Re: t-and-f: Why we question Chinese marks (was Kristiansen's 'clean' doubt)

[Conway Hill]

Alan wrote:

>It's not the fast time that makes us question these marks. It's the

>out of

>nowhere appearance that makes us question these marks. Most of these

>Chinese

>marks ('93, '97) were set at their Chinese Games by women who

>weren't big on

>the world scene beforehand and then disappeared for the most part

>after the

>record setting performances. Granted in the Chinese society they

>probably

>think more of the their Chinese Games than the Olympics or World

>Champs, but

>they have to know that with these shot in the dark marks that people

>are

>going to question them. I think that all the top marks could be

>questioned,

>but that is just the nature of the sport. It has been that way for

>30

>years...at least. You can't run a fast time without it being

>questioned. If

>the "powers that be" wanted to have a foolproof method of testing

>for

>certain drugs then they could. It is quite funny how once they have

>a test

>for a certain drug another drug has already popped up as if the

>"powers that

>be" are alwasy one step behind. World record performances and very

>fast

>individuals sell tickets and attract sponsors. Drugs make these fast

>and

>world record performances more common. They should just legalize it

>all,

>that way no one would question the validity of the mark because

>everyone

>would be on the juice. Although it would scar the sport in the

>public's eye,

>but aren't the rumors doing that already?

>

OK ... I'll probably open up a can of worms here but I'll speak my peace anyway ... To say that a mark should be questioned because the individual setting it didn't compete near the level before nor after would put a large percentage of records set somewhat in question ... Maurice Greene, for example, is the rarity in track and field - the individual who sets the wr and comes near it again in competition ... MO has run 9.79, but then came back and ran 9.80, and would probably been close again save for the conditions in Sydney ... Still running an excellent 9.87 in those conditions ..

The Chinese aside, which of the following would you also like to question (since they didn't compete at the level before or since:

Donovan Bailey - 9.84 wr but next best of 9.91 was in '99 at WC

Bob Beamon - 29'2.5" wr was almost 2 feet further than he would ever jump before or after and lasted for 23 years

Mike Powell - 29'4.5" wr finally took down Beamon's record but was almost a foot better than his next best mark, before or after

Carl Lewis - 9.86 wr was Carl's only mark under 9.90 ... His PR before was 9.93 and he never broke 10.00 after

Michael Johnson - 19.32 wr PR at the start of the year was 19.77 ... Ran 19.66 and 19.32 at Trials and the Games ... Best mark since 19.71A

Kevin Young - 46.78 wr  no where near before and coming closest at 43.18 a year later

Butch Reynolds - 43.29 wr ran high 43s (43.9x) before and after

Sebastian Coe - 1:41.71 wr (also ran 1:42.33 same season) Never again close running closest in 1985 (record set in 1979) at 1:43.07

Am I calling any of these individuals into question ??? ABSOLUTELY NOT !!! My point is simply that the running of world recors is not a regular occurance ... It is something that happens when everything is just right for that individual ... Everything comes together for a season or a month or a week or just a day ... That one moment in time ... And then "woosh" something for the ages - or until someone else hits that magic sector in time when everything is right for them ...

So I don't th ink we should bandy about disparagingly regarding any record simply beause it is so much better than the individual did before ... Because most records end up being that way ...

Conway

---

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com