SQUACKEE wrote:Im very surprised that the leading vote is for 11.05 or slower!
"The clear alone would not account for this but, on the balance of probability I believe that she has been doped steadily scince she was 14 or 15. If that was the case why not add 0.4 / 0.5 seconds to her times?
My (sad) point all along has been that if PEDs NEVER existed, Marion would have been multiple Olympic/World Champion. She did have the talent. Sadly, she didn't have the character.
100 PR w/o PEDs? I have no freakin' idea - the waters are just THAT muddied.
tafnut wrote:My (sad) point all along has been that if PEDs NEVER existed, Marion would have been multiple Olympic/World Champion.
Pure conjecture.
I prefer to call it an educated guess. It should be noted that despite being her apologist for so long, I was never actually that big a fan of the person. She was always a little too 'insincere' in her public performances. I was a big fan of her (and Carl Lewis's) performances, but not so much the person. So my 'statement' that she was that good, is just me looking at her prodigious talent, even considering that is was PED-improved from some early time-frame (as were many of her rivals).
I love it. If you think Marion couldn't run under 11.05 without "supplementing" then you have just implicated a hell of a lot of runners, because they don't come much more talented than Marion. Her technique was great. She ran like a man - just like Arron. Very few do/can. That's why she was so good. Her supplementing just helped her get the most out of her body.
This whole thing shows us that you just don't know who is oneit. If you think there aren't 11.30 girls out there who aren't on something you are kidding yourselves. You just don't take any notice of them because they don't run fast.
SQUACKEE wrote:Wonder what you all think. You can post and exact time if you wish.
Could very well be her first year among the most elite; 10.76/21.76 in 1997. Could almost as easily be her last; 10.84/22.11 in 2002.
The jury is still out on her 10.65A/21.62A in 1998. I think Trevor Graham's trial could ultimately erase that as well, if not everything.
If she ran 10.76/21.76 without "PEDS", then "PEDS" needs to be recast as "SPEDS" - SUPPOSED PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS. They didn't help her at all. She became inappreciably faster after the claimed time of initial administration of performance "enhancers" - what fricking enhancement resulted? NOTHING!
Conclusion: Choose one : -
1) She was "enhanced" at time of busting out in 1997, - A woman does NOT come out of nowhere [and that is precisely what is was, coming back from years of absence to a level of performance far beyond anything previously attained] and lower her PRs without some performance enhancement.
2) PEDS are nothing of the sort. They do not enhance, or if they do, it's just for show.
paddyb wrote:Her technique was great. She ran like a man
Her technique was what stopped her from breaking WRs. It was biomechanically horrible. She wasted tremendous energy flailing her arms and legs all over the place and not helping to propel herself forward. This is also why her LJing was such a mess.
Of course she ran like a man. She was changing her biochemistry to be one.
bad hammy wrote:couldn’t natural maturity/development account for that?
That's certainly what I thought. If I were still a Marion apologist, I'd swear that WAS a natural progression (if she took PEDs BEFORE her sophomore year, I just give up). When you take that 11.14/22.58 from her junior year, it's hard NOT to see her (especially at a lithe 5'10) as a 10.80/21.60 type as a mature 25-year-old. Now it's going to be REALLY hard for me to defend ANYONE again.
paddyb wrote:Her technique was great. She ran like a man
Her technique was what stopped her from breaking WRs. It was biomechanically horrible. She wasted tremendous energy flailing her arms and legs all over the place and not helping to propel herself forward. This is also why her LJing was such a mess.
Of course she ran like a man. She was changing her biochemistry to be one.
Horrible? That's hilarious. Have a look at her foot strike and hip extension. There are decent sprinters in the mens world who would like that type of drive. so with great technique - what? she could have run 10.40? You make me laugh! you are probably also a critic of michael johnson's technique - yes? geez if only you could have got a hold of him when he was a raw talent and belt that choppy stride out of him!
bad hammy wrote:couldn’t natural maturity/development account for that?
That's certainly what I thought. If I were still a Marion apologist, I'd swear that WAS a natural progression (if she took PEDs BEFORE her sophomore year, I just give up). When you take that 11.14/22.58 from her junior year, it's hard NOT to see her (especially at a lithe 5'10) as a 10.80/21.60 type as a mature 25-year-old. Now it's going to be REALLY hard for me to defend ANYONE again.
Charlie Francis, pre "bust", wrote:“Well, nobody just comes out of the box and performs at gold medal level. It just doesn't happen by chance anymore. Everybody is a creation of a program, of training, of systems, etc. A minimum of five to eight years of correct training is required before an athlete's potential becomes apparent.”
His opinion had nothing to do with PED:s, it was simply his version of what it took (takes) to be a world-beater.
One first-year gold medalist, who ran the fastest time in the world, missed four (or five) solid years of 100m training before winning their national champs and world champs off 13 weeks of training their first season in full swing. Not very much left to the imagination - or arithmatic.
ismael kirui wins 5k wc gold as an 18y ole & was capable of setting the wr that day in a paced race
if some, big, strong youngster comes out next year & starts running 10.90 - 11.00 & challenges for the gold, i have no doubt it is something that is perfectly possible legitimately
people seem to forget that marion was a giant physical specimen when she burst onto the scene - a woman who made the other sprinters look little girls
with those physical gifts, it was no stretch of the imagination she coud dominate the sprints in no time at all
paddyb wrote:Her technique was great. She ran like a man
Her technique was what stopped her from breaking WRs. It was biomechanically horrible. She wasted tremendous energy flailing her arms and legs all over the place and not helping to propel herself forward. This is also why her LJing was such a mess.
Of course she ran like a man. She was changing her biochemistry to be one.
Horrible? That's hilarious. Have a look at her foot strike and hip extension. There are decent sprinters in the mens world who would like that type of drive.
Have a look at her races from 1997. At that time she had the worst technique ever seen. Didn't even look like a sprinter, just a basketball player trying to run fast. Regardless of what she was on, I still can't understand how she managed to run sub-10.80 that year.
Powell wrote: Have a look at her races from 1997. At that time she had the worst technique ever seen. Didn't even look like a sprinter, just a basketball player trying to run fast. Regardless of what she was on, I still can't understand how she managed to run sub-10.80 that year.
I'm interested in the specifics of the the "worst technique ever seen" Please break this down in reference to hip extension and foot strike
Powell wrote: Have a look at her races from 1997. At that time she had the worst technique ever seen. Didn't even look like a sprinter, just a basketball player trying to run fast. Regardless of what she was on, I still can't understand how she managed to run sub-10.80 that year.
I'm interested in the specifics of the the "worst technique ever seen" Please break this down in reference to hip extension and foot strike
wasn't it something about her arm action looking like she was trying to do the breast-stroke ?
(Not I)