BBC Blog Network

User Profile

logicalopinion

Listed below are comments made by logicalopinion between Sunday, 27th July 2008 and Tuesday, 26th August 2008.

«Newer
Older»

A tactical masterpiece 11:08pm on 26 Aug 2008 well done to Christine 'O' superb performance!
A tactical masterpiece 11:06pm on 26 Aug 2008 Logicalopinion - I would just like everyone to know that I recently posted a very factual comment about Chistine 'O' and her missing three drug tests. However this comment seems to be withdrawn for no apparent reasoning, as I cannot for the life of me see how it could possibly have breached the house rules.

I can only assume that the BBC wish to censor anything that could possibly taint the integrity of a recent Gold medalist - even though she had already done this to her self.
A tactical masterpiece 10:42pm on 26 Aug 2008 Sorry post number 5, but I really do have a problem accepting your argument about Christine 'O' just not being in the right place at the right time for the testers, as they turn up unannounced.

I can catagorically state that I have been present on several ocassions when Athletes have been called by the testers to say that they will be coming and that they should be available for testing.

Unfortunately, Christine's Gold medal is a shallow victory - she only has her self to blame, as in many peoples eyes three missed tests really is as good as a positive, and as such people will always be sceptical of her achievments, rightly or wrongly.
The secrets of Jamaica's sprint success 3:34pm on 25 Aug 2008 For all those doubters out there, it is very easy to see how Usain Bolt can run so fast.

Forget about the hype about Jamaicans being so gifted because of a specific gene, its all down to the training and wanting to succeed.

I think that if a scientific analysis was taken you would find that all top sprinters have a very closely related cadence time ie leg turnover and foot contact times. The only major difference being stride length.

It just so happens that with Usain each foot contact produces a greater stride length than his competitors and hence a quicker time for the 100m and 200m.

It doesn't matter how strong you are, only how much power you can generate in the shortest amount of time possible. Sprinting is a very simple equation of weight times distance divided by time, this creates the necessary forces needed to be able to produce the greatest amount of distance covered in each stride - ground coverage. Its all about ground coverage.

Yes, I know that we'd all like to believe that its nature over nurture, as this makes things very simple to understand - but I really do think that nurture really is the deciding factor in this equation.

Its very easy to say that one athlete is more genetically gifted than another - one has a greater proportion of fast twitch muscle fibres. But I think far more research needs to be done in this area before we reside our selves to this conclusion actually being factual.
Dramatic athletics - but Britain beware 2:26pm on 25 Aug 2008 Track and Field in this country has been a dying sport for many years and for many reasons.

For many people out there the rewards for being a member of team GB are just not enticing enough. Why be a great athlete when you can be a mediocre footballer and earn more in a week than even some of best athletes earn in a year. Not too mention that its more of a popularity contest than shear talent that will earn you the right to compete for your country.

Having the right coaches is also just as much of a lottery. Many coaches don't succeed beyond level two, mainly because of the expense involved in renewing their licence and paying for additional courses. Its just a money making scheme for UK athletics, with very little reward, as only a chosen few are ever paid for their time and experience.

To be a great athlete you need great coaches and the necessary support to succeed. But lets face it, many of our coaches have very lttle knowledge or understanding of the fundamentals required to produce a world class athlete.
They really do need greater depth of understanding of not only the technical requirements of an event, but also of the anatomical and physiolical aspects that are also involved, to truly understand the techincal dynamics needed to be of benefit to the athlete. Many of them simply don't.

It takes time to nurture an athlete, therefore it makes perfect sense that even those who train or coach at the so called grass routes level, should have the indepth knowledge and skills necessary to lay down best practices, instead of that athlete being taken away from their coach and given to a more qualified and knowledgable mentor.

Having several different levels of coaching qualifications does no one any good what so ever. There should be one level and one level only and once it has been attained you should be paid accordingly. Long gone are the days when athletics is an amature sport.

To do well in this business you need to take a systematic and logical approach to be able to achieve to the highest of standards.
Gay removes flash from 100m dash 3:36pm on 12 Aug 2008 Post 58 - It is unfair to say that all sprinters need to be on drugs to achieve the times they do. There needs to be evidential proof to make such a libellous statement.

The times that are being achieved today are not beyond natural human ability.

If we take into account the number of strides taken to cover 100m, we can determine stride length. If we take the number of strides taken divided by the time taken for the 100m, we can determine stride frequency/cadence. Include wind speed into the equation and it is entirely possible to see how someone can run so fast, and how they could improve.

eg An athlete with a Pb for 100m has a time of 10.8sec. If the athlete takes atotal of 47 strides this gives an average stride length of 100m/47 = 2.12m per stride. Divide the number of strides 47/ 100m time(10.8) = 0.229s per stride.

Now if the athlete could increase his stride length by 10cm but maintain the same stride frequency he could improve his time form 10.8 to 10.3. include another Change in a variable such as frequency from 0.229s per stride to say 0.22s per stride and his Pb would then be improved further to 9.9s for the 100m.

This is merely a very simplified explanation designed to show you how the smallest of natural improvements can make a very big difference in reducing sprint times and its not necessarily all about drugs.
Gay removes flash from 100m dash 2:42pm on 12 Aug 2008 who is the fastest man on earth - Johnson or bolt?

There are many variables that needed to be taken into consideration when deciding the winner of this equation.

Speed is determined by the distance covered in the shortest amount of time. But where abouts in the race someone reaches maximum velocity varies from one individual to another.

Factors such as drive phase, acceleration, maximum velocity and rate of deceleration all play their part.

Therefore, rather than taking the overall time for the total distance covered as an indication of who is the fastest man on earth, it would be better to take the fastest 30m covered in each race to then determine the fastest average m/sec time. This, for the most part, would likely to occur between 60m and 90m.

Obviously to do this we need to know the 10m breakdown times of each race, which should be available somewhere.

This seems to me to be the fairest way to compare the two, as it is very true to say that the second part of the 200m cannot be taken to be a true indication of 100m sprint time, as it is quite obviously covered when a sprinter is already at near maximum velocity. It doesn't include start reaction time and acceleration from the blocks, which is considerably slower than a flying sprint for the same distance covered.

Perhaps too, we should also factor in the body weight of each individual and the curvature of the first 100m in the 200m as additional variables.

Perhaps there's a mathematician amongst us who could figure out an equation that takes into account these factors - or perhaps we should just recognise that one event is more a case of pure speed and the other a case of speed endurance and cannot be compared fairly.
Beijing picks provoke Facebook fury 10:47pm on 27 Jul 2008 GBjuniorAthlete

I can only assume that you were still ranting on about my comments in post 25.

If you are talented enough and choose to be an athlete and present yourself to the public eye - then you should also accept that your performance will be open to public scrutiny and criticism.

Many of them will not have a very good understanding of what it takes to be an athlete, but then, many of them will.

You should not assume that a person who made the comment, lacks either understanding, knowledge or experience - just because you disagree with what they have to say.

You must accept that their criticism is justified, because as an athlete, the money you earn or the funding you get is, directly or indirectly, drawn from the tax payers purse.

For me, my understanding, as I have mentioned, comes from competing in the sport for a number of years. It also comes with more than a reasonable understanding of what it takes to succeed in an event. Applied physiology, biomechanics, simple physics, anatomy, nutritional requirements, strength and conditioning, coaching skills, so on and so forth.

The public expects their athletes do well, and justifiably so. Yes, it takes hard work and dedication in order to compete for your country, but there are many people who live in the real world and have very real jobs, that don't pay very much and are not as enjoyable to do.

We have a right to expect the very best of our athletes and to offer criticism as and when we see fit.
Beijing picks provoke Facebook fury 9:54pm on 27 Jul 2008 GBjuniorAthlete

GBjuniorAthlete

Actually GB, I didn't just see Chris and think thats 'crap'. I've competed in athletics for the last 28 years and my opinion is not misinformed. Forget about qualifying standards, who cares what youv'e done in the past, its meaningless, its the present that counts.

I used Chris as an example of favouritism by the selectors. Which ever way you look at it, he didn't produce on the day - and thats what its all about. If I remember rightly he was also beaten by a former commonwealth gold medalist, who has also beaten him on many ocassions in the past. What do you say to him? So therefore, I must disagree with you.

If he was ill, who really cares, there's always a reason why an athlete doesn't produce, but you dont see the Americans whinge about it - they just accept their system and get on with things.

Their system is really the fairest way of doing things. If you don't do it on the day, you don't go.

The whole point about competing is getting your preperation spot on for when it matters, no excuses.

And by the way, I didn't mention anything about it being UKA rules. I merely stated that there is a political 'clickiness' within UK Athletics - and 'I am speaking' from experience.
Beijing picks provoke Facebook fury 6:09pm on 27 Jul 2008 It seems to me the whole point of having the trials is so that the athletes can compete for a place at the Olympics. What's the point in taking part and coming in the top three, if your not going to be picked?

Selection should be based on who ever wins their event. I totally believe in the 'first past the post' principle. It certainly encourages competitiveness amongst the athletes, which is something our home grown talent is lacking, very much!

If you can't perform at the trials, what makes anybody think that they will be able to perform on the world stage. And if a man is injured, then so be it. If you get injured in the heats at the Olympics, or any other event for that matter, you're not given a bye to the final.

Lets take Chris Tommlinson for instance, he came fith in the Trials, but was still selected. So what if he's the British record holder, he didn't produce the goods when it mattered. But he was chosen over four other athletes who did. So, was he favoured by the selectors? Of course he was! No wonder there is such an air of apathy amongst all the other athletes!

Athletics is a dying sport in this country - but without a doubt it is caused by the political clickiness of those within UKA.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

logicalopinion