t-and-f: Shaheed still rolling at 51
Greetings At 51, Nolan Shaheed doesn't know how to go slow. In a busy month of 800s, which included an exhibition win at the Mt. SAC Relays and a 2:00.11 at Drake, Shaheed on Sunday (May 5) ran another quick two laps at the Steve Scott Invitational at UC Irvine in California. Results of his section: Section 4 1 George ArtopeMen of Troy 1:56.99 2 Jake Oker Berg Pomona-Pitz 1:59.67 3 Ethan Friend CS Fullerton 2:00.71 4 Brain BaurleyUnattached2:00.76 5 Paul Rigali Men of Troy 2:01.29 6 Nolan ShaheedSoCal TC 2:01.34 But that was just Nolan's warmup (or warmdown; I'm not sure of race order). In the 1500, Nolan missed the world M50 record by a second. The listed WAVA M50 best is 4:05.2 by Australian Tom Roberts in 1984. Nolan also is just short of the American M50 record of 4:05.8 by Ray Hattonof Oregon in 1982. Here's how Nolan did against the whippersnappers: Section 2 1 Thomas BeckumFila Track West 4:02.05 2 Steve MoralesCS LA 4:03.56 3 Danny Martinez Fila Track West 4:03.57 4 David Gomez CP Pomona 4:05.54 5 Nolan ShaheedSoCal TC 4:06.36 6 Vikram Mahan CS Fullerton 4:06.57 7 Blane Hunt Claremont MS 4:06.74 8 Jose Gomez Claremont MS 4:06.87 9 Chris Monachelli CS Fullerton 4:07.64 10 Pat McGrail Claremont MS 4:09.46 11 Nick McMurrayCS Fullerton 4:09.92 12 Bryan KinkaidLong Beach4:10.28 13 Alex Mendez CS LA 4:12.39 14 Rob EvansUC Irvine 4:13.50 15 Humberto Hernandez UC Irvine 4:21.54 Ken Stone http://www.masterstrack.com
Re: t-and-f: Michael Johnson On Edmonton 4x400
Sorry Philip ... I've been trying to stay out of the conversation, but I just can't ... First of all when did any single athlete become the US team in and of him (or her) self ??? I didn't believe in letting an athlete dictate the running of a team when Carl Lewis tried it and I don't agree with it now ... If Michael wants to get his deserved due in Edmonton then he needs to earn it just like every one else who will be lacing up spikes come late summer ... If you are banking on the public tuning in to see him run one more race then what the He** do you plan to do for the meet after that ??? And the meet after that ??? Michael is gone ... Out of here ... HE says he wants to run no more open races then that is on him ... Why should everyone else fight it out at national's for spots on the team and he sit on his A** and watch and then get to run in the WCs ??? Because he is the best ??? Let me remind you that he was supposed to be the best in '92 then got to the games and choked ... Yes he is capable of doing that ... He was allowed to compete in the 4x4 (because he was a member of the relay pool) and was the slowest member of the team ... The others carried him to his first Olympic gold and first WR even though his revisionist history says otherwise ... Almost anyone else in THAT pool could have run the 44.7 he ran ... So there was no gain by having him there ... If you all want to give Michael a going away party ... Then feel free to do so ... Rent the nicest hotel you can find in your town and give him the biggest bash you can afford ... The WCs is no place for freebies ... Medals and places on teams are to be earned not doled out as rewards for some sort of life time achievement ... You win what you run for ... And there is no telling what will happen on any given day ... That is why they run the races ... That is what everyone else is running for ... And that is what he should be running for ... You want marketing ??? Then do some real creative stuff ... Hire a firm if need be ... Market some people who are GOING TO BE HERE AFTER EDMONTON IS OVER Not someone on his way out who wants to determine his own sense of glory at the expense of others You see, we set a bad precedence with Carl Lewis back in '84 ... It was decided that ONE athlete was important enough to change the games for ... Because that ONE person had a dream ... So we wanted to make it easy for him and rearrange some things ... Since then we have done it for others ... In the Olympics and the Worlds ... And then we wanted to make it easy for our special people to make it to the WCs so we just passed em on in ... You don't have to compete, we said ... You've been there before ... Come on back ... But you know what ??? Ben Johnson was right about one thing ... The Olympics are not Carl Lewis ... Carl is gone and the Olympics continue ... Michael is almost gone and guess what ??? Everything will continue as it was before he arrived ... The same will be true when Marion is gone and MO is gone ... There will always be some else to step in and do what they did and take it one better ... Coe couldn't be topped but he has been ... Viren was the best, but pales now ... There was Jesse then there was Carl ... Once Tommie then Michael ... Koch now Jones ... We hang on individuals as if they cannot be replaced ... Yet they always are ... It is the sport that is king not the man or the woman ... We forget that it is the COMPETITION that makes the sport ... And as I have said a thousand times when we learn to hype the competition and stop depending on the few heroes that emerge, the sport ... The entire sport ... Will be the better for it ... Michael is not the World Championships ... You want to give him something give him a gold watch and send him off on his way ... Give the relay spots to the guys who show up at Nationals and earn it Conway - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 5:19 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: Michael Johnson On Edmonton 4x400 With all due respect to Michael Rohl, he and others who object to a rules change for Michael Johnson on the purism-vs.-publicity notion are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. For the same reason that Carl Lewis should have run the 4 x 1 in Atlanta, Michael should run the 4 x 4 in Edmonton--because the general public might tune in. The sport is sinking out of sight in the U.S., and anything that generates publicity (within reason, of course) is worth trying. That MJ ran 44.2 at Penn in April -- faster than his Sydney split -- shows he still is the brilliant runner he was a year ago. Even more, racing in Edmonton means Michael will get his deserved and ``real'' final due in North America, rather than at the GW Games, which will get utterly no media coverage in the US. Carl's US finale was on a meaningless relay at halftime of a meaningless football game, and US media outside Houston never knew
t-and-f: Another Streak Broken
Well, as USC broke their losing streak with UCLA, the same was occuring at Princeton, where Penn broke out of a three-year slump and topped the defending champion Princeton team. Pennsylvania 136.5 Princeton 117 Cornell 95 etc results can be found at Princeton's webpage, www.goprincetontigers.com results of note: Tora Harris, Princeton, new meet record, NCAA Automatic in the high jump (7-5.25) Chris Clever, Harvard, new meet record, NCAA Automatic in the javelin 74+ meters, 240 feet I believe Penn's tremendous sweep of the sprints, winning 4x100, 1-2 in the 110HH, and 1-2-3 in the 100m a little farewell gift from Tupp ? --Josh Seeherman
t-and-f: MJ WON'T run in Edmonton
The MJ thread has become mootaccording to a Reuters report by Gene Cherry, USATF's board of directors reconfirmed on Sunday that any athlete planning to run in Edmonton has to go to the (U.S.) meet and run one round in one event. Johnson's reply--If it's not going to be, I've still got the farewell tour. I never asked for anything special, and I'm never going to. I don't want any controversy to take away from what I want to do this year. Walt Murphy
RE: t-and-f: UCLA win streak over
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of RT Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 11:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: UCLA win streak over In this meet ESPECIALLY, any smart kid is not going to do ANYTHING to jeapardize meet points, even if he thinks he's 'right'. They'd keep going 10 laps if that's what it took to get the officials to declare the race 'complete'. Of course by that time the coaches would be yelling bloody murder. Would you stop at 7 1/2 and risk losing an appeal (and the points)? YES. The is dumb. The race is 7 1/2 (or 7+) laps. Never 8 1/2. malmo
t-and-f: MJ WON'T run in Edmonton
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] any athlete planning to run in Edmonton has to go to the (U.S.) meet and run one round in one event. At LEAST one round, Walter.
RE: t-and-f: UCLA win streak over
I realize what I'm about to present may be difficult for this crowd to comprehend, given the endless discussion over the obvious (Taboo: Why tiny little men who train their asses off can run fast), but here goes: I've devised a complicated algorithm to assist runners and officials alike in counting backwards at track meets. As you are aware, the steeplechase, with that pesky FRACTION of a lap can be especially troubling for counters. You don't need to know the sophisticated math behind my chismbop -- you just need to know that it works. Take you hand and close it in a loose fist with the thumb resting gently over the fingers. Since most of us don't have partial digits we'll let the thumb represent 1/2 lap. Now, here's the tricky part. After each lap extend one of your fingers. As you'll see, after four and a half laps, you'll have one thumb tucked (1/2) and four fingers extended. (Wink) Four and a half. See how easy it is? Now, over the next three laps start using the fingers on your other hand. I'll bet you're thinking to yourself Why didn't I think of that? Some of you might have discovered that it's a natural thing to count along in your heads? Soon that counting will replace your fingers and you'll never need Malmo's Complicated Chismbop again. malmo, Just because I can count doesn't mean I think I'm better than you are. 'Though, I probably a am. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of RT Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 11:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: UCLA win streak over In this meet ESPECIALLY, any smart kid is not going to do ANYTHING to jeapardize meet points, even if he thinks he's 'right'. They'd keep going 10 laps if that's what it took to get the officials to declare the race 'complete'.
Re: t-and-f: Genetics
Netters This will be my last comment on this. Mr. Heidenstrom writes: second, he even includes a few relevant paragraphs from 'Taboo'. Both posts are dated 2001 May 05. How long ago is that? So quoting from a book is trying to sell it now is it? Certainly Darrell has a quote from a book that he believes strongly in. I don't believe he is selling it. Several others quote from books. --that horse's but's, P.N. from New Zealand - M M Rohl (hopefully, he meant horse's butt) After many months finally a response. Stress is defined as the ability of the mind to override the body's overwhelming desire to choke the crap out of someone who desperately needs it causing one to write things like horse's but's when one should have just written ass.
Re: t-and-f: MJ WON'T run in Edmonton
Netters Well the board of directors does have some cojones!
Re: t-and-f: Re: Fast twitch/slow twitch question?
I'll second this. I did some research as an undergrad where we were able to convert the muscle fiber type in mice from type 1 (slow) to type IIB (fast). This was the gastrocnemius muscle; there was no switching or trauma involed. We induced the conversion by completely unweighting the hind legs of the mice (they could still walk around, but did it using their front legs). Apparently in an atrophied state, the muscle reverts to fast-twitch type. What seems to be the case is that the natural, untrained muscle fiber composition is determined by genetics, as is the range of 'changeability' of muscle fiber type. For example, your average Joe might be 50% fast, but be able to range between 30 and 70% depending on what he's doing. Whereas an ultrarunner might be 90% slow and only able to get down to 80% no matter what he does. There is a significant amount of conversion that can take place, depending on workload. Now I don't know about conversion from fast to slow, so I can't speak to high school sprinters doing XC. But I wouldn't be surprised if it could change their muscle fiber composition. Paul On Sat, 5 May 2001, Ed Prytherch wrote: There was a report of an experiment in New Studies in Athletics (IAAF) a few years ago which appears to contradict this. The experimenters switched the soleus and gastrocnemius muscles in a dog. One of the muscles (I can't remember which) has a higher proportion of fast twitch fibers. At first the dog had difficulty walking, but after some time it learned to walk with the switched muscles. Muscle biopsies were performed after the dog had fully adapted. The muscle which had previously been predominantly slow twitch had become predominantly fast twitch and vice versa. Some sprint coaches (Loren Seagrave, Charlie Francis) are strongly opposed to young sprinters doing much endurance work because they think that there may be a conversion of fast twitch to slow twitch fibers. But Monique Henderson ran cross country! Ed Prytherch
Re: t-and-f: Michael Johnson On Edmonton 4x400
Hey folks we have seemed to forgotten something in all of this (I cannot believe I am defending MJ). He has earned his spot! The USATF has decided to change the existing international rule, and I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why. Without the addendum from USATF we do not have this discussion. MJ is on the team, and he runs the relay, and we start talking about how fast the relay with MJ, the Harrison's, and racer X will run. Address the real issue, what is the purpose of the participation rule. Especially given the fact that all one need to do is participate, which means run a round. It is completely pointless. DGS Faith is a road seldom traveled Let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith" Hebrews 12: 1-2
t-and-f: Correction
CORRECTION: The correct spelling of Keflezighi's first name is Mebrahtom. preclassic.com
t-and-f: Pre Classic Men's 5000
May 7, 2001 For Immediate Release NEWEST AMERICAN RECORDHOLDER(S) LEAD PRE CLASSIC 5000 FIELD Eugene, Oregon--America's newest American recordholders headline the 5000 Meters in the Prefontaine Classic Grand Prix on May 27th at Hayward Field. Former UCLA standout MEB KEFLEZIGHI (kuh-FLEZ-gey) is fresh off his national record in the 10,000 meters of 27:13.98 set last Friday (May 4) in the Cardinal Invitational at Stanford University. That mark broke the 14-year-old standard of 27:20.56 held by Mark Nenow. Keflezighi also has a PR in the 5000 of 13:11.77 set last summer, the fastest time by an American in 2000. Just turned 26-years-old (his birthday was the day after his 10k AR), Keflezighi won the Olympic Trials 10,000 last year, and finished 12th at the Olympic Games in Sydney. Born in Eritrea, Mebrathom Keflezighi is from a family of 13, and moved with them in 1987 to escape the violence in that region of northeast Africa. He became a U.S. citizen in 1998. Keflezighi isn't the only American recordholder in the Pre field, however, as the winner of the Cardinal 10k, ABRAHAM CHEBII of Kenya, set an American all-comers record (the fastest time ever run on U.S. soil) in that race of 27:04.20. Chebii also has a lifetime best in the 5000 of 13:01.9, and he's not even the fastest entrant in the field by any means. Three-time winner of the Steve Prefontaine 5000 Meters, LUKE KIPKOSGEI of Kenya, has a best of 12:56.50, set last year, and his running mate ALBERT CHEPKURUI has personal record of 12:59.90, also set in 2000. American 5000-meter recordholder BOB KENNEDY will be back at the Pre Classic, trying to reclaim the form he had before a car accident ruined his Olympic-year season. Kennedy holds the U.S. record of 12:58.21, and has run 16 of the fastest 20 times ever by an American. Others in the race include last year's NCAA 5000 meter champion BRAD HAUSER (ranked No. 2 in the U.S. by Track Field News magazine), local favorite NICK ROGERS, who made the 2000 Olympic team and ranked 4th in the U.S at 5000; BEN MAIYO of Kenya, who has a lifetime best of 13:02.28 and ran 27:05.55 to get second behind Chebii at Stanford; ABDI ADBIRAHMAN of the U.S., who was ranked No. 2 in the U.S. at 10,000 meters last year; and KARL KESKA, a British Olympian in Sydney who, like Rogers, competed for the University of Oregon. The meet record for the 5000 in the Prefontaine Classic is 13:07.83, set by Luke Kipkosgei in 1998. Tickets are on sale at the Duck Ticket Office, 541-346-4461. For more information on the Prefontaine Classic, contact Tom Jordan by e-mail or phone, 541-687-1989. preclassic.com
Re: t-and-f: Michael Johnson On Edmonton 4x400
It is too bad that for some athletes the value of being a U.S. national champion is so low. Paul Bantaadidas Oregon Track Classic503-620-4052www.oregontrackclassic.com - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 7:35 AM Subject: Re: t-and-f: Michael Johnson On Edmonton 4x400 Ah, Walt you are going to make me spell it all out. I think MJ should be free to run on the relay and in the 400 m if he choses to, he is not denying anyone anything. My scenario had nothing to do with MJ. My scenario was against this new US rule, that I fell has no real purpose, other than marketing names. Maurice is being forced to compete at US Nationals for no reason. His participation will take a lane from some dreamer, not to mention risk injury. DGS Faith is a road seldom traveled Let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith" Hebrews 12: 1-2
t-and-f: The things we miss.
I think it is sad that the USATF has ruled against MJ being able to be added to the relay pool. I think that the point that is often overlooked is the rule itself. USATF instituted a rule that in order for an athlete to be able to use the "wild card" granted to them by the IAAF they must compete in the national meet. But in an interview the chairman of the US men's track and field committee John Chaplin said any athlete planning to run in Edmonton "has to go to the (US) meet and run one round in one event." Darrell, no athlete is going to lose their spot on the team, the 4th place finisher will still go. This is just another attempt by the USATF to get another free performance from the stars they use to market the sport. Your athlete is a prime example. Greene is the defending WC in the 100/200 so he has no need to compete at the national meet. Why doesn't USATF like that? They lose some promotional power. I've always felt the USATF and the fans get the best gift out there every single year. Could you imagine what it would cost if they had to actually pay these men and women their true market value? Fans often complain about the athletes not giving back when I say hogwash. Although they may have to compete to make the team, people sometimes let the "rules"(tricks) employed by the USATF to go by their radar. Why doesn't the USATF just be honest about what they are trying to do instead of trying to cover it up with the fairness to the other athletes angle? It's all about them getting another free performance from the stars they need plain and simple. I say let MJ run. If he decided to run the 400 at nationals, he could line up in the first round, stop after 100m and he still goes to the WC as a part of the US team and will still be in the relay pool. For all the freebies he's given the USATF and fans, it's time to look after the athletes. You have to keep in mind that all MJ is asking for is to be included into the relay pool. It is at the discretion of the coach to put him on the 4x4. If MJ shows his fitness then I see no problem with him running, but then again I'm just an old fan and not a youngster competing. It's about time we gave something back to our athletes on their way out (especially if they are still on top of their game). Edward Caine, Esq. You sure you want to hang with ol Eddie Caine Jr.? - 1997
Re: t-and-f: Michael Johnson On Edmonton 4x400
The pride in being the US champ is lost when you have done it multiple times. That is not to say it is not a great honor and privilege. It is hard work winning the US title in any event. But in the case we are discussing, the status of being US champ is a minor point. Watching the best compete is my ultimate goal, and I have no problem with it, but what purpose does this new addendum serve. We have done battle over the wild card issue already, years ago. That is not what this is about. There are only a few World champs in this country, and when you require them to jog down the track in a symbolic gesture, I ask what is the point? Let them take their wild card, and let's watch the meaning competition. DGS Faith is a road seldom traveled Let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith" Hebrews 12: 1-2
Re: t-and-f: Re: Fast twitch/slow twitch question?
Paul - Great, informative post. I had not been aware of this research. A question, which may be more theoretical than scientific, will untrained fast-twitch muscles be able to sprint faster than trained slow-twitch muscles? And is it possible for a reasonably active person to change the composition of fibers significantly based on the type of training he does, or is it only by removing all stress on the muscle that the fibers revert to fast twitch? Is there any reseach that suggests that the fiber-switch that Paul observed in unweighted muscles could be stimulated in a more practical way? - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: The things we miss.
the USATF never said he couldn't run in Edmonton. They said that if he wants to run he has to compete in Eugene just like everyone else. In reality it's a bunch of hogwash ion MJ's part. If he wants to run on the relay so bad he should run iun Eugene -- he could run trhe duece and really give the fans what they want and still get to run the 4x4. Basically he's shook and selfish. --Kebba From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: The things we miss. Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 11:42:37 EDT I think it is sad that the USATF has ruled against MJ being able to be added to the relay pool. I think that the point that is often overlooked is the rule itself. USATF instituted a rule that in order for an athlete to be able to use the wild card granted to them by the IAAF they must compete in the national meet. But in an interview the chairman of the US men's track and field committee John Chaplin said any athlete planning to run in Edmonton has to go to the (US) meet and run one round in one event. Darrell, no athlete is going to lose their spot on the team, the 4th place finisher will still go. This is just another attempt by the USATF to get another free performance from the stars they use to market the sport. Your athlete is a prime example. Greene is the defending WC in the 100/200 so he has no need to compete at the national meet. Why doesn't USATF like that? They lose some promotional power. I've always felt the USATF and the fans get the best gift out there every single year. Could you imagine what it would cost if they had to actually pay these men and women their true market value? Fans often complain about the athletes not giving back when I say hogwash. Although they may have to compete to make the team, people sometimes let the rules(tricks) employed by the USATF to go by their radar. Why doesn't the USATF just be honest about what they are trying to do instead of trying to cover it up with the fairness to the other athletes angle? It's all about them getting another free performance from the stars they need plain and simple. I say let MJ run. If he decided to run the 400 at nationals, he could line up in the first round, stop after 100m and he still goes to the WC as a part of the US team and will still be in the relay pool. For all the freebies he's given the USATF and fans, it's time to look after the athletes. You have to keep in mind that all MJ is asking for is to be included into the relay pool. It is at the discretion of the coach to put him on the 4x4. If MJ shows his fitness then I see no problem with him running, but then again I'm just an old fan and not a youngster competing. It's about time we gave something back to our athletes on their way out (especially if they are still on top of their game). Edward Caine, Esq. You sure you want to hang with ol Eddie Caine Jr.? - 1997 _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Michael Johnson On Edmonton 4x400
From my perspective, no matter what transpires, the bottom line of this discussion is that NO ONE is bigger than the sport. Bruce Meyer KUKIMBIA Chicago
Re: t-and-f: The things we miss.
If I recall correctly, when USATF instituted the rule about requiring participation at nationals, they made no secret of the fact that the reasoning behind it was publicity. You may disagree with the rule itself, but they are not trying to make it out to be anything it's not. As I so often ask when something like this comes up, what positiondid the Athletes' advisory committee take on this when it came up? Unless USATF has been told by the official voice of the athletes that they want or don't want something, how can they possibly know. The reality is that the athletes rarely agree on anything (although I don't know about this case) and decisions have to be made based on the what is perceived to be best for "the sport". I'd love to see a strong athletes union,as Darrell has suggested in the past. Some of these decisions could be made much more effectively with a strong recommendation from the athletes. - Ed Parrot - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 8:42 AM Subject: t-and-f: The things we miss. I think it is sad that the USATF has ruled against MJ being able to be added to the relay pool. I think that the point that is often overlooked is the rule itself. USATF instituted a rule that in order for an athlete to be able to use the "wild card" granted to them by the IAAF they must compete in the national meet. But in an interview the chairman of the US men's track and field committee John Chaplin said any athlete planning to run in Edmonton "has to go to the (US) meet and run one round in one event." Darrell, no athlete is going to lose their spot on the team, the 4th place finisher will still go. This is just another attempt by the USATF to get another free performance from the stars they use to market the sport. Your athlete is a prime example. Greene is the defending WC in the 100/200 so he has no need to compete at the national meet. Why doesn't USATF like that? They lose some promotional power. I've always felt the USATF and the fans get the best gift out there every single year. Could you imagine what it would cost if they had to actually pay these men and women their true market value? Fans often complain about the athletes not giving back when I say hogwash. Although they may have to compete to make the team, people sometimes let the "rules"(tricks) employed by the USATF to go by their radar. Why doesn't the USATF just be honest about what they are trying to do instead of trying to cover it up with the fairness to the other athletes angle? It's all about them getting another free performance from the stars they need plain and simple. I say let MJ run. If he decided to run the 400 at nationals, he could line up in the first round, stop after 100m and he still goes to the WC as a part of the US team and will still be in the relay pool. For all the freebies he's given the USATF and fans, it's time to look after the athletes. You have to keep in mind that all MJ is asking for is to be included into the relay pool. It is at the discretion of the coach to put him on the 4x4. If MJ shows his fitness then I see no problem with him running, but then again I'm just an old fan and not a youngster competing. It's about time we gave something back to our athletes on their way out (especially if they are still on top of their game). Edward Caine, Esq. You sure you want to hang with ol Eddie Caine Jr.? - 1997
Re: t-and-f: Re: Fast twitch/slow twitch question?
- Original Message - From: Ed Dana Parrot [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Paul - Great, informative post. I had not been aware of this research. A question, which may be more theoretical than scientific, will untrained fast-twitch muscles be able to sprint faster than trained slow-twitch muscles? Haile Gebreselassie has run the 1500m in 3.32 and the 10km in 26.31. I recall reading an interview three or four years ago with a local Dutch rag in which he said his best 100m time was around 11.2 or 11.3 seconds. This would be a very decent sprint time for the world's top female sprinters. As far as total muscle mass goes, Gebreselassie weighs about 55kg, which means that he is roughly about the same size as a top female sprinter. If his muscles are slow-twitch then they're pretty competitive in terms of power/weight against fast-twitch.
Re: t-and-f: Re: Fast twitch/slow twitch question?
So, for 20 million you could go into orbit and the zero G would convert your slow twitch to fast...Is that what Tito was doing? Tom - Original Message - From: Ed Dana Parrot [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 11:58 AM Subject: Re: t-and-f: Re: Fast twitch/slow twitch question? Paul - Great, informative post. I had not been aware of this research. A question, which may be more theoretical than scientific, will untrained fast-twitch muscles be able to sprint faster than trained slow-twitch muscles? And is it possible for a reasonably active person to change the composition of fibers significantly based on the type of training he does, or is it only by removing all stress on the muscle that the fibers revert to fast twitch? Is there any reseach that suggests that the fiber-switch that Paul observed in unweighted muscles could be stimulated in a more practical way? - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Michael Johnson On Edmonton 4x400
No one is bigger than the sport?! What does that have to do with this issue? Nothing. Everywhere except for the USA there will be wild card entries. It is not about bigger than the sport, it is about what works best for the sport. Explain the benefit of this rule and the subsequent ruling to track and field, and to USA track and field. I think Eddie Caine stated it best, it is another chance for free marketing. If you think that is an outlier view, then let's put it all in perspective. Every other sport and league, including the XFL pay the athletes for winning the championship. Not track and field. Before I go further let me step back, I will ask again, what benefit is all of this serving? DGS Faith is a road seldom traveled Let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith" Hebrews 12: 1-2
Re: t-and-f: Re: Fast twitch/slow twitch question?
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Elliott Oti wrote: Haile Gebreselassie has run the 1500m in 3.32 and the 10km in 26.31. I recall reading an interview three or four years ago with a local Dutch rag in which he said his best 100m time was around 11.2 or 11.3 seconds. This would be a very decent sprint time for the world's top female sprinters. As far as total muscle mass goes, Gebreselassie weighs about 55kg, which means that he is roughly about the same size as a top female sprinter. If his muscles are slow-twitch then they're pretty competitive in terms of power/weight against fast-twitch. This is a good point which is that we cannot peg an event to a specific fast to slow twitch muscle ratio. Said Auoita ranked #1 in the world at both 800m and at 10,000m. Late in his career Coe had planned on moving up to the 5,000 where he thought he could run between 13:00 and 13:15 (injuries forced him back to the 1500). I don't know about Gebresellasie but both Coe and Aouita (who says he based a lot of his trainging on Coe's) were distance guys (Coe was a 1500-3000m guy in high school) who worked out heavily with weights (aouita is reportedly said to have lifted every day) to increase their speed. There is certainly a lot we don't know about the mix of speed an endurance. Given the relatively little improvement in the 800 over the last 20 years it doesn't seem too many people are figuring it out. Regards, Paul
t-and-f: Looking for HS girls 4x800 race
Hello All, I am looking for a 4x800 (9:35 range) girls high school race the weekend of June 16th or 23rd. I'm located near Rochester, NY. A race in NY, PA, OH would be best, but may be willing to travel to CT, MA or Canada. Please email me off the list. Thank you in advance, Mark Krueger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brockport HS XC TF _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: Re: Fast twitch/slow twitch question?
--- Elliott Oti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gebreselassie weighs about 55kg, which means that he is roughly about the same size as a top female sprinter. He's also roughly 9 inches shorter than *the* top female sprinter, but I doubt that has any relevance. Dan = http://AbleDesign.com - AbleDesign, Web Design that Can! http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 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! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Re: t-and-f: The things we miss.
- Original Message - From: Kebba Tolbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 5:28 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: The things we miss. the USATF never said he couldn't run in Edmonton. They said that if he wants to run he has to compete in Eugene just like everyone else. In reality it's a bunch of hogwash ion MJ's part. If he wants to run on the relay so bad he should run iun Eugene -- he could run trhe duece and really give the fans what they want and still get to run the 4x4. Basically he's shook and selfish. No more than we are when, because a sportsperson gives us so much enjoyment, we tend to think of them as our property and forget they have their own lives to lead. A lot of us disagree with his belief that he has no more to gain by running individual events, but we should respect his decision. If he was selfish, he'd have kicked up a fuss about the USATF decision, but he hasn't.
Re: t-and-f: Michael Johnson On Edmonton 4x400
For me the bottom line is this: PUT THE 4 FASTEST RUNNERS ON THE RELAY AND WIN THE RACE. I don't care who runs in Eugene or not, did we not learn anything from the 4 x 100 in Atlanta? If you got a stud that wants to run fresh then LET HIM. Keith Whitman Head Cross Country Coach Assistant Track Field Coach University of Nebraska-Kearney (308) 865-8070 (office) (308) 338-1115 (home) (308) 865-8187 (fax) http://www.unk.edu/athletics/track [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t-and-f: FW: A final reply-but private
I thought the list might like to see some of the silly responses I get off line (thankfully, most responders aren't quite this insecure). Note that the poster offers not one iota of evidence to support his innuendos--not one. Pretty sad. -- Jon Entine RuffRun 6178 Grey Rock Rd. Agoura Hills, CA 91301 (818) 991-9803 [FAX] 991-9804 http://www.jonentine.com -- Forwarded Message From: Richard McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 09:58:38 -0700 To: Jon Entine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: A final reply-but private Jon I'm not going to bother to reply to the list because you constantly shift your arguments, and we would be chasing this around forever. I think the list members now easily recognize how you constantly dodge the very strong counter arguments that have been presented against whatever you happen to be saying at the moment. This last post is a great example. I finally nail down what you have been saying and present my counterthesis. Then you turn around and AGREE with my counterthesis You have FAILED the basic process of evaluating a scientific hypothesis. You have presented your hypothesis, but you have not tested it against the null hypothesis, nor alternative hypotheses such as the one presented by me, or by others on the list. As for qualifications, I received my Ph.D. from Berkeley, the top public research university in the country, from the top department in my field, agricultural and resource economics. In that department we were drilled on both testing of hypotheses, and statistical analysis. Unfortunately, I see that you would fail both levels of coursework. Finally, I have not directly insulted you publicly on this list. Keep your trap shut. More below: -- End of Forwarded Message
RE: t-and-f: FW: A final reply-but private
Jon, To be honest I don't care about this whole argument. So I have stayed out of it. I do however care about privacy on the Internet (something I know a bit about too). When someone says private and they post to you directly I think you and everyone else on the list should have the courtesy to do as they request. In fact, I think this should be added to the list rules/charter. Public statements by individuals can and should be scrutinized. Private statements with the explicit request for privacy should be kept private unless there is some significantly greater good done by making them public. Here there is no greater good in what you have done. I hope that you will be reprimanded by the current list supervisor. What you have done is typical of how people treat this medium. AND it is wrong. I respectfully request that you apologize to Mr. McCann and the list for this breech of privacy. Ben Hall -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jon Entine Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 2:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: FW: A final reply-but private I thought the list might like to see some of the silly responses I get off line (thankfully, most responders aren't quite this insecure). Note that the poster offers not one iota of evidence to support his innuendos--not one. Pretty sad. -- Jon Entine RuffRun 6178 Grey Rock Rd. Agoura Hills, CA 91301 (818) 991-9803 [FAX] 991-9804 http://www.jonentine.com -- Forwarded Message From: Richard McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 09:58:38 -0700 To: Jon Entine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: A final reply-but private Jon I'm not going to bother to reply to the list because you constantly shift your arguments, and we would be chasing this around forever. I think the list members now easily recognize how you constantly dodge the very strong counter arguments that have been presented against whatever you happen to be saying at the moment. This last post is a great example. I finally nail down what you have been saying and present my counterthesis. Then you turn around and AGREE with my counterthesis You have FAILED the basic process of evaluating a scientific hypothesis. You have presented your hypothesis, but you have not tested it against the null hypothesis, nor alternative hypotheses such as the one presented by me, or by others on the list. As for qualifications, I received my Ph.D. from Berkeley, the top public research university in the country, from the top department in my field, agricultural and resource economics. In that department we were drilled on both testing of hypotheses, and statistical analysis. Unfortunately, I see that you would fail both levels of coursework. Finally, I have not directly insulted you publicly on this list. Keep your trap shut. More below: -- End of Forwarded Message
Re: t-and-f: Michael Johnson On Edmonton 4x400
Somebody suggested that MJ should run a round of the 200 at Eugene, to give the fans what they want to see, implying that it's the least energy draining, little effort, or whatever. Well, the shorter the race, the more injury-prone MJ's history seems to tell us. MJ is not gonna run a 200 in a jog. Too much pride. I say let him take a crack at that 800 we've always argued about. One round. See what Ken can conclude via age-graded adjustments :-) And thus earn the ticket onto the 4x4. RT
Re: t-and-f: FW: A final reply-but private
Jon - and everyone else: Other issues aside, I wanted to let you know that it's considered extremely bad taste to repost private email communication to public lists without explicit authorization of the author of the email. Oleg. I thought the list might like to see some of the silly responses I get off line (thankfully, most responders aren't quite this insecure). Note that the poster offers not one iota of evidence to support his innuendos--not one. Pretty sad. -- Jon Entine RuffRun 6178 Grey Rock Rd. Agoura Hills, CA 91301 (818) 991-9803 [FAX] 991-9804 http://www.jonentine.com -- Forwarded Message From: Richard McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 09:58:38 -0700 To: Jon Entine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: A final reply-but private Jon I'm not going to bother to reply to the list because you constantly shift your arguments, and we would be chasing this around forever. I think the list members now easily recognize how you constantly dodge the very strong counter arguments that have been presented against whatever you happen to be saying at the moment. This last post is a great example. I finally nail down what you have been saying and present my counterthesis. Then you turn around and AGREE with my counterthesis You have FAILED the basic process of evaluating a scientific hypothesis. You have presented your hypothesis, but you have not tested it against the null hypothesis, nor alternative hypotheses such as the one presented by me, or by others on the list. As for qualifications, I received my Ph.D. from Berkeley, the top public research university in the country, from the top department in my field, agricultural and resource economics. In that department we were drilled on both testing of hypotheses, and statistical analysis. Unfortunately, I see that you would fail both levels of coursework. Finally, I have not directly insulted you publicly on this list. Keep your trap shut. More below: -- End of Forwarded Message
Re: t-and-f: FW: A final reply-but private
Moreover, his attacks were not private as he sent his screeds around to numerous other people, as indicated on the email. Even if somebody copies a private internet e-mail exchange to numerous other individuals (5? 10? 15?) it doesn't excuse ESCALATING the dispute by sending it to a list which is distributed to two THOUSAND people. Keep it private. By the way, the copy of Mr. McCann's note was presented as 'an example' of some of the stuff that Mr. Entine has been receiving. Occasional sharing of minor exerpts of accumulated private e-mail from many, many sources, may be okay if not repeated into a barrage, AS LONG as any references to the identify of the sender is obliderated (assuming you don't have their permission to identify them as the author). Especially if you can summarize it to say 'I got 97 responses that agree with me, and 43 that disagree, 27 of which I would charactize as hate mail'. But even that should be a rare exception. Private, off-line, whatever you want to call it, should stay that way. Otherwise the list can be construed as being used to further a personal vendetta. Didn't we just get suspended by our host for a few days? No sense going down that road again. RT
Re: t-and-f: FW: A final reply-but private
Writing that something is private does not entitle them to attack me or anyone else in a disrespectful and arrogant way, as did Mr. McCann. Moreover, his attacks were not private as he sent his screeds around to numerous other people, as indicated on the email. I NEVER communicated to him privately and found his willingness to engage in such ad hominem activities a genuine abuse of the Internet and this list. It was in that spirit that I decided to pass along his jihads. I have no intention of apologizing as I was responding to someone's absusive behavior by letting other's make their judgments. It's unfortunate that a number of people on this list, apparently Mr. McCann among them, finds it acceptable to engage in personal invective when the issue turns to something they find uncomfortable to talk about -- human differences. It's my belief that such people are the root of the problem of prejudice, not a solution. If decent people don't discuss human biodiversity,² warns Walter E. Williams of George Mason University, who is African American, ³we concede the turf to black and white racists. Sports offer a non-polemical way to convey this message and de-politicize what has sometimes been a vitriolic debate. On 5/7/01 2:27 PM, Ben Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jon, To be honest I don't care about this whole argument. So I have stayed out of it. I do however care about privacy on the Internet (something I know a bit about too). When someone says private and they post to you directly I think you and everyone else on the list should have the courtesy to do as they request. In fact, I think this should be added to the list rules/charter. Public statements by individuals can and should be scrutinized. Private statements with the explicit request for privacy should be kept private unless there is some significantly greater good done by making them public. Here there is no greater good in what you have done. I hope that you will be reprimanded by the current list supervisor. What you have done is typical of how people treat this medium. AND it is wrong. I respectfully request that you apologize to Mr. McCann and the list for this breech of privacy. Ben Hall -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jon Entine Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 2:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: FW: A final reply-but private I thought the list might like to see some of the silly responses I get off line (thankfully, most responders aren't quite this insecure). Note that the poster offers not one iota of evidence to support his innuendos--not one. Pretty sad. -- Jon Entine RuffRun 6178 Grey Rock Rd. Agoura Hills, CA 91301 (818) 991-9803 [FAX] 991-9804 http://www.jonentine.com -- Forwarded Message From: Richard McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 09:58:38 -0700 To: Jon Entine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: A final reply-but private Jon I'm not going to bother to reply to the list because you constantly shift your arguments, and we would be chasing this around forever. I think the list members now easily recognize how you constantly dodge the very strong counter arguments that have been presented against whatever you happen to be saying at the moment. This last post is a great example. I finally nail down what you have been saying and present my counterthesis. Then you turn around and AGREE with my counterthesis You have FAILED the basic process of evaluating a scientific hypothesis. You have presented your hypothesis, but you have not tested it against the null hypothesis, nor alternative hypotheses such as the one presented by me, or by others on the list. As for qualifications, I received my Ph.D. from Berkeley, the top public research university in the country, from the top department in my field, agricultural and resource economics. In that department we were drilled on both testing of hypotheses, and statistical analysis. Unfortunately, I see that you would fail both levels of coursework. Finally, I have not directly insulted you publicly on this list. Keep your trap shut. More below: -- End of Forwarded Message -- Jon Entine RuffRun 6178 Grey Rock Rd. Agoura Hills, CA 91301 (818) 991-9803 [FAX] 991-9804 http://www.jonentine.com
t-and-f: Sage's double
Sage ran 3:39 at about 10pm Friday night to beat Gabe Jennings at the Cardinal Invite. The Big Meet 1500 was at about 1:30pm Sat. The 1500m also can be pointed to as a critical deciding factor in the meet. Cal's Bolota Asmerom ran a great race but finished third in 3:43.897, while Stanford's Donald Sage was second in 3:43.892. Richard McCann
Re: t-and-f: Re: Fast twitch/slow twitch question?
Altitude training for sprinters? Dennis - Original Message - From: Tom Derderian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ed Dana Parrot [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 12:57 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: Re: Fast twitch/slow twitch question? So, for 20 million you could go into orbit and the zero G would convert your slow twitch to fast...Is that what Tito was doing? Tom - Original Message - From: Ed Dana Parrot [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 't-and-f@darkwing. uoregon. edu' (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 11:58 AM Subject: Re: t-and-f: Re: Fast twitch/slow twitch question? Paul - Great, informative post. I had not been aware of this research. A question, which may be more theoretical than scientific, will untrained fast-twitch muscles be able to sprint faster than trained slow-twitch muscles? And is it possible for a reasonably active person to change the composition of fibers significantly based on the type of training he does, or is it only by removing all stress on the muscle that the fibers revert to fast twitch? Is there any reseach that suggests that the fiber-switch that Paul observed in unweighted muscles could be stimulated in a more practical way? - Ed Parrot
t-and-f: The things we miss.
the USATF never said he couldn't run in Edmonton. They said that if he wants to run he has to compete in Eugene just like everyone else. In reality it's a bunch of hogwash ion MJ's part. If he wants to run on the relay so bad he should run iun Eugene -- he could run trhe duece and really give the fans what they want and still get to run the 4x4. Basically he's shook and selfish. I could not disagree with you more Kebba, He has given us plenty during his competing years and now it is time for Masback and USATF to give back to the stars instead of trying to figure out one more way to capitalize off of his back one more time for free before he leaves. If the man does not wish to run anymore 400 then that should be his choice and we should respect that. To all those who think it is unfair for the 400 runners at the meet, I say this. It is no more unfair to put MJ on the 4x4 pool while he has the wild card in the 400 then it is to put a 400ih in the relay pool. If people add people in from other events because they are good, then they should not have a problem adding in a man who is the best just because he is choosing not to use his wild card. I am NO MJ fan but I do believe that its time to give him something in return. It would not surprise me at all for MJ to take the Carl approach to track and field once he is done because of the way he has been treated. The USATF might as well put on a derby with a feather, a mink coat, walk around screaming "Where's my money" and just call themselves the pimps that they are. You sure you want to hang with ol Eddie Caine Jr.? - 1997
RE: t-and-f: FW: A final reply-but private
List Members, I have gotten a few off-list emails and read the others on-list notes and all of you make great points. RT, I especially agree with your method for passing the kind of mail Jon was receiving along. But let me continue down the path that I had started with my earlier post, one that I feel is very important for the future of this list. It seems that much of the list (including those who attack Jon Entine) and the world have forgotten Biologist Garrett Hardin's work on the tragedy of the commons. The commons is a VALUABLE resource that as long as no one individual asserted their own self-interest above the commons everyone benefitted from that resource. In the last month this list has been, and continues to be, badly damaged by a few individuals who have acted and reacted in ways that they felt justified in doing. These individuals have put their own interests above those of the list (our community or commons). The end result of this is known: that more and more people assert their self-interests over those of the commons. This ultimately leads to the death of the commons. We may now be experiencing this. --Ben -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jon Entine Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 6:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Track and Field List Subject: Re: t-and-f: FW: A final reply-but private Writing that something is private does not entitle them to attack me or anyone else in a disrespectful and arrogant way, as did Mr. McCann. Moreover, his attacks were not private as he sent his screeds around to numerous other people, as indicated on the email. I NEVER communicated to him privately and found his willingness to engage in such ad hominem activities a genuine abuse of the Internet and this list. It was in that spirit that I decided to pass along his jihads. I have no intention of apologizing as I was responding to someone's absusive behavior by letting other's make their judgments. It's unfortunate that a number of people on this list, apparently Mr. McCann among them, finds it acceptable to engage in personal invective when the issue turns to something they find uncomfortable to talk about -- human differences. It's my belief that such people are the root of the problem of prejudice, not a solution. If decent people don't discuss human biodiversity,² warns Walter E. Williams of George Mason University, who is African American, ³we concede the turf to black and white racists. Sports offer a non-polemical way to convey this message and de-politicize what has sometimes been a vitriolic debate. On 5/7/01 2:27 PM, Ben Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jon, To be honest I don't care about this whole argument. So I have stayed out of it. I do however care about privacy on the Internet (something I know a bit about too). When someone says private and they post to you directly I think you and everyone else on the list should have the courtesy to do as they request. In fact, I think this should be added to the list rules/charter. Public statements by individuals can and should be scrutinized. Private statements with the explicit request for privacy should be kept private unless there is some significantly greater good done by making them public. Here there is no greater good in what you have done. I hope that you will be reprimanded by the current list supervisor. What you have done is typical of how people treat this medium. AND it is wrong. I respectfully request that you apologize to Mr. McCann and the list for this breech of privacy. Ben Hall -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jon Entine Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 2:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: FW: A final reply-but private I thought the list might like to see some of the silly responses I get off line (thankfully, most responders aren't quite this insecure). Note that the poster offers not one iota of evidence to support his innuendos--not one. Pretty sad. -- Jon Entine RuffRun 6178 Grey Rock Rd. Agoura Hills, CA 91301 (818) 991-9803 [FAX] 991-9804 http://www.jonentine.com -- Forwarded Message From: Richard McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 09:58:38 -0700 To: Jon Entine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: A final reply-but private Jon I'm not going to bother to reply to the list because you constantly shift your arguments, and we would be chasing this around forever. I think the list members now easily recognize how you constantly dodge the very strong counter arguments that have been presented against whatever you happen to be saying at the moment. This last post is a great example. I finally nail down what you have been saying and present my counterthesis. Then you turn around and AGREE with my counterthesis You have FAILED the basic process of evaluating a scientific hypothesis. You have presented your hypothesis, but
t-and-f: splits???
Hello, Does anyone have the actual splits from Friday night's 10K? Thanks, Tim Willis
Re: t-and-f: FW: A final reply-but private
In a message dated 5/7/01 6:39:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Writing that something is "private" does not entitle them to attack me or anyone else in a disrespectful and arrogant way, as did Mr. McCann. Moreover, his attacks were not "private" as he sent his screeds around to numerous other people, as indicated on the email. Mr. Entine is wrong in this matter. The email should have remained amongst the people who's addresses were cc'd on the original email. I've had people email me with comments that I would consider less than positive but the thought of forwarding it with comments to the entire list never occurred to me, thankfully. I would hope others on the list would do the same for me. Apparently there's one list "member", who, incidentally only seems to show up to talk about one subject for which he has a book to sell, can't be trusted to do so. Steve Shea
t-and-f: World Championship Stadium Food
While wondering what Edmonton is going to offer, as far as in-stadium concession food (Moose Burgers? [wrapped in Whassamatta U commemorative foil paper] Reindeer Sausage? Eskimo hard tack? Dudley DoRight Dogs?) Perhaps we can hear nominations for best in-stadium concession food ever, limited to IAAF World Championships and Olympics (main athletics stadium), and what about it you liked. Revelations of 'worst of all time' can also be noted :-) P.S.- it doesn't matter if Melbourne's Kangaroo Corn Dogs had slow-twitch or fast-twitch fibers...if it was worthy of comment, bring it on! RT
