At 10:00 PM 10/17/00 +0200, you wrote:
>
>----- Original Message -----
>
>> Whoa ... "not a great improvement"? Witness the WR of Ben Johnson ... a
>> time .20 ahead of almost everyone else in history who ran the 100m at
>> sea-level with fair wind. You guys know that sub-10.00 at sea level used
>to
>> be rare. How can you characterize a .20 advantage as "not great"?
>
>Hold on a sec. here.
>Ben Johnson was the only top athlete on dope in 1988?
>Ben was running against a clean crowd ? Let's see where this goes ...
>
>> And, yes, I attribute Ben Johnson's ability to run that fast to DRUGS.
>> Without them, he is a 10.15 guy at the very best.
>
>Linford Christie ran 9.97 in Seoul and Dennis Mitchell ran 10.04.
>They were not tested positive in Seoul.
>Christie's personal record is 9.87, Mitchell's is (guessing here) in the low
>9.9's.
>Both tested positive after Seoul.
If we are including best clean times then we should include Ben's winning
time from Rome. He tested negative there. He only lost that record because
of testimony at the Dubin Inquiry. If we don't include that time is it right
to include the best times of other athletes when they tested negative but
tested positive at another time ? Possibly just cycled correctly, like Ben
did for Rome, and appeared to be clean. Just food ofr thought.
>Two conclusions are possible:
>
>1. Christie and Mitchell ran their Seoul times clean.
>We can therefore use them as a benchmark for how fast elite athletes can
>sprint without dope. If, as you say, dope gave Ben Johnson a 0.35 sec
>advantage, and athletes in general a 0.2 boost, the question is then why
>Mitchell and Christie do not have PR's in the 9.6's, set when they WERE
>taking 'roids.
