Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: shiftedShapes on September 13, 2007, 11:27:30 AM

Title: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: shiftedShapes on September 13, 2007, 11:27:30 AM
(http://www.chroniclejournal.com/includes/CP_stories/63/63573.jpg)

Asafa looks great...what do you guys think he is stacking?
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: donrhummy on September 13, 2007, 11:31:45 AM
(http://www.chroniclejournal.com/includes/CP_stories/63/63573.jpg)

Asafa looks great...what do you guys think he is stacking?

Oh no he's completely natural. That's why he beat ben johnson's time.  ::)
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: El Diablo Blanco on September 13, 2007, 11:33:53 AM
damn he can sure run fast.  Whatever he's on will be known in a year or two from now as the next big drug that athletes took to cheat.  Probably same shit A-Rod is on.
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: Knives on September 13, 2007, 11:35:59 AM
He claims to be natural for obvious reasons...
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: WOOO on September 13, 2007, 11:36:46 AM
GH and non-ester gells
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: HUTCH on September 13, 2007, 11:37:56 AM
A friend I ran with in college now runs for the Canadian National team and he tells that most sprinters are using a lot af anavar and halo and of course GH....
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: shiftedShapes on September 13, 2007, 11:39:10 AM
GH and non-ester gells

makes sense
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: WOOO on September 13, 2007, 11:43:55 AM
one way or the other... i think steroids to sprinting is like steroids to home run hitting

you are either born fast or you're not... steroids might make you 3-5% better but the other 95-97% is natural talent
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: HUTCH on September 13, 2007, 11:45:19 AM
But dont think its impossible to run sub 10 sec or be a world champion without juice...Look here at my teamate from college Kim Collins...He won the world championships and has run under 10 many times and he has never even touched protien!!!!  This guy use to come to practice in cutoff jean shorts do half the workout and leave...hahah...Skinny as hell and weak as hell in the weight room...no joke he would do curls with 10 lbs and be bitchin how is arms hurt...Pure talent...
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: WOOO on September 13, 2007, 11:48:26 AM
sfast
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: Hunter86 on September 13, 2007, 11:49:34 AM
But dont think its impossible to run sub 10 sec or be a world champion without juice...Look here at my teamate from college Kim Collins...He won the world championships and has run under 10 many times and he has never even touched protien!!!!  This guy use to come to practice in cutoff jean shorts do half the workout and leave...hahah...Skinny as hell and weak as hell in the weight room...no joke he would do curls with 10 lbs and be bitchin how is arms hurt...Pure talent...

damn look at those chicken legs
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: SteelePegasus on September 13, 2007, 11:50:07 AM
one way or the other... i think steroids to sprinting is like steroids to home run hitting

you are either born fast or you're not... steroids might make you 3-5% better but the other 95-97% is natural talent

true, but that 3% is the difference between winning a gold medal...and being a highschool gym teacher
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: shiftedShapes on September 13, 2007, 11:55:29 AM
damn look at those chicken legs


More like ostrich legs...look at their length relative to his torso, some people are just built for this sh1t
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: WOOO on September 13, 2007, 11:56:29 AM
true, but that 3% is the difference between winning a gold medal...and being a highschool gym teacher


maybe  8)
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: Bluto on September 13, 2007, 11:57:46 AM
possible without drugs? maybe
possible without being black? never
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: WOOO on September 13, 2007, 12:00:39 PM
possible without drugs? maybe
possible without being black? never


thread owned ;D
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: SteelePegasus on September 13, 2007, 12:07:51 PM
But dont think its impossible to run sub 10 sec or be a world champion without juice...Look here at my teamate from college Kim Collins...He won the world championships and has run under 10 many times and he has never even touched protien!!!!  This guy use to come to practice in cutoff jean shorts do half the workout and leave...hahah...Skinny as hell and weak as hell in the weight room...no joke he would do curls with 10 lbs and be bitchin how is arms hurt...Pure talent...

but if he took gear..he might not be a "nobody"

one day kevin powell (sp) was a  nobody...next day he breaks the long jump distance..become a millionare

oddly enough he never approached that distance again..makes you wonder what he did different for that event ;)
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: biceps on September 13, 2007, 12:16:36 PM
A friend I ran with in college now runs for the Canadian National team and he tells that most sprinters are using a lot af anavar and halo and of course GH....

GH and 5 IU Insulin (man)
GH and 3 IU Insulin (women)
4 times per week.


Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: WOOO on September 13, 2007, 12:16:49 PM
i don't think you believe that... it still takes years of dedicated training and eating and shiting  :)
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: SteelePegasus on September 13, 2007, 12:20:16 PM
i don't think you believe that... it still takes years of dedicated training and eating and shiting  :)

no one ever said that it didn't take hard work and superior genetics..

all we are saying is that a 3% improvement is the difference between being celebrated on Jay Leno and watching at home while eating a bowl of cereal as you multi-tasking by posting on getbig..waiting for your mother to tell you to turn off the TV.
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: WOOO on September 13, 2007, 12:21:39 PM
agree
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: musclehedz on September 13, 2007, 12:31:08 PM
Believe it or not, steroids can easily make you like 25/40% faster/bigger etc. Depends on genetics and all the other stuff around it. Try it out and see.

Ah well as long as you know how to beat the stupid doping tests you are "clean"
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: Parker on September 13, 2007, 12:36:23 PM
They have also been "speeding up" the tracks in an effort to erase Ben Johnson's Record. Much to the dismay of long distance runners. If Ben were running on the tracks today, using the same shit he used back then, 9.74 would easily be in his pocket, if not quicker than that. Ben was so far ahead of his time, that took till 21st century for his record to be broken.
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: SteelePegasus on September 13, 2007, 12:42:42 PM
They have also been "speeding up" the tracks in an effort to erase Ben Johnson's Record. Much to the dismay of long distance runners. If Ben were running on the tracks today, using the same shit he used back then, 9.74 would easily be in his pocket, if not quicker than that. Ben was so far ahead of his time, that took till 21st century for his record to be broken.

Ben's problem is that he was too good..he looked too good..dude was muscular and ripped for a runner.
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: shiftedShapes on September 13, 2007, 12:48:49 PM
They have also been "speeding up" the tracks in an effort to erase Ben Johnson's Record. Much to the dismay of long distance runners. If Ben were running on the tracks today, using the same shit he used back then, 9.74 would easily be in his pocket, if not quicker than that. Ben was so far ahead of his time, that took till 21st century for his record to be broken.

this makes a lot of sense.  I think they made a big fuss about Ben because they were trying to make it seem like they were intollerant of doping. 
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: ieffinhatecardio on September 13, 2007, 12:49:08 PM
one way or the other... i think steroids to sprinting is like steroids to home run hitting

you are either born fast or you're not... steroids might make you 3-5% better but the other 95-97% is natural talent

Brady Anderson doesn't agree with you. PEDs aren't going to make a bad ballplayer a good ballplayer but they will add homerun power to someone that didn't have much of it before. Add 30-40' to a lot of routine fly balls and many of them turn into homeruns.
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: Hedgehog on September 13, 2007, 12:50:40 PM
but if he took gear..he might not be a "nobody"

one day kevin powell (sp) was a  nobody...next day he breaks the long jump distance..become a millionare

oddly enough he never approached that distance again..makes you wonder what he did different for that event ;)

Kim Collins isn't a nobody.

He's won the world championships.
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: WOOO on September 13, 2007, 12:51:07 PM
one way or the other i like homeruns and fast sprints... who cares if they use drugs  :)
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: SteelePegasus on September 13, 2007, 12:51:16 PM
the bigger issue is..has the men 100m reached the human limit?

we now celebrate shaving off 1/1000th of a second
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: dr.chimps on September 13, 2007, 12:55:33 PM
Ben's problem is that he was too good..he looked too good..dude was muscular and ripped for a runner.
Not an exception. Most sprinters, especially the black dudes, have great muscularity. Comes with the type of body, and muscle fibre, that that can run that fast.

/i'd be crossing 50m as the winners crossed the tape   :'( 
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: WOOO on September 13, 2007, 12:59:06 PM
the bigger issue is..has the men 100m reached the human limit?

we now celebrate shaving off 1/1000th of a second



some guys at MIT calculated that the maximum human potential was something like 8 seconds...   i am trying to find that study now
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: SteelePegasus on September 13, 2007, 01:09:21 PM
Not an exception. Most sprinters, especially the black dudes, have great muscularity. Comes with the type of body, and muscle fibre, that that can run that fast.

/i'd be crossing 50m as the winners crossed the tape   :'( 


dude, this was in the 80s, before sprinters had muscles,

sprinters didn't weight train back then..they were all skinny..in context of other sprinters at the time he was a "beast"

(http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040813/oly19.jpg)

(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39477000/jpg/_39477232_johnson270.jpg)
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: affy on September 13, 2007, 01:11:47 PM


some guys at MIT calculated that the maximum human potential was something like 8 seconds...   i am trying to find that study now

LMAO holy shit...im guessing every single variable (temperature, moisture and other stupid insignificant things) has to be perfect to achieve that...which in reality just wont happen
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: Ursus on September 13, 2007, 01:19:07 PM
Whilst i am not niave to think taht the top sprinters dont take drugs.

Although it is against the olympic ethic it would be interesting to see a blatant drug abused 100m to see them run 9.4 etc same with other events this would make it more interesting in my eyes having both but would runi sports
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: Hedgehog on September 13, 2007, 01:24:49 PM
Jim Hines ran a 10.03 in 1964. He did it on an old pre-rubber surface track.

I think we can assume he was clean, despite all the steroids that was sooo available at that time. ::)



My point is that running fast is possible for natural athletes. And also, that despite what everyone thinks, the 100 meters hasn't developed much in 30 years.

Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: shiftedShapes on September 13, 2007, 01:30:17 PM
Whilst i am not niave to think taht the top sprinters dont take drugs.

Although it is against the olympic ethic it would be interesting to see a blatant drug abused 100m to see them run 9.4 etc same with other events this would make it more interesting in my eyes having both but would runi sports

why would it ruin sports?  I think it would make them a lot more interesting and honnest.
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: WOOO on September 13, 2007, 01:31:27 PM
Jim Hines ran a 10.03 in 1964. He did it on an old pre-rubber surface track.

I think we can assume he was clean, despite all the steroids that was sooo available at that time. ::)



My point is that running fast is possible for natural athletes. And also, that despite what everyone thinks, the 100 meters hasn't developed much in 30 years.




bump!
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: disco_stu on September 13, 2007, 01:33:31 PM
possible without drugs? maybe
possible without being black? never

i think this pretty much sums it up.

these guys get tested dozens of times in competition, in season, out of season and most of them barely improve year in year out- with many slightly getting slower every year.

personally i think olympic level athletics is pretty clean...the risks are very high. in fact dare i say it but its the US athletes that seem to be the regularly caught cheats.

when a guy's 100m sprinting goes from nowhere man to WR then alarm bells sound. Asafa has been around the mark for year. Gatlin, Montgomery, Johnson (Ben not Mike), Chambers all came from finalists (and even non finalists) to improve .3-.5 within a very short time after years of also running...all of them got busted.

lewis, johnson (mike), cal smith, wariner, burrel etc were always around the mark and were gun athletes straight from juniors.

the jury is still out on Tyson Gay..its a shame that an athlete should be under scrutiny.

flo jo ruined it for the women and women's sprinting..period.

even marion jones got done.

hard to find a US athlete that hasnt cheated actually.

a real shame.

Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: Bluto on September 13, 2007, 01:33:54 PM
ben was a beast.
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: onlyme on September 13, 2007, 01:36:54 PM
Bob Hayes was awesome.  Being the fastest human and great football player this guy was built like a bodybuilder.  He was awesome
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: disco_stu on September 13, 2007, 01:37:04 PM

dude, this was in the 80s, before sprinters had muscles,

sprinters didn't weight train back then..they were all skinny..in context of other sprinters at the time he was a "beast"

(http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040813/oly19.jpg)

(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39477000/jpg/_39477232_johnson270.jpg)

rubbish. weight training has been part of the sprinter's regimen since the early 60s. FYI Ben weighed a massive 74 kg (175lb) at 5'10''. hardly a beast.

Asafa Powell is 6'3'' and weighs 200..

Christie was 6'2'' and weighed 204.

perhaps the biggest factor is how lean they are on the day of the comp.



asafa powell weighs in at around
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: disco_stu on September 13, 2007, 01:39:43 PM


some guys at MIT calculated that the maximum human potential was something like 8 seconds...   i am trying to find that study now

as always, human potential has to be based on the findings of the day and the science of the day...both of which will be obselete next year.

so perhaps that study can say that it is 8 seconds based on what we know today.
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: dr.chimps on September 13, 2007, 01:46:22 PM
rubbish. weight training has been part of the sprinter's regimen since the early 60s. FYI Ben weighed a massive 74 kg (175lb) at 5'10''. hardly a beast.
Really!? I remember watching the finals where he won gold and just being knocked out by his muscularity. Now almost 20 years later, and looking at the above photos, he looks nothing like I remember him, almost small even.  :-\
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: Parker on September 13, 2007, 02:23:07 PM


some guys at MIT calculated that the maximum human potential was something like 8 seconds...   i am trying to find that study now

That might changed in 15 years, as tracks get faster, and shoe technology gets better,  the times will drop. And that is not factoring in the human element. I couldn't even say what would be tops, but I think faster than 8 seconds.

At this time in the early 70's nobody thought a 9.74 was possible. And back in the 60's, stating that a 9.74 was possible would get you laughed out of room.
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: musclehedz on September 13, 2007, 03:05:18 PM
i think this pretty much sums it up.

these guys get tested dozens of times in competition, in season, out of season and most of them barely improve year in year out- with many slightly getting slower every year.

personally i think olympic level athletics is pretty clean...the risks are very high. in fact dare i say it but its the US athletes that seem to be the regularly caught cheats.

when a guy's 100m sprinting goes from nowhere man to WR then alarm bells sound. Asafa has been around the mark for year. Gatlin, Montgomery, Johnson (Ben not Mike), Chambers all came from finalists (and even non finalists) to improve .3-.5 within a very short time after years of also running...all of them got busted.

lewis, johnson (mike), cal smith, wariner, burrel etc were always around the mark and were gun athletes straight from juniors.

the jury is still out on Tyson Gay..its a shame that an athlete should be under scrutiny.

flo jo ruined it for the women and women's sprinting..period.

even marion jones got done.

hard to find a US athlete that hasnt cheated actually.

a real shame.



Tell this story to a professional sports doctor, he would laugh so badly. There are loads of chemical masks avalible to cover up any substance.
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: Knives on September 13, 2007, 03:13:55 PM
possible without drugs? maybe
possible without being black? never

I also have to agree

If you really think about it, will drugs really help that much in sprinting?  Most of the sprinters have physiques that are attainable naturally, and their strength in the weight room is attainable without drugs.  I've seen a video of Asafa Powell, the guy who just broke the record, training and he was doing benches and squats in the mid 200s.  Hardly unattainable naturally.

However, 55 men in history have run under 10 seconds and they all were black except 1 man, who was of native Australian descent, and he only ran sub-10 once.
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: mesmorph78 on September 13, 2007, 04:11:43 PM
asafa fastest man in the world...


thats how we jamaicans do... from such a small island and we have prduced some of the worlds greatest sprinters... overall america dominate sprinting .. but at the olympics then come jamaica..
genetics baby
 ;D ;D
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: affy on September 13, 2007, 04:16:56 PM
asafa fastest man in the world...


thats how we jamaicans do... from such a small island and we have prduced some of the worlds greatest sprinters... overall america dominate sprinting .. but at the olympics then come jamaica..
genetics baby
 ;D ;D

seriously you guys don't even have to lift a weight and have an amazing physique.  The ones who do lift weights eat jerk chicken and mango juice once a day and supplement with a beef patty post workout, and still end up being 190+ lean

wtf gives...its not fair!
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: Alex23 on September 13, 2007, 04:22:59 PM
true, but that 3% is the difference between winning a gold medal...and being a highschool gym teacher

..or being your office's VB .NET / Excel solution resident expert.
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: mesmorph78 on September 13, 2007, 04:23:25 PM
lol.... its the sun man..  8)
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: pumpster on September 13, 2007, 05:01:44 PM
one way or the other... i think steroids to sprinting is like steroids to home run hitting

you are either born fast or you're not... steroids might make you 3-5% better but the other 95-97% is natural talent

What he's neglected to mention because he doesn't get it is that the 3-5% makes all the difference in the world LOL
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: pumpster on September 13, 2007, 05:02:36 PM
possible without drugs? maybe
possible without being black? never

the best in the world's not possible now without drugs.
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: pumpster on September 13, 2007, 05:04:43 PM
i don't think you believe that... it still takes years of dedicated training and eating and shiting  :)

1-2-3 for wooo's brilliance in stating the obvious...

DUH
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: pumpster on September 13, 2007, 05:06:01 PM
They have also been "speeding up" the tracks in an effort to erase Ben Johnson's Record. Much to the dismay of long distance runners. If Ben were running on the tracks today, using the same shit he used back then, 9.74 would easily be in his pocket, if not quicker than that. Ben was so far ahead of his time, that took till 21st century for his record to be broken.

Agreed about the track but it's not because of Johnson it's just advances in technology and composites.

He was impressive but if Johnson was really as great as you say it would've taken longer than it did to surpass him.
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: pumpster on September 13, 2007, 05:10:16 PM
Ben's problem is that he was too good..he looked too good..dude was muscular and ripped for a runner.

He definitely had an incriminating "look" that others didn't, but the biggest thing was his stupidity in taking doses beyond the normal times needed to clear detection. Not a bright guy, it was his coach who took east German methods and combined it with Johnson's genetics. 1984 Olympics were a good indication of Johnson's time with less juice, in other words he was good but not a standout. His reaction time out of the blocks went crazy on the juice, just like Bond's bat reaction time.
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: pumpster on September 13, 2007, 05:11:50 PM
Not an exception. Most sprinters, especially the black dudes, have great muscularity. Comes with the type of body, and muscle fibre, that that can run that fast.

/i'd be crossing 50m as the winners crossed the tape   :'( 

Johnson was more muscular than the others; benched around 400 lb. at 170 lb. or less, more than the others. Maybe not huge muscles, but very defined, dense fast-twitch & lower bodyfat typical of men & women roid users.
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: pumpster on September 13, 2007, 05:13:18 PM
despite what everyone thinks, the 100 meters hasn't developed much in 30 years.



Disagree; basically the steroid era brought the times down significantly, something like the difference between the 80s and 90s in BB.
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: pumpster on September 13, 2007, 05:16:23 PM
I also have to agree

If you really think about it, will drugs really help that much in sprinting?  Most of the sprinters have physiques that are attainable naturally, and their strength in the weight room is attainable without drugs.  I've seen a video of Asafa Powell, the guy who just broke the record, training and he was doing benches and squats in the mid 200s.  Hardly unattainable naturally.


Drugs make a big difference in the start of the sprint and maintaining max. speed later. Also a big training aid in allowing greater endurance and faster recovery.

Johnson had an abnormally fast start-on roids. His time earlier and later in his career without the same assistance was significantly slower without the same start.
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: slaveboy1980 on September 13, 2007, 05:27:20 PM
havent read much in the thread but ill say this.

asafa is on drugs (so what?) and ran 9.74 at high altitude with a wind of 1.7

ben johnson using drugs ran 9.79 almost 20 years ago (88)

which puts johnson very close to asafa.

if ben could have competed and been pressed maybe he could have run abit faster..maybe matching asafas time. just speculation that doesnt mean anything tho.

its impossible to break the world record without using drugs.
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: bmacsys on September 13, 2007, 07:15:11 PM
Jim Hines ran a 10.03 in 1964. He did it on an old pre-rubber surface track.

I think we can assume he was clean, despite all the steroids that was sooo available at that time. ::)





According to GH15 they were. He has it on good authority Reeves used. ::)
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: pumpster on September 13, 2007, 07:22:18 PM
havent read much in the thread but ill say this.

asafa is on drugs (so what?) and ran 9.74 at high altitude with a wind of 1.7

ben johnson using drugs ran 9.79 almost 20 years ago (88)

which puts johnson very close to asafa.

if ben could have competed and been pressed maybe he could have run abit faster..maybe matching asafas time. just speculation that doesnt mean anything tho.

its impossible to break the world record without using drugs.

Agreed, Johnson's still there with Asafa; that Olympic 9.79 comes down to around 9.75 if he doesn't raise his hand near the end.
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: The Coach on September 13, 2007, 07:22:48 PM

dude, this was in the 80s, before sprinters had muscles,

sprinters didn't weight train back then..they were all skinny..in context of other sprinters at the time he was a "beast"

(http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040813/oly19.jpg)

(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39477000/jpg/_39477232_johnson270.jpg)

True, but over the years science with reguards to weight training for sprinting or any other explosive type of sport had proven that speed training starts in the weight room.

*Waiting for Beast8692 to call bullshit*
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: tony b on September 13, 2007, 08:52:30 PM
It is an amazing feat whether drug tainted or not!

I read the other day that some beer company was sponsoring the event and said that if the world record in the 100m was broken that they would shout everyone in the stadium free beer. Not sure if this occured or not?
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: the choad on September 13, 2007, 09:50:51 PM
There are very few on the world stage that compete in the 100 meters naturally...Maybe 5% compete naturally...These Guys Are so far ahead of the tests...These guys are using Gh, IGf, and these newer Peptides and other fancy drugs..



Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: the choad on September 13, 2007, 09:55:03 PM
remember when Linford Chrisitie tested positive for Nandrolone/Deca Durabolin? He was cleared Because he claimed he had sex with his pregnant wife the night before the race...
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: Lurker79 on September 13, 2007, 09:57:59 PM
Youtube Video - Ben Johnson 1988 Seoul Olympics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxbxdzRQXlI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxbxdzRQXlI)

I remember watching that live as a kid and being blown away by his size. Doesn't seem so huge now, but still impressive compared to your average Joe on the street, and compared to the other competitiors. Lewis looks like a kid, so skinny.

Johnson smoked everyone in that race.
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: Knives on September 13, 2007, 09:58:39 PM
remember when Linford Chrisitie tested positive for Nandrolone/Deca Durabolin? He was cleared Because he claimed he had sex with his pregnant wife the night before the race...

I think that was Dennis Mitchell's excuse
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: Bobby on September 14, 2007, 12:46:25 AM
What kind of weight training would improve sprint speed? wouldn't really big legs be a hindrance?
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: Hedgehog on September 14, 2007, 01:14:57 AM
Disagree; basically the steroid era brought the times down significantly, something like the difference between the 80s and 90s in BB.

Jim Hines ran a 10.03 on clay in 1964.

Asafa Powell runs a 9.74 on rubber surface in 2007, with better shoes.

That's 29/100 in 43 years.

Of course the steroids have brought the times down. But the training these sprinters are doing is most likely still very far from being optimal.

If anything, the steroids have prevented the training techniques from developing, since the times went down anyway.
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: Faust on September 14, 2007, 01:22:55 AM
Youtube Video - Ben Johnson 1988 Seoul Olympics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxbxdzRQXlI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxbxdzRQXlI)
I remember watching that live as a kid and being blown away by his size. Doesn't seem so huge now, but still impressive compared to your average Joe on the street, and compared to the other competitiors. Lewis looks like a kid, so skinny.
Johnson smoked everyone in that race.
Cool clip.
What a technique Lewis has, a pleasure to watch. Even though he was also on drugs. (I heard a rumour that he even was on GH, that might explain his weird jaw and the braces he had to wear.)

What kind of weight training would improve sprint speed? wouldn't really big legs be a hindrance?
Let me tell you a secret. Training with weights doesn't make you a huge beast overnight.
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: Bobby on September 14, 2007, 01:29:25 AM
Cool clip.
What a technique Lewis has, a pleasure to watch. Even though he was also on drugs. (I heard a rumour that he even was on GH, that might explain his weird jaw and the braces he had to wear.)
Let me tell you a secret. Training with weights doesn't make you a huge beast overnight.

so i have been wrong all these years :'(
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: Meso_z on September 14, 2007, 01:53:31 AM
possible without drugs? maybe
possible without being black? never

 ::)
  ::)
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: just_a_pilgrim on September 14, 2007, 03:08:59 AM
asafa fastest man in the world...


thats how we jamaicans do... from such a small island and we have prduced some of the worlds greatest sprinters... overall america dominate sprinting .. but at the olympics then come jamaica..
genetics baby
 ;D ;D

Imagine what would happen if you got say, 3 of your sprinters together and 1 guy who could steer and you took up bobsleding.

Nah it couldn't happen  ;D
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: Livewire on September 14, 2007, 03:37:32 AM
..or being your office's VB .NET / Excel solution resident expert.

dot net is hard. is that what you do? holy crap i couldnt get past page 2.
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: CQ on September 14, 2007, 04:19:35 AM
asafa fastest man in the world...


thats how we jamaicans do... from such a small island and we have prduced some of the worlds greatest sprinters... overall america dominate sprinting .. but at the olympics then come jamaica..
genetics baby
 ;D ;D

Preach on my brother, preach on 8)
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: pumpster on September 14, 2007, 04:20:28 AM
Jim Hines ran a 10.03 on clay in 1964.

Asafa Powell runs a 9.74 on rubber surface in 2007, with better shoes.

That's 29/100 in 43 years.



29/100 in a mature sport is significant, especially given that a big jump happened in a relatively short period of time during the Ben Johnson era.

Also keep in mind that while the tracks got faster electronic timing increased the times, so the spreads are a little larger than what it looks like on paper.
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: WOOO on September 14, 2007, 04:23:35 AM
I think dumpster just set a getbig.com record for replying to oneself the most times in a row in one thread...

talk about a meltdown...



What he's neglected to mention because he doesn't get it is that the 3-5% makes all the difference in the world LOL

the best in the world's not possible now without drugs.

1-2-3 for wooo's brilliance in stating the obvious...

DUH

Agreed about the track but it's not because of Johnson it's just advances in technology and composites.

He was impressive but if Johnson was really as great as you say it would've taken longer than it did to surpass him.

He definitely had an incriminating "look" that others didn't, but the biggest thing was his stupidity in taking doses beyond the normal times needed to clear detection. Not a bright guy, it was his coach who took east German methods and combined it with Johnson's genetics. 1984 Olympics were a good indication of Johnson's time with less juice, in other words he was good but not a standout. His reaction time out of the blocks went crazy on the juice, just like Bond's bat reaction time.

Johnson was more muscular than the others; benched around 400 lb. at 170 lb. or less, more than the others. Maybe not huge muscles, but very defined, dense fast-twitch & lower bodyfat typical of men & women roid users.

Disagree; basically the steroid era brought the times down significantly, something like the difference between the 80s and 90s in BB.

Drugs make a big difference in the start of the sprint and maintaining max. speed later. Also a big training aid in allowing greater endurance and faster recovery.

Johnson had an abnormally fast start-on roids. His time earlier and later in his career without the same assistance was significantly slower without the same start.
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: pumpster on September 14, 2007, 04:26:29 AM
I think dumpster just set a getbig.com record for replying to oneself the most times in a row in one thread...

talk about a meltdown...




The only meltdown is spending one's time copying and pasting my quotes, talk about obsessive (again).

No meltdown to talk about something i actually know about and was part of as a sprinter, vs. this dufus who doesn't comprehend something basic like the fact that 3-5% improvement is crucial LOL this is kid's stuff and he doesn't get it. ;D
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: WOOO on September 14, 2007, 04:29:26 AM
that was my whole point jerkoff
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: pumpster on September 14, 2007, 04:30:53 AM
that was my whole point jerkoff

Spend more of your life posting about me it's hilarious. You're compensating for your own issues. ;D
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: WOOO on September 14, 2007, 04:33:38 AM
Spend more of your life posting about me it's hilarious. You're compensating for your own issues. ;D


no... what's hilarious is how you strut around these boards thinking that people still take you seriously...

that's the true meltdown

you are such a joke gramps
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: pumpster on September 14, 2007, 04:35:19 AM

no... what's hilarious is how you strut around these boards thinking that people still take you seriously...

that's the true meltdown

you are such a joke gramps



hahahahah you're spending way too much time obsessing on me.

WOOO MORNING MELTDOWN PT 1  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: WOOO on September 14, 2007, 04:38:28 AM

hahahahah you're spending way too much time obsessing on me.

WOOO MORNING MELTDOWN PT 1  ;D ;D ;D


*yawn*


if you unblocked my PMs then i'd just nuke you there...


senility is so sad...


you sure do "look like a BBEr"  ::)
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: Parker on September 14, 2007, 05:07:49 AM
Youtube Video - Ben Johnson 1988 Seoul Olympics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxbxdzRQXlI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxbxdzRQXlI)

I remember watching that live as a kid and being blown away by his size. Doesn't seem so huge now, but still impressive compared to your average Joe on the street, and compared to the other competitiors. Lewis looks like a kid, so skinny.

Johnson smoked everyone in that race.

He had that one in the bag...But the hater of the day was Lewis. He said he knew Johnson was on steriods because Johnson's eyes were yellow. Hmmm, someone knew what to look out for, when it came to signs of steriod use, I wonder why?
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: Frauhorn on September 14, 2007, 05:17:18 AM
He had that one in the bag...But the hater of the day was Lewis. He said he knew Johnson was on steriods because Johnson's eyes were yellow. Hmmm, someone knew what to look out for, when it came to signs of steriod use, I wonder why?

Lewis was a hatin bitch, and he was on plenty of gear too as were all the american sprinters
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: slaveboy1980 on September 14, 2007, 04:50:52 PM
Youtube Video - Ben Johnson 1988 Seoul Olympics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxbxdzRQXlI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxbxdzRQXlI)

I remember watching that live as a kid and being blown away by his size. Doesn't seem so huge now, but still impressive compared to your average Joe on the street, and compared to the other competitiors. Lewis looks like a kid, so skinny.

Johnson smoked everyone in that race.

lol, i remember watching it live too..and thought he was huge..but dont seem so huge nowdays tho hehe.

and weight training was used in the 80s.. for example; i know charlie francis had ben use weights in his training. it has been claimed ben could squat 600lbs or so and bench 365lbs..if i remember correctly (dont know if this is true or not tho)

numbers are probably exaggerated.

in my opinion ben is still the 1988 olympic 100m champ.

carl lewis used drugs too... a drug using ben beat a drug using carl.

the us ahletic federation tested several american track and field stars positive, but never informed IAAF. always been big hypocrites pointing fingers at the communist countries...but they where all using. (americans, ddr, soviet union etc etc)
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: dzulboy on September 14, 2007, 09:12:26 PM
you know what amazes me they have these expensive shoes adn clothes that weigh nothing, yet these guys wear watches and jewelry   

fuckiin retarded
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: Cleanest Natural on September 15, 2007, 12:51:05 AM
But dont think its impossible to run sub 10 sec or be a world champion without juice...Look here at my teamate from college Kim Collins...He won the world championships and has run under 10 many times and he has never even touched protien!!!!  This guy use to come to practice in cutoff jean shorts do half the workout and leave...hahah...Skinny as hell and weak as hell in the weight room...no joke he would do curls with 10 lbs and be bitchin how is arms hurt...Pure talent...
HUTCH I HATE TO DISAGREE WITH YOU.....NOWADAYS A SUB 10 HUNDRED IS ALSO THE RESULT OF MANY CYCLES COMBINED WITH LOTS OF TIME ON THE TRACK AND GOD GIVEN GENETICS....
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: Wiggs on September 15, 2007, 03:54:34 AM
Man, let me tell you when I was in high school, I was at 5'9 180 lbs, sub 10% bf.  I was fast as fuck, only 1 dude faster than me in my 4A school,  anyway, I ran track that year cause I thought I was the shit.  There is a huge different between, football speed and track speed.  On the football field I was unstoppable, I got on the track and got my black ass smoked.  It certainly was a humbling experience.  I was in the 1st heat and beat some guys but I was no where close to the top 3 guys.
Title: Re: 100m in 9.74 seconds
Post by: WOOO on September 15, 2007, 04:13:39 AM
you know what amazes me they have these expensive shoes adn clothes that weigh nothing, yet these guys wear watches and jewelry   

fuckiin retarded


yeah it's hilarious... the worst are the sprinters that wear the full body wind suits