Gay, Powell, and Collins on the London startlist

I cannot convince you so I will not even try to. London will be proof enough. If they are all fit we can see if Bolt can approach 9.6 territory again.

I think you have become cynical towards sprinters from experience with Johnson, Christie, Gatlin, Greene, MJones, Kelli White, Torri Edwards, possibly Obikwelu and countless others. That is understandable. The Jamaica thing comes from people that have represented other countries and cheated. The Christie, Johnson and Dunns of this world.

We will see soon enough.

Ilemy--

How is believing that many of those top all-time 100m times were done cleanly, cynical?

And Blake was over 17 when he went that 10.21, IIRC. Still amazing, however, just wanted to get the facts ironed out.

I will admit that when I was around, the juice was rampant, not just in track, but everywhere, like at the local gym. The reason I never used was because of my belief that not using drugs keeps you healthy. I genuinely feared losing my nuts, getting liver cirrhosis and kidney disease, thrombosis, embolism, you name it--not to mention the acromegaly, acne, alopecia, and all the other "not-so-serious" "side-effects".

Not using has kept me healthy. I have never taken squat. I took adult aspirin once, when I had knee surgery, but it made me high so I never took it again. I'm healthy and strong as an ox, while some of those guys I know were using are my age or a bit older, and are now broken-down old men.

So I have seen it used, big-time. I have stated many times who I believe to have used and who I think could have been clean. My list is not from any bias, it is from experience-based evidence--or, at least, I haven't been able to identify any bias myself, such as era, gender, race, nationality, etc.. There are 9.77's, 78's, 79's, and 80's that are every bit as questionable as the 9.69 and 9.58

If you think that you can identify a bias that is based upon anything other than performance, then seriously, please point it out.

I certainly have no bias against Jamaican athletes simply because they are Jamaican. Like I said before, in fact, this year I think that so far there's only one Jamaican man who offers good evidence of use--Blake.

Okay then boss. You stated your position. Again we will have to see what sort of shape these guys turn up in in London.

Then we can see who is doping and who is not.

I want to believe Bolt was clean in 08 09 but I just cant. Not even the greatest sprinters of all time made time jumps as big as his. He went from 10.03 to 9.69 in a short time span.

Again with this rubbish. His 10.03 was done in July 2007. It was his FIRST competitive 100m. That means he didn't know how to run the race. He ran it to prove to his coach that he could run it.

For a tall man learning to start a 100m takes time. To say he WENT FROM 10.03 to 9.69 is ludicrous without context. Once he learned the event he got better. When he ran 10.03 he already ran 19.76 over 200m. Are you saying its impossible for a 19.76 guy to run 9.69 when at his peak in the Olympics?

The man was still maturing as a runner and in physique. He was 20 years old at that time. Do you believe Jamaican runners just pop up overnight by doping?

They are all highly talented from high school and once they get into a professional program when flaws are fixed the times drop quickly.

If you believe in linear progression and that you run your ultimate best each time you know nothing about sprinting and I cannot help you.

They are human beings not machines. The "He had a drastic drop in times" shows how little you know about Bolt and just go off hearsay. He transitioned from a 200/400 runner to a 100/200 runner. Do you expect him to improve by 0.01 each race?

Find out more about who you are doubting before you make a fool of yourself. Find out who has the World Junior Record over 200m. Find out who was World Junior champion at 15, who broke 20 seconds at 17 and ran 45.35 easing up with 20 metres to go at 16 years old.

Dapistokyo wrote:

I want to believe Bolt was clean in 08 09 but I just cant. Not even the greatest sprinters of all time made time jumps as big as his. He went from 10.03 to 9.69 in a short time span.

....I hope you realize that his professional debut in a 100m was 9.76 and he cruised in?

Ilemy actually makes some good points here.

In summer 2007 Bolt went 10.03 (+0.7) in his first real 100m.

In early May 2008, he went 9.76 (+1.8), then in late May went 9.72 (+1.7) for the WR. In mid-August he went 9.69 (0.0) while goofing and negative-leaning, with an untied shoe, which in reality was around a 9.55-quality sprint.

So he went from 10.07 in 2007, to 9.84 and 9.80 in early 2008, to 9.55 in late summer 2008 (adjusted times).

I think the 10.07 in 2007 should be discounted from the trajectory, because what it amounts to is a "try-it-and-see-what-happens" kind of race. Believe me, the start, drive phase, and speed envelope of the 100m are not like they are in the 200m, and Bolt's 10.07 should not be taken as any sort of approximation of his trained 100m potential at that time.

So, we are left with a guy who realized in 2007 that he could be fast, and in a little under a year runs 9.84/9.80 adjusted. The actual improvement during that time was therefore around .25 seconds, which is easily accounted-for by a year's worth of 100m training, and which would not necessarily, by itself, be good evidence of juicing.

The problem is the lowering to 9.55 a mere 2.5 months later, which represents another .27 improvement, which makes an over half second improvement (.52) in basically one year's time.

To be fair, Bolt had good fitness entering 2007 and 2008, from his 200m training--really, all that he lacked were the finer points of the 100m.

Yes, it is possible for an exceptional athlete to master the finer points of the 100m in a single year. The only question remains, how much improvement is reasonable to rationally expect, given his starting point?

Again, he was well-trained when he ran that 10.07, in terms of sprinting fitness if not in pure 100m technique. Can a year's worth of technique training result in a .52 improvement? Maybe. Can a year's worth of technique training combined with a year's worth of natural development at a critical time result in a .52 improvement? Absolutely. Did it? In my opinion, no.

It strains credibility. He wasn't just improving, he was improving to a point beyond anybody's conception. No matter what BJ says, even he couldn't have gone 9.55 adjusted. There IS a chance that Bolt is the historical anomaly of all-time, but it is intrinsically exceedingly unlikely.

Then there is the matter of injury. Bolt had been injured in the past, but all of a sudden he is doing block starts and driving, and he emerges uninjured in 2008? Rationally, that is not likely, especially considering that it was his first year of dedicated 100m training.

Then there is the fact that the 9.55 was done after rounds, meaning that it might have been 9.50 fresh (coach has been quoted as having said 9.52 was possible). That would have pushed the improvement from .52 to .57, further into the absurd territory.

Why is .52 absurd? I personally can't think of any other sprinter who focused on the 200m, who began to train for the 100m and in a single year knocked off over half a second from their "try-it-and-see-what-happens" time. Not knowing everything, I invite anybody to provide an example other than Bolt. For a trained 200m runner to chop more than half a second off their 100m time in a year is nuts. That is beyond absolutely huge, and IMHO is only possible for an athlete who is in an early developmental phase, maybe someone around 17/18/19 years of age.

Take a look at Bolt this year, 2012. THAT is how the real Bolt runs 100m, the same as he did in 2011 and 2010. He can still be fast, like 9.75, but that's .20 slower than his fastest. 9.75 in 2012 would be consistent with improving from 9.84/9.80 in 2008, and is entirely credible--again, not only just by the time, but HOW the time was achieved, HOW he looked sprinting that kind of time.

I do not discount the possibility that he is the outlier of all-time, I merely point out that that possibility is exceedingly unlikely.

Finally, the fact that he has never officially tested positive is not helpful to this discussion, as everyone knows by now.

Enter Blake. While I do acknowledge the possibility--however slim--that Bolt has always been clean (and also Powell), there is zero--ZERO--possibility that Blake is clean.

Absolutely zero. In my mind, this is not even a topic for discussion. I saw him coming, years ago. His WR-quality 19.26 last year was the second-biggest in-your-face performance ever witnessed in t&f, second only to Ben Johnson's 9.79 in Seoul.

Nobody needed to discuss the evidence of Johnson's juicing in Seoul--it was patently obvious, as is Blake's today. Blake is slightly less extreme than Johnson, but Johnson was actually faster then than Blake has been so far...however, I think that will change this year. Blake will show you something you though was not possible from anybody other than Bolt. It might not be at the Games, it could be later in the year--but it WILL happen, as he is fearless in his use of the juice.

And Blake's use of the juice is, IMHO, the single best evidence of Bolt's use of the juice in previous years. It all fits. Blake could only be using as he is now if Bolt had been using when Blake came on board.

Yes, I know that there is an apparent circular inadequacy in this type of reasoning--using the suggestion that Blake is using because Bolt was using, to prove that Bolt was using--however, that circularity doesn't actually exist. Bolt's having used would only provide a motive, a rationale, for Blake's using, and is not evidence of Blake's using (it only helps understand why he would use, or how he could use). So, rather than being circular, the reasoning/speculation reveals a puzzle that fits together neatly.

Again, I don't care if they're using or not. Heck, I want to see them fight it out at 9.4x, that would be absolutely epic. My only regret would be that BJ did not get the opportunity to show his full potential some 20+ years ago.

Forget BJ, what about Lewis or Bailey? Put either of those guys on a serious regimen, and they're every bit as fast as Bolt, possibly faster.

Look for Blake to follow up this year on his "in-your-face" performance of 2011. The only one who can stop him now is himself, or someone who is nuts, like a girlfriend, coach, agent, supplier, doctor, or trainer who goes off the rails, and who fails to successfully manage what amounts to extortion.

Of course, hats off to both Bolt and Blake. Like it or not, they have played the same game as everybody else, and won, big-time.

It cannot at this point be legally concluded that they have violated the rules of competition (except Blake's stimulating drink).

Hats off to them and their support crew, they are the current winners in the 100m competition.

Now you've snapped

NOTHING there is real evidence and what your basing it on is just ridiculous lol

I'm done with these forums, too many idiots...

Sprintgeezer

BJ DID get the opportunity to show his full potential. And he was DQ'ed. Further, why would you regret this if you also said "No matter what BJ says, even he couldn't have gone 9.55 adjusted."? Then his full potential is still slower than Bolt, which is afterall what matters.

I also think there's an error in your logic that those first 2sub 10 runs by Usain represent any kind of max. To say this "For a trained 200m runner to chop more than half a second off their 100m time in a year is nuts"/i] after you said, already "I think the 10.07 in 2007 should be discounted from the trajectory". so why include it then? If you DO discount it, as you suggested, his first 2 runs are in the 9.8 range, and then with training, hard work and the electricity of bigger meets, he dropped into the 9.7 range, then 9.5x. So it's not a half second, it's about .3.

And we KNOW he's an outlier. Look at his WJ records. Look at his 200m times. That's an outlier right there.

Blake, on the other hand, does raise the stakes. The odds of 2 guys training together running so significantly faster (esp over 200m) than anyone else is running is rare enough to be reasonably questionable.

The thing is, though, it's too easy to allege this stuff. The system, for all it's flaws, is what we have. And until either of them prove +ve, let it go, I say.

My drug-free, wind-aided $0.02378

I saw well thought out reasoning in your post. The point debunking the over 0.5 second drop showed that.

I can explain the reason why two guys running in the same camp are significantly better than anybody else. Acceptance to these clubs isn't exactly random or easy. You have to be recognized as a major talent.

In Jamaica there are two top camps: MVP and Racers Track Club. MVP has Melanie Walker, Kaleise Spencer, Frater, Carter, Powell, Foster-Hylton, Sherone Simpson, SAF and it goes on.

The other camp is coached by the best sprints coach in Jamaica. They have many of the guys you see running close to 10 seconds. The best sprint talents from high school train there. It's not that two guys are just there juicing daily. There are over 30 athletes there with high school athletes also transitioning there. Blake was identified as another Bolt like talent from as early as 2006 and he chose to stay home since Bolt had so much success here.

MVP were the pioneers and have the widest range of athletes across the disciplines.

Therefore, there is nothing shady about the camp. Check their websites. The athletes are already established at junior level before they can go there.

Something might be fishy about the 19.26 but it wasn;t doping. Dix also had a big PB there.

Well, if we're saying Bolt is NOT juicing (and I don't believe he is), then we have to say that he's the rarest of athletes, and statistically doesn't exist. To run that much faster than the rest of the best is simply beyond the bell curve. "Anomaly" doesn't even touch how rare that is.

If Blake is clean (and I hope he is), then we have 2 athletes who are out of the world amazing (given his 19.26). I'm not talking about 'great', or Fraser, Powell, SAF, etc . we're talking about way beyond that. Like, say, Flo-Jo .. what would you say if Flo Jo, running in 1988, had a training partner as the only competitor likely to touch her in the 100m and 200m?

That said, Blake hasn't hit 9.5 yet, so we're not there yet .. but that 200m was out there. What was his pb?

I have no idea what happened to Walter Dix in that race, but he didn't drop nearly the time of his PB that Blake did.

The Blake issue is the opposite of Bolt. He rarely ran the 200m prior so the times before that were mostly speed endurance races or testers. His PB in 2007 was 20.62 (1.2) after running rounds of 100m and 200m plus 4*100 heats at the high school championships. He was 17 then. As you can see he ran 21.06 in June 08. This was during a year in which he had left his high school coach's house to being training professionally foregoing his final year of high school.

He went to the WJC and underperformed and came 3rd or 4th in the 100m after running injured. He was being rebuilt after having a heavy workload along with Ashmeade, Riker Hylton at school.

2008 was a transition year as you can see his 100m time fell off from a PB of 10.11 2007 to 10.27 in 2008. He was new to the Racers TC at 18 and still developing physically. Serious deficiencies in his transition from his drive phase were being corrected as well as a tendency to start slowly.

The result was 9.93 in 2009 in his first year running the Golden League. His 2009 SB in the 200m was set in February and he would not have been expected to be sharp. He only played with the idea of running the 200m until he got stronger. Nickel Ashmeade had overtaken him as he developed quicker but maybe didn't have the upside that Blake had.

The change in 200m came in 2010 when he tried a 200m and ran 19.76 narrowly losing to Gay and causing him a scare. This was a year when he could try a new event as there were no major championships. He ran 9.89 PB in the 100m less than a month later in -0.4 wind. He was still 20. People aside from those close to him and those who were most knowledgeable in Jamaica began to realise that he was actually ahead of where Bolt was at that age when Bolt suffered from injuries btw 17-19.

In 2011 he ran 9.82 (+0.1) and then caught a quick track with a long curve and tore it apart. The curve was the reason why he never was considered a 200m even in high school and would run it only for points.

The 19.26 race also saw PBs from Ashmeade and Dix in 3rd and 2nd. The 2nd place time was the fastest 2nd place time ever. If you say Blake doped then Dix and possibly Ashmeade doped.

Either that or question that curve in Brussels. Blake just took it easy and unleashed the final 100 utilising his speed endurance.

Well, the fastest 2nd place ever is meaningless, though. It's a direct pointer at the crazy time Blake ran, nothing more. 2ndly, Dix's pb was, what, 19.72 or so? He dropped .2 sec or thereabouts. Not unreasonable. What was Blake's pb before that race?

Also the question of the curve is somewhat diversionary. Blake's time was solely a function of that insane last 100m and a negative split. For someone who hadn't really run the 200m before, that's definitely, imo, an eyebrow raiser.

As a 100m specialist, his 100m pb was close to Dix', right? And he runs a 200m, out of the blue, and runs 19.26 against Dix' 19.5xx? And Dix was considered the 200m guy. I definitely think Blake's a question, just on that race. The rest of his performances are great, and in line with everything you've said, I think. But 19.26 smokes MJ's 200m and that was off the planet. For Blake to blow that away, with little experience over 200m, is definitely a big question. To me.

so while he was taking it easy for the first 100M - the clock must have stopped or slowed down.

if bolt and blake are not on peds then they must be the next evolution of humanity - cause they certainly are outliers.

I don't know how else to put it man. Maybe Jamaicans are just that freaking good.

The hitch is that you believe the Americans were the ultimate and anything superior is an anomaly. If the 200m is taken seriously serious things can happen IF you have speed endurance. The top guys hardly run the 200m. When taken seriously this is what happens. Look at MJs 19.30 and even Lemaitre is 19.8 and don't tell me he's elite. The X-man ran 19.6+. MJ didn't really face the top 100m guys because they didn't run it. He faced some crap Europeans and 200m specialists that were too slwo for the 100m (exception is Fredericks and Boldon) .Spearmon with a crap first 100m churned out a 19.6+. Dix did it before he was even good in the 100m.

As hard as it is to accept, these guys are just better ATM. Whether it is talent mixed with coaching plus dedication (in the case of Blake) and the rare ability to relax before a race (the top guys were always so serious and tense) they are just damn good.

We will see what happens in London. I can't explain any more. Jamaica has been setting WR since 1948 while not even an independent nation. They didn't just appear overnight. It just is.

Remember that Ato Boldon is Trinidadian. His mother is Jamaican. Richard-Ross is Jamaican. So are Donovan Bailey, Christie, Juliet Cuthbert and Merlene Ottey.

I still think there was something funky going on in that race where Blake went 19.26 and Dix went 19.53. Both of those times were uncharacteristically fast, especially for that time in the year. Whether it was a gust of wind down the homestretch or some other unseen factor such as a timing error, I do think something happened.

That didn't even LOOK like a 19.2. He closed probably about as fast as Bolt did in his WR, but his turn was not good.

I bet on any other track and a different timing system, that would have been a 19.4-19.5 from Blake and a 19.7-19.8 from Dix.

A 19.4-19.5 guy in the 200 should probably be running 9.7 mid-to-low in the 100m. Guess what? That's where Blake is right now, and probably where he will be in the Olympics.

Blake is NOT in Bolt's league when both of them are healthy/juiced up. Blake will not go faster than 9.68. In my opinion, Blake is about the same exact level as Tyson Gay when both of them are fully fit (9.6 with wind help in the 100, solid at 9.7, 19.4-19.5 in the 200m). Bolt may be capable of 9.53-9.55 and 19.1 low.

chuckie d wrote:

I still think there was something funky going on in that race where Blake went 19.26 and Dix went 19.53. Both of those times were uncharacteristically fast, especially for that time in the year. Whether it was a gust of wind down the homestretch or some other unseen factor such as a timing error, I do think something happened.

That didn't even LOOK like a 19.2. He closed probably about as fast as Bolt did in his WR, but his turn was not good.

Good point. Forget his reaction time, had his curve been anywhere near Bolt's, he'd have been off the charts.

......question that curve in Brussels.