On Tuesday, August 29, 2000 4:19 PM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> those who would argue that new records would somehow contaminate the
sport's
> historical line ignore the fact that even if there had been no advances in
> training, technnology alone removed from reality some of the sport's
greatest
> heroes ever in an all-time list sense, and it didn't hurt their standing
one
> iota.
>
> synthetic tracks and runways, starting blocks, metal/fiberglass poles,
> aerodynamic javelins, concrete throwing circles (not many on the list will
> remember when shot putters wore spikes!), rim-weighted discs, foam rubber
> pits, etc., etc.
>
> We've found ways to make past recordholders obselete: why not do it in a
> major way? Because it would require the IAAF to admit that there was a
huge
> doping regimen on its watch and it had no choice but to ratify a lot of
> records that are from the realm of the unreal. (not that it has gone away)
>
And haven't we already seen the effects of this type of "wiping the records
clean" in the case of Ben Johnson ?? Ben took the 100 record from 9.93 to
9.83 and then 9.79 .. And then suddenly with the magic wand the record stood
at 9.92 (the time of a second place finisher on less) .. There was no hue
and cry as nary a person noticed or cared outside of the track community ..
And apparently it wasn't a big deal within the community either ... And the
athletes certainly didn't complain as they were again in reach of the mark
.. I do believe Carl Lewis, Leroy Burrell, Donovan Bailey and now Maurice
Greene have all been considered WR holders in the event with nary a question
about their credentials .. John Q Public doesn't care how the records came
to be .. They just want to know what they are and can anyone break them ..
The athletes only want to know what marks they have to aim at .. And we all
should be happy to witness top class competition - which occurs no matter
what the records are ...
Conway Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
