 1400...and here's the possible point...(2) a continuance of that same 1000 pace without slowdown over the final 100 for a total of 1100. If that is really THE Kathi Rounds lurking out there... SNIP James Fields responded: To appreciate a 2:38/2:39 in the interior of a women's 1500m, consider an Olympic final-size field of this year's top 12 performers from 1000-meter races without a preceding 400 or following 100. This list is topped with 2:37.22 by the silver medalist at Sydney. 2:37.22 Violeta Beclea-Szekely, Romania SNIP Alan Shank quarreled: Come, now. This is like a list of 5K runners' "best 400." How many really hot kilometer races with a pacemaker do you see on the circuit each year? None. The record is 2:30, IIRC, and that's not a strong record, either. It's true, though, that it takes more energy to run 1400 meters with a 70.6 400 + 2:37 kilo than it is to run 1400 in that time in an even pace. James countered: Forgive me, but I fail to see your 5000m to 400m ratio as comparable or relevant to Mr. Kuykendall's 1500m to 1000m discussion. I agree with James, not Alan, on the 5000/400 ratio business. However, James probably got his 2000 performance list for the 1000 from the IAAF website. It continues to omit an apparent 2:35.96 by Anna Jakubczak of Poland, from September 17 in Australia... I responded to James privately on this. I said nothing about any "ratio"; what I meant was that a list of the best kilo times for a year, or, indeed, of all time, is not really representative of what runners could do for 1000m if it were an event contested more often and in major meets. The same can be said of distance runners' "best 400" times. When I was running track, my best 400 time came at the end of a touch interval workout. If I had run an all-out 400 in a track meet that meant something to me, and if I had trained for the 400, I'm sure I could have run a lot faster. I also pointed out that, according to J. Gerry Purdy's "Running Trax - Computerized Running Training Programs", the WR 800 is equivalent to about a 2:26 and a 2:39 kilo is equivalent to a 2:04 800. Alan WASN'T impressed, and the simple math lit up in my brain the other day that in the circumstances everybody was expecting (tiptop shape, no prefatory dehydration), he's correct not to be. That is, multiply the faster of these two times by 1.50 to go from 1000 meters to 1500. You're adding to the 2:38.3, essentially, half of another 2:38.3, or 1:19.15. Summing those figures gives you, for a full 1500: 3:57.45 Sound familiar? Bislett maybe? Suzy's 3:57.40? So, if, as we heard was the case from Suzy's September 12 diary entry at her website... A good estimate of Suzy's first kilo at Oslo is 2:40.44, after which she ran a 16 100m and a 60.96 final 400. Cheers, Alan Shank
Re: t-and-f: Fwd: Translate and Respond
In a message dated Fri, 6 Oct 2000 1:07:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Listers: I received this message which I do not understand. If someone can read this language and respond to and answer the writer, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: t-and-f: Fwd: [OZTRACK] IAAF Grand Prix Final Doha Results Date: 10/6/00 12:48:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Uffe M|ller,Aalborg Universitets edb-afdeling) Jeg er på ferie indtil 16/10. Indtil da kan du henvende dig til Helle Eskildsen (vedr ØSS) Birthe Kennedy, Anders Møller, Gitte Grau (vedr Stads) Gitte Grau (vedr databaseadministration) m.v.h. Uffe Møller The dude's away until the 16th. Until then you can contact those other people listed if you need something else from his department at the university. sideshow
Re: t-and-f: Re: TF: Qatar Meet
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't most Olympic-caliber East Africans live in Europe much of the year? Dan No. They only "live" in Europe while they're competing, which I suppose could be a good portion of the year, but not for any longer than they can help it. Most miss their homeland a great deal and try to stay away as little as possible. sideshow So, what of the accounts that the European based Kenyans are at a rather severe disadvantage when returning "home" for the national championships, under conditions they are no longer accustomed to? Isn't it now cross country/road racing time for many of them? Dan = http://AbleDesign.com - AbleDesign, Web Design that Can! http://Run-Down.com - 8,500 Running Links, Free Contests... @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (lifetime forwarding address) / / (503)370-9969 phone/fax __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free! http://photos.yahoo.com/
Re: t-and-f: Post Olympic Thoughts
Speaking specifically about the leg marion jones ran on the 1600m relay. Its was amazing. She looked like she was out for a jog while everyone else was running for their life. D Conway wrote: 100 meters - Both Greene and Jones appear to be as dominate at this distance as any two human beings in the history of the sport .. Both won by ridiculous margins over high quality fields .. These athletes are running through the tape, not leaning for it .. 200 meters - On the men's side there has been much discussion during the year as to who the top 200 man is .. One thing is clear after the games, that the loss of Greene and Johnson at the Trials robbed the event of it's true star .. No slap at Capel who was clearly the best man in Sydney - despite his start faux paux .. But Greene and Johnson both bring talent and competitive fire that seems to be lacking with the rest of the world .. And with Johnson's veiled thoughts at retirement, Greene may have 2 events to dominate in the future .. Especially should Capel decide to venture back to the gridiron .. On the women's side, despite what may be underachievement here, Jones is as dominate here as in the 200 until she is beaten on the track .. 400 meters - Again pure dominance by two athletes - Johnson and Freeman .. The US has found its successors however I believe in the Harrison's .. Not only do they have talent, but they have gotten smart enough to try to learn how MJ does what he does .. And I believe they will become the next regulars under 44 .. On the women's side the future of the event is not running it - Marion .. She made 49.4 look ridiculously easy for a woman .. Neither Koch or Kratochvilova ever made a low 49 look as easy .. If she would quit fiddling with the LJ and do a little work here I believe she would be able to get her first WR .. 10.49 is out cause quite frankly I don't think it was ever legally run (wind factors) .. And there is something about her gait that I think will keep her from going sub 21.50 .. Ah but the 400 .. I do believe she could get close to 47.00 .. And that would be special .. Outside of Marion and Freeman sub 49 looks to be a dream for a while .. 800 meters - Kenyans and Europeans .. Nuff said .. The US has a long way to go and a short time to get there .. On both sides - men and women .. And unfortunately there appears to be no one on the immediate horizon .. Illness may have depleted Kipketer and the world from seeing 1:40.xx .. Sub 1:43 is going back to being rare .. 1500 - Race and pace .. Apparently pace wins European races and money, but racing wins medals .. Not ready to write off ElG due to one race, but while he may yet lower the 1500 and or mile records again he is not the best racer .. had Cacho been in the race he too would have had a shot at gold .. Whatever happened to the Prefontaine anthem of just go out and run as fast as you can today and hope that's good enough to win ?? They say pride goeth before the fall and I guess in the case of distance runners that must be the case .. Ditto on the women's side .. The women's race turned out to be a classic case of the blind leading the blind as the only individual in the race that seemed to realize that the pace was too slow was Marla .. NO way that race should have been won that slowly .. Mary Slaney may have been a whiner, but she knew how to run HER race .. Some others need to learn to do the same .. Hurdles - Probably the most exciting events out there right now although they get little play here on the list .. Lots of up and coming stars on the men's side in both hurdle events .. And some veterans who aren't over the hill yet .. And no one dominate athlete .. These events are fun to watch and the camaraderie takes me back to a different time in track and field .. a lot of sprinters could take notes from these guys .. On the women's side its time to see some new blood emerge .. Aside from Alozie most are heading towards night fall .. Good competition, but the short race seems headed for dark times if a few new bloods don't come along .. But the most exciting event may be the women's 400H .. Can you say Privalova ?? Overlooked at the games due to Jones and Freeman, she may have been the story of the games .. An outstanding sprinter who has suffered through various injuries, she learned a new event (a hard new event) and in the course of one season is now the future of the event .. She's still learning the event and dominated the field AND almost went sub 53 ?!?!?! She should be the first woman to go sub 52 .. And who knows if she decided to double at 400 400H .. More later ... Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Dalton Foster Ph.D. Post-Doctoral Research Associate Department of Medical Physiology Texas AM University HSC (409) 845-7990 Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind. (Albert Einstein)
Re: t-and-f: Favor Hamilton Blames Medication
Wisconsin runner Suzy Favor Hamilton now blames effects of anti-inflammatory pills she was taking for contributing to her fall... Relafen and the over-the-counter medicine Aleve... In my opinion, not likely. Try again... Cheers, Buck ___ Carleton 'Buck' Jones, Ph.D. Division of Pharmacology College of Pharmacy The Ohio State University Columbus, OH 43210 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t-and-f: living overseas
Many of the elite level Kenyans (and other North and East Africans) live outside of their home countries for part or all of the year, every year. Do some research (instead of taking some other guy's word for it on the internet) and you will find that these athletes live in Holland, Germany, Italy, England, and Pennsylvania, among many other places. Just like they don't publicize who their coaches, managers, and physios are ... they prefer to bolster the mystique that they live at the end of a dirt road, high on a mountain, and eat Ugali for every meal. Think I'm full of it? Most fans are aware that Paul Tergat lives (for significant parts of the year) in St. Moritz. While that doesn't mean all of those like him live in Europe He is NOT the only one. Why is anyone so invested in perpetuating the "mud hut" mystique? We all take it for granted when we see a football player in his $2.2 Million home in the suburbs. Likewise, we are not surprised when we see that golf and tennis stars live in Mansions in Florida. Why should distance running be different? Brian McEwen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t-and-f: Reifenstahl film redux
Netters: Some time ago I posted a note regarding a planned film on the life of Leni Reifenstahl, who produced what many feel the greatest sports documentary film ever, Olympia, about the 1936 Olympics. Today, there was a short story in the Newark Star-Ledger about Jodie Foster's intent to go ahead with the film (and star in it) despite great objections from the Hollywood community and Jewish leaders. If the film is made, and I hope it will be, I hope that Foster will reconsider her plan to play the title role, for which, as fine an acrtess as she may be, she is simply physically unsuited. As I noted last time, the ideal actress to play the role---and she was to do it in another planned Reifenstahl film some years ago, which never got made---would be Vanessa Redgrave. Since Vanessa is now too old herself to play Leni at the time she made her two notable (some would say notorious) films (the other being Triumph of the Will), why not cast her look-alike daughter Natasha Richardson and, if the film continues to Leni's later career as a nature photographer, let Vanessa take over when the role becomes age-appropriate. According to the story, Reifenstahl is, at 98, still very active and in good physical shape. As far as the casting of you know who is concerned, why not Anthony Hopkins? On a completely different note possibly connected to the 1936 Games, there was an item on the radio today about a building collapse at Cleveland East HS in which three track and field athletes were injured. Could this be the same HS once (and perhaps still, news reports not always being exact these days) known as East Tech, the alma mater of two of the greatest figures in the history of the sport, one of whom became the star of Olympia. Ed Grant PS: Perhaps an Ohio member of the list might straighten out the name problem.
RE: t-and-f: Re: TF: Qatar Meet
So, what of the accounts that the European based Kenyans are at a rather severe disadvantage when returning "home" for the national championships, under conditions they are no longer accustomed to? There are about 2 thousand conditions they're no longer accustomed to. They're called meters. /Drew
RE: t-and-f: Favor Hamilton Blames Medication
H. In the past, didn't they use diuretics to cover up the use of ... oh well, nevermind. malmo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Buck Jones Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 2:57 PM To: TF Subject: Re: t-and-f: Favor Hamilton Blames Medication Wisconsin runner Suzy Favor Hamilton now blames effects of anti-inflammatory pills she was taking for contributing to her fall... Relafen and the over-the-counter medicine Aleve... In my opinion, not likely. Try again... Cheers, Buck ___ Carleton 'Buck' Jones, Ph.D. Division of Pharmacology College of Pharmacy The Ohio State University Columbus, OH 43210 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: MICHAEL JOHNSON MOVING TO CALIFORNIA
In a message dated 10/6/00 11:50:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Johnson's Dallas home is on the market for $1.4M Let's see, for $1.4M he could get, what, a 2 BR 1.5 BA in Bay Area, right? Jim Gerweck Running Times
Re: t-and-f: devers at GP Final
Tony will continue to have fun as long as the cloak of secrecy persists. He appears to want an end to this as he favors abandoning testing. The National federations keep his fire burning. Ed Prytherch. Randall wrote: Surely Gail Devers could sue Tony Craddock for this. But then again why would she. Such a sad person probably doesn't have much money to pay her. Randall Northam Under (d) you might well want to consider that Devers had a positive test on her, and a deal was cut for her to tank her race in Sydney to avoid the embarrassment of having to be escorted off the field as happened to the hammer thrower who tested positive. Likewise perhaps assurances were received from Qatar that there would be no testing. As I said earlier: "Are you going to believe me or your own lying eyes?" Tony Craddock
RE: t-and-f: LYNN NELSON in ULTRAMARATHON
So what you're saying is that those of us on the list who have very little respect for the "race" walk (a definite oxymoron) should have even less respect for talent of ultra-marathoners. You're probably right -Ray -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael J. Roth Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 6:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Track Listserve Subject: Re: t-and-f: LYNN NELSON in ULTRAMARATHON 7:45 pace for 31 miles is good? That pace would not even make the US 50km Race Walk team, and it is supposed to be an excellent run? This should shed some light on the ability of RWers worldwide. MJR
Re: t-and-f: MICHAEL JOHNSON MOVING TO CALIFORNIA
depends on which track geek realtor he has on the case (hint, hint...you listenin MJ?) - Mike - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 6:24 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: MICHAEL JOHNSON MOVING TO CALIFORNIA In a message dated 10/6/00 11:50:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Johnson's Dallas home is on the market for $1.4M Let's see, for $1.4M he could get, what, a 2 BR 1.5 BA in Bay Area, right? Jim Gerweck Running Times
t-and-f: Get off of Gail Devers!!!
I can't believe you all can sit here and say that kind of stuff about Gail. What kind of shit is that. If you all were listing, you would know that she (Gail) said that she pulled up when she started to feel it (her hamstring) pull more. So she DIDN'T pull up with a big-time injury. Some of you all just jump on the band-wagon and actually believe that she tested positive for something. C'mon!! This drug thing is really getting on my nerves. An athlete pulls out of something and suddenly they're on drugs. And whoever said that Gail pulled out for money is flat-out wrong. Don't you think she is living quite comfortably by now? She is probably one of the richest track athletes out there. She does have three gold medals and a career that stretches as far back as 1988. I hope she would have something (money) by now. Just had to get this of my chest.
Re: t-and-f: devers
Obviously, Devers didn't go to the Olympics with the intention of tanking it! She may indeed have regretted getting injured prior to the Olympics and may indeed be wondering if she wouldn't have been better off resting up a lot more before the Olympics. That is possible. But all this nonsense about Devers losing on purpose makes no sense at all. She gave quite the opposite impression by showing up and running well in the first two rounds. And she had nothing to gain by losing on purpose. Stopping when she did to avoid further damage to her hamstring is not unusual. Maurice Greene did that in the 200 in the Olympic trials. Do you think he lost on purpose as well? Steven Tyler
Re: t-and-f: Get off of Gail Devers!!!
WWWwwhhhoooaa Howardlet it ALL hang out. I'm with you as it relates to the rampant speculation/negativity in this forum..bunch of amateur private investigators pleading their cases with little or no substance...finding every single angle possible to castigate at a moment's notice...semantics, rumor, hyperbole...all the necessary crap to besmirch. What's it gonna take to create a forum whereby people report on fact (vs. their own personal black hole fictions)and take a glass half full approach to commenting publicly on our sport...FACTS that are exciting and keep us vitally interested...amen. -Mike - Original Message - From: howard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 8:37 PM Subject: t-and-f: Get off of Gail Devers!!! I can't believe you all can sit here and say that kind of stuff about Gail. What kind of shit is that. If you all were listing, you would know that she (Gail) said that she pulled up when she started to feel it (her hamstring) pull more. So she DIDN'T pull up with a big-time injury. Some of you all just jump on the band-wagon and actually believe that she tested positive for something. C'mon!! This drug thing is really getting on my nerves. An athlete pulls out of something and suddenly they're on drugs. And whoever said that Gail pulled out for money is flat-out wrong. Don't you think she is living quite comfortably by now? She is probably one of the richest track athletes out there. She does have three gold medals and a career that stretches as far back as 1988. I hope she would have something (money) by now. Just had to get this of my chest.
Re: t-and-f: devers
Obviously, Devers didn't go to the Olympics with the intention of tanking it! She may indeed have regretted getting injured prior to the Olympics and may indeed be wondering if she wouldn't have been better off resting up a lot more before the Olympics. That is possible. But all this nonsense about Devers losing on purpose makes no sense at all. She gave quite the opposite impression by showing up and running well in the first two rounds. And she had nothing to gain by losing on purpose. Stopping when she did to avoid further damage to her hamstring is not unusual. Maurice Greene did that in the 200 in the Olympic trials. Do you think he lost on purpose as well? Steven Tyler Although MJ had already dropped out, Green was well behind Capel the boys when they came off the curve with no hope of catching them, and that's exactly when he 'pulled up lame'. Most of those seated around me in the stands in Sac immediately commented stuff like 'yeh right'- he wanted SOMETHING to blame a loss on- injury sounds better than 'had butt kicked'. In fact, this 'pull up lame' ploy is a so common among high school elite sprinters that it's almost a given. That's why the crowd concluded that very quickly. Whether it's true or not in Greene's case- who knows. His immature behaviour after the 4x100 in Sydney might indicate that he's not above pulling the High School 'grab the hammy when you're losin' ploy. So it wasn't just the list- it seemed to be a pretty good consensus in Sac that Greene's pulling up was highly suspect. And that included seeing him limp a bit toward the finish line, but by the time he got up to the 'Jim Gray mike-in-the-face', the limp seemed to have miraculously disappeared. Okay, flash forward to Sydney, womens 100H. Devers comes over the first 2 or 3 hurdles noticeably behind the field. She winces and immediately pulls up. She walks down to the 'Jim Gray mike-in-the-face' too. Except that on the way to get there, she has a whole lot less limp than Greene had. In fact NO noticeable limp that I could discern. Given the general perception on Greene in Sacramento, do you really EXPECT Devers to get away with no skepticism at all? Now granted, my observation of Devers is just over the NBC cameras. Did anybody actually see her LIMPING away under the grandstands afterwards? Of course, on camera she said something about it being a 'butt-muscle' instead of a hamstring, so maybe she just had trouble sitting down later. Here's a question for those who do the TFN Annual Rankings- do athletes get 'penalized' less for pulling up with an injury in a race (a "DNF"), than for an outright loss ? RT
RE: t-and-f: grand prix query
An AP story on the GP final said, "Hattestad... gained bonus points with two world records this season..." I thought they only got bonus $$$ for WRs in Grand Prix meets, but these kind of points for Hattestad would be a way unfair advantage. It seems pretty absurd to award the same kind of bonus points to someone who needs to top a pre-2000 WR of 68.19m in the [new] women's javelin as opposed to say 10.49 in the 100 meters. -Original Message- From: Jack Pfeifer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 5:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: grand prix query Can anyone answer a few questions for me about this year's Grand Prix? 1. Hattestad won 200K for winning the women's rankings. Behind her, Jones and Devers had the same number of points (104) but Jones received more money because of a tiebreaking system. What was that system? 2. Were there payouts beyond Jones and Devers in the women's rankings? If so, how much? 3. Winners of each event received 50K. Did the other placewinners receive prize money? 4. To anyone's knowledge, was appearance money also paid to some athletes? 5. The point winners of each event also received 100K. Were there also payouts to finishers below 1st place, and if so, how much? I checked the IAAF website, but could not find answers to any of these questions. Jack Pfeifer NYC
