I Support Marion Jones


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.

Re: A Witch Hunt Beyond a Reasonable Suspicion

Postby Sprintstatman » Mon Jun 21, 2004 3:58 am

>Ever since FloJo miraculously transformed herself from a mediocre sprinter who was merely average for years (YEARS, mind you),

It really is time people stopped perpetuating this myth. Flo-Jo was WORLD CLASS for years before 1988. Here's her progression:

81 - 11.23/22.81/22/61w (ran 4x1 for US at WP)
82 - 11.12/22.39/22.23w (NCAA 200m champ)
83 - 11.06/10.96w/22.23/50.94 (4th WC 200m)
84 - 10.99/22.04 (2nd OG 200m)
85 - 11.00/22.46
86 - 11.42/23.51
87 - 10.96/21.96/21.7w (2nd WC 200m 1st 4x1)

She had an OG medal and two WC medals plus a fourth place. She was not average. This is not to defend her - dramatic improvement from an already world class base is more suspicious than dramatic improvement from a hitherto mediocre athlete who may simply not have been taking training seriously.
Sprintstatman
 
Posts: 356
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Witch Hunt Beyond a Reasonable Suspicion

Postby Mel » Mon Jun 21, 2004 11:08 am

"I mean, FloJo wasn't even on the radar screen among the elite sprinters while she competed for many years in the sport."

Really, without reiterating the stats just put out for you in plain view above, you should refrain from making such painfully stupid comments. She was second best on the planet in the 84 OG and in the 87 WC. Clearly your radar is about as technologically current as Windows 3.1 :)
Last edited by Mel on Mon Jun 21, 2004 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mel
 
Posts: 956
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Witch Hunt Beyond a Reasonable Suspicion

Postby WalkandJog » Mon Jun 21, 2004 8:21 pm

LOL. I stand corrected for my hyperbole about the terms "mediocre" and not being on the radar screen. Yet even looking at the above posted times in the years prior to her world records, one cannot possibly believe that such a dramatic performance improvement of half a second over 100 meters and similar improvement over 200 is kosher, after years of running consistently slower, as shown in the posted times. She always seemed for years like someone perpetually chasing Ashford's heels, and then she made a suspicious quantum leap that defies any kosher explanation. My main point was that it looks like blatant drug use, for which she never got caught, and I think that's the obvious elephant in the living room that no one wants to talk about. The improvement from around 11 in the 100 to under 10.5 is outrageously suspect.
WalkandJog
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Witch Hunt Beyond a Reasonable Suspicion

Postby hj197steve » Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:32 am

let's not beat that "sub 10.5" drum though. It was clearly a bogus wind aided time. Haviong said that I think she was a big-time user.
hj197steve
 
Posts: 856
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Witch Hunt Beyond a Reasonable Suspicion

Postby RMc » Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:15 am

>let's not beat that "sub 10.5" drum though. It was clearly a bogus wind
>aided time. Haviong said that I think she was a big-time user.

Well, her 10.61 was legit, and that's still almost 0.4 seconds....
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Witch Hunt Beyond a Reasonable Suspicion

Postby Runninghorse » Tue Jun 22, 2004 9:36 am

>I'm playing "Witchy woman" [by the Eagles] as I read the thread. The fact
>t that you are posting on a THG Crisis board says something, doesn't it?

>*Times decided to print a more realistic
>view.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/20/sport ... 0WADL.html
----------

Hmmmmm. I see you hanging around this board also.
Runninghorse
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Witch Hunt Beyond a Reasonable Suspicion

Postby Runninghorse » Tue Jun 22, 2004 9:39 am

>LOL. I stand corrected for my hyperbole about the terms "mediocre" and not
>being on the radar screen. Yet even looking at the above posted times in the
>years prior to her world records, one cannot possibly believe that such a
>dramatic performance improvement of half a second over 100 meters and similar
>improvement over 200 is kosher, after years of running consistently slower, as
>shown in the posted times. She always seemed for years like someone perpetually
>chasing Ashford's heels, and then she made a suspicious quantum leap that
>defies any kosher explanation. My main point was that it looks like blatant
>drug use, for which she never got caught, and I think that's the obvious
>elephant in the living room that no one wants to talk about. The improvement
>from around 11 in the 100 to under 10.5 is outrageously suspect.
---------------------
That is simply untrue. Bob Beamon went from a 26 foot jumper to 29. Back in 68, I doubt if one could attribute that to drugs OR altitude (a racist theory).
Runninghorse
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Witch Hunt Beyond a Reasonable Suspicion

Postby Mel » Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:31 am

<<let's not beat that "sub 10.5" drum though. It was clearly a bogus wind aided time.>

"JJK: I know there was some wind. Not the zero-wind that was posted. Do I think it was over 2.0m/s? Yes."

from Jon's interview with JJK at:

http://www.athleticslinks.com/aotm_jjk.html

I was fascinated to read Flo's sister-in-law stating that she "knows". After all, she was THERE, and out of respect for the deceased family member I would expect her to be inclined to say as little as possible anything which would call into question any of Florence's achievements.
Last edited by Mel on Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mel
 
Posts: 956
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Witch Hunt Beyond a Reasonable Suspicion

Postby Dutra » Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:18 am

With the, possibly accurate, leaps being made regarding Marion Jones' 'associations' I find it odd that Flo Jo is generally ripped to shreds for her never proven drug use and yet the fairly obvious 'associations' that were around her are never mentioned.
Last edited by Dutra on Tue Jun 22, 2004 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dutra
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Witch Hunt Beyond a Reasonable Suspicion

Postby RMc » Tue Jun 22, 2004 1:09 pm

---------------------
That is simply untrue. Bob
>Beamon went from a 26 foot jumper to 29. Back in 68, I doubt if one could
>attribute that to drugs OR altitude (a racist theory).

Beamon went from the low 27s to 29-2. His performance WAS attributed to both the altitude (as was Robert Emmiman's 29 footer) AND the 2.0 mps wind. Because field events are generally "one-off" efforts with little or no intermediate measures by time or against other competitors, such "discontinuities" are to be expected in that set of events vs. the track events.
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Witch Hunt Beyond a Reasonable Suspicion

Postby Mel » Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:12 pm

"I find it odd that Flo Jo is generally ripped to shreds for her never proven drug use"

That's cuz we're all just plain too dumb.
Mel
 
Posts: 956
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Witch Hunt Beyond a Reasonable Suspicion

Postby Jon » Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:28 pm

>---------------------
That is simply untrue. Bob
>Beamon went from a 26 foot
>jumper to 29. Back in 68, I doubt if one could
>attribute that to drugs OR
>altitude (a racist theory).

Beamon went from the low 27s to 29-2. His
>performance WAS attributed to both the altitude (as was Robert Emmiman's 29
>footer) AND the 2.0 mps wind. Because field events are generally "one-off"
>efforts with little or no intermediate measures by time or against other
>competitors, such "discontinuities" are to be expected in that set of events
>vs. the track events.



I second that altitude/wind explanation - it was undoubtedly a big contributing factor. But also remember that stat that gh originally posted on here (and RMc mentioned it again recently in the 'historical' section of this forum):

"A survey conducted in either 1968 or 1972 found that 68% of Olympians (US?) were using steroids or other performance enhancing drugs"
Jon
 
Posts: 9231
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Witch Hunt Beyond a Reasonable Suspicion

Postby Dutra » Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:54 pm

>"I find it odd that Flo Jo is generally ripped to shreds for her never proven
>drug use"

That's cuz we're all just plain too dumb.>>

and the point of my post went over your head apparently.
Dutra
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Witch Hunt Beyond a Reasonable Suspicion

Postby gh » Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:38 pm

<<But also remember
>that stat that gh originally posted on here (and RMc mentioned it again
>recently in the 'historical' section of this forum):

"A survey conducted
>in either 1968 or 1972 found that 68% of Olympians (US?) were using steroids
>or other performance enhancing drugs">>

I've never posted any such thing, and I'd be surprised if Rich had either, since I don't know what valid source there might be. I think you're confusing it with the survey on how many Olympians were willing to take a substance even if it took X years off their life, so long as it guaranteed a gold medal.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: A Witch Hunt Beyond a Reasonable Suspicion

Postby Jon » Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:41 pm

>I've never posted any such thing, and I'd be surprised if Rich had
>either, since I don't know what valid source there might be. I think you're
>confusing it with the survey on how many Olympians were willing to take a
>substance even if it took X years off their life, so long as it guaranteed a
>gold medal.



Well this is where I saw it recently:

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/tfn/di ... hread=5599

RMc said that you may have posted it a while back, but now it looks like it might be a case of Chinese Whispers....
Jon
 
Posts: 9231
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Witch Hunt Beyond a Reasonable Suspicion

Postby Runninghorse » Tue Jun 22, 2004 9:03 pm

"A survey conducted
>in either 1968 or 1972 found that 68% of Olympians (US?) were using steroids
>or other performance enhancing drugs"
------------
That was the American athletes in 1984.
Runninghorse
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Witch Hunt Beyond a Reasonable Suspicion

Postby Runninghorse » Tue Jun 22, 2004 9:12 pm

I second that altitude/wind
>explanation - it was undoubtedly a big contributing factor.

-------------

For such a theory to hold any water one should expect that a 26 foot jumper go to high altitude, wait for a 2 mph wind (or even 5 mph), jump and voila, he's jumping 29 feet. NOT!
Runninghorse
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Witch Hunt Beyond a Reasonable Suspicion

Postby Sprintstatman » Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:03 am

>My main point was that it looks like blatant drug use, for which she never got caught, and I think that's the obvious elephant in the living room that no one wants to talk about.

I don't know where you've been for the last 16yrs my friend but I can assure you that this is one subject that has very definitely been talked about at very great length, not least around the time of her premature death.
Sprintstatman
 
Posts: 356
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Witch Hunt Beyond a Reasonable Suspicion

Postby Sprintstatman » Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:07 am

>For such a theory to hold any water one should expect that a 26 foot jumper go to high altitude, wait for a 2 mph wind (or even 5 mph), jump and voila, he's jumping 29 feet. NOT!

Runninghorse, is it your contention that wind and altitude have no effect on performances in explosive events such as long jump?
Sprintstatman
 
Posts: 356
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Witch Hunt Beyond a Reasonable Suspicion

Postby Mel » Wed Jun 23, 2004 3:56 am

and the point of my post went over your head apparently."

Yep, I could feel the breeze as it went whizzing by.
Mel
 
Posts: 956
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Witch Hunt Beyond a Reasonable Suspicion

Postby malmo » Wed Jun 23, 2004 4:34 am

>Beamon went from the low 27s to 29-2. His
>performance WAS attributed to both the altitude (as was Robert Emmiman's 29
>footer) AND the 2.0 mps wind.

I like the way that altitude affects individual athletes in different ways. One athlete gets a two foot push from it, the rest get nothing.

I missed my physics class the day they explained that one, so until it does get explained I'll just settle with the Ockham's razor explanation -- Beamon just popped one.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Witch Hunt Beyond a Reasonable Suspicion

Postby malmo » Wed Jun 23, 2004 4:38 am

<Runninghorse, is it your contention that wind and
>altitude have no effect on performances in explosive events such as long
>jump?

I think it would be safe to say it doesn't pick and choose which athletes it's going to give a two foot push?
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Witch Hunt Beyond a Reasonable Suspicion

Postby Ehecatl » Wed Jun 23, 2004 6:19 am

>>Beamon went from the low 27s to 29-2. His performance WAS attributed to both the altitude (as was Robert Emmiman's 29 footer) AND the 2.0 mps wind.<<

In fact, the wind was probably greater than 2.0.
Ehecatl
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Witch Hunt Beyond a Reasonable Suspicion

Postby Mel » Wed Jun 23, 2004 8:22 am

"I like the way that altitude affects individual athletes in different ways. One athlete gets a two foot push from it, the rest get nothing."

LOL!!! The rest would include the women jumpers as well no doubt, where the world record was improved 6cm (over the 6.76 jumped in Tokyo 4 yrs prior) and the silver medallist couldn't even go as far as the previous record.
Mel
 
Posts: 956
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby RMc » Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:42 am

My observation about the wind and altitude was in retort to the apparent claim that Beamon's mark was achieved largely due to the use of drugs. It's absolutely correct that Beamon "popped one", and his mark reflected his apparent lack of any acknowledgement of human limits at that moment. But his mark also came on the opening jump of the competition for the top tier jumpers, and it crushed the morale of the other jumpers. It's not surprising that they did not jump as well--they had lost their motivation as they could no longer imagine winning the gold.

However, it's also true that Beamon's mark would not have been as far at low altitude and with a less aiding wind. As with Emmiman (sp?), Beamon was never able to really approach that mark again--he never broke 28' and I'm not sure if ever surpassed the previous WR again.

As for the conditions at Mexico City, note that in the men's TJ, the WR was broken several times during the competition by the various medalists, indicating that the conditions did affect the other horizontal jumps significantly.
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby malmo » Wed Jun 23, 2004 10:04 am

>As for the conditions at Mexico City, note that in the men's TJ, the WR
>was broken several times during the competition by the various medalists,
>indicating that the conditions did affect the other horizontal jumps
>significantly.

Or back to William of Ockham, perhaps it was the event in itself, the Olympic Games, that provided the "conditions" for such greatness?

The Games have a long history of individuals rising to the occasion and doing "the impossible." History shows that athletes "step it up a notch" in both the sprints and jumps every four years -- at sea level. Why wouldn't Mexico City be any different? In those days, when there were not many opportunities available - not anything like today or even since the beginning of the professional era in the early eighties.

I'd like to see a statistical analysis of jumps at altitude vs sea level, with or without the "Olympic boost" to illustrate just how little altitude actually affects performance (non distance that is). I'd guess it's on the order of a couple inches, at most.
Last edited by malmo on Wed Jun 23, 2004 11:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: I Support Marion Jones

Postby Runninghorse » Wed Jun 23, 2004 10:11 am

What distinguishes T&F from the American pro sports is that those
>running the sport actually still have some morals left. No they aren't
>perfect, but they do try to muddle through and do the right thing. On the
>other hand, the commissioners for baseball, football and basketball clearly and
>obviously are always making financial calculations every single time they open
>their mouths. The question is whether we want our sport to foresake the
>fundamental premise of our sport to increase the financial gain that will
>accrue to a few elite athletes and meet promoters?
--------------
Excusez moi??? Is this a joke?? No, you're not serious ... or are you? You really think that there is even so much as a shred of difference in the morality and honesty of track officials just because they're in your sport of choice?

Let's put it this way. Where there is money, power and glory, you can bet your sweetazz it is a vacuum for the greedy, the power-hungry and the glory-hunters. I don't know what makes you or anyone think that there is something more sanctified or holy about a track than a basketball court, a baseball diamond, football field or boxing ring that automatically renders its practitioners cleansed of evil intent.

We live under a capitalistic system and money rules. "Money talks - bulls__t walks." That's the name of the game no matter in what corner of our lives you may search. The bigger the money to be made, the nastier things get. That's just the way things are.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if some low-paid testors sell the highly-prized DNA to nasty companies like Monsanto and others in the business of genetic engineering and taking out patents on human beings. I'm sure they'd pay a fortune to get their hands on the DNA of top athletes.
Runninghorse
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: I Support Marion Jones

Postby tafnut » Wed Jun 23, 2004 10:24 am

While I agree with you, in principle, BOXING is nothing like any of the other sports. It was dirty - it is dirty - it will be dirty. I AM hypocritical enough to watch a heavyweight title bout every now and again (esp. Tyson in his earlier years - say, before the cannibalism episode), BUT any sport that makes its primary aim to actually incapacitate at best and kill/permanently disable at worst, really does bring out the slimebuckets in droves (promoters, etc.). That sport (even at the amateur level) needs to be outlawed.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Re: I Support Marion Jones

Postby Pego » Wed Jun 23, 2004 11:28 am

<The Games have a long history of individuals rising to the occasion and doing "the impossible." History shows that athletes "step it up a notch" in both the sprints and jumps every four years -- at sea level. Why wouldn't Mexico City be any different? In those days, when there were not many opportunities available - not anything like today or even since the beginning of the professional era in the early eighties.>

Paging Kuha.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby RMc » Wed Jun 23, 2004 1:25 pm

>>As for the conditions at Mexico City, note that in the men's TJ, the WR
>was
>broken several times during the competition by the various
>medalists,
>indicating that the conditions did affect the other horizontal
>jumps
>significantly.

Or back to William of Ockham, perhaps it was the
>event in itself, the Olympic Games, that provided the "conditions" for such
>greatness?

The Games have a long history of individuals rising to the
>occasion and doing "the impossible." History shows that athletes "step it up
>a notch" in both the sprints and jumps every four years -- at sea level. Why
>wouldn't Mexico City be any different? In those days, when there were not many
>opportunities available - not anything like today or even since the beginning
>of the professional era in the early eighties.

I'd like to see a
>statistical analysis of jumps at altitude vs sea level, with or without the
>"Olympic boost" to illustrate just how little altitude actually affects
>performance (non distance that is). I'd guess it's on the order of a couple
>inches, at most.

I'll leave it to you to produce those statistics, since you're offering the alternative hypothesis to the accepted wisdom on this issue. The Big Green Book differs with your perspective.

But as a counter, why weren't these WRs broken, or even approached in 1972 at Munich or 1976 at Montreal. Or for that matter, why not at Tokyo in 1964 or Rome in 1960? Mexico had multiple WRs in 3 different horizontal jump events. The competitive opportunities were still "limited" as the professional aspects of the sport really hadn't taken off yet.

I agree that the Olympics (and WCs) add an inspirational factor that increases the likelihood of a WR performance--MJ's 19.32 falls into that category. But one can't discount the effects at Mexico City on the sprints and jumps.
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: I Support Marion Jones

Postby RMc » Wed Jun 23, 2004 1:33 pm

>What distinguishes T&F from the American pro sports is that those
>running the
>sport actually still have some morals left. No they aren't
>perfect, but they
>do try to muddle through and do the right thing. On the
>other hand, the
>commissioners for baseball, football and basketball clearly and
>obviously are
>always making financial calculations every single time they open
>their
>mouths. The question is whether we want our sport to foresake
>the
>fundamental premise of our sport to increase the financial gain that
>will
>accrue to a few elite athletes and meet
>promoters?
--------------
Excusez moi??? Is this a joke?? No, you're not
>serious ... or are you? You really think that there is even so much as a shred
>of difference in the morality and honesty of track officials just because
>they're in your sport of choice?

I personally know many of the managers of the sport at various levels, and I've known many of them from long before they became high mucky-mucks. I've also had encounters with managers in other professional sports, although I do not know them well. However, I can say that there is a strong qualitative difference between the two groups in terms of their focus on the bottom line and what ethical limits they are willing to push. So I make this statement based on both my owm personal knowledge and on observing the actionis of the various sports leagues and associations. I can be cynical, but I won't let it cloud my judgement about specific instances.

If you can provide concrete examples of how they are identical in terms of the relative balancing of bottom line vs. ethical issues, then we have something to talk about, but right now all I see are unsubstantiated assertions. Perhaps mine are not easily quantified, but I am trying to be specific about what information I base my position on, rather than making gross generalizations.
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: I Support Marion Jones

Postby Runninghorse » Wed Jun 23, 2004 2:17 pm

If you can provide concrete examples of how they are
>identical in terms of the relative balancing of bottom line vs. ethical issues,
>then we have something to talk about, but right now all I see are
>unsubstantiated assertions. Perhaps mine are not easily quantified, but I am
>trying to be specific about what information I base my position on, rather than
>making gross generalizations.
----------------
Well, you are most certainly making gross generalization statements. You want concrete examples from me to counter your unsubstantiated generalizations that the people who run the "other" sports are somehow shadier than those who run track & field.
Runninghorse
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: I Support Marion Jones

Postby Mel » Wed Jun 23, 2004 2:42 pm

"Bob Beamon went from a 26 foot jumper to 29. Back in 68, I doubt if one could attribute that to drugs OR altitude (a racist theory)."

And how many times did he achieve that performance - ONE! Florence ran 10.49 with a suspect wind, and THREE other times which all convert to 10.66:

10.54 (+3.0)
10.61 (+1.2)
10.62 (+1.0)

She was one of the most remarkably consistent sprinters EVER, regardless of whether she used or not. That 10.49 probably had a wind of around 4-5 m/s placing it right in there with the other 3 runs. And like Angella Issajenko said in her interview with Jon, Marion would never have had a hope against Flo- nobody did.
Last edited by Mel on Wed Jun 23, 2004 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mel
 
Posts: 956
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby malmo » Wed Jun 23, 2004 8:04 pm

>I'll leave it to you to produce those statistics,
>since you're offering the alternative hypothesis to the accepted wisdom on this
>issue. The Big Green Book differs with your perspective.

I'm sure you are not listening, and while I don't subscribe to a Big Green Book, I'd bet there isn't much difference in perspective. Read what I said, Richard, not what you want to hear from me.

I'm saying that the effect of altitude on the jumps is much less than YOU think it is. Nothing more. Beamon just popped one, it just happened to be at altitude. Altitude is a dispassionate conspirator that doesn't play favorites. The effects aren't apportioned two feet for one and two inches (or less) for the rest.
Last edited by malmo on Thu Jun 24, 2004 7:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby tafnut » Thu Jun 24, 2004 4:30 am

"Beamon just popped one, it just happened to be at altitude."

Absolutely - 100% agree. Which is why we need to stop being so paranoid whenever someone 'pops' one. Some are dirty - but some are clean. Let's just hope that this BALCO catastrophe results in a cleaner (clean, itself, will never happen) sport.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby kuha » Thu Jun 24, 2004 4:51 am

"Paging Kuha."

Howdy, Pego...how are you doing? Sorry I haven't been minding my pager (or this thread)... Are you suggesting that I'd be embarrassed at the idea of athletes peaking for the Olympics? I'm not; obviously they do. I've never contested the fact that athletes and the public BOTH put enormous stock in the Olympics--everyone knows they do. My "critique," such as it is, deals with every OTHER issue of the Olympics... I (seriously) hope you have a good time at the OT...
kuha
 
Posts: 9035
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: I Support Marion Jones

Postby RMc » Thu Jun 24, 2004 8:27 am

---------------
Well, you are most certainly making
>gross generalization statements. You want concrete examples from me to counter
>your unsubstantiated generalizations that the people who run the "other"
>sports are somehow shadier than those who run track & field.

I'll start with the Bud Seligs, the baseball commissioner agreement with the players' union to avoid enforceable drug testing. He made that agreement to get a better financial deal on other issues. He has continually encouraged teams to leverage local cities by threatening to move to other cities.

Or the football commissioner, Paul Tagliabue, doing the same thing on football teams, approving the stealing away in the night from one city to the next. The NFL drug testing policy, while better than MLB's, is still an ineffective joke.

The sports page is rampant with tales of greed and underhandedness by owners of major league sports franchises. I don't see any of the same stories about USATF, not even in the TFN or other specialize press.

You began this conversation with broad unfounded generalizations. It's your burden to back them up. I've provided some evidence to the contrary, but you're the one who has slandered the USATF leadership, not me.
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby RMc » Thu Jun 24, 2004 8:38 am

>>I'll leave it to you to produce those statistics,
>since you're offering the
>alternative hypothesis to the accepted wisdom on this
>issue. The Big Green
>Book differs with your perspective.

I'm sure you are not listening, and
>while I don't subscribe to a Big Green Book, I'd bet there isn't much
>difference in perspective. Read what I said, Richard, not what you want to hear
>from me.

I'm saying that the effect of altitude on the jumps is much less
>than YOU think it is. Nothing more. Beamon just popped one, it just happened to
>be at altitude. Altitude is a dispassionate conspirator that doesn't play
>favorites. The effects aren't apportioned two feet for one and two inches (or
>less) for the rest.

Perhaps you should read more carefully what I said. I never said how much of an advantage Beamon got from the altitude--you assumed that I claimed the entire 21". I do know that the TJ WR was improved 5 times by 3 men in that meet by a total of 13". That's within the order of magnitude in improvement. That seems to support my hypothesis that a significant portion of Beamon's improvement is attributable to altitude and wind. I haven't and won't try to quantify "significant", just so that you won't try to read something more than what I actually said. And yes, Beamon popped one, as I said in another post (which you apparently didn't read.) The question, which neither of us can answer, is how much of that was from the local conditions versus his breakthrough performance. You're looking for the single explanation, but that's not the case here.
Last edited by RMc on Thu Jun 24, 2004 8:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby malmo » Thu Jun 24, 2004 9:32 am

<<You're looking for the single explanation, but that's not the case here

ARRRRRH! No I'm not.

I'm surprised long jump coaches, or at least our resident physicists haven't weighed in yet. Since I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once I'll start it.

Richard. The physics of it. There are two factors involved in the flight during the long jump 1) horizontal velocity and 2) trajectory angle. Altitude can only influence the velocity. By how much? Considering that running the 100 meters you'd expect, at most, one tenth of a second improvement in velocity, which is only a one percent benefit. This works out to only 3 inches. Citing that the WR in the triple jump was broken 5 times doesn't change that fact. It only proves it was a hell of a competition.

There are many red herrings along the way, including the change in the acceleration of gravity due to altitude (Ga) which is a negligible difference represented by the formula (Ga/Gs)=(Rs/Ra)^2. Gs is 9.8m/s^2, radius (Rs) of the earth is approx 6400km, at Mexico City 6600km. It's actually a little more complicated than that because the Earth is not a sphere - the equatorial radius is a tiny bit larger than the polar radius- but that's all academic. Geophysicists have complicated formulas to take in account for everything (using both latitude and altitude as variables). You'd have to stay at Holiday Inn Express a whole week to understand it though. The end result is: altitude has a negligible effect on G.

Still waiting on the long jump experts to step in, or perhaps one of the Level, I,II, III certified geniuses? Just a superficial research I came up with stats that shows the angle of trajectory of Mike Powell's WR was about 25 degrees, compared with Carl Lewis's of 21 degrees (faster Velocity of course). Whether accurate or not, I read that in Bob Beamons WR in Mexico City the angle of trajectory was 35 freakin degrees!

Like I said, he popped one. One for the ages.

Get the long jump coaches and physicists in here to do clean up for me. Thank you.
Last edited by malmo on Thu Jun 24, 2004 9:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Beamon's jump

Postby Pego » Thu Jun 24, 2004 9:33 am

<I (seriously) hope you have a good time at the OT... >

Does this mean you won't be there?
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest