Re: t-and-f: u.s. women
You mean to tell me that this did'nt affect the other teams and athletes? Only the U.S. was "dehydrated"? --Original Message-- From: "mike fanelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Jack Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: October 3, 2000 3:05:27 AM GMT Subject: Re: t-and-f: u.s. women "dehydration" MF - Original Message - From: Jack Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 6:04 PM Subject: t-and-f: u.s. women > In a way, it's a good thing Marion Jones contested five events in > Sydney, because without her, what would the U.S. women's team have > left? > 1. No other finalists in the 100 or 200 > 2. Probably no medals in the relays > 3. Only 2 other medalists -- Dragila gold in the pv, Morrison bronze > in the 100H > Four leading members of the team withdrew (Inger Miller, Gail > Devers, Kelly Blair, Regina Jacobs) and a number of others performed > far below their Trials form (Deena Drossin, Sandra Glover, Latasha > Colander-Richardson, Jearl Miles, Shelia Burrell, Shana Williams, Amy > Acuff, etc.) > What happened? > JP
RE: t-and-f: Greene turns back on huge payday
Any thoughts on why ANYONE would turn their back on 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS for less than 10 seconds of work for doing something that you are the best in the world at? Does this seem odd to anyone else? --Original Message-- From: "Paul V. Tucknott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Track & Field List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Track Canada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: October 5, 2000 3:04:46 AM GMT Subject: t-and-f: Greene turns back on huge payday http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport/hi/english/athletics/newsid_956000/956195.stm Olympic 100m champion Maurice Greene has turned down the chance to race for $500,000 in the Grand Prix final in Qatar on Thursday. The world record holder has taken the decision to fly back home to the United States from Sydney rather than compete in the final IAAF Grand Prix of the season. The $3.4m event has attracted 12 Olympic gold medallists from Sydney, including triple jump champion Jonathan Edwards and triple-Olympic medallist Marion Jones. Charlie Wells, manager of Jones, was particularly surprised by Greene's decision. He said: "You don't walk away from thousands of dollars like that. You can never get that money back." Overall record Greene has forfeited the chance to win $200,000 awarded to the athlete with the best overall record throughout all the major Grand Prix through the season. However, Jones is in no such predicament. She could be in line for an additional $50,000 if she were to win her re-match against Heike Drechsler and Fiona May in the long jump, both of whom pushed her into bronze in Sydney. Despite many of the athletes and officials arriving three hours late from a gruelling 21-hour flight from Sydney, Wells refused to criticise the timing of the schedules. He said: "If it requires us to travel 24 hours to put on a show, then that's what they pay us for." Entertain "It's part of our job. Our job is to entertain. It's a shame for the ones who miss it." Wells also confirmed Jones was enticed by the financial rewards of the Qatar meet. He added: "It's business, strictly business." The Khalifa Stadium stages only its third Grand Prix with women athletes after only allowing them to compete in 1998. With huge ground made by the IAAF and Qatar government, the Grand Prix has been elevated to stage the final meet of the season and will be watched by up to 50,000 spectators.
Re: t-and-f: devers at GP Final
I could'nt agree more. At Mt. Sac this year, (more superstar entries, more pulling out), I asked my friend what the hell was happening to our sport. She responded, "nothing is happening to the sport, sane old sport, still people running in straight lines and circles, jumping up and over things, still throwing things. It's the people who've changed." Maybe we need to get the people out --Original Message-- From: "Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Phil Weishaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: October 6, 2000 3:36:58 PM GMT Subject: 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 T&F 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: Question of the Day
Not true. Most people who take drugs are doing so knowingly and/or willingly. People who are abused by child molesters are being forced upon against their will. No comparison --Original Message-- From: "R.T." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: October 5, 2000 1:11:32 PM GMT Subject: t-and-f: Question of the Day "suppose" question of the day: True or not true, and why? "Letting your son or daughter train in an athletic program under a coach who has admitted participating in a systematic, planned, program of doping of his athletes in the past, is like taking your pre-schooler to a day care program run by a person who has served time for child molestation." RT
RE: t-and-f: Suzy Hamilton Interview
At least she finally admitted she has a head problem. Maybe some of you big Suzy fans can get off of the excuses and get on the same page as her. --Original Message-- From: David Monti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: October 12, 2000 6:32:33 PM GMT Subject: t-and-f: Suzy Hamilton Interview Track Listers, Suzy Hamilton's interview with Peter Gambaccini is posted at http://www.runnersworld.com today (12-Oct). The discussion is devoted to her performance at the Sydney Olympics. That is all. David Monti, Editor and Publisher, Race Results Weekly Sponsored by: F I L A R U N N I N G / R U N N E R ' S W O R L D / S A L M I N I F I L M S P.O. Box 8233[EMAIL PROTECTED] FDR Station +1 212-752-2666 New York, NY 10150-8233 +1 212-752-2626 (fax) USA +1 815-461-2285 (secondary fax) http://www.RaceResultsWeekly.com
RE: BEST 100M EVER/Re: t-and-f: Mo Greene
Not to mention the fact that the tracks are harder and faster, the training more sophisticated, the money is better and the chemists are better now. Also, many of the athletes who could be Greenes' rivals have chosen to participate in football, basketball or baseball in which the scholarships are more plentiful and the money (initially and in the long run) is greater. --Original Message-- From: "Kebba Tolbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: October 16, 2000 5:55:36 PM GMT Subject: BEST 100M EVER/Re: t-and-f: Mo Greene Conway Hill wrote: >I asked the question shortly after the 100 meter final of where >people now >place Mo in terms of all time 100 sprinters . I am >throwing the question >out again .. In looking >at his championship record this weekend I realized that in his 3 >championship finals (2 Worlds an 1 Olympics) his AVERAGE time is >9.843 .. >A mark only 2 others have ever run at all .. His average >margin of victory >in those races is .07, a rather large margin in >world class sprinting, >let alone in championship finals .. My all >time top 5 list reads: >Bob Hayes >Maurice Greene >Carl Lewis >Linford Christie >Valery Borzov > >What do others think ?? You can't base something like the best ever simply on time. Why? becuase more often than not the current generation iof athletes are faster than the previous. When Lewis burst on the scene no-one had run 10.00 at sea-level. He was the first do so. He did it numerous times. He ran under 10.00 at sea-level a ridiculous (for then) number of times. The 88 Trials was the first time somone had run sub-10 (his two 9.96's) in the same day in prelims. the list goes on. His margin in 84 was the most ever (and he came from behind). Part of the problem with Lewis legacy is how to figure in the Ben Johnson years of 85-88. He lost a number one ranking in 87 due to that. And he lost Athlete of the Year from T&FN in 87 and 88 probably due to those losses. We also havbe to remember that Carl Lewis really redefined what top-class 100m running was about. wheras before if you were running 10.15 or so you were great -- he made 10.10 or faster the standard for a top quality race. without Ben Carl's records would've been the following: 10.00 sea level record - 81 10.00 =sea level record - 82 9.99 sea-level record - 84 9.99 =sea level record 9.99 =sea level record - 84 9.98 sea level record 85 9.93 (ties record - WC 87) 9.93 (ties record - ZUrich 88) 9.92 (breaks record - Oly 88) 9.86 (breaks record - WC 91) the other thing is for Greene to top Lewis (in my mind) he have to match his 83, 87, 91 WC title run. That would mean for Greene 1997-2001-2005. I suspect Greene will win in 2001. If he wins in 2005 I'll anoint as the King. :) Kebba Tolbert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) = Men's and Women's Jumps & Multis Coach Syracuse University Track & Field _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
RE: BEST 100M EVER/Re: t-and-f: Mo Greene
Not to mention the fact that the tracks are harder and faster, the training more sophisticated, the money is better and the chemists are better now. Also, many of the athletes who could be Greenes' rivals have chosen to participate in football, basketball or baseball in which the scholarships are more plentiful and the money (initially and in the long run) is greater. --Original Message-- From: "Kebba Tolbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: October 16, 2000 5:55:36 PM GMT Subject: BEST 100M EVER/Re: t-and-f: Mo Greene Conway Hill wrote: >I asked the question shortly after the 100 meter final of where >people now >place Mo in terms of all time 100 sprinters . I am >throwing the question >out again .. In looking >at his championship record this weekend I realized that in his 3 >championship finals (2 Worlds an 1 Olympics) his AVERAGE time is >9.843 .. >A mark only 2 others have ever run at all .. His average >margin of victory >in those races is .07, a rather large margin in >world class sprinting, >let alone in championship finals .. My all >time top 5 list reads: >Bob Hayes >Maurice Greene >Carl Lewis >Linford Christie >Valery Borzov > >What do others think ?? You can't base something like the best ever simply on time. Why? becuase more often than not the current generation iof athletes are faster than the previous. When Lewis burst on the scene no-one had run 10.00 at sea-level. He was the first do so. He did it numerous times. He ran under 10.00 at sea-level a ridiculous (for then) number of times. The 88 Trials was the first time somone had run sub-10 (his two 9.96's) in the same day in prelims. the list goes on. His margin in 84 was the most ever (and he came from behind). Part of the problem with Lewis legacy is how to figure in the Ben Johnson years of 85-88. He lost a number one ranking in 87 due to that. And he lost Athlete of the Year from T&FN in 87 and 88 probably due to those losses. We also havbe to remember that Carl Lewis really redefined what top-class 100m running was about. wheras before if you were running 10.15 or so you were great -- he made 10.10 or faster the standard for a top quality race. without Ben Carl's records would've been the following: 10.00 sea level record - 81 10.00 =sea level record - 82 9.99 sea-level record - 84 9.99 =sea level record 9.99 =sea level record - 84 9.98 sea level record 85 9.93 (ties record - WC 87) 9.93 (ties record - ZUrich 88) 9.92 (breaks record - Oly 88) 9.86 (breaks record - WC 91) the other thing is for Greene to top Lewis (in my mind) he have to match his 83, 87, 91 WC title run. That would mean for Greene 1997-2001-2005. I suspect Greene will win in 2001. If he wins in 2005 I'll anoint as the King. :) Kebba Tolbert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) = Men's and Women's Jumps & Multis Coach Syracuse University Track & Field _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Re: t-and-f: Embarassment
Andrew, You're missing the point. The issue is not that recruitment of foreign athletes is dragging down US track and field as opposed to those that are lost to the "big three sports", but that our "farm system" (the NCAA)is spending more time and money recruiting and developing foreign athletes so that they can score conference or NCAA points than recruiting,developing and nurturing our own athletes that form the pool that will eventually come to represent our country at the international level. Along that same line, many are missing the point that one of the MAJOR problems that our sport has in our country is that many/most are interested in results and NOT in development. In many of the countries, there is great emphasis on development, here, everyone wants to win; get the fastest, strongest or most powerful, put them out on the track and/or field and have them compete and score as many points as possible. This is not development and many good/great talents quit the sport get injured or just plain burn out on it before they get to the highest level. --Original Message-- From: "Andrew Owusu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: October 25, 2000 3:58:47 AM GMT Subject: Re: t-and-f: Embarassment I still do not understand some of you guys and I probably won't. As a foreigner who benefited because of overseas recruiting, it is hard for me to understand how some list members can squarely put the blame of recent sub par performances (medal count) of the US national team on foreign athletes on scholarship. When I first came to the US (Fall 1991), I could not believe the lack of interest in Track and Field. I use to spend a great deal of time wondering why many people did not care about the sport. Then it struck me one day. US is the only country that has 3 major sports (Basketball, Football and Baseball) of equal prestige. For the rest of the world, its probably soccer leaving Athletics (Track and Field) as a 2nd or 3rd most favorite sport. Therefore, the bulk of the blame for talent drain, deprivation of talent development, and the subsequent lack of interest in the sport within the US should be place on the shoulders of the "BIG THREE SPORTS". It would be naive to say that the recruitment of foreign-born athletes does not factor into this equation. Nevertheless, I know that its contribution is not as great as some would like us to believe. I asked Coach Hayes (MTSU) about a week ago to comment on the sub par performance (medal count) of the US Track and Field team during the Olympics. His answer was simple; "The rest of the world is catching up". For every foreign born athlete who went through the NCAA system (last 5 years), I can point out 1 or 2 who have also made it big on the world scene without going through the NCAA system. If you are wondering where some of the missing medals went, ask the folks from Saudi Arabia. This country would not have been considered a medal threat in Athletics 3 yrs ago. Yet, they won a silver medal (400m hurdles) in Sydney. For those who were in Sydney, you may have noticed that even INDIA, had 2 women (A qualifiers) in the Heptathlon. There is more than enough potential and talent even within the so-called small number (I think its very large though) pool at both the high school and the college level. All that is missing is how to find ways to maximize this potential, giving the fact that the rest of the world is catching up, irrespective of the fact that there are foreign born athletes within the NCAA system. I know that quite a number of African athletes who would in the past have sought scholarships in the US, now have the choice of joining the Olympic Solidarity program. As a result, I believe that this is really making it harder for coaches to recruit the same caliber of foreign athletes that they use to get 5-6yrs ago, leading to, in terms of recruiting numbers, less foreign athletes. For those who have been paying more attention, you may have noticed the changes in NCAA eligibility requirements, over the past 7 yrs, has made it a little harder to find qualified foreign athletes. GUYS THE WORLD IS GETTING SMALLER AND OTHER LESSER COUNTRIES ARE SLOWLY CATCHING UP. AND SO WHETHER SOME LIKE IT OR NOT, UNITED STATES WILL PROBABLY FIND IT HARDER AND HARDER TO MATCH THE MEDAL COUNTS OF PAST GAMES EVEN IF RECRUITMENT OF FOREIGN ATHLETES STOP. My 3 cents
Re: t-and-f: Embarassment
That is the point exactly. This is why the term "farm system" is in quotes. It is not a farm system and there is no equavalent club system and thus, the athletes do not develop fully as in other countries where the coaching is better and the support is better. --Original Message-- From: Jay Ulfelder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: October 25, 2000 10:43:33 AM GMT Subject: Re: t-and-f: Embarassment On Tue, 24 October 2000, curtis taylor replied to Andrew Owusu with: > You're missing the point. The issue is not that recruitment of foreign > athletes is dragging down US track and field as opposed to those that are > lost to the "big three sports", but that our "farm system" (the NCAA)is > spending more time and money recruiting and developing foreign athletes > so that they can score conference or NCAA points than recruiting, > developing and nurturing our own athletes that form the pool that will > eventually come to represent our country at the international level. The NCAA is not, nor should it *ever* be expected to be, a "farm system" for U.S. athletic development. The NCAA is an association of U.S. colleges and universities. The missions of those schools individually, and of the NCAA collectively, have nothing to do with preparing the United States to compete against other countries. There is not, nor should there ever be, any "nationalist" agenda to U.S. collegiate sports. As far as most students, alumni and administrators are concerned, the emphasis on conference or NCAA points is probably just about right. And who else are these schools supposed to answer to? Only by default have collegiate programs become the closest thing we have to a farm system for track and field. But do not confuse the absence of an alternative with the presence of a responsibility. In any event, I, for one, would be disgusted to see American colleges and universities--particularly those that are privately funded--decide that they have a greater interest in certain student-athletes based solely on the fact that those student-athletes were born in the United States. - Jay Ulfelder -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] is brought to you by the Stanford Alumni Association and Critical Path.
Re: t-and-f: Embarrassment, MLF and development
Perfectly said. An example: I had an athlete at Jrs. Back in 94 when Worlds
were in Portugal. She was Cal State Champ 3 weeks earlier and went to Jrs
because her parents and others (USATF)wanted her to go. She had the 2nd
fastest qualifying time going into the finals. At breakfast the morning
before the finals she asked me "if I make the team do I HAVE to go to
Portugal?" Fortunately (for her), she came in 3rd and did not make the team.
I found out later that she had planned a cruise with her boyfriend and his
family during the time of the worlds. This kid had A-A status, a state
championship, a full scholarship to a major university, a boyfriend and a
full expense paid cruise under her belt. In her mind, what did she need
Jrs' for? This is generally the mentality of the higher level U.S. Jr.
Athlete. I have coached and know of more H.S. elite athletes with similar
stories in regards to the Jr meet. Unless you're really paying attention,
no one really knows who DOES'NT show at Jrs. If the best do not show or take
the U.S. Jr. meet seriously, they can't participate at the following
international meet. Another example, the team that set the WJR in the
women's 4 x 1 last year did not even have the top THREE Jr. sprinters on
it(none of them showed at the Jr. Meet). In essence, that was a "B" team.
The well runs much deeper.
--Original Message--
From: "R.T." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: October 26, 2000 5:02:16 PM GMT
Subject: Re: t-and-f: Embarrassment, MLF and development
It might appear to be a poor showing from the "team"
standpoint...
for the individuals who were there, it was probably
reasonable enough performances for most of them, given
the time of year...
The trouble is, not only did the U.S. not "send" the
"A" team, they didn't send the B or C teams either.
It was more like the "D" team. Nothing against those
individuals, but they are not the cream of the crop.
Anybody who thinks what they saw in Santiago represents
the current U.S. state of the art, are sadly mistaken.
But as I said earlier, Americans would love you to
believe that and think your preparations are totally
adequate to destroy the Americans at all competitive
venues. :-)
The USATF will say they sent the winners from the
National Junior Champs. But a LOT of people didn't
bother to even go TO the National Junior Champs.
To them a Golden West High School win, or a shot at competing
in the Olympic Trials in Sacramento, was more important
(although they only had a miniscule chance of making
the Sydney team).
Reminder to people outside the U.S.- being a democracy,
nobody can be "made" to participate on a national team.
The USATF has zero leverage.
The lure ("carrot") of international travel doesn't even
have the motivational pwoer that it once did, in a post-
MTV age where most people's homes are wired, kids carry
cellular phones in their backpacks, and they
chat constantly on the 'net with people around the globe.
Chance to go to Rome? "would be nice, but it's not all that
critical. After all, homecoming is the same weekend,
and I've got Pre-SAT's." How about Santiago?
"Santiago? Hah! You've gotta be kidding!"
If they don't want to go, or even "try out" for the team,
there's not a whole lot that can be done about it, short
of changing the entire developmental structure to take
power away from high school and college coaches, or
at least move their power out from under the school
A.D.'s and the NCAA, and have the coaches report
directly to the USATF. i.e. de-emphasize school team
scoring, and emphasize individual development.
Like that's gonna happen in the next 500 years...right!
And there's little discussion of ways to motivate kids
to want to compete against their counterparts from
Poland and Bolivia.
Everybody wants a piece of the Americans, but Americans
can 'take it or leave it'-making an overseas trip to
compete can easily become more a 'drag' than a benefit.
RT
RE: t-and-f: Olympic women's 4x400 redux
Since you're making accusations why not name names? Just like everything else on this list, if you're not going to make a direct accusation against an individual or individuals, all you're doing is adding to the stupifying amount of innuendo and meaningless blather that already exists on the list. Who is the "other runner?" Who is the "the powerful California based club coach?" Who are those in USATF that would be responsible? Stay tuned for the answer to these and other mysterious questions on the next "As the Track World Turns!" Pleeze! If you don't want to name names, keep your "info" to yourself and your circle until you are ready to make a complete accusation and be ready to back it up. If not, it's unfair to those that are involved and/or associated with the relay team that may have anything to do with this "situation." --Original Message-- From: "Ed Grant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: track net <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: October 29, 2000 4:06:12 AM GMT Subject: t-and-f: Olympic women's 4x400 redux Netters: If what I was told today at the NJ sectional cross-country championships is anywhere near the truth, the USATF must launch an immediate investigation into the circumstances surrounding the decision of who was to run the trial round of the women's 4x400 relay at Sydney. This is what I heard from Mikele's Barber HS coach, Ray Spivey, as well as from an old journalistic colleague who was relaying his info (the two versions corrobarated each other) from Mikele's club coach here in NJ Item 1: Mikele did indeed have a strenuous workout the day before the time trial that resulted in her being dropped from the lineup. Item 2: While the otehr runner had advance knowledge of the trial, Mikele did not. Item 3: A very powerful, California=based club coach insister that the other runner be chosen. If any or all of these charges are true, those respoonsible should be exiled from the sport immediately. At the least, there must be a full investigation. And the rule which allows such tinkering with the order of finish at the real trials must be changed so that, while it allows the insertion of a qualified athlete from another event (e.g., Angelo Tatlor of Ms. Jones-Hunter), there should be no change which jumps one 400 trials runner over another unless, as in the case of Michelle Collins this year, an inuury or lack of condition necessitates it. The rules for the 4x100 and 4x400 should not be the same, in any case. For while changes in the 4 x100 can be accepted for other reasons than the infintesmal speed difference (ability to run turns, baton experience, starting speed), everyone in the longer relay runs the same path---two turns, two striaghtaways---and the baton exchanges while important are hardly vital to success or failure in the way they are in the shorter one. Ed Grant
RE: t-and-f: Olympic women's 4x400 redux
Since you're making accusations why not name names? Just like everything else on this list, if you're not going to make a direct accusation against an individual or individuals, all you're doing is adding to the stupifying amount of innuendo and meaningless blather that already exists on the list. Who is the "other runner?" Who is the "the powerful California based club coach?" Who are those in USATF that would be responsible? Stay tuned for the answer to these and other mysterious questions on the next "As the Track World Turns!" Pleeze! If you don't want to name names, keep your "info" to yourself and your circle until you are ready to make a complete accusation and be ready to back it up. If not, it's unfair to those that are involved and/or associated with the Olympic team that are not associated with this situation. --Original Message-- From: "Ed Grant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: track net <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: October 29, 2000 4:06:12 AM GMT Subject: t-and-f: Olympic women's 4x400 redux Netters: If what I was told today at the NJ sectional cross-country championships is anywhere near the truth, the USATF must launch an immediate investigation into the circumstances surrounding the decision of who was to run the trial round of the women's 4x400 relay at Sydney. This is what I heard from Mikele's Barber HS coach, Ray Spivey, as well as from an old journalistic colleague who was relaying his info (the two versions corrobarated each other) from Mikele's club coach here in NJ Item 1: Mikele did indeed have a strenuous workout the day before the time trial that resulted in her being dropped from the lineup. Item 2: While the otehr runner had advance knowledge of the trial, Mikele did not. Item 3: A very powerful, California=based club coach insister that the other runner be chosen. If any or all of these charges are true, those respoonsible should be exiled from the sport immediately. At the least, there must be a full investigation. And the rule which allows such tinkering with the order of finish at the real trials must be changed so that, while it allows the insertion of a qualified athlete from another event (e.g., Angelo Tatlor of Ms. Jones-Hunter), there should be no change which jumps one 400 trials runner over another unless, as in the case of Michelle Collins this year, an inuury or lack of condition necessitates it. The rules for the 4x100 and 4x400 should not be the same, in any case. For while changes in the 4 x100 can be accepted for other reasons than the infintesmal speed difference (ability to run turns, baton experience, starting speed), everyone in the longer relay runs the same path---two turns, two striaghtaways---and the baton exchanges while important are hardly vital to success or failure in the way they are in the shorter one. Ed Grant
RE: t-and-f: Olympic women's 4x400 redux
Hey malmo, Thanks for confirming exactly what I meant with another exceedingly idiotic reply to a legitimate question with a legit point. Ed Grant is a big boy, he can defend himself. Oh, and by the way, you left the "r" out in bigotry. Get a clue, (and a dictionary)dude --Original Message-- From: "malmo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: curtis taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ed Grant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, track net <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: October 29, 2000 6:18:52 PM GMT Subject: RE: t-and-f: Olympic women's 4x400 redux > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of curtis taylor > Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 1:42 AM > To: Ed Grant; track net > Subject: RE: t-and-f: Olympic women's 4x400 redux > > > Since you're making accusations why not name names? Just like everything > else on this list, if you're not going to make a direct accusation against > an individual or individuals, all you're doing is adding to the stupifying > amount of innuendo and meaningless blather that already exists on > the list. "Have you ever noticed how your sh!t is stuff and other peoples stuff is sh!t?" - George Carlin Hey Curtis! Wake up, kid! This is the internet. What is meaningless blather to you is meaningful blather to others. Keep your blather bigoty to yourself. malmo
Re: t-and-f: Re: German women + records
Yeah, I can define it for you. The point he's trying to make is that those two coaches (Tepper and Hille) were two of the most innovative coaches ever, and that they along with some of the other eastern bloc coaches and scientists, essentially defined the model for what many coaches are currently using (and some poorly for that matter)as speed and speed development training. It's in the research for all to see. The other fact is that no matter how much drugs you pump into an athlete, the training must still be correct to achieve world class performances and in particular, a world record. Those 2 records (400,800) are in arguably two of the toughest events on the track, each of which requires a special blend of speed, power and endurance, given out in appropriate doses over a career of training. --Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 14, 2000 1:05:54 AM GMT Subject: Re: t-and-f: Re: German women + records 1) Can someone define this post for me, it is gibberish! 2) Tainted records is not a joke but a documented fact. The German regime is not a rumor any longer, but has been proven and admitted to. As for your tangent concerning training techniques, as a sprint coach I do not know what you are talking about. As a matter of fact, most sprint coaches I know believe in short distance, specific training. But we can explore the benefits of training techniques in Edmonton, Paris, and Athens over the next 4 years. DGS The G.O.A.T.
Re: t-and-f: How good was a 10.07 100m in 1972.
True, if Eddie Hart would have run in 72' he would have had a great shot at winning and also true that if more of our sprinters had gotten a chance to "mature" they may have run better in the future. But Borzovs' 10.07 was superior to any 10.07 run today under similar conditions and particularly those run in Sacto due to the hardness of the track. The tracks of the 70's were considerably softer and slower than those of today, especially those put in specifically for fast times at World or Olympic championship meets. --Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 21, 2000 6:14:13 PM GMT Subject: Re: t-and-f: How good was a 10.07 100m in 1972. In a message dated 12/21/00 7:49:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Actually Hines ran an auto timed 10.03 in his Sacramento race in 68 .. And > Hayes auto time in Tokyo was 10.05 .. Nonetheless Borzov's 10.07 placed > him right at the mark with the best of his time .. And even today, there are > only a hand full of sprinters that can say they can step on the track with > confidence and run faster .. 10.07 made this year's American sprint squad > for the games !!! And 10.07 would have placed 4th and just out of the money > OK stop running down this endless road of who could do what, when and where. There is no definitive answer. And the facts are being misconstrued. Borzov's 10.07 is no where near the times run in Sacramento. And we can never discount the variable of "level of competition." Every champion was a champion of that time and era, very few transcend the time gap, but not all. And Borzov was not one of them. What if in the 60's and 70's the American sprinters could train beyond one Olympic Games, or had the sports regime of the eastern Bloc? We would not know Valery Borzov. DGS The G.O.A.T.
Re: t-and-f: Why the lack of improvement
This is a perfect example of what's going on in the sport at the upper levels. The truth of the matter is that we have a vast majority of talent here in the US at the HS and youth level, but there are very few coaches that can develop that talent as youths or HS'ers. If you look deep enough, most of the top level athletes come from a few programs and most coaches are lucky to have 1 nationally ranked athlete in their coaching career. That being said, those athletes that have the talent but are not developed in HS (usually the lesser ranked ones) go on to greater success later with just the basic coaching and strength training protocols from college. Also, for some of these athletes, college is the first time that they concentrate on one sport, instead of doing 2 and sometimes 3 sports during the year. The top ranked HS athletes , for the most part, have been very well coached. In many cases, their future coaches have neglected to look at their past training to find out what their previous coaches have done to make them successful and then, build upon that program. A cookbook formula usually will not work for these athletes, they need to be treated on an individual basis and there has to be a task specific approach to their training which also requires a thorough analysis of their technique(s), strengths and weaknesses. Many coaches are not able or do not have the time or knowledge to do so. --Original Message-- From: "Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: January 5, 2001 5:07:27 PM GMT Subject: Re: t-and-f: Why the lack of improvement Rohl wrote: > Netters > > Dan asked: > > Is this evident in any group other than male sprinters? > > > yes Distance runners. In 83 there was Miles Irish, Mike Starr and John > Carrolitti all sub 4:10 milers in H.S. Of the group the only one to make > to the 88 and 92 trials was Charles Marsella a guy who was second to > all those guys all te time. I knew Irish pretty well and had met Starr. > Marsella was not as talented but he was tuff. There are other examples > as well. I wonder what ever happened to Irish the guy ran 4;06 (I think) > behind Starr, Went to George Town and i never heard from him again, Yeah distance runners are in the same boat I believe .. Michael Stember who was on the Olympic Team at 1500 was from a high school here in Northern California - Jesuit in Sacramento .. Their honor role for milers reads like a Who's Who of high school milers with a slew of individuals in the 4:04 to 4:06 range .. Numerous state champs .. The works .. But Stember (to my knowledge) is the first to truly improve and have major success after high school .. Must of the others had difficulty getting under the 4:00 barrier later .. Which is interesting because some of the responses on this thread have talked about socio economic and motivation and availability to resources .. Yet Most of the Jesuit graduates come from decent to well to do families .. Most have gone on to schools like Stanford .. And have had the opportunity to receive good coaching post high school .. So how does that fit into the equation ??? Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: false-start rule (was: Proposed rule changes-IAAF
Anyone who had to sit and suffer through the false starts in the M/Ws' 60 & 60H at USATF indoors in Atlanta this year should be in favor of the one false start rule also. Just about each heat and the finals had one and the womens' 60m final had 3! It is obvious that many athletes are trying to guess and risk the one false start. In meets that don't have pressure sensitive blocks the chances of timing the starter and getting away with it are much greater. At worst, you are charged with one false start, at best, you may set a world record.. --Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 14, 2001 5:11:16 PM GMT Subject: Re: t-and-f: false-start rule (was: Proposed rule changes-IAAF In a message dated Wed, 14 Mar 2001 9:12:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Conway Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: << I don't get it either ... Why change the false start rule ??? To copme into conformity withthe NCAA ??? They need to be more concerned with making sure that starters are less reliant on that "beep" in their ear, as eveidenced in last years Olympics and US Olympic Trials .. The one falsel start rule hasn't improved the NCAA nor California High School Sprinting ..>> You obviously weren't at the 1974 NCAA meet in Austin, when 7 heats produced 18 (yes, eighteen) false starts and put the meet more than an hour behind schedule. The false start rule was installed the next year. Since then, a total of two men (Calvin SMith in '82 and Lee McRae in '85) have been bounced from the final for a false start, none in the last 15 years. I think the meet (and collegiate track in general) has been immeasurably better for the development. gh
Re: t-and-f: New rules
False starting is cheating or an attempt to cheat, plain and simple. There is no reason to move before the gun sounds. Any movement before or at the same time as the gun sounds is anticipation to the gun by someone trying to gain an advantage, not reacting to the sound as is mandated by the rules. If athletes want to start faster, they should train themselves to react and not anticipate. It is clear that more and more, sprinters and hurdlers are taking advantage of the false start rule which is bad for the fans, TV, and the other athletes who are trying to start properly and are distracted by the increasing number of false starts. CT --Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 19, 2001 4:14:08 PM GMT Subject: Re: t-and-f: New rules In a message dated Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:40:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, Ed & Dana Parrot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: << It may be right that the false start rule being better for the fans, but I guess perhaps we'll see. In no other major American sport will an athlete be kicked out in the beginning of the competition for anything other than unsportsmanlike conduct.>> i think it can be argued that most false starting IS unsportsmanlike conduct. gh
Re: t-and-f: I suggest
Doesn't this make it a "no false start" rule for the other athletes that didn't false start in the first place? If lane 3 guesses once, gets caught, lane 4 guesses and gets caught, then lane 5 has a "too fast RT", they should get DQ'd and lanes 3 and 4 should stay in the race? CT --Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 22, 2001 8:06:45 PM GMT Subject: Re: t-and-f: I suggest > 1. The first 2 false starts will be charged to the field. If both are done > by the same person he/she will be DQ'ed. After the 2 false starts to the > field have been used(including the DQ of the person who false started > twice), anyone who false starts after this will be DQ'ed. I think it's a > meeting in the middle between the athlete, the fans, and TV ( since that's > one of the excuses). I think Jon suggested this already as did someone else. I think that it is the way to go myself too.
RE: t-and-f: Who was Jeff Laynes high school coach?
Doug Owyang and Dave Ponas --Original Message-- From: Michael Bartolina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 23, 2001 6:03:55 PM GMT Subject: t-and-f: Who was Jeff Laynes high school coach? Gotcha! __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Re: t-and-f: Howard and Clark
I was trying to stay out of this as the list spirals even further downward on another ridiculus topic, but I had to address this in regards to the asthma issue. I coach a world class athlete that has to take asthma medicine and I have a younger brother who plays D1 basketball that has to take asthma medicine. If they have an asthma attack and they don't take their medicine, they could DIE! Not, they can't run in this meet, or they won't feel up to par in this game or they won't perform well, just plain die. No one is going to die from not taking cold or allergy meds or diuretics or many types of groth hormones and steriods. Diabetics and asthmatics need their meds to LIVE. If these meds were not allowed, we would have not seen the likes of Jackie Joyner Kersee or Jeanette Bolden and numerous other athletes that suffer from these diseases. Lastly, maybe the drugs you took in high school did not so much make you better than you were before as much as they made you as good as you were supposed to be. Maybe you and some of the people who make these decisions should have an asthma attack or go into a blood sugar problem and then refuse your meds and then see if you can get to the phone to call 911, much less try to be competitive in ANYTHING. --Original Message-- From: Ed & Dana Parrot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: May 17, 2001 9:52:00 PM GMT Subject: Re: t-and-f: Howard and Clark > What is the point of prohibiting an asthmatic from using vasodilators? It > gives him no advantage over a healthy competitor, it merely evens the > playing field somewhat. Regardless of whether you believe dispensations can be granted, I fail to see how you can make the above conclusion. A vasodilator enhances the performance of non-asthmatics and asthmatics alike - it just enhances the performances of asthmatics more because they are starting with lesser abilities. > Denying athletes prescribed medicines that allow them to function normally is both unhealthy and unethical. What is the > point? Is the sport of athletics so "pure" that only the perfect may compete? Actually, in some sense it is. The more "perfect" you are, the better you will do, all other things being equal. Many asthmatics need very little medication except when they are exerting themselves, so you could argue that what is unhealthy is having them try to compete. I do sympathize with the point about "prescribed" medications, and apparently so do at lkeast some of the IAAF members. > Originally, doping regulations were brought in to protect athletes from > excesses: for instance the ICU started its first doping controls after a > spate of amphetamine-induced cycling deaths in the late 60's. It has now > been extended to include some fuzzy ideal of "purity", and this ideal now > apparently supercedes health considerations. I'm not sure that's totally true. As I posted in an earlier email, doping violations have hurt the public image of sports in the past, even when it wasn't against the rules. And there's nothing wrong with things being "fuzzy". That's the nature of life - rarely are things black and white. Some semblance of "purity" is one of the reasons we watch the sport. The fact that we each may define purity differently does not mean we should abandon attempts to keep things "pure". On a larger scale, arguments about this type of thing are the bread and butter of sports fans everywhere. I am not against the way that stimulants are handled, and I am not sure exactly how I feel about medical dispensations. But make no mistake, when an athlete is allowed to take a drug that is known to be performance enhancing that the other athletes are not allowed to take, the playing field is not level, regardless of the medical condition. It would be like allowing an amputee to use a powered wheelchair to race against Mo Greene, reasoning that you are only correcting an existing disability. In high school and college, I was prescribed several banned drugs and I can absolutely guarantee you that not only did they fix the condition they were intended to fix, they quickly and noticably made me better than I was before. - Ed Parrot
RE: t-and-f: what gun?
If you think that is interesting, check out the reaction times for those 2 in the official results at www.flashresults.com. More fuel for the no false start rules. Curtis --Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: May 29, 2001 11:53:22 PM GMT Subject: t-and-f: what gun? Jarrett said after the race that he did not think he started early, although he acknowledged that he did not hear the starter's gun, but got out of the blocks alongside Bernard Williams, who was in the lane next to him."Usually I hear the gun, but for some reason I didn't," Jarrett said. "I was real nervous, I think that is the only way to explain it. Williams and I went out at the same time." from the oregon newspaper
RE: t-and-f: re: MJ thread
Thank you Randy for bringing some sanity to the list. I hope that your post will prompt some individuals to think or at least ask someone who knows something about training, coaching or competiting at ANY level (much less an elite level) before posting and/or making statements that are for the most part just assumptions. The well of track and field (training and competition)is MUCH deeper than what most people see on the surface. Curtis --Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: July 27, 2000 2:35:26 AM GMT Subject: t-and-f: re: MJ thread I'm posting this on behalf of Randy Huntington, who is having trouble posting to the list. Conway wrote, >And his results have shown that he has not been able to approach his WR any >more than Beamon, or Powell, or Kevin Young could approach theirs .. Is why the >term Beamonesque is so often used in conjunction with that race .. Conway, Are you a complete idiot or just dumb enough to talk without thinking first. I rarely get fired up about anything, but the above statement is just plain ignorant. This level of ignorance is quite unacceptable. To throw Johnson and Powell in with Beamon is truly one of the most ignorant statements I have yet seen here. Beamon couldn't reproduce what he was doing because he didn't know how he got there in the first place. He was a tremendous talent that hit everything right on that day. Nothing came by design. Johnson has been one of the best in the world in both the 200 and 400 for a very long time and has a great coach in Clyde Hart.Believe me his sucess has been designed. And as for Powell. 91 -WR 92 - Modesto over 8.80 twice -Setrierre/8.99 - Oly trials winner/2nd in Oly games 93 - Sestrierre again 8.99(W) with a number of jumps in the 8.40+ range in there/ 1st at World Champs 94 - Lost once that seaason (to Kareem St Thompson) 95 - fell apart 96- Came back to be coached by me after leaving in the fall of 93. 1st at trials/injured during competition at Games That hardly is not reaching same level of ability after he broke the record. Give me a damn break here. I am very tired of reading listings from people that haven't a clue about training an elite athlete to the levels we take people and for that matter maintaining that kind of performance level for a number of years. So many variables have to be just right for a World record to occur and it is quite difficult to reproduce those varibles at will. If you want to learn ask some questions instead of making statements like the one above and publicly displaying your ignorance of elite athlete training. Randy Huntington
