How to run a Sub-10.00 100


This Forum was created to divert traffic from Current Events at the height of the BALCO scandal. It comes and goes as "needed"; it's back to being locked.

How to run a Sub-10.00 100

Postby Snation » Fri May 23, 2008 2:06 pm

At least Trevor Graham's blueprint:

http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation ... for-r.html

EPO and HGH?
Snation
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:03 am
Location: sunny iowa

Postby Kevin Richardson » Fri May 23, 2008 4:17 pm

My solution is much cheaper. Find a very steep downhill course. Take a very large bear and place him 50 meters up the slope. Place a large, juicy, tender steak in the back of your waistband, allowing it to protrude at least 6 inches. When the bear starts your direction, recall every Discovery Channel show which has featured wild animals ripping apart young antelope. Now, run down the slope. If you do not dip below 10.0, odds are strong that you will never know about it.
Kevin Richardson
 
Posts: 901
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, Alabama

Postby gh » Fri May 23, 2008 6:08 pm

Not exactly on-topic, but the bear analogy doesn't work. At least not according to wood-lore as taught to me when growing up. If chased by a bear, the best possible thing to do is to run downhill because that's the way they can't catch you. With the short front legs, the tumble over. But never try to outrun a bear uphill, because that puts them in perfect position. (rural myth?)
gh
 
Posts: 46333
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby bad hammy » Fri May 23, 2008 6:58 pm

Just run faster than the guy next to you - you'll be fine . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

How to run a sub 10

Postby trackinblack2 » Sat May 24, 2008 3:28 am

I think you find out what "Lightinng Bolt" is consuming.
I'm sorry, you can't make a leap in performance like that
on pure talent and determination.
Ever wonder why He and countryman can't repeat these feats
in big meets? Let's get serious here and question the reality
of these times.
trackinblack2
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:03 pm

Postby mrbowie » Sat May 24, 2008 3:38 am

I tend to agree.

I think the most important aspect of all the recent stuff I've read is that unless random out-of-competition testing is done wisely, athletes apparently have shown they can beat the system.
mrbowie
 
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Lexington, Kentucky

Postby EPelle » Sat May 24, 2008 3:39 am

Say "Lightening Rod" or "Lightening Joe" was on something - or on to something. They run well in certain meets, but not others. Your argument - and that to which you are alluding - is that, because they are unable to match those feats in championship events, they must have been on something earlier, but not later.

Conventional wisdom says that they stopped taking stuff long before the big meet, and have already acquired all of the benefits available to them, namely harder workouts and better practice sessions.

As Conte and others have stated, one fails an IQ test at a championship meet, not a drugs test.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

run below 10 flat 100

Postby trackinblack2 » Sat May 24, 2008 5:59 am

The evolution of PED chemistry is also a rapid advanceing technology.
Who can say that something is not out there which will be like adding
Nitromethane to a tank of Gas. Once it's expended ,it's gone.
Residuals don't hang around to be detected.
Conte was speaking of the class of chemicals He is famillar with.
trackinblack2
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:03 pm

Postby Bruce Kritzler » Sat May 24, 2008 11:43 am

And an ncaa sprinter has improved from 10.23 last collegiate season to 9.93 this year. from 20.90 to 20.23 in 200. Any red flags going up?
Bruce Kritzler
 
Posts: 3128
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby dakota » Sat May 24, 2008 11:48 am

He did also run 10.09 and 9.95w so your numbers are somewhat misleading.
dakota
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby dcunited » Sat May 24, 2008 11:56 am

Get yourself a juice machine. >rimshot<

I suspect genetic manipulation is already waiting in the wings, blood profiling finally building up a head of steam or no.
dcunited
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:07 pm
Location: east coast

Postby Bruce Kritzler » Sat May 24, 2008 4:03 pm

Dakota,
Even Ato didn't believe those times!
Bruce Kritzler
 
Posts: 3128
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby dakota » Sun May 25, 2008 12:23 am

You see now you're confused between races in 2005 and 2007.
dakota
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Sun May 25, 2008 1:09 am

Bruce Kritzler wrote:And an ncaa sprinter has improved from 10.23 last collegiate season to 9.93 this year. from 20.90 to 20.23 in 200. Any red flags going up?


Not according to Asafa Powell.

“It’s not my fault that people are saying that if someone has run very fast, he must be on drugs...it’s making it bad for us athletes now.

“It upsets me when athletes go the other way, the wrong way, because there are athletes out there who compete with their natural ability, but when people say that athletes who run fast are on drugs, it is something you have to live with. There is nothing I can do about it.

“I don’t worry about it. I am never going to test positive. I am confident about that, unless someone is going to frame me.”
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun May 25, 2008 7:05 am

Bruce Kritzler wrote:And an ncaa sprinter has improved from 10.23 last collegiate season to 9.93 this year. from 20.90 to 20.23 in 200. Any red flags going up?

If he had gone from being a college senior to a first-year pro, a huge red flag would go up in my mind. But not when he goes from being a college junior to a college senior. Has there ever even been a college coach accused of giving PED's to his athletes? I doubt that the Trevor Grahams of the world would have ever gotten into drug pushing, if they already had one of the top-10 head coaching jobs in college track and field. Fortunately, these folks would have a problem ever landing one of these jobs in the first place. Usually, these folks are weeded out at the assistant level before they ever get to the top of the pyramid. Furthermore, if one of these coaches suspected one of their athletes were doing something like that on their own, I would think that he/she would drop that athlete like a hot potato for fear of their own career being put in jeopardy.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Smoke » Sun May 25, 2008 12:19 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Bruce Kritzler wrote:And an ncaa sprinter has improved from 10.23 last collegiate season to 9.93 this year. from 20.90 to 20.23 in 200. Any red flags going up?

If he had gone from being a college senior to a first-year pro, a huge red flag would go up in my mind. But not when he goes from being a college junior to a college senior. Has there ever even been a college coach accused of giving PED's to his athletes? I doubt that the Trevor Grahams of the world would have ever gotten into drug pushing, if they already had one of the top-10 head coaching jobs in college track and field. Fortunately, these folks would have a problem ever landing one of these jobs in the first place. Usually, these folks are weeded out at the assistant level before they ever get to the top of the pyramid. Furthermore, if one of these coaches suspected one of their athletes were doing something like that on their own, I would think that he/she would drop that athlete like a hot potato for fear of their own career being put in jeopardy.


Jazzy do you really believe this bs you just wrote? You imply 2 things that are so far from reality it makes me laugh. 1) college coaches are above reproach and would never cheat. 2) that pro coaches are not good enough to coach at the college level.

Foolish talk. I only know of one pro coach that has never coached on the college level in any capacity. All the rest cut their teeth in the ranks of NCAA. What moved them on was the rules that restrict the earning ability of these coaches just as they do the athletes.

You should know that Trevor was an assistant coach for a few years.
Smoke
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun May 25, 2008 1:42 pm

Smoke wrote:Jazzy do you really believe this bs you just wrote? You imply 2 things that are so far from reality it makes me laugh. 1) college coaches are above reproach and would never cheat. 2) that pro coaches are not good enough to coach at the college level.

I never said that college coaches are infallible or that pro coaches are incompetent, those are your words. But I do believe that college coaches have a lot more to lose if one of their athletes is caught cheating than pro coaches do. And that doesn't just apply to track and field, but all sports. Think about it, we've had million dollar football and basketball coaches get fired for lying about expense accounts, doing job interviews without permission, having affairs with secretaries and running betting boards in another sport. Those things wouldn't get you fired at the pro level. I also believe that the people who presently hold the upper tier jobs seem to have made a decision long ago that they would be career college coaches. But the main point I was making is that the most coveted coaching jobs in track and field are the top shelf college coaching jobs. I believe if you were to do a poll of track coaches, you would find that there are a lot more who would like to trade places with Vince Lananna than would trade places with John Smith. Maybe I'm wrong on this since I'm not a coach. But that's my perception. If you're a pro coach and I struck a nerve, please forgive me.

Smoke wrote:Foolish talk. I only know of one pro coach that has never coached on the college level in any capacity. All the rest cut their teeth in the ranks of NCAA. What moved them on was the rules that restrict the earning ability of these coaches just as they do the athletes.

Surely you aren't comparing the salary of an assistant to the salary of one of the top head coaches who also has a shoe deal that comes with his/her coaching job. What do you think the chances are that Bev Kearney will ever resign from Texas in order to pursue pro coaching full-time? Of course 99% of pro coaches have coached at the high school or college level at some point in the careers. But if you're a coach of questionable character and insatiable greed who doesn't want to pay his/her dues for 15-20 years to get a big break in the college system that may never come, I'm guessing you'll leave the college system voluntarily to search for better income earning opportunities. Isn't everything about the money?

Smoke wrote:You should know that Trevor was an assistant coach for a few years.

I can't believe you'd use him as an example to prove your point. No coach proves my point better than Trevor Graham. By the way, in the last three years, we've had numerous PED scandals involving football, baseball and track and field. How many of the coaches and trainers involved were college employees?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest