Run-Down Forums

Conway · Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2001 9:09 am Post subject:

Hmm .. The on elite sprinters of the 80's I would say were running in the 10.30 neighborhood I would say .. Maybe between 10.25 and 10.30 .. Give or take .. GEnerally speaking I would say non elite sprinters should be about .2 to .25 off the pace if that makes any sense ..

Dan · Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2001 11:56 am Post subject:

In that case, I would think the non-elites have shown similar improvement to the elites during that time. Aside from Ben Johnson (which really skews progression comparisons since the best marks from 13 years apart are identical), the top guys are running about 0.1 to 0.15 faster, and the sub-elites are running at least 10.15 to 10.20, making it right in line, no?

Dan

Conway · Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2001 12:54 pm Post subject:

Hmm .. Depends on how you look at it .. If the elite athletes are theoretically closer to their limits (and to human limits in general) then one would think that their progression would be somewhat slowed !!! Especialy given that they now have a shorter distanace to go to reach the top .. The fact that both groups share the same progressional curve would just lend more credense in my eyes that BOTH are using the same means of improvement !!! And given that the improvement of the elites is abnormally accelerated compared to what it should be would be an indication to me of "outside" influences !! Except for the occasional natural outlier Smile

Dan · Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2001 1:31 pm Post subject:

Ok, I think I see what you're saying. Assuming some limit to potential (which despite it being logical, I see no reason to assume), the elite's rate of improvement should be slowing, while those behind them continue to close the gap. However, I'm not sure the second half of that assumption follows, as the sub-elites would be closing in on their non freak of nature limits, as well.

Conway · Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2001 9:11 pm Post subject:

I agree with you that the haves are ont pulling ahead because only they have access to the good stuff .. All things being equal they are just better !!! They are getting closer to the limits of human potential faster as a result, but they started out ahead on the curve to begin with .. They just stay there .. The level plaing field that everyone aspires to already exists !!!!! Drug testing aims to upset it !!! LOL ..

What the old farts that try to legilate sports fail to understand is that sports are Darwinian in nature .. Evolution occurs in spite of outside infuences .. No matter how you try to stop them athletes will find ways to evolve .. The strong will always survive .. And those that do not adapt will become extinct .. You can't artificially inhibit the process ..

Not that I always agree with the means utilized in the process ..

Dan · Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2001 10:00 pm Post subject:

It strikes me as hypocritical to even attempt to curb performance enhancing exploits, as enhancing ones performance is precisely what the sport is about! Confused

Dan

Conway · Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2001 5:49 pm Post subject:

But you see Dan (long day at work today adn no time to post earlier) there are those elite people who seem to want to decide what is good/legal and what is not !!! These purists think they know what is best for all ... And spend most of their time maing sure that people don't do bad things to themselves or that the playing field doesn't get skewed .. What they fail to realize is that they are the greatest skewing element !!!

Conway · Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2001 5:51 pm Post subject:

So did we come to some sort of conclusion here that perhaps the governing body has culpability in the present "drug" problem in the sport ?? And that perhaps they unlevel the playing field more than they level it ?? Just curious Smile

Dan · Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2001 6:33 pm Post subject:

I think it's safe to say that we came to that conclusion, and unless anyone else voices an opinion to the contrary, we could even call it a consensus. Smile

Dan

Conway · Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2001 7:22 pm Post subject:

Exactly

Conway · Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2001 8:34 am Post subject:

So I am curious .. Do we have an answer or is this matter forever skewed ???

Dan · Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2001 9:51 am Post subject:

Well, *we* have an answer, but I have a feeling not enough important people would be receptive to our answer...

Dan

Conway · Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2001 1:09 pm Post subject:

Hmmm ... May have ot see about that Smile

Discussion Forum

Share the Love!

What's New

Running Links Directory