~~~~~~~~: "Rigorous scientific investigation is good, but shouldn't be restricted to just one athlete or the athletes of just one nation."
Agreed - any athlete from anywhere that repeatedly OBLITERATES world records in heavily drug-historied and (very lucrative) track events such as the 100 meters need to provide extraordinary EVIDENCE of their cleanliness to back up their extraordinary CLAIM of achieving the feat drug-free.
Again, since several people responding on this thread deliberately misrepresent what I have written, I will do it again in the (hopefully not vain) hope that they will grasp it:
In Bolt's case, the MEDIOCRE EVIDENCE does not support the FANTASTIC CLAIM.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is that simple.
Bolt's claim to achieve his otherworldly hyper-freaky feats completely cleanly is truly and extraordinary claim. The evidence is that he has passed drug tests that previous drug users have also passed. These are just facts.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, extraordinary evidence sufficient to support Bolt's claim COULD be accumulated. Laboratories at prestigious research institutions could investigate his biochemistry over the course of, lets say, a year and publish their data in peer-reviewed scientific journals. His hyper-freaky ability would be put under the microscope, so to speak, and new insights into human biology could be gained. This is hardly an autopsy.
It is interesting, and more than a little telling, that those who have gotten their pink little panties all in a twist by my observations and suggestions, who respond with name-calling and tantrums, are supposedly supporters of the claim that Bolt is clean. If they were genuine supporters of that proposition, then rigorous and thorough investigation would be welcomed, not feared. But fear it they do.