Steve Mullings

First topic message reminder :

Does anyone else find it wierd that hes all of a sudden managed to knock over 2 tenths of a second of his PB at the age of 28? Maybe its just me and the cynical attitude ive develop because so many top sprinters have took PEDs in the past but was just wondering what other people thought.

Blonska does, she's been found guilty twice.

Ferrette did, though she claimed it was for IVF/Pregnancy medication.

Fraser did, she claimed it was dental treatment.

I could go on.

i do not find it weird that he has improved. He is training with gay. ashmeade is also in that group and he as improved too??

I dont think it is suspicious. i do understand that you think because he took drugs once, you assume he is always guilty.

french-oprey I think it it clearly obvious that women athletes in the 80s were heavily doped. Common sense will say that it could not have been something exclusive to women and men must have been doing it as well.

Your logic is that if men then were cheating and male athletes of today are faster then they must be cheating too. You also rule out advances in technology, training, diet, etc as plausible explanations (or the fact that athletes have been getting faster and faster - you don't expect athletes to be slower than Jim Hines for ever).

There seems to be a huge gap in your logic though. Why are women no where close to the records of the past? The 400m record for example seems like science fiction to the women of today. Won't logic say the reason they are nowhere close to those records is because women of today are clean. And if they are won't logic say the men are clean as well?

Because one of the easiest strength PEDs you can give to anyone is testosterone.

Men produce this naturally. Caster Semenya produces this naturally as well. Hence the advantage she has.

Ian_jamsie,
i agree PED's have far more affect on womens performance; basically giving them men's characteristics. The men have now closed that gap but the gap for the women is larger and will probably still take another 10+ years.
The only thing that may reduce this time is the greater pool of women in the sport than back in the early 80's.

Have you seen pictures of those women. Their frames were that of men.

Hormone replacement would give them the strength and speed of a man.

I very much doubt any will appear to beat those times unless freaks of nature like Semenya are allowed to compete.

ian,
My thoughts are:
Semenya has probably under gone or having ongoing traetment to reduce her hormone levels/whatever to within the womens tolerance. I dont think she will be as good again.
Going back to the 80's I always thought Kratoshkilova (spelling) looked very manly and her records were suspicious IMO. However, was surprised to hear she later had child(ren). I would have thought that any PED's would have really messed her up long term and stoped that. So maybe I'm wrong and appearances are misleading there?
Maria Mutola always looked manly as well but never tested positive and although her performances were great she was never miles ahead like Semenya.
Overall this whole area is very difficult to prove, understand and it is easy to make judgements based on no real evidence. We all have suspicions but the only way is to test rigourously and say innocent to proven guilty.
I would however start a second set of records that began at a time of both competition and out of comp testing. The old records to remain rather like those for the respecified Javelin etc.

I don't think Semenya has gone through any treatment personally.

She looked like she lost on purpose in her last two races. I reckon she's playing a game with us and not destroying the field like it's pretty clear she can.

I just want her to go out there and run a 1:49. That would be hilarious. Wonder how Diack will explain that one?

skimpton - good point

ryan - one can only assume that you are correct

ryanbailey wrote:I do understand that you think because he took drugs once, you assume he is always guilty.

Never said that. I can't 100% trust him if he's doped before. Never assumed he'll always be guilty. Never.

Also, training with a better sprinter isn't a basis for explaining such a drastic improvement. Plenty of athletes have moved to training groups containing more prolific sprinters and not shown that kind of improvement.

I have the same doubts about Mullings as I have about many of the sprinters. As a consequence I have lost interest in the performance of many of the leading men's and women's sprinters.

Mullings getting caught appears to be the tip of the iceberg as I find it strange that such a small island is producing so many top sprinters, with such marked improvements in performance. Some may say golden generation but I don't believe it, and look back to the evidence of cheaters. Do they even have a proper drug testing regime in place?

As a proportion of the world's population Jamaica is miniscule. Yet they have 4 of the 6 fastest men of all time over 100m
As I mentioned earlier Jamaica hadn't won a 100m olympic medal since 1976 until bolt won in 2008. so what's going on? How are jamaica the world's number 1 sprint nation so suddenly?
ryan and yoyo, why do you think that may be?

They were selectively bred during slaving times.

I didnt know 2008 was the 1st time jamaica had won 100m gold in so many years. Since i started watching athletics they have been a major force in sprinting so i just assumed they always had been. although is sprinting not the national sport in jamaica? where as kids in britain all want to be footballer etc when they grow up jamaicans want to be sprinters?

2008 was indeed the first time for a long time that a man in a Jamaican vest won a sprint medal, but you cannot overlook that there were plently of ethnically jamaican runners winning under different flags (Linford, Donovan Bailey, Ben Johnson, Sanya Richards) and you also can't say it's that much of a surprise on the women's side when Jamaica have previously produced the likes of Ottey and Campbell-Brown

Same drugs and "special nutrition" is available to all athletes around the world thanks to the manufacturers and their sales staff and the internet and of course corrupt coaches, they are so many drugs today that cannot be detected how can we possibly know who is and who isnt, and with so much money and status and national pride at stake it is small wonder then that it is such a big problem.

Rant over.

Whether same drugs and 'special nutrition' is available to all athletes around the world is very questionable as it also turns on someone's financial background and leverage, such as one's name and competitive status, as well as connections.

Some products can be extremely expensive for anyone to afford or even custom-made. Furthermore, the anti-doping system of one country isn't necessarily as thorough and agile as another's. Therefore that comes down to many conditions and circumstances.

as well as connections.

I agree with this!

Jamaica has been sprinting for years and years. Remember Cool Runnings with John Candy??

It isn't that the USA has stopped producing sprinters. USA is still producing even better sprinters than before, but the Jamaican's have just produced a few better. They are losing less athletes to other nations and thus less into other sports. There is so much strength and depth in the sprints in these two nations.

I really think people should stop doubting Jamaica and its development of the top sprinters, because in reality it is of no surprise they have achieved this.

As previously mentioned, genetically superior. Our top sprinter ever was Linford Christie, where was he from???

don't you read the posts ryan?

yes, jamaica has been sprinting for years and years, it's just that THEY HAVEN'T WON AN OLYMPIC 100m MEDAL SINCE 1976

cool runnings was a hollywood film, not a documentary

the whole point of this discussion is HOW jamaica have achieved dominance

linford is a good example for you to use. He was convicted and banned for steroid abuse in 1999

genetically superior? - why aren't other carribean countries producing high numbers of sprinting superstars?

What???? I thought it was a documentary. A funny one.... geez.. now i am disappointed.

In answer to this discussion... Jamaica have achieve sprinting dominance by producing many sprinters that can the 100m quicker than other nations.

They have done this through dedication and hard work. With the aid of their 'natural selection', training methods and yams.

We lack the yams and hard work. Only Chambers seems to show he has the dedication.

Other sprinting nations are producing above their ratio of high class sprinters. It is only that Jamaica is far more into its sprinting and has been lucky to find that its produced 5-7 top sprinters.

Us in the UK, have found ourselves unlucky that we've not produced any sprinters, or we've lost them to football.

This thread has been done a hundred times, you guys will not change your minds because you are convinced that the top sprinters in the world are all taking drugs. So why watch, if you don't like it?

Q. What is the best a human can run or has without the aid of drugs?

What would it take to improve that speed.... natural selection, someone with slightly more testosterone? Someone with slightly more....?

english_osprey wrote:As a proportion of the world's population Jamaica is miniscule. Yet they have 4 of the 6 fastest men of all time over 100m
As I mentioned earlier Jamaica hadn't won a 100m olympic medal since 1976 until bolt won in 2008. so what's going on? How are jamaica the world's number 1 sprint nation so suddenly?
ryan and yoyo, why do you think that may be?

How about the possibility that being a clean nation they were unable to compete with the dopers of the USA and Eastern Europe during the period when the sport was unclean. How many gold medals was Merlene Ottey deprived of by drug cheats? However, now that the sport is clean Jamaica is no longer being cheated out of medals.

Also let us not pretend Jamaica had no one before Bolt. There were many Jamaica athletes who in the past chose to represent other countries rather than Jamaica. Also Asafa was clear favourite for gold at the 2004 Olympics but only finished 5th (behind a gold medalist drug cheat
from the USA).

I think any doubts about Steve Mullings should be focussed on his previous drugs conviction and a significant improvement in his times at a mature age. To base it on his nationality when he is based in the US and trains with Americans is surely a case of anti-Jamaican bias.

ian_jamsie wrote:Because one of the easiest strength PEDs you can give to anyone is testosterone.

Men produce this naturally. Caster Semenya produces this naturally as well. Hence the advantage she has.

All women produce testosterone while all men produce oestrogen.

It would be highly naive to think that all sprinters are clean, particularly those at the top. The real question therefore is who is on PEDs.

Natural therefore when individuals, or in this case a whole lot of sprinters from one tiny country, start to show huge improvements in performance in a short period of time, to question how this has been achieved. There were the same questions asked about certain Chinese distance runners and more recently Russian ones, where that suspicion was later fully justified.

Where there has been rather odd explanation given for test results, a history of cheats and a lax drug testing regime, with the US on its doorstep that that that implies, its then natural to suspect much of that performance improvement is down to PEDs.

yoyo

get real, ottey tested poitive in 1999 as well for nandrolone

what pretence? jamaica hasn't had a 100m medalist since 1976, fact.

jamaican origin olympians? Johnson banned for stanazobol. Christie banned for nandrolone and thats just for starters.

clear favourite but finished 5th? what's new from the king of choking? If it makes you happy let's 'disqualify' gatlin and make your man 4th. still no medal tho (and never will be)


do you think us sprinters take peds?

It is not about medals, it is about performances surely?
Not all drug abusers win medals, but they may attain high performances.

I also wouldn't say it was natural to suspect someone of cheating. This ethos sounds a bit like a child complaining because its not fair, because i didn't win. In the ideal world, people are considered and thought of as innocent until proven guilty.

You can not just assume that Bolt/Powell/Gay/Carter/Blake/Mullings are all taking drugs just because Johnson/Christie and the like did.

But one thing does correlate here... the colour of their skin.... does that influence your thinking??? I feel you think that Lemaitre is probably the cleanest sprinter and top there is and ever has been?

Please correct me if i am wrong, but your attitude seems to be coming across along these lines.

ryanbailey - I am sure there are lots of people on this board who believe that if only the black sprinters stopped taking drugs the white sprinters would be able to show that they are quicker - not!

There are many outstanding black sprinters from the Americas some of whom maybe are taking or have taken PEDs; there are many outstanding black East African distance runners some of whom maybe are taking or have taken PEDs; there are many outstanding white European throwers some of whom maybe are taking or have taken PEDs; there are many outstanding white Russian women athletes some of whom maybe are taking or have taken PEDs.

trickstat you sounds like you have some sense, well done. iagree with, i just the rest would see the light.

ryan

unless you're 12 years old you should be ashamed of yourself

english bird, i am not the one accusing all of the top sprinters of being on drugs.

trickstat wrote:

ian_jamsie wrote:Because one of the easiest strength PEDs you can give to anyone is testosterone.

Men produce this naturally. Caster Semenya produces this naturally as well. Hence the advantage she has.

All women produce testosterone while all men produce oestrogen.

Not at the same levels pedant.

Why also bring a perfectly good debate to personal insults osprey??? Shame on you. Please try and refrain from reducing this forum to what bbc 606 became. Revert from the personal insults please.

I do truly feel that you can't go assuming that anyone that runs quicker or jumps ahead suddenly is on drugs. People can improve suddenly or produce something 0.2 of second quicker than before. Just a change in training or technique or just getting right on the day.

After all 0.2s is nothing - it is actually the average human reaction time.

http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/index.php

The 0.15 we usually see from sprinters is due to intense training. So there is a 0.05s which is easily reduceable.

Then there are all of the stages of sprint race, plus dipping right. On top of rhythm, and stride length. Basically there is so much to get right or wrong, and 0.2s is nothing.

In the UK we have many sprinters that are easily capable of getting sub 10s, but they are running 10.2s. If they get it right, they can do a 9.9s easy. Will we assume they are doping immediately, due to a huge increase in PB???

I don't think so. So please stop assuming and pointing fingers at people who are being successful. Just sit back and enjoy the best era of sprinting in athletics history.

One thing is for sure, the rewards are much greater these days, which must have a bearing on getting athletes to train harder and wiser and for some of course dirtier. Much like with the african distance runners a good time equals a good lifestyle.

ryanbailey wrote:Why also bring a perfectly good debate to personal insults osprey??? Shame on you. Please try and refrain from reducing this forum to what bbc 606 became. Revert from the personal insults please.

I do truly feel that you can't go assuming that anyone that runs quicker or jumps ahead suddenly is on drugs. People can improve suddenly or produce something 0.2 of second quicker than before. Just a change in training or technique or just getting right on the day.

After all 0.2s is nothing - it is actually the average human reaction time.

http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/index.php

The 0.15 we usually see from sprinters is due to intense training. So there is a 0.05s which is easily reduceable.

Then there are all of the stages of sprint race, plus dipping right. On top of rhythm, and stride length. Basically there is so much to get right or wrong, and 0.2s is nothing.

In the UK we have many sprinters that are easily capable of getting sub 10s, but they are running 10.2s. If they get it right, they can do a 9.9s easy. Will we assume they are doping immediately, due to a huge increase in PB???

I don't think so. So please stop assuming and pointing fingers at people who are being successful. Just sit back and enjoy the best era of sprinting in athletics history.

I agree that training and all the other things you mentioned can show marked improvement in performance, however dont agree that we have a few in Britain who are capable of sub 10! At this very second we have DC and maybe Dasalu at a push, if he gets perfect race/wind etc. Unfortunatley are sprint scene isnt all the great, which is a shame because its my favourite event.

ian_jamsie wrote:

trickstat wrote:

ian_jamsie wrote:Because one of the easiest strength PEDs you can give to anyone is testosterone.

Men produce this naturally. Caster Semenya produces this naturally as well. Hence the advantage she has.

All women produce testosterone while all men produce oestrogen.

Not at the same levels pedant.

Ian

You try and throw some biochemistry into the thread and get a very basic fact wrong. I correct you in very broad terms and you call me a "pedant". I think you've got a darned cheek.

If you can't post on here without resorting to what is basically petty abuse you're increasing the chances that this forum may end up going down the same route as certain others (past & present).

Don't worry Trickstat, there's no way this forum is going to end up like that. I'm keeping an eye on what is said over here.

I'll only lay out a few points in short; I don't fall in line with "genetically superior" of any nation or race or anything. It's certain circumstances that define the measure of success in any sport or event. For instance, most Jamaicans are directed into sprinting while most Kenyans flood the distance events, which is also a way out of poverty and into a better life. By implication, when the bulk of the athletic pool is guided into certain five, six, seven events it follows that a certain number of people will come through and perform at top level provided the necessary infrastructure is in place.

Further, when on an island state, it's much harder to find long flat spaces to train so it makes much more sense to take up shorter distances, let alone the overall more easy-going attitude of the people there. Islanders don't usually like doing things that last long.

Most Kenyans or Ethiopians have to cover large distances on a daily basis from little kids so they have developed a sound endurance built-in base, are leaner in stature and have got a higher ratio of slow-twitch muscle fibres by the time they take up running seriously as a sport.

Second, about Brits about going sub 10. Apart from Dwain Chambers, there are three-four who are capable of following through and hopefully one or two will make it. It's all about staying injury-free and building on.

Last, 0.2 secs can be a vast margin depending on the region of times referred to. Taking off 0.2 secs from 10.0 to 9.8, e.g., equates to moving up a whole tier or two and may take years to attain. But 0.2 secs from 10.5 down to 10.3 is simply a matter of taking up sprinting seriously most of the times.

That's fair enough Isabre, but can you explain that 90% of all Kenyan medallists are Kalenjin, whilst the Kalenjin tribe only makes up 12% of the Kenyan population?

The other tribes are lazy, addicted to junk food and computer games? Or is that only something that is allowed to be levelled at western (read British) kids?

djlovesyou wrote:That's fair enough Isabre, but can you explain that 90% of all Kenyan medallists are Kalenjin, whilst the Kalenjin tribe only makes up 12% of the Kenyan population?

The other tribes are lazy, addicted to junk food and computer games? Or is that only something that is allowed to be levelled at western (read British) kids?

Being born and living at altitude helps distance runners greatly. That's the main reason distance running is dominated by 2 countries. Anyone else coming through in these events has to be truly exceptional or on some form of doping.

lsabre
how can you not believe in 'genetic superiority'? Athletes of west african origin absolutely dominate sprinting. I may be wrong here but isnt Lemaitre the only non west african- origin sprinter to go under 10 secs ever?

Similarly East african athletes totally dominate the distance events. East africans won 10 out of 12 medals available (3000sc, 5000, 10000, marathon) at beijing for example

your theory about islanders not having room to run doesn't really hold true either. what about the uk which has a real harrier tradition? Can you name a world class west-african origin distance runner representing the uk? In fact is their a world-class west-african origin distance runner at all? I honestly don't know.

Is there a world-class east african sprinter? Again, I don't know. I would be interested in nominations though.

Whatever, I would suggest that the whole east/west africa thing is a clear indication of genetics.

On the other hand I do agree with the 0.2 thing. If you are/were a good sprinter you would know that.

What about all the non-Kalenjin Kenyans that were brought up at altitude?

Saying that genetics has nothing to do with it is naive.

The whole argument for genetics playing a part is essentially that certain groups of people play the numbers game very well. Members of the Kalenjin tribe tend to have slender upper bodies and skinny calves, the ideal build for a distance runner. A West African is less likely to have this build.

Obviously cultural differences will affect it too, but if say 50% of a population has a body that is predisposed to distance running, compared to 2% of another population, which is more likely to produce medallists? (disclaimer: numbers plucked out of behind.) That said, there is nothing to stop someone from that 2% becoming exceptional (Lemaitre or Xiang perhaps).

english_osprey wrote:I may be wrong here but isnt Lemaitre the only non west african- origin sprinter to go under 10 secs ever?

I dunno where the Aborigines came from, but Patrick Johnson broke 10 when he ran 9.93 in Japan about 2003 I think.

First of all, English_Osprey, Britain is not so much of an island in the conventional sense and actually a whole country of a larger size than most continental countries in Europe, with hardly any mountainous areas and plenty of plains and green-laid flat areas to run on and on.

Further, a country among the most advanced, in a financially better state than most and that offers their citizens numerous opportunities of carving out a career and at least a decent living in many other areas outside sports.

While there are also professional sports that take a large dent into the athletic pool of the country, as other individual sports very competitive to athletics. In Jamaica, Kenya and Ethiopia the only way out for the vast majority of people is either sprinting or distance running whereas there are hardly any other sports to take a share therein.

Britain, though, is fairly cold most of the year and rainy which also may have predisposed people towards longer distances or other activities over so many decades. Don't forget that warm-weather camps and the like are only a thing of the last couple of decades.

Jamaica is warm very much throughout the season and has developed a know-how in sprinting in recent decades for instance, while many regions of Kenya and Ethiopia are high altitude plateaus that facilitate distance running training superbly.

As I've said, most people in these quarters have to run a good mileage every day from little kids so when they come to start serious training they've got a sound endurance platform built-in, are leaner, have got a higher ratio of slow-twitch muscle fibres and most of all higher blood values than Europeans or Americans.

Whereas a mean European or American runner may have a normal level of haemoglobin in the 15% region, an East African lies in the high 16 to 17% just because of living in a high altitude environment. You know what a large difference and a straight advantage in performance that 2% can make?

Further, what you see out there performing in the top flight is just the tip of the iceberg, or better those who survive the training and come out to perform. Do you know how many 'poor' others don't make it due to injuries, many times career-ending, or illness. When each training group may contain 150 to 200 runners, those 10 or so that will survive the highly demanding training are going to run serious times.

As concerns American sprinters, most of them come from the financially lower classes and usually out of highly criminal/violent quarters of cities so it's again a matter of survival and a chance to escape that environment and begin a better life. So again conditions and circumstances hold an instrumental part in the whole situation.

With regard to the Kalenjin tribes, they've won around 40% of medals for Kenya meaning that there is still a 60% left to be accounted for between the rest. They occupy the Great Rift Valley which has been very much the centre of Kenyan distance running.

Last, what makes people assume that Kenyans or Ethiopians run at this level out of natural talent and all others have to resort to some form of doping to compete against them? They're as advanced in this area as anyone else and make no mistake about that.

The point about genetics being a key factor to success has already been proved, people have known for ages that certain areas of the rift valley produce the best distance runners, it's no different from there being more ginger haired people in Scotland than anywhere else in the UK (by percentage)

PEDs were rife in athletics during the 80s too, maybe not in Britain, but try and find any successful female Soviet/East German athlete from the 80s that is still in decent shape, you'll struggle, as for the sprinters, Ben Johnson once said the '88 drug test were a farce, he admitted to taking PEDs, just not the ones found in his sample, what he could never understand though, was how everyone else passed the tests when he and everyone else knew that most top sprinters of the day were on something.

I think genetics must play some part. For a start it's the main reason why Kalenjin boy is a much better runner than his friend and why one Finnish girl throws the javelin much further than her friend. High altitude alone cannot account for East African dominance in distance running although it is certainly a very important factor. There are other parts of the world where many people live at high altitudes such as Nepal, Bhutan, northern Pakistan, Bolivia, Colombia, Peru and parts of Mexico, but very few noted distance runners have emerged from them. Also, one of the greatest Kenyan runners of all time, Paul Tergat, comes from Mombasa which is on the coast.

Tradition and role models do also play their part which can also partly explain things like Finnish javelin throwing and French (men's!) pole vaulting. Role models like Kelly Holmes and Paula Radcliffe probably have helped inspire directly or otherwise the outstanding current crop of young female middle and long distance runners in the UK.

Genetics may play some part from individual to individual in certain aspects like one having a higher ratio of fast-twitched muscle fibres than another, or a better aerobical capacity or lactic acid tolerance. Although most of the times those qualities have formed due to the lifestyle, activities and background of an individual growing up. Yet, any gap can be made up as long as the proper training and background is in place, as well as the will and perseverance on the part of athletes. But to extend that over a whole tribe or race goes too far a bit.

I will give you that a certain group of people may display certain features at a higher rate on average or over a wider population ratio than another. West Africans, e.g., have generally better quality tendons and lower fat than white people. But not any Kalenjin boy is better than one's friend while the cultural and social background of countries like Pakistan, Bolivia or Peru are wide different. As a matter of fact, I don't know whether there has been anyone ever doing any sport at high competitive level from Nepal or Bhutan.

Further, the likes of Seb Coe or Steve Cram were running times that could still render them as top contenders in any major championships or races without employing altitude training which shows that it can be done either. There are many ways to reach a certain result. However, Paul Tergat comes from the Rift Valley too and was spending much of his training there as well.

trickstat wrote:

ian_jamsie wrote:

trickstat wrote:

ian_jamsie wrote:Because one of the easiest strength PEDs you can give to anyone is testosterone.

Men produce this naturally. Caster Semenya produces this naturally as well. Hence the advantage she has.

All women produce testosterone while all men produce oestrogen.

Not at the same levels pedant.

Ian

You try and throw some biochemistry into the thread and get a very basic fact wrong. I correct you in very broad terms and you call me a "pedant". I think you've got a darned cheek.

If you can't post on here without resorting to what is basically petty abuse you're increasing the chances that this forum may end up going down the same route as certain others (past & present).

You were being pedantic.

You know for well what I meant and the huge difference these hormones make to muscle production.

Increased testosterone can make women run like men, fact. There is a wide difference in the production of these hormones and it is the main reason for the difference between men and women at the top level.

Slaves were selectively bred. This has contibuted to athletes in the West Indies being bigger, faster and stronger.

It is no surprise that the best sprinters have their roots back from this time.

lsabre wrote:With regard to the Kalenjin tribes, they've won around 40% of medals for Kenya meaning that there is still a 60% left to be accounted for between the rest. They occupy the Great Rift Valley which has been very much the centre of Kenyan distance running.

I've seen that statistic too, but you haven't interpreted it correctly.

Kalenjin have won 40% of all medals in men's events 800 and above (including WXC) since 1980. That's out of everyone in the world and includes Tanzanian and Ugandan Kalenjin (Certainly Kipruto and perhaps Bayi).

The percentage of Kenyan medallists that are Kalenjin in closer to 90% and perhaps even more.

"The Kalenjin have been called by some "the running tribe." Since the mid-1960s, Kenyan men have earned the largest share of major honors in international athletics at distances from 800 meters to the marathon; the vast majority of these Kenyan running stars have been Kalenjin. From 1980 on, about 40% of the top honors available to men in international athletics at these distances (Olympic medals, World Championships medals, and World Cross Country Championships honors) have been earned by Kalenjin."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalenjin_people

I think I've interpreted it properly DjLovesYou ;-)