Re: t-and-f: Not EVERYONE is doping
An the rate of improvement has slowed down in the period when Africans have dominated! John Bale - Original Message - From: Mcewen, Brian T [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 4:44 PM Subject: RE: t-and-f: Not EVERYONE is doping So, Drew, based on the below progression of the WR (roughly 60 seconds every 20 years) how long before man breaks 00:00.00? In my lifetime, will we see a 23:30 10k? Good one. If I have riled you up, that is tough for you. Keep the putdowns to yourself, or send them to me only. I haven't attacked Drew Eckmann or anything he is about ... and I don't intend to. Keep the discussion on a high level, no matter how much you disagree with me. Brian T McEwen says I said: I don't know the Limits of human performance in distance running, but they are NOT at the level where today's runners would lap Viren, Yifter, Rono, Schildhauer and Cova at their very best. Well, Henry ran 27:22 in 1978, 22 years ago. 22 years before that, 1956, the WR was 28:30. Hmmm, Curiously, just about a 1 lap difference. Now, guess what? 20 years before that, 1936, the WR was 30:06, or approximately a lap and a half behind Kuts. Wanna go back 20 more years to 1916? I bet even you can guess what's gonna happen here. Yep!! One more time. Not quite a lap this time, but...30:58, 52 seconds slower. I don't know about 1896, but, how do you explain Nurmi being a lap better than Bouin, Kuts being a lap better than Nurmi, Rono being a lap better than Kuts, but Gebrselassie NOT being able to be a lap better than Rono? /Drew
Re: t-and-f: Not EVERYONE is doping
Not agreeing or disagreeing with most of what Brian wrote, but I've gotta be amused by the following: Most anybody with some talent and enough drive can run 29:15. From my experience around distance runners for the past 27 years, I'd guess that the talent to run a 29:15 is found in about 1 in 500 people, if that. Phil
RE: t-and-f: Not EVERYONE is doping
I base my observations on 15 years of working with and observing government and corporate "mucky mucks". The saying "Do not attribute to conspiracy what is better explained by stupidity" is very true, and the public would be shocked at how absolutely true it is. Richard McCann At 04:14 PM 11/2/2000 -0800, malmo wrote: Dismiss everything that you don't know as a "conspiracy theory". There are many more Willie Browns out there. malmo
Re: t-and-f: Not EVERYONE is doping
The statement quoted below has no real content. It is merely a definition of the terms "some" and "enough." Dave Carey On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Mcewen, Brian T wrote: Most anybody with some talent and enough drive can run 29:15.
Re: t-and-f: Not EVERYONE is doping
You are reading too much into what he is saying, I believe. Because RC hasn't seen the evidence, *RC* doesn't believe it exists. Same stance I take, actually. I refuse to approach the discussion already assuming that most runners are doped. While I accept doping occurs, nothing I have observed has convinced me that athletes cannot perform at the levels we have seen without doping. Thus, believing in the innate fairness of MOST competitors (most of the time), I believe most are clean. Now you can all just go away and leave me happy in my sandbox. -Buck Jones -Original Message- From: malmo [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Richard McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED]; TFMail List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 7:51 PM Subject: RE: t-and-f: Not EVERYONE is doping to buy these drugs. Unless you can come up with documentation that the Kenyan or Ethiopian governments are out in the hinterlands distributing these drugs, when they can't even distribute food adequately, I doubt that drugs are behind the widespread depth of African performances. Richard McCann Ah, there's that rhetorical shield of yours again. Because RC hasn't seen the evidence it doesn't exist. If there is no documentation then it doesn't exist. I don't believe anyone has ever suggested that either the Kenyan or Ethiopian governments has, or even possess the ability or will to administer an American-style doping program. These countries, both known for a long history of neglect of its citizenry, prove each year that getting travel visas in order is a monumental task. malmo
RE: t-and-f: Not EVERYONE is doping
So, Drew, based on the below progression of the WR (roughly 60 seconds every 20 years) how long before man breaks 00:00.00? In my lifetime, will we see a 23:30 10k? Good one. If I have riled you up, that is tough for you. Keep the putdowns to yourself, or send them to me only. I haven't attacked Drew Eckmann or anything he is about ... and I don't intend to. Keep the discussion on a high level, no matter how much you disagree with me. Brian T McEwen says I said: I don't know the Limits of human performance in distance running, but they are NOT at the level where today's runners would lap Viren, Yifter, Rono, Schildhauer and Cova at their very best. Well, Henry ran 27:22 in 1978, 22 years ago. 22 years before that, 1956, the WR was 28:30. Hmmm, Curiously, just about a 1 lap difference. Now, guess what? 20 years before that, 1936, the WR was 30:06, or approximately a lap and a half behind Kuts. Wanna go back 20 more years to 1916? I bet even you can guess what's gonna happen here. Yep!! One more time. Not quite a lap this time, but...30:58, 52 seconds slower. I don't know about 1896, but, how do you explain Nurmi being a lap better than Bouin, Kuts being a lap better than Nurmi, Rono being a lap better than Kuts, but Gebrselassie NOT being able to be a lap better than Rono? /Drew
RE: t-and-f: Not EVERYONE is doping
When linear extrapolation is extended over large ranges the choice of dependent variable becomes important. In the case of running records, plotting race time vs calendar time eventually produces meaningless results as witness below. It is better to take average speed as the dependent variable. Then the achievement of zero elapsed time is infinitely far off. Before anyone "breaks 00:00:00", the sun will expand to include the earths orbit, and the earth will spiral inward from the frictional drag, causing great heating and the obliteration of all life forms. Further predictions about the improvement of running records will be moot. Dave Carey On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Mcewen, Brian T wrote: So, Drew, based on the below progression of the WR (roughly 60 seconds every 20 years) how long before man breaks 00:00.00? In my lifetime, will we see a 23:30 10k? Good one.
Re: t-and-f: Not EVERYONE is doping
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 12:25:20 -0600, you wrote: When linear extrapolation is extended over large ranges the choice of dependent variable becomes important. In the case of running records, plotting race time vs calendar time eventually produces meaningless results as witness below. It is better to take average speed as the dependent variable. Then the achievement of zero elapsed time is infinitely far off. Before anyone "breaks 00:00:00", Maybe we already achieved 00:00:00 and blew right by it without anybody noticing- I keep hearing stuff about negative splits :-) RT
Re: t-and-f: Not EVERYONE is doping
Justin wrote: Oh come on Brian, at least try to debate intelligently. Of course it's true that no race can be run in zero time. Limits are above zero time, we can all agree on that. Clearly, as we reach the point of maximum potential, we will see diminishing returns. As was elegantly shown to us all, there is no evidence of diminishing returns in the event you chose to highlight, the 10k. The record has come down (in fits and starts) by a lap or so every 20 years. That's a rolling stat of course - every year we can compare 20 year periods going back as far as we like and measure the diminishing returns. When we can show that the record is improving by a smaller margin with each succeeding 20 yr period, we'll be able to make some intelligent predictions (rather than simple assertions, which is all you've managed so far). There are two major objections to your limits argument: 1. For it to be right, literally every single distance runner has to be on drugs. There are only two statements about drugs in sport that we know are rubbish - that everyone is clean, and that everyone is dirty. If even one athlete has been competitive while clean (ie run say 13:00 and 27:10) then your argument falls down. 2. You have to show that we have ALREADY REACHED the natural limits of human potential and that improvements since then are solely down to drugs. In fact, you have to argue that we reached human limits before the advent of EPO, ie in the late 80s. Damn, if I'd realised that I'd have paid better attention!! If even one athlete can be shown to have exceeded late 80s standards while clean, again your argument falls down. Most of us completly buy your contention that EPO and other drugs are rife at all levels of the sport. You do not need to use these patently absurd arguments to make your point. Justin I'm going to throw a different log on the fire of this discussion .. One thing that hasn't been looked at in the discussion of limits and potential are youth .. I would like to think that THEY are as close we are going to come to a group of performers that are totally "clean" .. And perhaps a look at the progression of youth would give some indication of the "evolution of us as humans" and therefore how close we may actually be coming to limits .. I'll start with the year 1976 .. The year I graduated high school so sort of familiar with what was going on . The first year auto timing really played a role in times as well as metric distances .. An Olympic year .. And makes for a nice quarter century .. And excuse me if I mix a couple of close years in here .. Sprint wise I know Houston McTear ran 10.18, Dwayne Evans ran 20.22, and Tony Darden ran 45.7 .. In the distances I believe Dale Scott ran 1:47.8 a couple of years earlier in 72 or 73, and Rich Kimball had run around 4:01 and Eric Hulst ran around 8:41 .. Now a quarter century later(using this past school year as a barometer) today's youth are still chasing these marks .. I know that the records have all since been broken .. But not dramatically .. And the elite of the day are still trying to get to those same marks .. In contrast - while I do not have the specific figures at hand - do know that the marks for the same events 25 years before that were no where close .. The implication here being that: 1) We are getting much closer to human limits 2) That there has not been any tremendous change in the basic human being in the last quarter century 3) That the tremendous changes in world records, consistency at the elite level, etc is due to forces other than the natural evolution of human beings towards "perfection of marks" .. And let me say that could mean any number of things from drugs to better training methods, better equipment, the "professionalization" of the sport .. But would indicate that the natural evolution of humans has flattened out .. Therefore the question seems to be "What outside of the human condition is responsible for the tremendous "raising of the bar" for performance levels at the elite end of the spectrum" ? Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: t-and-f: Not EVERYONE is doping
Justin says: When we can show that the record is improving by a smaller margin with each succeeding 20 yr period, we'll be able to make some intelligent predictions (rather than simple assertions, which is all you've managed so far). You can make the WR's say whatever you want them too ... if you choose the years correctly and only look at large 20 year blocks. I said that I believe that a 50 second improvement in the seasonal-best level of the 10k over 15 years was due to more than more Africans running. By 1983, 2 guys had broken 27:24 and by 1998 two guys had broken 26:29. Looking more carefully at the progression of the WR (every 10 years from the last one set): 98 26:22 (51 seconds/10 yrs - 2.04 secs a lap) 88 27:13 (9 seconds/10 yrs - .36 secs a lap) 78 27:22 (17 seconds/10 yrs - .68 secs a lap) 68 27:39 (50 seconds/10 yrs - 2.00 secs a lap) 58 28:30 48 ??? You say: "Clearly, as we reach the point of maximum potential, we will see diminishing returns. As was elegantly shown to us all, there is no evidence of diminishing returns in the event you chose to highlight, the 10k." Based on the WR progression, was the world seeing DIMINISHING RETURNS from 1955 to 1988, or not? Clearly it was. Based on the progression over the very long term ( the last 50 years ) has the world seen an unexpected rate of improvement of the 10km WR from 1988 to 1998? Clearly we have. What does that prove about drug use? Nothing at all. But, those who say we have been improving 60 seconds every 20 years, and we should expect that to continue until we reach the "limits" of endurance, whether they are 26:20, 25:20 or 24:20 ... are just plain wrong. We had already reached the point of diminishing returns by 1980. By 1983 the top-ten men in history were all within EIGHT seconds. They ranged from 27:22.4 to 27:30.x. Clearly, the world was near the limits of what was possible for the time. Men from many nations had run 27:30 ... two Kenyans, two Portuguese, two East Germans, two Americans, two Englishmen, a Finn. Since the late 1980's the WR has improved by close to the same margin that used to separate the top-ten ALL-TIME: 27:13 27:08 27:07 26:58 26:53 26:43 26:31 26:27 26:22 What does that prove about drug use? Nothing at all. But, it is not true to say that the WR has advanced at about the rate the world should expect, based on our knowledge of the last 50 years. Based on World experience over 1950-1990 ... you would expect the WR now to be 27:05 or slower. I am not saying that is the limit of human performance in 2000 ... just that if you had never seen the dramatic escalation from 1992-1998 ... but were presented with the WR progression of the previous 40 years, you WOULD NOT be expecting the WR to be 26:22. What does that prove about drug use? Nothing at all. -Original Message- From: Justin Clouder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 12:30 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: t-and-f: Not EVERYONE is doping Oh come on Brian, at least try to debate intelligently. Of course it's true that no race can be run in zero time. Limits are above zero time, we can all agree on that. Clearly, as we reach the point of maximum potential, we will see diminishing returns. As was elegantly shown to us all, there is no evidence of diminishing returns in the event you chose to highlight, the 10k. The record has come down (in fits and starts) by a lap or so every 20 years. That's a rolling stat of course - every year we can compare 20 year periods going back as far as we like and measure the diminishing returns. When we can show that the record is improving by a smaller margin with each succeeding 20 yr period, we'll be able to make some intelligent predictions (rather than simple assertions, which is all you've managed so far). There are two major objections to your limits argument: 1. For it to be right, literally every single distance runner has to be on drugs. There are only two statements about drugs in sport that we know are rubbish - that everyone is clean, and that everyone is dirty. If even one athlete has been competitive while clean (ie run say 13:00 and 27:10) then your argument falls down. 2. You have to show that we have ALREADY REACHED the natural limits of human potential and that improvements since then are solely down to drugs. In fact, you have to argue that we reached human limits before the advent of EPO, ie in the late 80s. Damn, if I'd realised that I'd have paid better attention!! If even one athlete can be shown to have exceeded late 80s standards while clean, again your argument falls down. Most of us completly buy your contention that EPO and other drugs are rife at all levels of the sport. You do not need to use these patently absurd arguments to make your point. Justin ** Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are
RE: t-and-f: Not EVERYONE is doping
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Richard McCann wrote: You only make my point here. There are virtually NO well-organized, effective institutions in those countries (several of my former ag econ classmates have worked on development projects in Kenya and other African nations). To create the wave of performances at such young ages, before these athletes have traveled to Europe where they might gain access to EPO, would require a concerted effort by a well-organized institution. Unless Nike or Fila is making such an investment, (and I suspect shareholders would question such expenditures, however hidden, in these countries, even if as "market development;" and why not spend similar money in other countries?), there are no other institutions ready and able. I tend to agree that it is unlikely Kenyan teenagers are doping en mass, but let us not forget that KAAA is one of the most corupt organizations in our sport. Paul *** Paul Talbot Department of Geography/ Institute of Behavioral Science University of Colorado, Boulder Boulder CO 80309-0260 (303) 492-3248 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: t-and-f: Not EVERYONE is doping
To create the wave of performances at such young ages, before these athletes have traveled to Europe where they might gain access to EPO, would require a concerted effort by a well-organized institution. Unless Nike or Fila is making such an investment, (and I suspect shareholders would question such expenditures, however hidden, in these countries, even if as "market development;" and why not spend similar money in other countries?), there are no other institutions ready and able. Richard McCann Richard, now you're getting warm. Institutional flouting of doping rules. It's been done many times before THINK malmo
RE: t-and-f: Not EVERYONE is doping
At 12:57 PM 11/2/2000 -0700, P.F.Talbot wrote: On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Richard McCann wrote: You only make my point here. There are virtually NO well-organized, effective institutions in those countries (several of my former ag econ classmates have worked on development projects in Kenya and other African nations). To create the wave of performances at such young ages, before these athletes have traveled to Europe where they might gain access to EPO, would require a concerted effort by a well-organized institution. Unless Nike or Fila is making such an investment, (and I suspect shareholders would question such expenditures, however hidden, in these countries, even if as "market development;" and why not spend similar money in other countries?), there are no other institutions ready and able. I tend to agree that it is unlikely Kenyan teenagers are doping en mass, but let us not forget that KAAA is one of the most corupt organizations in our sport. Paul Corruption is rampant throughout Africa, but that doesn't mean that they have the organizational wherewithall to implement such a program. Corrupt officials tend to line there own pockets in the easiest manner possible, not to develop an elaborate scheme that lifts the well being of others as an indirect way of generating personal gain. Again, something other than insinuation is required here. Richard McCann
RE: t-and-f: Not EVERYONE is doping
It used to be that the KAA sent to Junior competitions (and World Univ. games) what appeared to be high school kids...AND they ran like high school kids. Now their "Junior" teams all look 25 years old...AND they run like it. malmo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mcewen, Brian T Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 1:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: Not EVERYONE is doping The "16-17 year olds" in Kenya ... are not always 16-17 years old. Not unless you believe that a 15 or 16 year old boy can run 27:43. This was submitted during the World juniors: 1 (M) As for the other finals, the 10,000 was a race for the Kenyans and Ethiopians only. After the first serious increment in pace, only Robert Kipchumba, Duncan Lebo, Abraha Hadush and Kedebe Tekeste were left. With Lebo setting the pace, the Ethiopians were gone very soon too. In the final kilometers, Kipchumba proved the strongest setting a strong 28:54.37 in the 30 degrees Celsius heat. His performance, I hate to admit, does cast doubts on the year-of-birth that was listed as '84 (Kipchumba ran a 27:43 earlier this year). If he WAS born in 1984 ... he would have been 15 and many months, or 16 years old when he ran 27:43. Why would a nation say that some of their top young athletes are 16, 17, or 18? So they can set World Junior Records this season and next. 12:54 WJR for 5000m? Come on. -Original Message- From: Richard McCann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 1:57 PM To: malmo Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: Not EVERYONE is doping At 07:14 PM 11/1/2000 -0800, malmo wrote.. Ah, there's that rhetorical shield of yours again. Because RC hasn't seen the evidence it doesn't exist. If there is no documentation then it doesn't exist. Perhaps I'm being too demanding given the general lack of documentation about much of anything in Africa. (One colleague has a book about development economics entitled "Planning with Facts.") However, my point is that the claim that East Africans are using EPO to gain most if not all of their advantage is simply illogical in the face of the facts about performances by very young runners in that region. The accusers have to demonstrate somehow that 16 to 17 year olds in Kenya are getting EPO while Europeans and American teenagers with substantially higher disposable incomes (and a demonstrated greater preponderance of drug use, including steroids) apparently are not. Just saying "they're just running too damn fast" is in absolutely no way a legitimate means of making these accusations. As a counterpoint, I will repeat my belief that the Chinese women's performances in 1993 were enhanced in some manner (a belief which may have been confirmed with the recent Chinese drug enforcement actions). However, I make that statement based on several logical steps: the performances involved sudden dramatic improvements; the improvements were for a relatively large group of athletes within a concentrated period of time; the WR in at least one event was broken repeatedly over several days by many athletes; one athlete broke at least 4 WRs (multiple times in 1 event) in a 5 day period, none of which have been approached again; even though the athletes showed excellent performances beforehand (the 1993 WCs), nothing indicated this level of condition; none of the athletes again repeated performances at these levels subsequently; the athletes in question trained together under controlled conditions for an extended period of time (i.e., years, not weeks); the Chinese government has substantial resources and good institutional control throughout the nation. Even the 1997 Chinese performances pale in comparison. If those making similar accusations about EPO usage by Africans can construct a similar line of reasoning, then I'll start listening, but until then, they're just blowin' smoke as far as I'm concerned. I don't believe anyone has ever suggested that either the Kenyan or Ethiopian governments has, or even possess the ability or will to administer an American-style doping program. These countries, both known for a long history of neglect of its citizenry, prove each year that getting travel visas in order is a monumental task. malmo You only make my point here. There are virtually NO well-organized, effective institutions in those countries (several of my former ag econ classmates have worked on development projects in Kenya and other African nations). To create the wave of performances at such young ages, before these athletes have traveled to Europe where they might gain access to EPO, would require a concerted effort by a well-organized institution. Unless Nike or Fila is making such an investment, (and I suspect shareholders would question such expenditures, however hidden, in these countries, even
RE: t-and-f: Not EVERYONE is doping
Dismiss everything that you don't know as a "conspiracy theory". There are many more Willie Browns out there. malmo -Original Message- From: Richard McCann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 1:44 PM To: malmo Cc: TFMail List Subject: RE: t-and-f: Not EVERYONE is doping At 12:43 PM 11/2/2000 -0800, malmo wrote: To create the wave of performances at such young ages, before these athletes have traveled to Europe where they might gain access to EPO, would require a concerted effort by a well-organized institution. Unless Nike or Fila is making such an investment, (and I suspect shareholders would question such expenditures, however hidden, in these countries, even if as "market development;" and why not spend similar money in other countries?), there are no other institutions ready and able. Richard McCann Richard, now you're getting warm. Institutional flouting of doping rules. It's been done many times before THINK malmo I am thinking quite clearly. It makes no sense for a profit-motivated firm based that derives most of its earnings from sales in the US and Europe to devote resources in a two nations with per capita income for less than $500 per year and little potential growth in consumer demand. If Nike or Fila is doing something this absolutely stupid from a management position, and the auditors are failing to note the large (must be multi-million) in East Africa, then Nike stock deserves to plunge even more than it has--and I'm not making this statement from a moralistic standpoint, but purely from one of greed. How Nike or Fila might actually be able to overcome the societal barriers that have stymied every other institution in the world in developing a coherent organization in these two nations is yet another thought to consider. I don't buy into conspiracy theories because the people at the highest levels of large institutions that I've encountered simply have not been competent enough to pull such things off. Willie Brown is the exception that proves the rule. Richard McCann
RE: t-and-f: Not EVERYONE is doping
I am thinking quite clearly. It makes no sense for a profit-motivated firm based that derives most of its earnings from sales in the US and Europe to devote resources in a two nations with per capita income for less than $500 per year and little potential growth in consumer demand. If Nike or Fila is doing something this absolutely stupid from a management position, and the auditors are failing to note the large (must be multi-million) in East Africa, then Nike stock deserves to plunge even more than it has--and I'm not making this statement from a moralistic standpoint, but purely from one of greed. How Nike or Fila might actually be able to overcome the societal barriers that have stymied every other institution in the world in developing a coherent organization in these two nations is yet another thought to consider. I don't buy into conspiracy theories because the people at the highest levels of large institutions that I've encountered simply have not been competent enough to pull such things off. Willie Brown is the exception that proves the rule. Richard McCann Richard McCann. malmo. Two people. Two different backgrounds. Two different perspectives. The people that I've encountered are competent enough to pull such things off...and have. malmo
RE: t-and-f: Not EVERYONE is doping
Oh come on Brian, at least try to debate intelligently. Of course it's true that no race can be run in zero time. Limits are above zero time, we can all agree on that. Clearly, as we reach the point of maximum potential, we will see diminishing returns. As was elegantly shown to us all, there is no evidence of diminishing returns in the event you chose to highlight, the 10k. The record has come down (in fits and starts) by a lap or so every 20 years. That's a rolling stat of course - every year we can compare 20 year periods going back as far as we like and measure the diminishing returns. When we can show that the record is improving by a smaller margin with each succeeding 20 yr period, we'll be able to make some intelligent predictions (rather than simple assertions, which is all you've managed so far). There are two major objections to your limits argument: 1. For it to be right, literally every single distance runner has to be on drugs. There are only two statements about drugs in sport that we know are rubbish - that everyone is clean, and that everyone is dirty. If even one athlete has been competitive while clean (ie run say 13:00 and 27:10) then your argument falls down. 2. You have to show that we have ALREADY REACHED the natural limits of human potential and that improvements since then are solely down to drugs. In fact, you have to argue that we reached human limits before the advent of EPO, ie in the late 80s. Damn, if I'd realised that I'd have paid better attention!! If even one athlete can be shown to have exceeded late 80s standards while clean, again your argument falls down. Most of us completly buy your contention that EPO and other drugs are rife at all levels of the sport. You do not need to use these patently absurd arguments to make your point. Justin ** Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by them. Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited. Registered in England. Registered Number 1935786. Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE. Telephone 020 7616 3500. Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] **
Re: t-and-f: Not EVERYONE is doping
On Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:27:33 -0500 , you wrote: Brian T McEwen says I said: I don't know the Limits of human performance in distance running, but they are NOT at the level where today's runners would lap Viren, Yifter, Rono, Schildhauer and Cova at their very best. Well, Henry ran 27:22 in 1978, 22 years ago. 22 years before that, 1956, the WR was 28:30. Hmmm, Curiously, just about a 1 lap difference. Now, guess what? 20 years before that, 1936, the WR was 30:06, or approximately a lap and a half behind Kuts. Wanna go back 20 more years to 1916? I bet even you can guess what's gonna happen here. Yep!! One more time. Not quite a lap this time, but...30:58, 52 seconds slower. I don't know about 1896, but, how do you explain Nurmi being a lap better than Bouin, Kuts being a lap better than Nurmi, Rono being a lap better than Kuts, but Gebrselassie NOT being able to be a lap better than Rono? /Drew Swami divines two possible answers: 1) law of diminishing returns 2) Bouin, Nurmi, Kuts and Rono were obviously doping, while Geb is not RT
RE: t-and-f: Not EVERYONE is doping
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 2:46 PM In a message dated Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:04:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Mcewen, Brian T" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Substitute "distance running" for professional cycling in the last sentence and you have the ESSENCE of the reason for my anti-drug blather that has been so unpopular for a year. An unaided male cannot ride at 33 mph ... just as routine 2:06 and 2:07 marathons and 27:00 10k's cannot be done without the dope. For those of you who always say: Prove to me there is a fundamental limit to human performance! I say: It looks like someone is here who will do that for you. I don't know whether the current limits are 27:40 or 26:58 or something else ... but it is not 26:22. Brian, I don't think anyone would deny that there is doping in track field. But what I object to is that you seem to believe that every distance runner who is running fast is doping. That is simply not true, and don't dismiss it as naiveté or having my head in the sand. I would chime in here with two points. First, to imagine that 17-18 year old East African youths are heavily using, much less even have access to, EPO is simple foolishness. It's at this age that we first see the phenomenal times from these athletes. The average income in these countries is in the hundreds of dollars per year! They simply can't afford to buy these drugs. Unless you can come up with documentation that the Kenyan or Ethiopian governments are out in the hinterlands distributing these drugs, when they can't even distribute food adequately, I doubt that drugs are behind the widespread depth of African performances. Second, anyone who saw Henry Rono run in the late 70s will tell you that he could be competing with today's athletes toe to toe. I saw him run his 8:05 WR in cool windy condition on an inside water jump, winning by 30 seconds and nearly falling in the water jump a couple of times. He nearly lapped the field in his 13:08 WR, and I think his winning margin in his 27:22 WR was similarly large. His 1977 XC win over World XC champ to be John Treacy in Spokane was a walk in the park. And his 8:18/13:22 NCAA double "fartlek workout" is legendary. All of this before EPO was ever available. My point is that we have seen the tremendous talent before that can deliver these performances. Come up with something other than your own disbelief and we might start to listen. Richard McCann
RE: t-and-f: Not EVERYONE is doping
to buy these drugs. Unless you can come up with documentation that the Kenyan or Ethiopian governments are out in the hinterlands distributing these drugs, when they can't even distribute food adequately, I doubt that drugs are behind the widespread depth of African performances. Richard McCann Ah, there's that rhetorical shield of yours again. Because RC hasn't seen the evidence it doesn't exist. If there is no documentation then it doesn't exist. I don't believe anyone has ever suggested that either the Kenyan or Ethiopian governments has, or even possess the ability or will to administer an American-style doping program. These countries, both known for a long history of neglect of its citizenry, prove each year that getting travel visas in order is a monumental task. malmo
