Did Jesse Owens ever win the 'Jesse Owen's Award' or it equivlent as it was known to
be back then earlier when he was running or was it not in egsistence?
G
>
>
>t-and-f-digest Thursday, December 21 2000 Volume 01 : Number 3363
>
>
>
>Re: t-and-f: my kind of posts
>Re: t-and-f: Jesse Owens award
>RE: t-and-f: Sala shatters legendary hurdles record
>t-and-f: From Physics World (fwd)
>Re: t-and-f: How good was a 10.07 100m in 1972.
>Re: t-and-f: Jesse Owens award
>Re: t-and-f: How good was a 10.07 100m in 1972.
>(fwd) t-and-f: Launch of Athletics Weekly's website
>Re: t-and-f: How good was a 10.07 100m in 1972.
>t-and-f: Blood Work
>Re: t-and-f: Jesse Owens award
>Re: t-and-f: Borzov and the Jesse Owens award
>Re: t-and-f: Blood Work
>Re: t-and-f: Jesse Owens award
>t-and-f: Lagat enters L.A. Invitational mile
>t-and-f: 2000 Annual Combined events (plus good wishes)
>Re: t-and-f: re: changes in the walks
>t-and-f: IAAF wishes us well [Fwd: Christmas Greetings]
>RE: t-and-f: How good was a 10.07 100m in 1972.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:09:29 EST
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: t-and-f: my kind of posts
>
>In a message dated Thu, 21 Dec 2000 4:45:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>Randall Northam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
><<"There goes Hoyte-Smith with
>Koch inside her." (you have to say it out loud)>>
>
>OK, if we're going to make Koch jokes, I'll up the ante (with a story that
>can be confirmed by several list members). At the 1986 European Championships
>in Stuttgart we were stunned to look up at the board for the start of the
>women's 400, with the start list reading (honest!)
>
>1. Kocembova
>2. Lix
>3. Koch
>
>gh
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:51:32 EST
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: t-and-f: Jesse Owens award
>
>- --part1_a5.f3274ba.27739d24_boundary
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Is this the first time the electorate has been changed? Or is this a normal
>occurrence? Come on, someone keep my rose colored glasses clear.
>
>The G.O.A.T.
>
>- --part1_a5.f3274ba.27739d24_boundary
>Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
><HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial"
>LANG="0">Is this the first time the electorate has been changed? Or is this a normal
><BR>occurrence? Come on, someone keep my rose colored glasses clear.
><BR>
><BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Lucida Sans"
>LANG="0"><B>The G.O.A.T.</B></FONT></HTML>
>
>- --part1_a5.f3274ba.27739d24_boundary--
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:56:21 -0500
>From: "Post, Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: t-and-f: Sala shatters legendary hurdles record
>
>There were also a couple of notable M40 men's vets records set in 2000:
>
>800m 1:50.69, Colm Rothery (01/??/60) IRL Stretford 9/05/00
>5000m 13:43.15 Mohamed Ezzher (04/26/60) FRA Sottevilleon 07/03/00
>
>- -----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 10:54 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: t-and-f: Sala shatters legendary hurdles record
>
>
>Greetings, all:
>
>Of all the masters world records on the books, the oldest seemed the most
>otherworldly -- the 14.4 hand-timed mark for 120-yard high hurdles by Don
>Finlay of Britain set back in 1949.
>
>The mark was set over Olympic-style 42-inch barriers. And since over-40
>athletes rarely compete at 42 inches (the WAVA/USATF standard is 39 inches),
>
>Finlay's record was considered good for eternity.
>
>Now comes word from Peter Matthews of Britain that a five-time Olympian,
>Carlos Sala of Spain, has shattered this hallowed time with a 14.16
>automatic
>performance on August 16, 2000, at Castellón.
>
>Sala was born March 20, 1960, and his M40 mark (set with 0.7 mps legal wind)
>
>also was good enough to demolish Stan Druckrey's world masters record for
>110m (39-inch) hurdles as well!
>
>Druckrey, a Wisconsin resident who once competed in the USA Olympic Trials,
>ran 14.24 on July 30, 1989.
>
>In fact, Sala broke the old Finlay record three times in 2000, adding:
>
>14.29 +0.4 4 Gavá May 28, 2000
>14.21 0.0 6 Majadahonda June 28, 2000
>
>Later, he also ran 14.19 and 14.13 (windy?) at Castellón on August 23,
>reports Matthews. Sala was fifth in the Spanish (open) Champs with 14.22
>into
>a 0.4 mps wind.
>
>Matthews, editor of International Athletics Annual, shared his profile of
>Sala, who has a 13.44 all-time PR from 1987:
>
>Carlos SALA Molera b. 20 Mar 1960 Barcelona 1.87m 76kg Larios.
>At 110mh: OG: ¹80- sf, ¹84- 7, ¹88- sf, ¹92- qf, ¹96- h; WCh: ¹87- 6, ¹91-
>h, ¹95- h; EC: ¹86- 3, ¹90- sf; EJ: ¹79- 5; ECp: ¹89- 6, ¹91- 1B, ¹93- 8.
>Spanish champion 1986, 1988-93. At 60mh: EI: ¹88- 3.
>Three World veterans 110mh records 2000.
>Progression at 110mh: 1978- 14.7, 1979- 14.23/13.8w, 1980- 13.84, 1981-
>13.90, 1982- 13.93, 1983- 13.64/13.55w, 1984- 13.56, 1985- 13.62/13.4, 1986-
>13.50, 1987- 13.44, 1988- 13.67w/13.69, 1989- 13.61/13.5, 1990- 13.61, 1991-
>13.64, 1992- 13.62, 1993- 13.91, 1994- 14.14, 1995- 13.81, 1996-
>13.73A/13.75, 1997- 14.18/14.01w, 1998- 13.98/13.88w, 2000- 14.16. pbs: 200m
>21.43 ¹85, 60mh 7.66i ¹88, 200mh 22.96 ¹87.
>
>"He is a case of a good athlete who has continued to compete into veterans
>years - no doubt vets marks will be smashed as and when more do so,"
>Matthews
>writes.
>
>But wait! The news continues. World M40 and W40 records also were set in the
>
>400-meter hurdles this past year, Peter writes:
>
>Antônio Eusébio Dias Ferreira of Brazil (born March 2, 1960) ran the long
>hurdles in 52.62 at Rio de Janeiro on July 23, 2000, lowering the previous
>over-40 best of
>52.76 by American James King in Eugene on 8/3/89.
>
>And Maria José dos Santos (born September 12, 1959) of Brazil became the
>first women over 40 to crack 60 seconds in the 400-meter hurdles with her
>58.88 at Americana on June 3, 2000. That mark demolished the previous
>record
>of 62.08 by Spain's Maria Sangous (born Jan 8, 1955) at Pontevedra on June
>22, 1995.
>
>Other vets records set in 2000 were far better known, coming at the Olympics
>
>or meets leading up to them:
>
>W35: 5000m 14:45.35 Regina Jacobs (8/28/63) USA Sacramento 7/21/00
>
>W35: 20km walk 1:25:59 Tamara Kovalenko (4/25/64) RUS Moscow 5/19/00
>
>W35: Long jump 6.99 (22-9) Heike Daute-Drechsler (12/16/64) GER Sydney
>9/29/00
>
>W35: Shot put 21.46 (70-4 3/4) Larisa Peleshenko (2/29/64) RUS Moscow
>8/26/00
>
>W40: 100m 10.99 Merlene Ottey (5/10/60) JAM Thessaloniki 8/30/00
>
>(Merlene did not run a 200m in 2000.)
>
>Matthews commented on my amazement that I hadn't heard of these fantastic
>performances, writing me:
>
>"Just shows that most top over-40 marks do not get onto the
>'Masters/Veterans' news circuit. Because of course they are done in meetings
>
>open to all ages."
>
>In a year where most observers thought Olympian Johnny Gray would finally
>stun the 800m record (but didn't), these lesser-known European and South
>American stars shined far greater in the vets firmament.
>
>I have no idea whether they're even aware that they've set world veterans
>records. I urge the World Association of Veteran Athletes to consider these
>marks for official WAVA records -- and give these athletes the recognition
>that they are due.
>
>Ken Stone
>http://www.masterstrack.com
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:06:43 -0600
>From: Dave Carey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: t-and-f: From Physics World (fwd)
>
> Because of the outpouring of enthusiasm, I (Dave
>Carey) am posting in its entirety the article by Don
>Page (no i) from Physics World.
>
>The 2000 edition of the Particle Physics Booklet, extracted
>from the Review of Particle Physics, lists the Hubble constant
>as 71±7;;km s--1 Mpc--1, with an additional factor of uncertainty
>ranging from 0.95 to 1.15. If one multiplies the Hubble constant
>by the speed of light, one obtains an acceleration of
>6.9 x 10--10;;ms--2, which is measured by looking at stars
>and galaxies millions of years old. At a meeting held in
>September to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Institute
>of Theoretical Physics at the University of Alberta, I posed
>the following riddle: which other quantity, measured over
>roughly the past one hundred years to three decimal places,
>has the same acceleration, within the uncertainty for the Hubble
>constant (i.e. between 64--78;;km s--1 Mpc--1) multiplied by
>the speed of light?
>
>The answer is this. If one takes the highest average speed of
>any individual athletics race at the first modern Olympics in
>1896 and compares it with the highest average speed since then,
>it turns out that the rate of change of this speed, averaged
>over the intervening period, is just such an acceleration.
>
>Consider the men's 100-metres race at the 1896 Olympics, which
>was won by Tom Burke of the US in 12.0 seconds at an average
>speed of 8.33;;ms--1. The fastest average speed of any Olympic
>race since then has been the men's 200-metres race of the 1996
>Olympics, which was won by Michael Johnson, also of the US,
>19.32 seconds, at an average speed of 10.35;;ms--1.
>
>When the difference between the two aveage speeds is divided
>by the 100 years between the two events, one obtains an average
>acceleration of (2.02;;ms--1)÷ (3.2x109;;s) =
>6.40 x 10--10;;ms--2. When this quantity is divided by the
>speed of light and converted to astronomical units, one obtains
>a value of 65.8;;km/s/Mpc, which lies within the first uncertainty
>listed for the Hubble constant.
>
>Should I predict that 65.8 km/s/Mpc will turn out to be a more
>precise value for the Hubble constant? This result also implies
>that if the fastest average speed of any individual athletics
>race at the Olympics continues to increase linearly at the average
>rate it did between 1896 and 1996, it will reach the speed of
>light in just under 15 billion years from now.
>
>Don Page
>Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Canada
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:14:13 EST
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: t-and-f: How good was a 10.07 100m in 1972.
>
>- --part1_6d.d34b8f9.2773a275_boundary
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>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.
>
>- --part1_6d.d34b8f9.2773a275_boundary
>Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
><HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial"
>LANG="0">In a message dated 12/21/00 7:49:38 AM Pacific Standard Time,
><BR>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
><BR>
><BR>
><BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
>MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Actually Hines ran an auto timed 10.03 in his
>Sacramento race in 68 .. And
><BR>Hayes auto time in Tokyo was 10.05 .. Nonetheless Borzov's 10.07 placed
><BR>him right at the mark with the best of his time .. And even today, there are
><BR>only a hand full of sprinters that can say they can step on the track with
><BR>confidence and run faster .. 10.07 made this year's American sprint squad
><BR>for the games !!! And 10.07 would have placed 4th and just out of the money
><BR>at this year's games .. A quarter century later ..</BLOCKQUOTE>
><BR>
><BR>OK stop running down this endless road of who could do what, when and where.
> <BR>There is no definitive answer. And the facts are being misconstrued.
> <BR>Borzov's 10.07 is no where near the times run in Sacramento. And we can
><BR>never discount the variable of "level of competition."
><BR>Every champion was a champion of that time and era, very few transcend the
><BR>time gap, but not all. And Borzov was not one of them. What if in the 60's
><BR>and 70's the American sprinters could train beyond one Olympic Games, or had
><BR>the sports regime of the eastern Bloc? We would not know Valery Borzov.
><BR>
><BR>DGS
><BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Lucida Sans"
>LANG="0"><B>The G.O.A.T.</B></FONT></HTML>
>
>- --part1_6d.d34b8f9.2773a275_boundary--
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:21:23 EST
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: t-and-f: Jesse Owens award
>
>In a private post, I got this explanation of the situation:
>
><< GH: for what it is worth - since they wanted a body to be present at the
>awards banquet and if the athlete was not attending the convention then they
>should not be considered. And the winner is ... sorry he/she is not here to
>accept the Jesse Owens Award Looks better if the recipient is there to
>accept. Think about it!!!!!!!>>
>
>All i can say is (assuming this is true), wow! The main criterion for the
>governing body's most important award is now availability for the banquet,
>not athletic performance?
>
>Fortunately, Stacy D is a fine choice, but what happens when we get a year
>where some American sets a WR or two, and nobody else even sets an AR. Will
>the banquet-availability card be played again?
>
>gh
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 15:10:10 -0500 (EST)
>From: curtis taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: 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.
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:18:23 -0800
>From: "R.T." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: (fwd) t-and-f: Launch of Athletics Weekly's website
>
>Somebody asked for the website this morning; here it is:
>
>
>
>
>On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 20:19:59 +0100, "Matthew H Fraser Moat"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Just to let you know that Athletics Weekly have recently launched their
>website.
>
>Early days of course, but please try www.athleticsweekly.com.
>
>Thanks
>
>Matthew Fraser Moat
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:06:10 -0800
>From: "Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: t-and-f: How good was a 10.07 100m in 1972.
>
>Curtis wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>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]
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 15:41:36 -0600
>From: "Weldon Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: t-and-f: Blood Work
>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>- ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C06B64.80F33CE0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>A while back there were posts about how athletes should get there blood =
>work done every few months. Well, I've gotten mine done twice in my =
>life and that was only because I was at altitude.
>
>But I figured it was a good idea, so I want to get mine done now. =
>However, it seems like the labs want a doctor's prescription. Is this =
>standard practice? Does it vary state to state? Does anyone know any =
>labs that don't want a doctor's prescription? I'm home for the holidays =
>and don't want to have to waste the time, but more importantly the money =
>of going to a doctor. In Flagstaff, I'm pretty sure the altitude center =
>would do blood work without seeing a doctor. I'm in Austin, TX now.
>
>- -Weldon Johnson
>http://www.letsrun.com
>
>- ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C06B64.80F33CE0
>Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
><HTML><HEAD>
><META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
>http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
><META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
><STYLE></STYLE>
></HEAD>
><BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>A while back there were posts about how =
>athletes=20
>should get there blood work done every few months. Well, I've =
>gotten mine=20
>done twice in my life and that was only because I was at =
>altitude.</FONT></DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>But I figured it was a good idea, so I =
>want to get=20
>mine done now. However, it seems like the labs want a doctor's=20
>prescription. Is this standard practice? Does it vary state =
>to=20
>state? Does anyone know any labs that don't want a doctor's=20
>prescription? I'm home for the holidays and don't want to have to =
>waste=20
>the time, but more importantly the money of going to a doctor. In=20
>Flagstaff, I'm pretty sure the altitude center would do blood work =
>without=20
>seeing a doctor. I'm in Austin, TX now.</FONT></DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>-Weldon Johnson</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
>href=3D"http://www.letsrun.com">http://www.letsrun.com</A></FONT></DIV></=
>BODY></HTML>
>
>- ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C06B64.80F33CE0--
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:47:07 -0000
>From: "phalford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: t-and-f: Jesse Owens award
>
>I'm not sure whether it's been mentioned with regard to this, but there was
>a teleconference in connection with the award, for which both Taylor and
>Dragila were available.
>
>So presence at the banquet - and not forgetting athletic performance - may
>not be the only factors.
>
>- ----- Original Message -----
>From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 6:21 PM
>Subject: Re: t-and-f: Jesse Owens award
>
>
>> In a private post, I got this explanation of the situation:
>>
>> << GH: for what it is worth - since they wanted a body to be present at
>the
>> awards banquet and if the athlete was not attending the convention then
>they
>> should not be considered. And the winner is ... sorry he/she is not here
>to
>> accept the Jesse Owens Award Looks better if the recipient is there to
>> accept. Think about it!!!!!!!>>
>>
>> All i can say is (assuming this is true), wow! The main criterion for the
>> governing body's most important award is now availability for the banquet,
>> not athletic performance?
>>
>> Fortunately, Stacy D is a fine choice, but what happens when we get a year
>> where some American sets a WR or two, and nobody else even sets an AR.
>Will
>> the banquet-availability card be played again?
>>
>> gh
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:49:16 -0500
>From: vincent duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: t-and-f: Borzov and the Jesse Owens award
>
>- --------------9C420E92435C5F1431D8741D
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>I ran with some of these men and trash talking was just a part of the
>game they all did it...........it was like b'ball on the track and just
>plain old fun,
>
>Conway wrote:
>
>> Darrell wrote:
>>
>> And everyone thought the current crop of sprinters started
>> this air of
>> clowning, and bravado. It has been, and will be a part of
>> the game. Borzov
>> was mild when posted against Carlos, C. Green, etc.
>> I wonder, was the demise of civilization predicted back
>> then, too?
>>
>> On another topic, how much credibility does the USATF Jesse
>> Owens award still
>> have? IAAF, USOC lists that woman with the 5 Olympic medals
>> as their woman
>> of the year, but not her federation. A definite miscue, in
>> my opinion.
>>
>> >>>>> The current sprinters are mild compared to the
>> sprinters of the 60's and early 70's .. Guys like Hines,
>> Greeene and CArlos would step on the track and ask the other
>> guys who was taking second becasue they already had first
>> lined up .. And THAT was mild .. Course when all was said
>> and done everyone would go out partying together .. NOt sure
>> if I would see MO and MJ out together at the same party
>> .. Conway Hill
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>
>- --------------9C420E92435C5F1431D8741D
>Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
><!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
><html>
><body bgcolor="#D8D0C8">
>I ran with some of these men and trash talking was just a part of the game
>they all did it...........it was like b'ball on the track and just plain
>old fun,
><p>Conway wrote:
><blockquote TYPE=CITE><style></style>
><font color="#000080"><font size=-1>Darrell
>wrote:</font></font>
><blockquote
>style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000080
>2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <font face="Arial"><font size=-1>And
>everyone thought the current crop of sprinters started this air of</font></font>
><br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>clowning, and bravado. It has
>been, and will be a part of the game. Borzov</font></font>
><br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>was mild when posted against Carlos,
>C. Green, etc.</font></font>
><br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>I wonder, was the demise of civilization
>predicted back then, too?</font></font>
><p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>On another topic, how much credibility
>does the USATF Jesse Owens award still</font></font>
><br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>have? IAAF, USOC lists that
>woman with the 5 Olympic medals as their woman</font></font>
><br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>of the year, but not her federation.
>A definite miscue, in my opinion.</font></font>
><p><b><font face="Lucida Sans"><font color="#000000"><font
>size=+0>>>>>></font></font></font></b> <font face="Lucida Sans">The
>current sprinters are mild compared to the sprinters of the 60's and early
>70's .. Guys like Hines, Greeene and CArlos would step on the track and
>ask the other guys who was taking second becasue they already had first
>lined up .. And THAT was mild .. Course when all was said and done everyone
>would go out partying together .. NOt sure if I would see MO and MJ out
>together at the same party ..</font> <font color="#000080"><font size=-1>Conway
>Hill</font></font>
><br><font color="#000080"><font size=-1><a
>href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED]</a></font></font> </blockquote>
></blockquote>
>
></body>
></html>
>
>- --------------9C420E92435C5F1431D8741D--
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 23:20:18
>From: "Kurt Bray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: t-and-f: Blood Work
>
>It's standard practice for labs to require a prescription. In many states
>it's probably a legal requirement. Most labs are not set up to take all
>comers off the street. They view doctors rather than patients as their
>direct customers. When they set up special public screenings (for say
>cholesterol or HIV or something), it's usually done under the authority of
>an on-premises doc.
>
>Part of the problem is that labs only generate a number, a reading of some
>sort. They cannot provide much interpretation as to what the number means -
>to do so would be practicing medicine without a license. So it is thought
>best to make sure the lab result is delivered by a physician to explain its
>meaning rather than just leaving the patient on their own.
>
>Kurt Bray
>
>
>>
>>A while back there were posts about how athletes should get there blood
>>work done every few months. Well, I've gotten mine done twice in my life
>>and that was only because I was at altitude.
>>
>>But I figured it was a good idea, so I want to get mine done now. However,
>>it seems like the labs want a doctor's prescription. Is this standard
>>practice? Does it vary state to state? Does anyone know any labs that
>>don't want a doctor's prescription? I'm home for the holidays and don't
>>want to have to waste the time, but more importantly the money of going to
>>a doctor. In Flagstaff, I'm pretty sure the altitude center would do blood
>>work without seeing a doctor. I'm in Austin, TX now.
>>
>>-Weldon Johnson
>>http://www.letsrun.com
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:34:33 -0600
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: t-and-f: Jesse Owens award
>
>At 01:21 PM 12/21/00 EST, you wrote:
>>In a private post, I got this explanation of the situation:
>>
>><< GH: for what it is worth - since they wanted a body to be present at the
>>awards banquet and if the athlete was not attending the convention then they
>>should not be considered. And the winner is ... sorry he/she is not here to
>>accept the Jesse Owens Award Looks better if the recipient is there to
>>accept. Think about it!!!!!!!>>
>>
>>All i can say is (assuming this is true), wow! The main criterion for the
>>governing body's most important award is now availability for the banquet,
>>not athletic performance?
>>
>>Fortunately, Stacy D is a fine choice, but what happens when we get a year
>>where some American sets a WR or two, and nobody else even sets an AR. Will
>>the banquet-availability card be played again?
>>
>>gh
>>
>
>
>A lot of bigger awards follow the same rule (you might be
>surprised). It's a problem for all but the very biggest
>awards. Some solve it by including large amounts of cash
>(the agent gets his cut as usual, so he encou
------------------------------------------------------------
--== Sent via Deja.com ==--
http://www.deja.com/
