Re: t-and-f: How good was a 10.07 100m in 1972.
From: Kurt Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mats asked us to remember: Remeber that the USSR and the GDR imported their doping science Hardly. The US is certainly not innocent in furthering doping science, but a significant majority of the synthetic steroid compounds used in doping were invented by Germans. Germany has long been a hotbed of the science of organic chemistry, and steroid chemistry during the 40s, 50s, and 60s, when most of the steroid dope was developed, is no exception. Scanning the names of the scientists and the institutions on the patents and primary publications of the banned steroids reveals a decidedly teutonic flavor. There was a massive outflux of German scientists just before and after world war II to the US. Some, like Einstein, were escaping Nazi persecution. Others, like Werner von Braun who later became the chief engineer of NASA's Apollo missions , were snapped up by the US during the division of Germany between the US and former USSR. That may explain the teutonic flavour of many publications in the 40s and 50s. In that period, German science (and European science in general) was figuratively and literally in ruins: most European countries that had been under Nazi occupation lost an entire generation of scientists to immigration. It's interesting to look at the list of Nobel Prize winners (http://www.almaz.com/nobel/ is a good place to start): the pre-war list is almost totally dominated by European names, with only a sporadic American here and there, while the situation is completely reversed post-war (especially if you include winners who are non-American by nationality but conducted their research in the US). No doubt the East Germans conducted their own steroid experiments in the late 60s/70s, in a probably not completely ethical manner, but I would be surprised if they published their results openly. cheers, Elliott
Re: t-and-f: How good was a 10.07 100m in 1972.
So what we have surmised is that the US is blamed for everything, no matter what the reasons. Foreign athletes and scientist come to the States for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the countries they leave blame U.S. And they say we have propaganda... BUT, you all may be correct. The origin of steroids may be in the US. But the origin of steroids is medical. Before the advent of banned list, healing involved steroids. So now the question is who decided to experiment in the performance realm of things? Darrell The G.O.A.T.
Re: t-and-f: How good was a 10.07 100m in 1972.
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] so what we have surmised is that the US is blamed for everything, no matter what the reasons. Foreign athletes and scientist come to the States for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the countries they leave blame U.S. And they say we have propaganda... No-one's blaming anyone (except the East G's who get blamed for everything :-), just setting the record straight. Is that a problem? BUT, you all may be correct. The origin of steroids may be in the US. But the origin of steroids is medical. Before the advent of banned list, healing involved steroids. So now the question is who decided to experiment in the performance realm of things? On powerlifting boards I visit now and then the consensus is that experimentation with performance enhancing substances among athletes took place more or less independently on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Reports of what the Other Side was up to fueled experimentation with new substances. Information did trickle now and then both ways. But the 50s, 60s and 70s were during the Cold War, don't forget. cheers, Elliott
RE: t-and-f: How good was a 10.07 100m in 1972.
10.07 in 1972 with Highly Developed Training methods is pretty ordinary when you compare this to the fact that Matt Shirvington of Australia at age 20 ran 10.03 in the final of the Commonwealth Games in Kuala Lumpur into a slight headwind (-0.4). Matt at the time was still much weaker in the Gym than the likes of Greene, Boldon etc. I think Jesse Owens effort in Berlin was much better - what could he have run with the opportunities of the 90s. Ps . Shirvington I believe will run sub10.00 as long as he can avoid career threatening injury. He proved in 2000 he has improved his latter phase of the race and simply needs more experience at putting the whole race together. I believe he will be the first ever regular sub10.00 athletes of non-african ancestry. regards Steve Bennett http://www.oztrack.com
RE: t-and-f: How good was a 10.07 100m in 1972.
I believe he will be the first ever regular sub10.00 athletes of non-african ancestry. regards Steve Bennett http://www.oztrack.com Some of us purists still believe we're ALL of African ancestry. malmo
Re: t-and-f: How good was a 10.07 100m in 1972.
I'm stepping in late, I realize. But anyway. I have to object to "DGS's" statement about training more than one Olympic Games (cycle) and sports regime. This somehow implies that he believes that the US sprinters have some God sent talent that would make it impossible for anybody from, say, Europe, to beat them if the backgrounds were equal. This reasoning is not holding up. (Then why does the USA have to keep importing foreign athletes into the school sports systems?) Borzow was probably doped, but so were the vast majority of the US sprinters of the day. Remeber that the USSR and the GDR imported their doping science from the USA. An one Olympic Games cycle? Let's check Borzow in 1972. Born on Oct. 20, 1949, he was still shy of 23 years. Equal in age to his American counterparts, or even younger in some cases. So much for that advantage... Some information about Borzow's background in 1972. He emerged at the scene in 1969. Then he first won the USSR Champs and then a hair thin European Champs title, still a teenager. (His ECh win was won 0.01 in front of French sprinter Alain Sarteur. The time was 10.4e into a -2.7 wind). But he also sensatioanlly equalled the European Record with a hand timed 10.0. In 1970 he had injury problems, but won the USSR-USA match in Leningrad. (The USA was represented by Ben Vaughan (yes, a white sprinter) and Ivory Crockett, with John Carlos out because of injury). In 1971, Borzow was ranked World No. 1 by TFN after winning the ECh in Helsinki (an impressive 10.26 into -1.3, with the silver winner Gerhard Wucherer of FRG at 10.48. Borzow also won the 200 with 20.30 (0.0), 0.41 in front of FRG:s Franz-Peter Hofmeister.) Borzow that summer again ran a hand timed 10.0 (Eur Rec equalled). He once met the top US sprinters. That happened at the USA-USSR (+ guests) match in Berkeley. Borzow won into a head wind with 10.5, with Jim Green second (10.5 - a strange time, since all photos show that Borzow is around 4 ft in front), Lennox Miller (10.6) third, Don Quarrie (10.7) fourth, Del Meriwether (10.7) fifth and Aleksandr Korneljuk (10.8) sixth. And then it was 1972... Double Olympic Golds and so on. But I admit, I would have loved to see a 100 final with Ed Hart and Rey Robinson in it. Especially Hart was good, proven by his last leg in the relay. My opinion is that Valeriy Borzow is one of the great sprinters of all time. Also the rest of his career proved that, with more European Champs golds, six 60 titles indoors, a new Olympic medal etc. It might be true that it's harder to find top class sprinters among white Europeans. Actually the Eastern bloc proved that. If it was only a question of doping and some secret training, then why didn't they mass-produce the likes of Borzow? No, because in the end you also need that extra talent - Borzow, to strike gold. He was a product of an efficient system, but also a great talent who would have succeeded in any system. And finally - don't get tempted to see the world through those old good-bad, west-east, US-commie, type of glasses. You should know that we Swedes have had our fair share of doping problems. And we got almost all our impulses from the USA... Merry Christmas Mats kerlind [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 at this year's games .. A quarter century later .. 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: How good was a 10.07 100m in 1972.
Mats asked us to remember: Remeber that the USSR and the GDR imported their doping science Hardly. The US is certainly not innocent in furthering doping science, but a significant majority of the synthetic steroid compounds used in doping were invented by Germans. Germany has long been a hotbed of the science of organic chemistry, and steroid chemistry during the 40s, 50s, and 60s, when most of the steroid dope was developed, is no exception. Scanning the names of the scientists and the institutions on the patents and primary publications of the banned steroids reveals a decidedly teutonic flavor. Like I said Americans are by no means innocent, but to suggest that all the doping knowledge flowed from the US to Europe is simply inaccurate. Kurt Bray _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: t-and-f: How good was a 10.07 100m in 1972.
Kurt, There are some who think that it started in the US. In his autobiography "Big Shot", published in 1981, British shot putter Geoff Capes wrote "We cannot blame the Eastern Europeans for the prevalence of drug taking. It started in the United States. No doubt about that." and "Every thrower can remember the 1960's. There was a surge of brilliant performances by Americans. In one year the record went up 2 1/2 feet. In five years it improved by more than 7 feet. And it was not a soft record to start with. Parry O'Brien, a great thrower had set it. Drugs had to be a major factor in the improvement." He wrote that his own knowledge of drug use came from a US book "Getting Stronger" written by Bill Pearl. Ed Prytherch. Mats asked us to remember: Remeber that the USSR and the GDR imported their doping science Hardly. The US is certainly not innocent in furthering doping science, but a significant majority of the synthetic steroid compounds used in doping were invented by Germans. Germany has long been a hotbed of the science of organic chemistry, and steroid chemistry during the 40s, 50s, and 60s, when most of the steroid dope was developed, is no exception. Scanning the names of the scientists and the institutions on the patents and primary publications of the banned steroids reveals a decidedly teutonic flavor. Like I said Americans are by no means innocent, but to suggest that all the doping knowledge flowed from the US to Europe is simply inaccurate. Kurt Bray _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: t-and-f: How good was a 10.07 100m in 1972.
Germany has long been a hotbed of the science of organic chemistry, and steroid chemistry during the 40s, 50s, and 60s, when most of the steroid dope was developed, is no exception. Scanning the names of the scientists and the institutions on the patents and primary publications of the banned steroids reveals a decidedly teutonic flavor. I may be wrong, but my recollection of world history says that post-war Germany was a nation reduced to rubble and abject poverty, where the entire national effort was focused on bricks and mortar, bread and water, not anabolic steroid research. I could be wrong...but...I.K.F.D.I. malmo
Re: t-and-f: How good was a 10.07 100m in 1972.
In a message dated Thu, 21 Dec 2000 4:21:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Conway" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Isn't it ironic that while only we hard core sprint fans profess to love those events .. And the general populace is crazy about distance running .. That when facilities are created to host world class events they are designed for the benefit of the sprinters and speed ??? Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dude, I hope you are writing with tongue in cheek!?! The general populace could give a rat's ass about distance running. The same could be said for all of track field, but I can assure you the average person would find even the Sydney men's 10K a yawner. sideshow
Re: t-and-f: How good was a 10.07 100m in 1972.
If you step out of the tf mindset for a moment, I think you will see that what Conway said makes perfect sense. Dan --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "Conway" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Isn't it ironic that while only we hard core sprint fans profess to love those events .. And the general populace is crazy about distance running .. That when facilities are created to host world class events they are designed for the benefit of the sprinters and speed ??? Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dude, I hope you are writing with tongue in cheek!?! The general populace could give a rat's ass about distance running. The same could be said for all of track field, but I can assure you the average person would find even the Sydney men's 10K a yawner. sideshow = http://AbleDesign.com - AbleDesign, Web Design that Can! http://Run-Down.com - 9,800 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! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/
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 at this year's games .. A quarter century later .. 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: 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.
