The difference for Johnson is that he admitted under oath to long-term
usage that extended back to 1981. Neither Christie nor Mitchell admitted
to similar usage. That is a very important distinction in how we treat
Johnson.
There is a reasonable case to be made that both Christie and Mitchell
turned to these drugs late in their career to extend those careers. I made
this case a couple of years ago when they were caught. We have no idea
how much this drug use may have helped them late in their career because we
don't have a way to estimate accurately decline in
performances. Therefore, you can't make any conclusions about earlier drug
usage, or later improvements for these athletes, try as you might.
On the issues of relative effects, note that drugs appear to have
substantially different supplemental effects, as evidenced by the women's
WRs. As we all know, many of the women's WRs and current top 10
performances were set in the early to mid 1980s by known drug users in
Eastern Europe. Progression in women's performances in many events came to
a grinding halt about 1988 as more aggressive drug testing came into
play. In fact, the only improvements that we have seen in classic events
since 1988 has been from a momentary burst at the Chinese championships in
1993, under extremely questionable circumstances. I think the fact that
women's performances have largely come to a standstill, while men's
performances have continued to improve at a steady pace since the
implementation of rigorous drug testing is strong circumstantial evidence
that (1) the drug testing programs have been relatively effective in
rooting out substantial usage, and (2) that women gained much more from
drug usage than men.
We should expect that the response to these drugs vary substantially by
individuals. How much of an effect is largely speculative. In the case of
Johnson, we can get some measure by comparing the known periods when he was
on and off his drug program. But we really don't have a good measure for
any other men. (We could probably develop some measure for women if we
want to spend substantial effort on investigation.) Because we don't have
any good evidence, and only pure speculation on this list, we can't make
any comparison about how much advantage Johnson gained vis-a-vis other
athletes. I think Kurt Bray's post about having several other logical
outcomes hits this issue square on. The bottom line is the supposed logic
presented as the alternatives is in fact a flawed, incomplete set of choices.
The obvious drug taint on the women's side forces me to steer clear from
ranking the top women 100m sprinters, as suggested on this list.
RMc
At 10:16 PM 10/17/2000 -0300, peter stuart wrote:
> >Johnson is the only top-end sprinter we KNOW was taking drugs during that
> >era. We know that Johnson was certainly mediocre in comparison when he
> >wasn't on drugs. We can only speculate about other sprinters. Again, I
> >state that we need some form of "proof" before we throw accusations
> >around. I don't think we can "dirty" all others just because we have
> >doubts. Thus, Johnson's performances must be discounted, and he cannot be
> >considered among the greatest ever.
>
>Johnson tested negative in Rome and later positive in Seoul. Christie tested
>positive in Seoul ans positve after that but should be considered? Mitchell
>tested negative in Seoul and positive after that. If a positive test means
>that they can't be considered then Johnson is out and so is Christie and
>Mitchell. Maybe they just cycled better in preparation for Seoul, like Ben
>must have for Rome.
>I think that Ben should be considered. If we like it or not he ran 9.79
>while slowing up at 80 meters glancing over at Carl and putting his arm up
>in the air as he finished. His time would have been much faster if he had
>sprinted through the line. To date no one has come close to that. The 5
>should be:
>
>Ben
>Boszov
>Lewis
>Hayes
>Christie
>
>Hayes might even be higher than this. Once Greene's career is over he could
>very well displace one of these.
>Smith and Fredericks are at a level just below these five. They were great
>but were never dominent.
>I am not sure where Jesse Owens would be. Any thoughts on him ?
>
>
>
> >I don't think Christie can be considered among the top 5 because he wasn't
> >dominant in his era. I think we're giving short shrift to the pre 1964
> >sprinters. What about Bobby Morrow, Jesse Owens or Charlie Paddock? I
> >suspect Cordner Nelson has some thoughts on that.
>
>
>Peter Stuart
>Head Coach South-East Athletics
>Head Coach NB Canada Games
>NB Coaching Chair
>Master Course Conductor
