Has she born children? If she's born children and they have the right number of fingers and toes, then she's all right by me. She was no less buff than Mutola or Gaines, and we don't have any problem with their times.
I've stood next her many times. Totally different than those two. Steve was correct. Read the article, if it's the one blacklily posted on iaaf I believe it says she retired because of serious health issues. Wonder why that would be? She also says she trained harder than athlete's do now. Wonder how that would be possible? All womens records should be chucked and we should just start again.
>oh give me a break ... you've stood next to her?
>How's that? Do you live in the Czech republic or
Redondo Beach, CA, actually. I competed in Europe in the 1970-80's smartass. She was bloody scary looking. If you think those records aren't tainted you're a fool. Haven't you heard of the Stasi files liberated from the FRG?
>marknhj is correct. Mutola was built like that
>when she was 17. She is clean.
Mutola might be clean, but I'm not so sure "she's" all woman.
Kratochvilova was in LA for an indoor meet back in the 80's. She was freaky looking in person, but Valerie Briscoe Hooks was even worse - she ended up looking so "mannish" by 85 - 87 it was scary. Her problem was that her ... supplementation went overboard, and she became too heavy. Unfortunately, the sport has been loaded with drug abusers for decades, and the athletes that are hyper responders to drugs really stand out "looks wise".
Let's not forgot FloJo....she was always a decent sprinter, then she retired, then she came out of retirement for one year, and blew away all the sprint records, and then she retired again....if you believe in tainted records, then you can add hers to the list.
In any case (ok, maybe you
>did, but stood next to her many times?), why
>would she have reason to lie, especially at this
Wow, your dumb! She has every reason to lie, heres one - so she can keep one of the oldest records in Track. As far as marknhj is concerned tell me what reason does he have to lie, to impress the few people who participate in these boards. Get a clue.
just to clarify my sarcastic Wonder "what" comment, I believe she is a female, we are not talking about a Stellla Walsh deal. But she was so obviously totally juiced that she looked like the Incredible Hulk. It's just a fact that steroids for women makes them look more masculine, and less feminine. And she was no super-femme beauty queen to start with. On a completely personal level she may very well be happily married with children, etc.
My only point is she was the EXTREME example of a Drugged up eastern Euro female athlete. Plus she seemed a bit on the "mannish" side anyway. Makes her an easy target, but the drug part is the only things that's justified. The rest is her life, nobody else's.
Just wondering- is it true that the officials started doing some kind of "inspection" for gender-specific areas in the mid-60's, and that Tamara and Irena Press (dominant throwers for USSR) abruptly "retired" at that time? Do they (I assume Olympic doctors) conduct some sort of "package inspection" for female athletes? Forgive my ignorance, I just seem to remember hearing/reading about this sort of thing (I assume nowadys that one could do a DNA test- which brings up the question of xxy "females", etc.).
Also, anyone else remember Dr. Richards, the transgender tennis player of about 25 years ago?
Noticed that the article mentions Carl Lewis' drug test failures. Totally unnecessary since the article was about Jarmila Kratochvilova. Guess they were preparing for a shift the blame type defense in case the drug issue was raised with her.
>Just wondering- is it true that the officials
>started doing some kind of "inspection" for
>gender-specific areas in the mid-60's, and that
>Tamara and Irena Press (dominant throwers for
>USSR) abruptly "retired" at that time? Do they
>(I assume Olympic doctors) conduct some sort of
>"package inspection" for female athletes?
>Forgive my ignorance, I just seem to remember
>hearing/reading about this sort of thing (I
>assume nowadys that one could do a DNA test-
>which brings up the question of xxy "females",
From what I know, it's the other way around: in the 1960s, they carried out DNA tests to determine who was or wasn't a woman, but after a couple of athletes got banned, they decided these tests weren't reliable enough (precisely for the reason you mention - somewomen are not straight XX types, but they are women nonetheless) and decided a visual inspection is the only way to tell.
I think I also read somewhere that sex tests were recently abandoned altogether...