Elliot wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Now this may be just me, but I do not see more than a 0.1 improvement
here.
> In fact, at the time both gentlemen were caught lacing their coffee, both
> were not running particularly impressive times. I do not see any advantage
> to 'roids here -- if these two fine athletes were clean in Seoul and
> Barcelona, when their fastest times were set, their drug use later did not
> aid them one whit.
>
> 2. Christie and Mitchell were both on 'roids in 1988.
> What's the big fuss about Ben Johnson then? He beat an equally 'roided
field
> of top sprinters, and beat them thoroughly.
> He beat all 'roided sprinters who came after him, with the sole exception
of
> Mo "Not on drugs" Greene.
>
> > Read what Charlie Francis (Johnson's coach) had to say about what kind
of
> > doping it takes in order for you not to be "setting up your blocks 1
meter
> > behind the rest of the field".
>
> Of the endless list of sprinters caught on dope, none have beaten, or even
> come close to, Johnson's mark.
> Jason Livingston, Amzi Ibrahim, Dean Capobianco, Doug Walker, etc etc.
>
> Those that have, like Carl Lewis, Mo Greene, Donovan Bailey, Bruny Surin,
> Ato Boldon, Frankie Fredericks and Leroy Burrell are supposed to be clean.
> These are all sub 9.88 men, squeaky clean.
>
> Ben Johnson ran 9.79 on 'roids and is a 10.15 man when clean. So the Doug
> Walkers and the Jason Livingstons, the 10.1-10.2 sprinters who get busted
by
> the IAAF on a regular basis are all really 10.5 sprinters when clean.
> A full 0.7 seconds slower than all these "clean" guys breaking 9.85
seconds
> the good old fashioned way?
>
> Yeah, right.
>
> Either steroids do not aid sprinting performance as much as is often
> claimed, or the world elite is not as clean as is (less) often claimed.
Full
> stop.
>
> If the first case is true, Charlie Francis was an idiot for risking
> Johnson's career and reputation on worthless junk. If the second case is
> true, he hit the nail square on the head.
>
> Either way, Johnson's times remain phenomenal.
>
> Cheers,
This is more in line with the question I originally asked .. Those who have
been caught (and others I have known) were not able to achieve nearly the
level of those who have not been caught .. Ben being the lone exception ..
Therefore logic would seem to indicate that drugs are not the aid that
people seem to believe .. And Ben was a truly phenomenal sprinter (probably
9.8x without drugs) who has had his career and reputation forever ruined
because HE was caught and others have not been .. The worst part is that if
the assumption is that Ben is an example of what a human pharmacology can do
then how many others have been out there trying to achieve something that
they may never be able to achieve simply because they don't have the right
stuff - demeanor, form, technique, physical attributes, etc ?? Just a
question ?.?.?
Conway Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
