Justin Gatlin, meet Usain Bolt

Testosterone is a steroid hormone from the androgen group and is found in mammals, reptiles, birds, and other vertebrates.

Testosterone was, of course, the first anabolic steroid ever created, and remains the basis for all other derivations we have currently being used in medicine today.

llemux wrote:

Testosterone was, of course, the first anabolic steroid ever created, and remains the basis for all other derivations we have currently being used in medicine today.

I guess he thought "test cream" was a lotion you apply to raise your IQ before an exam. Jeez.

Bowel-movement strikes again!

llemux wrote:

Testosterone is a steroid hormone from the androgen group and is found in mammals, reptiles, birds, and other vertebrates.

Testosterone was, of course, the first anabolic steroid ever created, and remains the basis for all other derivations we have currently being used in medicine today.

Wrong. Testosterone is a hormone exclusively.

SYNTHETIC Testosterone is a steroid. There is a difference.

body master wrote:

Wrong. Testosterone is a hormone exclusively.

SYNTHETIC Testosterone is a steroid. There is a difference.

So Gatlin was taking the hormone? LOL

Yawn...

Look, man. It's okay to admit you didn't know something. This is from Wiki, okay?

"Testosterone is a steroid hormone from the androgen group and is found in mammals, reptiles,[1] birds,[2] and other vertebrates. In mammals, testosterone is primarily secreted in the testicles of males and the ovaries of females, although small amounts are also secreted by the adrenal glands. It is the principal male sex hormone and an anabolic steroid."

--------------------------

Umm... okay so once again we're back at your avenue and I'm calling you a retard. Under your definition of "steroid":

You say that Testosterone is a steroid so you're saying that EVERY HUMAN BEING is taking steroids. That's precisely what you're saying at this point.

There is a HUGE difference between the natural testosterone in your body and the synthetic testosterone that is used in conjunction with other anabolic agents to create an "anabolic steroid". One

We all have the "steroid" hormone testosterone in our body. But for the purposes of athletics people choose not to include the steroid part because it's misleading. Steroids are NOT "anabolic agents" or "anabolic steroids". Again, there is a HUGE difference that leads to much confusion.

What gives an "unfair" performance advantage is an "anabolic agent" or "anabolic steroids" not steroids themselves.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

LOL, watching some replays of the Olympic 100m, I can't help but laugh when Bolt leaves Gatlin in the dust at around 60m.

Gatlin, meet Bolt.

LOL, watching some replays of the Olympic 100m, I can't help but laugh when I think about the thread where Sprintgeezer predicted that Bolt would not win the 100m at the Olympics.

Spintgeezer, meet Bolt.

body master wrote:

Umm... okay so once again we're back at your avenue and I'm calling you a retard. Under your definition of "steroid":

You say that Testosterone is a steroid so you're saying that EVERY HUMAN BEING is taking steroids. That's precisely what you're saying at this point.

There is a HUGE difference between the natural testosterone in your body and the synthetic testosterone that is used in conjunction with other anabolic agents to create an "anabolic steroid". One

We all have the "steroid" hormone testosterone in our body. But for the purposes of athletics people choose not to include the steroid part because it's misleading. Steroids are NOT "anabolic agents" or "anabolic steroids". Again, there is a HUGE difference that leads to much confusion.

What gives an "unfair" performance advantage is an "anabolic agent" or "anabolic steroids" not steroids themselves.

BM, I posted the definition, not an opinion.

You can't shift this into an argument over semantics to deflect your glaring ignorance. It seems you're the only one confused even after being made aware and after some furious Googling, I'm sure.

Not every human being is "taking steroids", as you would accuse me of proposing, just the ones who want to add to what their body is aready producing naturally. Whether that be via creams, pills, or swallowing bull testicles, etc. You know, like Justin Gatlin did.

I won't argue the point anymore with you as you seem incapable of carrying on an intelligent conversation.

i hate gatlin. i think it is the biggest load of hypocrisy ever that he was allowed to run, it basically says it doesn't matter if you dope ....or dope twice. But even though he is currently doping it is pretty amazing to be 3rd against this field when you are 30 after 8 years of non competition. .... holy moly

Hey asterisk-tard, the reasoning was sound.

And Bolt would not have won had it not been for the medicaments of the good doctor Wohlfahrt.

Bolt, meet Glaxo Smith Kline.

****************************************************

It's still amusing to watch Gatlin get left behind, with no answer for the 9.63 Bolt.

yeah for sure but i doubt he is dwelling in it. just wish he hadn't got that 3rd

I see, you're backing down much like Lance Armstrong because you know you've lost.

You fail to see that there are two definitions of steroids and people like you only know of one in the athletic "Incredible Hulk" sense. This sure turned into an argument of semantics. No longer an argument about Gatlin, but about teaching you the difference between natural and synthetic. One definition does NOT define both instances.

It's like saying everyone is taking EPO because they have it in their body. You're such a moron.

Exogenous vs endogenous. Maybe you should do some "furious" googling too.

thedude is back wrote:

yeah for sure but i doubt he is dwelling in it. just wish he hadn't got that 3rd

I think Gatlin beat Gay squarely in London, it looked as if his body really was ahead of Gay's at the finish.

It seems almost certain that Gay will be faster next year, but how about Gatlin? That 9.79 is no joke. I personally believe he's maxxed-out, and that this was his big shot. He succeeded impressively, if you ask me--World Indoor 60m Champion, multiple Diamond League winner, US National 100m Champion, Olympic Bronze Medalist 100m.

This was his shot, and he nailed it. He performed to the absolute best of his abilities IMHO, and he did it when it counted most.

Very impressive. I would be shocked if he improves next year.

Gatlin is a boss, an inspiration and I think he is an all time great. Suck it.

I've noticed..or thought I have noticed this for years with Gay. Seems to me if he realizes he can't quite catch a guy before the tape...he stays straight up and seems to shut down just a hair.

lol.

I find it funny people criticizing one of the World's top sprinters (Gatlin).

Didn't he get just get bronze (out of how many sprinters sprinting competitively around the world)?.

If you read my post 3 posts upthread from yours, you will see that I give him his full props.

But that success doesn't mean that he is immune from criticism. The bottom line is that he is not #1, and being #3, to be #1 is his goal.

The question then becomes one of how. The #1 and #2 could slow down a bit and still be significantly ahead of Gatlin, so if Gatlin wants a shot at #1, he must get faster. To get faster he has to change something. To identify what could/should be changed and how, requires critique of his current race.

It's as simple as that.

I think that if everybody had stayed clean this year, that Gatlin would have won the Olympic 100m. I opined well before the Games that Blake has been using all year and especially in the off-season; and at the start of the Games that Bolt had used the month prior.

I know that Gatlin might retain some residual benefits of his previous roid use, so saying that he would have won isn't terribly meaningful.

More meaningful would be to say that Gay would have won if everybody in the race had always been clean.

However, Gatlin being the 3rd fastest doper this year is still impressive, because it is very possible that there are plenty of dopers who finished lower than he did.

I think Gatlin and Gay are clean, 9.79 is not a outrages time. 9.63 that is something to scratch your head at. It most be the Yams

Gatlin has never doped intentionally and never will. The man's 200m time has always been in the low 20's and he rarely cracked 19 every time he ran it back in the day. If you look at his progression you'll see his technique just keeps improving.

Now look at his relay legs and he never really runs a "WOW" relay leg. He was pretty even with Michael Frater instead of blowing him away like he should of in London. Even in Athens he was pretty average against the other 2nd leggers he ran against.

This is not the signs of a man doping, but of one improving his technique to achieve lower times. I'd say that Gatlin hasn't gotten any faster since 2004.

Went for a 7 mile run last Thursday with a bunch of guys. Some I knew, some I didn't. Of the eight, 3 are pretty good distance runners and 2 do serious track work, mixing up sprints w/distance. One guy in his late sixties, is a well known distance coach in my area and an accomplished runner in his league. Kept drizzling on and off and one guy kept getting side stitches. No one wanted to leave him so we ended up walking the last 2 miles. A couple of them were discussing the Olympic finals and the subject of doping came up. Surprisingly, not a single one in the group thought the Jamaicans were doping. The general consensus was that they had taken their training back to basics and were the real deal. It became apparent that this was the general mode of thought within their running circles.

Kind of refreshing considering what I read on Letsrun.