> From: "Kebba Tolbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: "Kebba Tolbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:08:53 -0400 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: t-and-f: Radcliffe?s best, is record best! > > It's really a false honor though because the tables above the 1500m are > generally weak. > > What they'd want us to beleive is that a clean Paula put together a > performance that greatly overshadows performances that "drug-era" (not that > I think that people are a whole lot cleaner now) athletes couldn't even > touch -- 1:51, 10.42, 47.14. It's obviuous that either the distance event > point scales are farily soft. > > there's no way.>>
Amen to that: these calculations are a benchmark of bad science. Gh
