Run-Down Forums

[Conway]

Oh ... And I got to see STeve Wiliams run down Valeri Borzov in the 4x1 at the USSR v USA dual in Berkeley when it really meant something !!!!

[Dan]

I think all those end-of-the-millenium publications could have save a lot of time by just asking you to put together their top-100 lists for them.

I often wonder if I would find the sport entertaining had I not gotten into it through competing. I probably would have, but to a much lesser degree. '87 and '88 was when I started to really take an interest in it (Ben Johnson, Carl Lewis, and Butch Reynolds, mostly, with a bit of Edwin Moses hype on the side), and it wasn't until 88-89 that I started running in high school. However, I had run track for a few years in elementary school and wanted to start up again around '87 but couldn't because of knee problems, so it's hard to say which was the cause and which was the effect...

Dan

[Conway]

I would gladly work on all time lists and such for any publication for a small fee .. .. I've actually wanted to write a book on the sport at some point .. Really would ...

As for sport popularity .. The time when you got involved was what I consider the borderline era .. Right as Carl and others were trying to professionalize the sport .. Couple of years after the 84 Olympics was when athletes really started skipping domestic meets and primarily competing in Europe for the pay days .. If I'm not mistaken '89 was the first time Lewis and the SMTC boycotted the National meet as there was no money to be made (or National team as an incentive) ..

The result of all that was that the big names began to disappear from the landscape of American meets .. And with them the hope of any foreigners .. Young people now don't have the opportunity to see any foreign greats .. As I said before I saw Borzov and the Russians in BErkeley .. I saw Koch, Wockel, and Gohr in Los Angeles at the US v East GErmany Dual (have photos in an album) .. YOung people and others are now almost totally dependent on teh media to provide them with any opportunity to see the best in the sport compete .. Imagine if the only chance I had to see Eddie Hart (our 72 Trials 100 winner and co-holder of the WR) was on television at the Munich Olympics ?? Especially given that he and Rey Robinson missed their quarterfinal races !!! I may not have had another chance to see either of them until 1976 !!! Yet I was able to watch him and others all over the state of California at many of the meets I named earlier ..

Of course now most of those meets are either shells of what they once were or gone completely becasue of the high demands of todays stars !!!!!

DEfinitley changes how one is able to enjoy the sport ....

[Dan]

I wouldn't be of much help for that small fee thing, but I'm sure I could find a way to help promote such a book...

[Conway]

Wouldn't charge you any fee for stuff on your site .. That might be fun .. Perhaps we could collaborate on a book ..

I got to go to the Trails and Olympics in 84 since they were in LA .. .. But I did have freind tape them for me and there are many hours of coverage .. I would say that the coverage seems to get worse each year .. I was not happy at all with the 2000 telecast ..

I'm not sure about your question .. I'm thinking you're asking if the transition to professionalism was helped by the consistency of the sprint times at the time .. I think what helped (blasphemy) was the rivalry between Ben JOhnson and Carl Lewis .. It made for soemthing to promote .. And it created much hype .. Which made paying fees to the two of them more palatable .. It also helped that Edwin Moses was in his prime and running well and that Steve Lewis, Danny Everett and especially Butch Reynolds had all emerged .. So there was a lot to hype .. The 100 record dropped .. The 400 record went .. The 4x4 finally went .. So I think there was an excellence going on that commanded money ..

Was that the question ??

[Dan]

That was pretty much the question. Looking at it from the opposite perspective, would the move to professionalism have been warmly received if not for the high level of performances at the time? The media loves to portray the greedy athlete, demanding money for doing what we all do for play. So, if the performances didn't back up the demands, things may have received a different spin.

A book, huh? Hmm...

Dan

[Conway]

Ah so I was on the right track .. Yeah I think the quality of performances at the time definitely helped .. I mean there was $1,000,000 on the table for a match race between Lewis and Johnson following the 87 Worlds when Johnson set the record .. Both athletes were waiting for the showdown in the Olympics to try to build the ante (in my opinion) .. Of course there was testing, Stonozolol, suspension, redistribution of medals, questions about another athlete .. And then the face of sprinting changed for 4 years ..

But back to topic .. Professionalization of the sport occurred at what was probably the optimal time .. Imagine trying to professionalize during the 70's when most WRs seemed to be pretty much out of reach (you know like now !!!) ...

So to throw a monkey wrench into this discussion perhaps drugs aided the growth of professionalism !!! Oooo dare I say that ??? As the greatest ocurences of record breaking in recent memory occurred during what was arguably the greatest period of drug use in the sport .. And I only say arguable because of what has been verified in the ensuing years .. The testers can't keep up enough with the users these days to really know ?Q?Q? I didn't say that did I ??

[Conway]

And yes, a book !!!!

[Dan]

I didn't know there was that much on the table for Johnson and Lewis. I take it that didn't materialize? Charlie Francis estimated Johnson lost $10 million in '88-89 alone by forfeiting the gold medal, so $1 million for a much hyped showdown seems believable based on that.

Do you think the men's records were viewed as out of reach following Mexico City? The women's certainly were with the East Germans, although it seems like pretty much the same time that the US men and women came back to the fore in the sprints.

I have no doubt that drug use remains rampant, although I also have roughly zero proof of it... There just is no reason to believe it isn't. The thoroughly ineffective testing system is well documented and there is too much at stake for people to go at it clean so as to not bruise their conscience. To borrow from a Gallagher joke and paraphrase slightly, if con is the opposite of pro, then what's that tell you about conscience? Mutually exclusive?

If you were to tackle a book, would it be any specific topic or sprints in general?

Dan

[Conway]

Yes there was that much money on the table for JOhnson v Lewis .. I think the thought was that Lewis would win in Seoul seting up the rubber match !!!

I don' think the 68 records were deemed out of reach initially .. With the possible exception of the long jump .. Everyone knew that was legendary right away .. But Smith had run 19.5 on a straight prior to 68 .. And Evans and Matthews and James had run very fast 400s at Echo Summit (was too young to go ) .. And the sprinters had run crazy fast times in Sacramento at the 1st set of Trials (Dad did take me there !!) .. And The guys that ran the 4x4 were talking about running 2:55 before the games so running 2:56.16 was BELOW their expectations .. There were two factors that no one was aware of during and right after Mexico City - the effect that altitude had on the events AND the difference between hand and auto timing ..

For several years after hand timing was still accepted for records and guys like Hart, Robinson, Quarrie, Williams, DAvenport, and MIlburn continued to set and tie hand timed records .. Then came Munich and auto timing and the times were drastically down from 68 .. And then before Montreal (I think in 75) everything started going the way of auto timing .. And suddenly running under 10.10/ 20.30 / 45.00 / 13.40 / 48.50 became a really BIG deal .. At that point I think the records became something akin to folklore .. It wasn't until between 84 and 88 that competing at that level became realistic again ..

Leading to the topic of drugs since both things seemed to have run simultaneously .. ..

As far as a book .. Hmm .. LOve the sprints but have a pretty good all around knowledge .. Perhaps 2 or 3 different books !! .. A general .. A sprint .. And maybe a women's .. Or perhaps one focusing on an era such as the modern era pre preofessionalism (60's 70's to mid 80's) .. What do you think ??

[Dan]

As you probably remember from track list discussions, I have a big problem with the concept of auto timing. It just seems wrong to time someone while they're required to be motionless. As evidenced by your examples, it took quite some time to overcome this sudden change in the events. If they were to add 1-2m to the 100m, do you think people would raise a fuss? Yet, that's precisely what the net effect was.

Regarding drugs, my impression is that usage never changed dramatically across eras, just the sophistication of the methods.

Wow, that's an ambitious set of potential book endeavors! All of them definitely sound worth reading. Have you read any of Louise Tricard's stuff? I believe she has a book(s) on the history of women in the sporty. Here's a thought: Anything you think might be worth covering could make a nice guest article for the site as an introductory chapter sort of thing. That would give you a good feel for if it's a topic that could be expanded enough to grow into a book or section of its own.

Dan

[Conway]

I have abig problem with auto timing too .. I routinely time within .01/.02 of auto times when I am at professional meets .. Properly trained timers can be every bit as accurate as machines .. I think some very good athletes were "robbed" becasue their marks were not "auto timed" ..


As for drugs, I believ that once they started it has been a matter of makers staying ahead of testers .. And the makers improve faster than the testers ..

As for your suggestion on an article / first chapter I kind of like that idea .. We will have to come up with a topic or two to try ..

[Dan]

[Conway]

I think the key element in the game has been professinalism itself .. As those who have the gold rule .. Look at the growing chasm between the elite and the non-elite athlete .. The top end of the all time lists are WAY OUT THERE .. While the non-elite athlete is still performing at lets say 1983 levels !!!! IN that respect I would say the rich have definitely gotten richer ..

[Dan]

Where would you place the cutoff between elite and non-elite? It seems there are quite a few 10.05 - 10.15 types from other countries these days, which wouldn't be too far from the "average" of the top end guys in the early 80's. What were non-elites averaging then?

Dan