I Support Marion Jones

[malmo]

>Look at the top-10 list for the LJ in
>1968. Half of the jumps are altitude assisted. Are you trying to say that
>altitude doesn't assist performance??

MALMO SEZ: And ALL of the OLYMPICS were at altitude? Coincidence? No one ever claimed altitude doesn't assist, just not by the degree that others claim it does. That's been the point of my contention in this entire thread.


Look at Heike Drechsler - in '92 she
>had very similar conditions to Beamon in Mexico. She had +2.1 wind (although
>many people say it was 2.0, but that's another story) and 2000m+ of altitude,
>and she jumped 7.63m - 15cm than she had ever jumped before.

MALMO SEZ: 15cm. Yup, almost exactly by the amount that I, and by extension Jonas' calculator, says it does. No news here.

[tafnut]

I also contend that since athletes THINK that altitude helps a great deal, they go there looking for PR's (even more than a win, sometimes) and that mind-set certainly helps.

[RMc]

The 20 cm is about the max
>I'd concede. Jonas calculations show about a 1.4 percent increase in Hv
>accounting for both altitude and wind -- or 11.66cm - Beamons improvement over
>his PR was 57cm. 11.66/57 = 20.45 percent ambient conditions, 79.54 percent
>mojo.

Looking at Roberty Emmiyan's improvement from 8.61 to 8.86A, it appears that the attributable increase is about 25 cm. That's 45% of Beamon's WR improvement.

I still have not seen ANY evidence presented that somehow the Olympics induce such an extraordinary performance on a consistent basis. The cluster of extraordinary performances that withstood improvement for many years in Mexico City argues that the local conditions were extraordindary and had a significant hand in boosting those performances. The statistics undermine the physical explanations.

As for Runninghorse's orignal post, I will concede that I misread his post because the rest of his post was about how performances were drug enhanced. Surprisingly, I can admit my errors, unlike other certain individuals....

[JRM]

>I still have not seen ANY evidence
>presented that somehow the Olympics induce such an extraordinary performance
>on a consistent basis. The cluster of extraordinary performances that
>withstood improvement for many years in Mexico City argues that the local
>conditions were extraordindary and had a significant hand in boosting those
>performances. The statistics undermine the physical explanations.

There is a very simple explanation, and it is very physical. First off, the air is thinner due to altitude (about 80% sea level density), as has been discussed here. True, altitude alone will not affect the performances that much (about 0.06s for Mexico City). However, the sprints were run with close to 2m/s winds, and those effects *are* significant, especially when combined with altitude. A 2m/s wind assists a sprinter about 0.1s at sea level, but up to 0.14s at 2200m. The effects for the 200m are even greater (explaining those outrageous results too).

Thirdly: heat and humidity play a factor. If it's very hot and very humid, the air density drops even more, and it's almost as if you're at a higher altitude than the "real" one.

By the way: there are no venues at 6600m. Generally Mexico city is as high as you get for international competition (about 2.2km).

I've heard a story that Beamon's record was actually wind-assisted, but the officials were confused about the record-keeping. Anything over 2m/s they were recording *as* 2m/s. Not sure if there is any truth to this or not, but if so then it would certainly help explain the magnitude of the jump.

[malmo]

>I still have not seen ANY evidence
>presented that somehow the Olympics induce such an extraordinary performance
>on a consistent basis.

STUDY OLMYPIC HISTORY, IT'S FULL OF EXAMPLES.

The cluster of extraordinary performances that
>withstood improvement for many years in Mexico City argues that the local
>conditions were extraordindary and had a significant hand in boosting those
>performances. The statistics undermine the physical explanations.

THERE WAS NO MONEY (to speak of) TO BE MADE BETWEEN OLYMPIC YEARS, THUS NO INCENTIVE LIKE IT WAS DURING THE OLYMPICS.


>Surprisingly, I can admit my errors, unlike other certain individuals....

THERE ARE NO ERRORS OF FACT OR REASONING IN MY POSTS. THERE WERE IN YOURS. As it were, you didn't admit to error, it was pointed out to you.

ENOUGH OF THIS.

[Shanks]

Interesting data Jon re the Mexico LJ results - where did you obtain it?

[malmo]

True, altitude alone will not
>affect the performances that much (about 0.06s for Mexico City). However, the
>sprints were run with close to 2m/s winds, and those effects *are* significant,
>especially when combined with altitude. A 2m/s wind assists a sprinter about
>0.1s at sea level, but up to 0.14s at 2200m.

The 0.14s figure included both components of [1]altitude (0.076s) and [2] +2.0m/s wind at altitude (0.067s). As I surmised earilier (which was verified by Jonas' calculator), wind as a lower effect at altitude (0.067 for 2.0m/s at 2200m) than it does at sea level (0.10 for 2.0m/s at 2200m), not more, as you just suggested.

[JRM]

>True, altitude alone will not
>affect the performances that much (about 0.06s
>for Mexico City). However, the
>sprints were run with close to 2m/s winds,
>and those effects *are* significant,
>especially when combined with altitude.
>A 2m/s wind assists a sprinter about
>0.1s at sea level, but up to 0.14s at
>t 2200m.

The 0.14s figure included both components of [1]altitude (0.076s)
>and [2] +2.0m/s wind at altitude (0.067s). As I surmised earilier (which was
>verified by Jonas' calculator), wind as a lower effect at altitude (0.067 for
>2.0m/s at 2200m) than it does at sea level (0.10 for 2.0m/s at 2200m), not
>more, as you just suggested.

What I meant was that the *combined* effect of wind+altitude are greater than just wind + no altitude. It depends on how you want to look at it. But, yes, your statement is essentially correct too.

[malmo]

>What I meant was that
>the *combined* effect of wind+altitude are greater than just wind + no
>altitude.

I figured is was a misstatement but couldn't be sure. Just as I figured you read the entire thread and had seen I had already addressed the confusion between the "6600m altitude" and "6600km Earth's radius."

[RMc]

>
>I still have not seen ANY evidence
>presented that somehow the Olympics
>induce such an extraordinary performance
>on a consistent basis.

STUDY
>OLMYPIC HISTORY, IT'S FULL OF EXAMPLES.

OK, name several that are as UNIQUE as Beamon's, and then demonstrate that these are much more likely to occur in the Olympics than in other competitions.

The cluster of extraordinary
>performances that
>withstood improvement for many years in Mexico City argues
>that the local
>conditions were extraordindary and had a significant hand in
>boosting those
>performances. The statistics undermine the physical
>explanations.

THERE WAS NO MONEY (to speak of) TO BE MADE BETWEEN OLYMPIC
>YEARS, THUS NO INCENTIVE LIKE IT WAS DURING THE OLYMPICS.

Then why wasn't there a similar cluster of such performances in 1960, 1964 and 1972 when the same conditions held. Your logic is clearly flawed here.


>Surprisingly, I
>can admit my errors, unlike other certain individuals....

THERE ARE NO
>ERRORS OF FACT OR REASONING IN MY POSTS. THERE WERE IN YOURS. As it were, you
>didn't admit to error, it was pointed out to you.

Hmmm, never made a mistake in any of your postings over the many years. That's an interesting claim....

BTW, admitting error doesn't have a requirement that the error be self-discovered; those are two different conditions.

[Jon]

>Interesting data Jon re the Mexico LJ results - where did you obtain it?


One of the best stats sites on the web:
http://trackfield.brinkster.net/main.asp

The 1968 LJ info was on this page of the site:
http://trackfield.brinkster.net/results ... =1891-1900

[malmo]

Then why wasn't there a similar cluster of such performances in
>1960, 1964 and 1972 when the same conditions held. Your logic is clearly
>flawed here.

Clearly not. Just comparing 1968 to 1972, and using my (and Jonas) really conservative 0.76 percent altitude benefit factor to equalize the two events (and leaving in the effect for wind), it appears that the events are quite similar.

1968 TJ (minus .76% for altitude in parentheses, we'll leave the wind in)
1968
1 Viktor Saneyev URS 17.39 WR (17.26)
2 Nelson Prudencio BRA 17.27 (17.14)...
3 Giuseppe Gentile ITA 17.22 (17.09)
4 Art Walker USA 17.12 (16.99)
5 Nikolay Dudkin URS 17.09 (16.96)
6 Phil May AUS 17.02 (16.89)

1972 TJ
1 Viktor Saneyev URS 17.35
2 Jörg Drehmel GDR 17.31
3 Nelson Prudencio BRA 17.05
4 Carol Corbu ROM 16.85
5 John Craft USA 16.83
6 Mansour Dia Ba SEN 16.83

Comparison to 1972 (after adjustment for altitude)
1 -0.09m (-0.52%)
2 -0.17 (-0.99%)
3 +0.04 (+0.23%)
4 +0.14 (+0.82%)
5 +0.13 (+0.77%)
6 +0.06 (+0.36%)

1968 LJ (minus .76% for altitude)
1 Bob Beamon USA 8.90 WR (8.83)
2 Klaus Beer GDR 8.19 (8.13)
3 Ralph Boston USA 8.16 (8.10)
4 Igor Ter-Ovanesyan URS 8.12 (8.06)
5 Tonu Lepik URS 8.09 (8.03)
6 Alan Crawley AUS 8.02 (7.96)

1972 LJ
1 Randy Williams USA 8.24
2 Hans Baumgartner FRG 8.18
3 Arnie Robinson USA 8.03
4 Joshua Owusu GHA 8.01
5 Preston Carrington USA 7.99
6 Max Klauss GDR 7.96

Comparison to 1972 (after adjustment for altitude)
1 +0.59m (+6.64%)
2 -0.05 (-0.62%)
3 +0.07 (+0.86%)
4 +0.05 (+0.62%)
5 +0.04 (+0.50%)
6 even

[RMc]

>Then why wasn't there a similar cluster of such performances in
>1960, 1964
>and 1972 when the same conditions held. Your logic is clearly
>flawed
>here.

Listing of LJ and TJ results doesn't answer the question. Your assertion was that the Olympics create conditions where superlative performances occur on a regular basis in MANY events. At Mexico City, the men's WRs were set for the 100, 200, 400, 800, LJ, and TJ. Except for the 800 and TJ, each of these records stood for at least 10 years (and the 200 record was broken at Mexico City again). I know of no such previous or subsequent cluster of such records until the 1993 Chinese National Games (and that's an issue in itself.)

(edit: Add in the women's WRs at 100, 200 and LJ-coincidence?)

Also, as has been discussed here, for at least 2 reasons, the Mexico City LJ results were greatly deflated: a demoralized field after Beamon's opening jump and the onset of rain. The TJ was on the verge of a technical revolution lead by the greatest TJer in history, Saneyev. Mexico City was his coming out party.

[kuha]

Was Saneyev part of the Fab Five??

[RMc]

Looking at the WR progressions in the TJ and LJ, two other facts jump out:

17.89 Joao Carlos de Oliveira BRA Mexico City Oct 15, 1975

Broke the WR by 45 cm or 17 3/4", and the record stood for 10 years. Yet another "altitude" coincidence?

The LJ WR has been set in spurts over the last century. (This has nothing to do with rest of the thread.) Broken a dozen times in 1898 to 1901, then stood until 1921, then numerous WRs until 1931, then Owens 15 cm improvement that stood 25 years, then a bunch from 1961 to 1968, then nothing until 1991. I'm not aware of any other men's event that is so streaky.

[Sprintstatman]

Mexico City was also the first OG held on what we would recognise as a modern synthetic track. This was also the first generation of baby-boomer athletes - Hines, Greene, Carlos, Smith, Evans, Beamon, James and so on were an exceptional group who set new standards away from altitude as well.

[highjumpsteve]

>Mexico City was also the first OG held on what we would recognise as a modern
>synthetic track. This was also the first generation of baby-boomer athletes -
>Hines, Greene, Carlos, Smith, Evans, Beamon, James and so on were an
>exceptional group who set new standards away from altitude as well.

good point to raise about the first OG on a synthetic track, no one had brought that out before.

We'll never know, but if these games had been held at a lower altitude the results would have still been spectacular with multiple WR's, just not quite as spectacular. And Doubell's =WR @ 800 probably was hurt by the altitude, not helped. Beamon in the 28's, Saneyev in the 56's, Hemery high 48's, 1600 relay for sure under 2:59, etc.

[kuha]

...And Keino at what?...3:32...or 3:36 (and losing)?...

[highjumpsteve]

>...And Keino at what?...3:32...or 3:36 (and losing)?...

Keino would have still won.... his time ? for sure a WR or at worse under 3:34, all IMHO of course.

[tafnut]

The '67 Ryun would have won, but the '68 version was beatable. Ironically enough, I bet the time would have been the same at sea level, and Keino's early break would have held off the hard-charging Ryun again. Interesting to speculate.

[MJD]

moreover, do you think
>that the balco related documents were forgeries?

Maybe someone will try to argue that "even if they are forgeries, the substance of them is accurate".

[Mel]

<<Maybe someone will try to argue that "even if they are forgeries, the substance of them is accurate".>>

LOL!

While I don't buy the Marionette argument, we still don't have the nose measurement results.

[Mel]

"even if they are forgeries, the substance of them is accurate".

They may be for juries which we trust will be composed of substantive jurors, and without substances which could interfere with the substantiation of evidence. Even if they are fake, the sub-text of the argument is without fallacy.

[MJD]

http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discuss ... ght=#67950


Above was thread after MJ slammed USADA. She may want to revise and extend some of her remarks:

""I am not going to engage in the United States Anti-Doping Agency's secret kangaroo court. I will answer questions in a public forum that will be open for the entire world to see, hear and evaluate," Jones said in a statement released to The Associated Press.

"I will answer all the questions USADA is asking of me for the third time. However, this time I will not answer them in secret and behind closed doors. I will answer them in public in the light of day so the world can hear the questions, hear my responses, see the information and see for themselves that I am telling the truth," she said.

"We can answer these questions before the United States Senate, which has shown an interest in this matter, or some other public forum modeled after a judicial proceeding.""


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/ ... 3257.shtml