ESPN Documentary 9.79* (Seoul 100m)

Paully D

Probably seen by almost all of you by now, but just wanted to get your thoughts on this documentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Skg3-eoxq4

Brilliant watch IMO, with the focus obviously on the Lewis/Johnson rivalry.

drquirky

Yeah- saw this a while ago. Like most 30 for 30's really high quality and good storytelling. I find this one kind of bittersweet though because it depressing that 7 of the 8 in the final have been busted for some form of doping. Speaks to the problems in the sport....

tHE vAGGABOND

There is some book about this, Meno was talking about it in Berlin - sounds interesting, but when its come to my mind and I have been in a book shop I have not found it.

menoscemo

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

There is some book about this, Meno was talking about it in Berlin - sounds interesting, but when its come to my mind and I have been in a book shop I have not found it.

This is it:



Cracking read.

Paully D

That book will do for the Christmas list. Thanks Meno

wrstan

Paully D wrote: »

Brilliant watch IMO, with the focus obviously on the Lewis/Johnson rivalry.

+1 on that. It's a really well made great documentary. Amazing that they got all the athletes to participate. The one thought I had watching the programme was that all 8 participants seemed very unlikeable. I wondered what was in it for them to participate.

Paully D

wrstan wrote: »

+1 on that. It's a really well made great documentary. Amazing that they got all the athletes to participate. The one thought I had watching the programme was that all 8 participants seemed very unlikeable. I wondered what was in it for them to participate.

I thought Calvin Smith came across very well to be honest. Never failed a drugs test, seemed like he genuinely worked hard to be where he was and I was glad to see him come away with the bronze medal after being upgraded due to the drugs scandal with the others.

menoscemo

Paully D wrote: »

I thought Calvin Smith came across very well to be honest. Never failed a drugs test, seemed like he genuinely worked hard to be where he was and I was glad to see him come away with the bronze medal after being upgraded due to the drugs scandal with the others.

Should have got the gold

Pherekydes

Paully D wrote: »

I thought Calvin Smith came across very well to be honest. Never failed a drugs test, seemed like he genuinely worked hard to be where he was and I was glad to see him come away with the bronze medal after being upgraded due to the drugs scandal with the others.

+1. I always liked Smith. He was my favourite sprinter of that time. He didn't have a big ego.

walshb

Anyone know who is the commentator at 36:00-36:08? Voice is so familiar. Saw this film a few months ago. Very good doc.

walshb

Lewis was a god damn great. Johnson was the steroid user. Lewis got caught for inadvertent stimulant use. As the doc says, it would not trigger a positive today. He was a god given talent!

And, if Lewis was taking PEDs he would have ran a deal better than 9.92 in Seoul. A deal better!

Pisco Sour

Carl Lewis is one of the greatest frauds the sport has ever seen. His smug, hollier than thou persona is infuriating. He's incredibly unlikeable.

Joe Douglas came across the worst of the lot though. He takes ass-licking to a whole new level.

Great documentary. Really enjoyed it. Thanks for posting it.

wideball

walshb wrote: »

Anyone know who is the commentator at 36:00-36:08? Voice is so familiar. Saw this film a few months ago. Very good doc.

He's the CIA head in the tv show Homeland
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0362873/

Good doc, but Lewis comes across as very unlikable and self serving.. had to laugh at one of track interviews of Lewis and his braced teeth....

walshb

wideball wrote: »

He's the CIA head in the tv show Homeland
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0362873/

Good doc, but Lewis comes across as very unlikable and self serving.. had to laugh at one of track interviews of Lewis and his braced teeth....

Not saying you are incorrect, but are you sure? The voice sounds like an older man than 22 years. Harewood was born in 1965. I couldn't locate any reference to him being the commentator, nor could I find any reference to him having commentated on sports events. Are you basing it on voice recognition?

I have definitely heard that commentating voice before.

wideball

walshb wrote: »

Not saying you are incorrect, but are you sure? The voice sounds like an older man than 22 years. Harewood was born in 1965. I couldn't locate any reference to him being the commentator, nor could I find any reference to him having commentated on sports events. Are you basing it on voice recognition?

I have definitely heard that commentating voice before.

Yeah I'm sure... see attached

walshb

wideball wrote: »

Yeah I'm sure... see attached

Ok, I get that Harewood is narrating this piece. My question was who was the commentator at 36 mins to 36 mins 8 seconds? Who was the commentator that called the 1987 WC Final?

wrstan

Pisco Sour wrote: »

Carl Lewis is one of the greatest frauds the sport has ever seen. His smug, hollier than thou persona is infuriating. He's incredibly unlikeable.

+1 from me

TRR

Enjoyed this greatly thanks for posting. Was a huge Carl Lewis fan when I was a kid. Obviously he has gone down in my estimation. One thing this documentary has done is reinforced my scepticism in sprint performances we are seeing today.

walshb

Lewis was well known in the day for being a wee bit too arrogant. But he was the best athlete on earth at that time. Yes, he rubbed it in a bit, but he was the GOAT at that time. As Ali one said, "hard to be humble when you're as great as I am."

As to the drugs. There is no way Ben Johnson beats Lewis if BOTH were on steroids. Lewis's times thru the years were consistent with greatness. Ben's times seemed to be down to the steroids.

The documentary clears Lewis. The narrator even made the point that TODAY them tests would not see Lewis test positive. The guy took a remedy and was caught for inadvertent usage. Ben was the one taking steroids.

menoscemo

walshb wrote: »

The documentary clears Lewis. The narrator even made the point that TODAY them tests would not see Lewis test positive. The guy took a remedy and was caught for inadvertent usage. Ben was the one taking steroids.

Really?
The documentary says that a lot of athletes were taking Human Growth Hormone which was undetectable. It said that a tell tale sign of athletes taking HGH was grown adults wearing braces.
10 minutes later we see a 26 year old Lewis being interviewed with a big set of braces on his teeth. I don't think the documaentary was making the point that Lewis was clean at all...

walshb

menoscemo wrote: »

Really?
The documentary says that a lot of athletes were taking Human Growth Hormone which was undetectable. It said that a tell tale sign of athletes taking HGH was grown adults wearing braces.
10 minutes later we see a 26 year old Lewis being interviewed with a big set of braces on his teeth. I don't think the documaentary was making the point that Lewis was clean at all...

There was quite a bit of posturing and speculation in the video. Lewis NEVER tested positive for HGH, undetectable or not. Why were Carl's times only in the 9.9s yet Ben's were low 9.8s and below 9.8. Lewis was the superior sprinter and athlete. He was born to sprint.

fiddy3

That's pretty funny about using the old 'NEVER tested positive' for HGH argument (NEVER NEVER NEVER). The chances of testing positive for HGH in the 80s & 90s was 0, because they didn't test for it.

walshb

fiddy3 wrote: »

That's pretty funny about using the old 'NEVER tested positive' for HGH argument (NEVER NEVER NEVER). The chances of testing positive for HGH in the 80s & 90s was 0, because they didn't test for it.

Exactly, specualtion. It's ludicrous. If they didn't test for it and could not detect it, so be it. That doesn't mean a great athlete should be tarnished because of this. So, Calvin Smith too is now a cheat using that logic. Any sprinter whoever sprinted during the HGH era/eras (when it was not detectable) is a cheat.

fiddy3

No, but it sure as hell isn't a legitimate reason to hold them up as clean, just because they never got done for HGH.

walshb

fiddy3 wrote: »

No, but it sure as hell isn't a legitimate reason to hold them up as clean, just because they never got done for HGH.

That makes no sense. If they cannot test for a drug then that is not the fault of a potentially clean athlete. So, is Calvin Smith also a cheat?

fiddy3

TRR mentioned that he wore braces as an adult, a suspicious sign for a grown man competing at a time when HGH was absolutely rampant in the sport. You took issue with this, saying he never tested positive for HGH, inferring that he wasnt taking it. I took issue with this, saying that you can't argue he wasn't using HGH on the basis that he never tested positive for it because he never COULD test positive for it, even if he had it flowing out of his pansy ass.

walshb

Well, if we are prepared to hang a man based on flimsy evidence, such as a set of braces for one's teeth, then we are in a sad place.

It's like folks so badly want Lewis to be a cheat. There seemed quite a dislike for Lewis on the video. Jealousy? Yes, he was arrogant and up his own backside. Big deal.

ultrapercy

walshb wrote: »

Well, if we are prepared to hang a man based on flimsy evidence, such as a set of braces for one's teeth, then we are in a sad place.

It's like folks so badly want Lewis to be a cheat. There seemed quite a dislike for Lewis on the video. Jealousy? Yes, he was arrogant and up his own backside. Big deal.

The circumstanceal evidence seems to have mounted into a case to answer for Lewis, who was a hero of mine. Your attitude, one that is prevlant, seems to be: ask no questions, hear no lies.Very close relation to:its only wrong to cheat if you get caught. These are cheating sympathetic attitudes that dont help to clean up the sport.

walshb

ultrapercy wrote: »

The circumstanceal evidence seems to have mounted into a case to answer for Lewis, who was a hero of mine. Your attitude, one that is prevlant, seems to be: ask no questions, hear no lies.Very close relation to:its only wrong to cheat if you get caught. These are cheating sympathetic attitudes that dont help to clean up the sport.

So, let's see the circumstantial evidence for HGH? The guy was a born athlete. Born to sprint. I will not try to tarnish him or other athletes based on circimstantial evidence (testing not available at that time). Hearsay from other coaches or athletes, hunches etc.

Ask no questions? Ok, Carl, did you ever test positive for HGH? Carl, why as an adult did you decide to start wearing braces on your teeth?

M cebee

if that race was supposedly 'the dirtiest of all time'

you'd have to wonder how 4 guys can run 9.80 or better in london clean then


how many tenths faster was the track compared to seoul?

walshb

Lewis never ran below 9.86 seconds legally. There are guys today that slow up and post them times. Lewis's whole career looks to be a slight improvement in times with maturity. Nothing extraordinary. This from a world class sprinter designed to sprint. His Seoul time would barely make a WC or Olympic final today.

Pisco Sour

walshb, are you by any chance Joe Douglas? Your ass-licking towards Lewis is very reminiscent of that man!

On the topic of "dirtiest race of all time", that's just pure media hooplah towards the blue riband event. There's dozens of dirtier races. Take any women's middle distance championship race in the 1980s and you have mud all over it. Yvonne Murray claiming Olympic bronze in 1988 is one of the greatest performances of all time IMO given the filth she had to run against!

M cebee

Pisco Sour wrote: »

walshb, are you by any chance Joe Douglas? Your ass-licking towards Lewis is very reminiscent of that man!

On the topic of "dirtiest race of all time", that's just pure media hooplah towards the blue riband event. There's dozens of dirtier races. Take any women's middle distance championship race in the 1980s and you have mud all over it. Yvonne Murray claiming Olympic bronze in 1988 is one of the greatest performances of all time IMO given the filth she had to run against!

is it media hooplah?

didn't 7 of 8 starters test positive at some stage?

and that was way back when testing wasn't so good

Pisco Sour

M cebee wrote: »

is it media hooplah?

didn't 7 of 8 starters test positive at some stage?

and that was way back when testing wasn't so good

6 of the 8 I think. As far as I'm aware there's no dirt on Calvin Smith and the Brazilian.

My point is that there were many other races in the 80s which were just as dirty, if not dirtier. Anything involving East German female sprinters and Soviet middle distance female runners for example. The men's 100m in Seoul got the headlines, but that was only the tip of the iceberg as to what was going on at that time.

wrstan

walshb wrote: »

The documentary clears Lewis. The narrator even made the point that TODAY them tests would not see Lewis test positive. The guy took a remedy and was caught for inadvertent usage. Ben was the one taking steroids.

A clear insinuation in the programme is that PED's were absolutely endemic in sprinting at the time. And that because there was no out of competition testing that all athletes just came off the juice long enough in advance of a major championship to pass the tests. The suggestion is that the only reason Johnson failed in Seoul is because took PED's too late as part of his recovery from a hamstring injury.

I don't know how anyone could draw the conclusion that the documentary clears anyone! I certainly came away from that programme thinking that Ben Johnson wasn't a whole heap different from many (most!) sprinters at that time.

TRR

wrstan wrote: »

The suggestion is that the only reason Johnson failed in Seoul is because took PED's too late as part of his recovery from a hamstring injury.

I thought this was an enjoyable documentary, well made and great to interview all finalists. However it was a bit conspiracy theory in parts. From my understanding the drug Johnson was caught for shouldn't have been in his system. The head tester even said his coach Charlie Francis said no he shouldn't be on that in competition. The insinuation being that Francis admitted he was on gear but not during comps. Then following from that was the mystery man ( can't recall his name) who was in the testing room and was supposed to have spiked johnsons beer.

Regards Lewis. This is my own opinion, but I do believe there is enough evidence to cast a doubt over his legacy. yes he was born to sprint, yes he was the best of his era but I'm not naive enough to believe there is no possibility that he did not dope. People dislike his cockiness, that was one of traits I loved. To be the best a lot of the time you need to be a bit of a prick and have high opinions of yourself. If you don't believe in yourself no one else will and I think Lewis personified that. Now while I think there are issues regards Lewis I think this documentary did him a disservice. Any suggestions of drug taking were veiled and at times the scenes were manipulated unfairly in places and the director spliced different interviews together do they were out of context. I think he was asked about drugs outright once by the director and obviously he denied it but enough seeds of doubt some unfair in my opinion had already been sown.

I expect others will,have taken something different away from this story than I have.

walshb

wrstan wrote: »

A clear insinuation in the programme is that PED's were absolutely endemic in sprinting at the time. And that because there was no out of competition testing that all athletes just came off the juice long enough in advance of a major championship to pass the tests. The suggestion is that the only reason Johnson failed in Seoul is because took PED's too late as part of his recovery from a hamstring injury.

I don't know how anyone could draw the conclusion that the documentary clears anyone! I certainly came away from that programme thinking that Ben Johnson wasn't a whole heap different from many (most!) sprinters at that time.

Yes, I agree with this to a certain degree. But there was also too much speculation in the video. I prefer to deal with evidence and facts. So, why was Calvin Smith held up as a clean athlete?

They were all tested in Seoul, and it was Ben on the steroids. Sure, the others may well have taken steroids, but they didn't test positive. I will not then tarnish and shame them because they "may have" taken them.

Carl tested for stimulants that would not even trigger a positive result today. I personally think he made an error. I do not believe that he was on PEDs. His times thru the years bear this out to a degree.

And, do you think that Ben beats Lewis if BOTH are on the juice? I certainly do not. Carl was always the naturally faster and superior sprinter. Ben was the one making huge gains, not Lewis. In '84 Ben was 3-4 metres behind Lewis, and 4 years later he is 3-4 metres ahead, with Lewis running a PB. Crazy!

walshb

TRR wrote: »

I thought this was an enjoyable documentary, well made and great to interview all finalists. However it was a bit conspiracy theory in parts. From my understanding the drug Johnson was caught for shouldn't have been in his system. The head tester even said his coach Charlie Francis said no he shouldn't be on that in competition. The insinuation being that Francis admitted he was on gear but not during comps. Then following from that was the mystery man ( can't recall his name) who was in the testing room and was supposed to have spiked johnsons beer.

Regards Lewis. This is my own opinion, but I do believe there is enough evidence to cast a doubt over his legacy. yes he was born to sprint, yes he was the best of his era but I'm not naive enough to believe there is no possibility that he did not dope. People dislike his cockiness, that was one of traits I loved. To be the best a lot of the time you need to be a bit of a prick and have high opinions of yourself. If you don't believe in yourself no one else will and I think Lewis personified that. Now while I think there are issues regards Lewis I think this documentary did him a disservice. Any suggestions of drug taking were veiled and at times the scenes were manipulated unfairly in places and the director spliced different interviews together do they were out of context. I think he was asked about drugs outright once by the director and obviously he denied it but enough seeds of doubt some unfair in my opinion had already been sown.

I expect others will,have taken something different away from this story than I have.

Spot on.

Carl may well have been on the juice, but the video wanted to really sway folks into believing this. I don't like that. Speculation and innuendo, and borne out of jealousy. Smith's coach couldn't contain himself. Calvin came across as jealous of Lewis.

So, Calvin runs a 9.93, and he did it clean, but Lewis runs a 9.92 and he was on the PEDs? No, I am not buying that.

Just looking at both men Lewis was so the sprinter. Calvin never looked all that. Not saying this is proof of anything, but why is Calvin clean at 9.93 and Lewis dirty at 9.92?

walshb

wrstan wrote: »

I don't know how anyone could draw the conclusion that the documentary clears anyone! I certainly came away from that programme thinking that Ben Johnson wasn't a whole heap different from many (most!) sprinters at that time.

Or different from any sprinter ever going by this. The Bullet Hayes. He was in the 60s (on inferior tracks, with inferior footwear) and was sub ten seconds. Was he juicing? Lewis was a 9.99 in '84. If we go by this logic then no sprinter is immune from being tarnished and heavily suspected. The were all cheats. I think that is a sad legacy for the most exciting ten seconds in sport. Just because PEDs were available in the 80s does not mean that ALL the great athletes were taking them. And speculation and innuendo won't sway me.

wrstan

walshb wrote: »

And, do you think that Ben beats Lewis if BOTH are on the juice? I certainly do not.

I am presuming that is not a serious question! Quite frankly who cares who beats who if they are both on the juice.

I'm off to watch some WWF

Pisco Sour

Are we conversing with Jimmy Magee here or what?

MrCreosote

walshb wrote: »

If we go by this logic then no sprinter is immune from being tarnished and heavily suspected. The were all cheats.

That's the logic that's applied (with good reason) to most professional sports by 95% of the population today.

Sadly the onus is on the athlete to prove they are clean, rather than the other way around.

walshb

wrstan wrote: »

I am presuming that is not a serious question! Quite frankly who cares who beats who if they are both on the juice.

I'm off to watch some WWF

Yes, it is a serious question. It comes after one considers both sprinters and their careers. Their times. I personally do not believe that Carl was on PEDs, and if he was I would imagine that he would be running faster than Ben, hence the question I asked. Carl Lewis on PEDS, or the steroids Ben was on, I am betting a sub 9.7 from Lewis. He was always the better sprinter. Suddenly Ben goes from trailing him all the time to leaving Lewis behind. Ben's progression was steroids. Lewis did not have any huge progression.

And, btw, this is far from black and white. I happen to think that Lewis was a clean athlete. What is so wrong with that? He did not test positive for PEDs. He was cleared for inadvertent stimulant usage. As said before, those stimulants wouldn't test positive today. Also, saying/implying that he was on PEDs and that the testing at that time couldn't catch him for it is tarnishing him, and others with no proof at all. That is wrong.

walshb

MrCreosote wrote: »

That's the logic that's applied (with good reason) to most professional sports by 95% of the population today.

Sadly the onus is on the athlete to prove they are clean, rather than the other way around.

And as I said, it is a sad legacy. I guess Bolt and the others shouldn't be taken seriously. And, if this is the way it is, and all of them seem to be juicing then I guess it's a level playing field?

Pisco Sour

Very reminiscent of some of the posts on the Lance Armstrong thread on the cycling forum from one or two months back!

M cebee

everybody juicing doesn't level the playing field

there's good juice, bad juice
good responders, bad responders

walshb

M cebee wrote: »

everybody juicing doesn't level the playing field

there's good juice, bad juice
good responders, bad responders

True.

walshb

BTW, I hadn't realised that Lewis had ran out of his lane, well, stepped on his and Christie's line when running. I know the officials have discretion, but does anyone think that Lewis was a hindrance to Christie in doing this, or was Lewis right not to be DQd?

Pherekydes

walshb wrote: »

BTW, I hadn't realised that Lewis had ran out of his lane, well, stepped on his and Christie's line when running. I know the officials have discretion, but does anyone think that Lewis was a hindrance to Christie in doing this, or was Lewis right not to be DQd?

Rules are straightforward: if you don't hinder the athlete in the next lane then you won't be DQ'ed.

Automatic DQs happen in races run around bends because of the chance of running a shorter distance, but on the straight this isn't a problem.

walshb

Pherekydes wrote: »

Rules are straightforward: if you don't hinder the athlete in the next lane then you won't be DQ'ed.

Automatic DQs happen in races run around bends because of the chance of running a shorter distance, but on the straight this isn't a problem.

I didn't see Lewis interfere or hinder Christie. Can't blame Christie for trying. He would have got gold had Lewis been DQd.

RandyMann

walshb wrote: »

I didn't see Lewis interfere or hinder Christie. Can't blame Christie for trying. He would have got gold had Lwis been DQd.

I would have not been happy taking gold under those circumstances after been beaten by a better athlete.