Richard McCann wrote:
>
> Something was wrong in Beijing in 1993, but we really don't know what.
>
> RMc
>
> The marks were fast because they laid the new track over an existing track
> which had a curb. Screwed up everything.
Joking.
JL
>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 21:06:29
>From: "Kurt Bray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Conway says:
>
> >So I don't th ink we should bandy about disparagingly regarding any record
> >simply beause it is so much better than the individual did before ...
> >Because most records end up being that way ...<<<
>
>
Ed, I
think that it's you who has his perspective all wrong. With three fifths of the
world population it's the rest of the world who hasn't been heard of INSIDE
China, "and for the most part (we have) disappeared."
malmo
I think you're both right. Ben essentially knocked .3 off his
Ed:
Wang certainly was not a one year wonder. Before
1993, she was runner up to Paula Radcliffe in the world junior cross country.
Later, she was the World champion in Stuttgart, the Asian champion in Hiroshima
and the Olympic champion in Atlanta. I don't have the stats, but I think that
she
In a message dated 04/11/2001 8:03:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Even with drugs, these marks are astonishing. If these women
(if they really were women) were on drugs, I just wonder how fast they
could have run clean because no matter how effective the
dru
In a message dated 04/11/2001 8:03:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Even with drugs, these marks are astonishing. If
these women (if they really were women) were on drugs,
I just wonder how fast they could have run clean
because no matter how effective the
drugs/doping/supp
In a message dated 04/12/2001 9:35:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What makes these WR marks by the Chinese any "dirtier" or "cleaner" than any
of the other WR's out there?
This was not the topic of my post, nor the subject matter.
The topic was the effect of drugs on p
<<< . Neither of these entities have come close to their tainted runs. >>>
Ahhh ... be careful now Darrell. These WR holders passed the same drug
testing that all the other WR holders had to pass. Right? (The IAAF demands
it!)
What makes these WR marks by the Chinese any "dirtier" or "clean
From: "malmo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Only one major problem with your analysis. Which drug makes ALL of them
run
> faster. Which drug gives the user the running economy of the Chinese
women?
> I can't name one.
>
Oh that's easy. It's that turtle spleen\gall bladder\thingy concoction that
Ma f
Only one major problem with your analysis. Which drug makes ALL of them run
faster. Which drug gives the user the running economy of the Chinese women?
I can't name one.
Since it is Kristiansen's own words that opened the debate let's take her
for an example. I cannot think of one drug that one
Conway asks:
>...Should not the world record process also take into consideration "equal
>opportunity" of venue / conditions ??? Just a thought ...
Well, it would be the logical extension of the wind limit and the altitude
notation. And track's already got a thousand rules, so why not add a c
You're a good man Conway, a good man. :)
Damian
Even with drugs, these marks are astonishing. If
these women (if they really were women) were on drugs,
I just wonder how fast they could have run clean
because no matter how effective the
drugs/doping/supplements are, you can't run like this
without tremendous ability and training.
1500
Q
Runlikemad wrote:
>I understand what you are saying conway, that what Alan said isn't a
>sufficient enough reason by itself to question the WR's set by the chinese.
> But given all the circumstances before and after these records were set,
>and i dont mean to put you on the spot here (well n
GH wrote:
>
>Actually, a significant number of the marks you mentioned in your first
>post are indeed "not normal," but drugs play no part. But wind, altitude,
>timing and hardness of track were significant wild-card variables which
>played a definitite part in producing "anomalous" marks that
I understand what you are saying conway, that what Alan said isn't a sufficient enough
reason by itself to question the WR's set by the chinese. But given all the
circumstances before and after these records were set, and i dont mean to put you on
the spot here (well not too much anyway), do y
In a message dated Wed, 11 Apr 2001 6:39:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Conway Hill"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<< My intent was not to try to defend the marks made by the Chinese ... There are
many reasons to "question" what was accomplished by Ma's Army ... My point, however,
was that to
My intent was not to try to defend the marks made by the Chinese ... There are many reasons to "question" what was accomplished by Ma's Army ... My point, however, was that to draw suspicion upon a record because "it seemed beyond what the individual had done before or since" is not a rational rea
Conway says:
>So I don't th ink we should bandy about disparagingly regarding any record
>simply beause it is so much better than the individual did before ...
>Because most records end up being that way ...<<<
I don't disagree, but you seem to be forgetting that there was a lot more to
the
Alan wrote:
>It's not the fast time that makes us question these marks. It's the
>out of
>nowhere appearance that makes us question these marks. Most of these
>Chinese
>marks ('93, '97) were set at their Chinese Games by women who
>weren't big on
>the world scene beforehand and then disappea
bject: Re: t-and-f: Why we question Chinese marks (was Kristiansen's
'clean' doubt)
It's not the fast time that makes us question these marks. It's the out of
nowhere appearance that makes us question these marks. Most of these Chinese
marks ('93, '97) were
It's not the fast time that makes us question these marks. It's the out of
nowhere appearance that makes us question these marks. Most of these Chinese
marks ('93, '97) were set at their Chinese Games by women who weren't big on
the world scene beforehand and then disappeared for the most part
22 matches
Mail list logo
