On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:38:25 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think Conway Hill's previous post about the Ben Johnson situation puts
the
> lie to it. It was mentioned awhile, but given the level of attention the
> media in general gives track it only takes a year or so before you have
> somebody writing the sport who has never even heard of the existing
> recordholder, let alone someone who preceded him.
>
The situations are not comparable. Ben Johnson was found guilty of
cheating, so he and his marks were disqualified. The public certainly
understands and accepts that and rightly forgets about Ben. But is that
what we are proposing to do? To wipe out all the old records by declaring
them tainted and the athletes cheaters?
I was under the impression that the 20th century records were to be given
some sort of graceful retirement and start over again keeping new records,
arbitrarily coinciding with the new century. In such a situation the old
record would retain all its validity in the minds of many, probably most,
people.
> When was the last time you read that Uwe Hohn is stll the "real" WR
holder in
> the javelin?
Again, not a valid comparison because in this case they changed the
implement. The event was significantly changed such that the marks are not
directly comparable. The equivalent change in the 100m would be to lengthen
it to 110m or shorten it to 90m and then start keeping new records. In that
case people probably would forget about Maurice Greene after a while. But
as long as it stayed 100m, and Greene was not discredited in some way, a new
"world record" of say 9.89 would always cause many people to say: "Yeah, but
what about Mo?".
Kurt Bray
_______________________________________________________
Say Bye to Slow Internet!
http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html
