Usain Bolt fixed all his flaws and injuries in two months. Rashid Ramzi did similar drastic changes in the past

This is why I never doubt that Bolt will show up at championships.

Not because I never doubt Bolt, but because I never doubt that Bolt will be allowed to do whatever is possible (and will be encouraged to do so) in order to "save the sport."

Ultimately, it's about money, as you've indicated. Bolt is simply too good for the sport. Some people would argue that he IS the sport. People who know nothing about track and have never watched a second of track, know about Bolt. Bolt is waaay bigger than Farah in this sense.

If you noticed during the press conference, a few reporters pressed Bolt on what he did with his German doctor. Bolt answered somewhat thoroughly at first, and then when asked again mentioned rather dismissively something about "joint problems" and that the "problems were fixed." After the 100m, when Gatlin was asked about people rooting against him, and Gatlin replied "I'm thankful" multiple times, you could see Bolt laughing hysterically. I think Bolt realizes that he can get away with it and that it's a sham. He knows he's the best regardless, so he probably doesn't feel too bad about it, but boy does he get some preferential treatment.

The whole narrative that he's a gamer and a championship runner, I don't doubt. However, Bolt is also a gamer and a championship runner for one very important reason: pharmaceutical aid.

If the Kenyans can pay to have positive tests ignored or to be forewarned of doping controls, then surely Usain Bolt doesn't have to do a thing to have any transgressions pushed under the rug. The only time I ever thought that he was being punished was when he false started in Daegu. It was such an obvious false start that I think Bolt was forced to do so. Just a theory...

Regardless, I agree with what you've said. There are plenty people with their head in the sand, and plenty more inside the circles that know exactly what is going on...

"...Bolt had raced little in the last two seasons because of back problems and other injuries, but as he has done in the past, he managed to peak at the right meet — after making a trip to Germany to visit his longtime doctor Hans-Wilhelm Müller-Wohlfahrt.

“He just fixed my injury,” Bolt said. “I had problems with my joints, and he just helped me to sort that out pretty much...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/sports/usain-bolt-beats-justin-gatlin-in-200-at-world-championships.html?_r=0

And even Worse! Sebastian Coe, some weeks before IAAF president elections, said that he wanted Bolt beating Gatlin!! I have never seen something like that!

Imagine Adam Silver saying "I'm with the Lakers over the Spurs"

Imagine Joseph Blatter saying "I want Brazil winning the World Cup" months before a World Cup.

That would be a complete disaster, and the majority of the National Federations would refuse to compete, because there wouldn't be a fair "level playing field"

This article is interesting:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-3207314/Sebastian-Coe-athletics-chance-s-awful-start-Justin-Gatlin-beats-Usain-Bolt-ll-problem.html

Seb Coe (supported by BBC announcers) obviously give Bolt a "pass".

"...If Gatlin wins, it will be a terrible indictment of a sport that seems utterly at a loss about how to police itself. If Bolt wins, it will merely reinforce the idea that he is all that stands between athletics and oblivion."

So, Justin Gatlin knew that there was no chance against Bolt. Because with both of them doped to the gills, Bolt is better than him.

Oh, and I know who Joseph Blatter is, I know that he's as corrupt as we saw in the headlines.

But the point is about Coe's words. How can the elected IAAF president say what Lord Coe said?

How can put this as a "hero/villain" antinomy?

A lot can change in 4-8 weeks.

You're naive to assume that he can't back. He's a guy who has ran 19.19.

Getting back into 19.5 shape shouldn't be that hard. You must be new to the sport.

HeIsClean wrote:

A lot can change in 4-8 weeks.

You're naive to assume that he can't back. He's a guy who has ran 19.19.

Getting back into 19.5 shape shouldn't be that hard. You must be new to the sport.

Correct, and honestly a lot of it was blown out of proportion. Bolt ran a 20.29 in NY into a 2.9 wind, in bad conditions, and he slowed on purpose very early in the race. That race was called one of his worst ever.....but really if he had actually ran the entire race, the time wasn't that bad. If it was 85, sunny and a 1.8 tail wind, he probably would have run 19.7 and nobody would have been freaking out.

Mrr82 wrote:

HeIsClean wrote:

A lot can change in 4-8 weeks.

You're naive to assume that he can't back. He's a guy who has ran 19.19.

Getting back into 19.5 shape shouldn't be that hard. You must be new to the sport.

Correct, and honestly a lot of it was blown out of proportion. Bolt ran a 20.29 in NY into a 2.9 wind, in bad conditions, and he slowed on purpose very early in the race. That race was called one of his worst ever.....but really if he had actually ran the entire race, the time wasn't that bad. If it was 85, sunny and a 1.8 tail wind, he probably would have run 19.7 and nobody would have been freaking out.

What don't you get about him being doped?

He's your hero, and he's doped. He's a fun guy, probably a genuinely nice person. And he's doped. This is the nature of athletics. This is how the game is played.

WAKE UP

Ben L Wrong wrote:

And even Worse! Sebastian Coe, some weeks before IAAF president elections, said that he wanted Bolt beating Gatlin!! I have never seen something like that!

Imagine Adam Silver saying "I'm with the Lakers over the Spurs"

Imagine Joseph Blatter saying "I want Brazil winning the World Cup" months before a World Cup.

Your comparison is not valid because, as you yourself state, Coe made that statement BEFORE he was elected IAAF president. In any case, what would be worse for the sport -- a twice-convicted doper (Gatlin) winning or (worse case scenario) an unconvicted doper (Bolt) winning? Obviously, it would be worse for the sport if Gatlin won.

Les wrote:

Your comparison is not valid because, as you yourself state, Coe made that statement BEFORE he was elected IAAF president. In any case, what would be worse for the sport -- a twice-convicted doper (Gatlin) winning or (worse case scenario) an unconvicted doper (Bolt) winning? Obviously, it would be worse for the sport if Gatlin won.

Valid, shmalid.

Here's the dichotomy, Mr. Moralist:

Would you rather take the red pill or the blue pill? Would you rather know the truth--that Gatlin is just the tip of the iceberg--or would you rather continue to believe in fairy tales? In mutants? What does not testing positive have to do with anything?

WAKE UP

Les wrote:

Your comparison is not valid because, as you yourself state, Coe made that statement BEFORE he was elected IAAF president. In any case, what would be worse for the sport -- a twice-convicted doper (Gatlin) winning or (worse case scenario) an unconvicted doper (Bolt) winning? Obviously, it would be worse for the sport if Gatlin won.

There's no "good" or "bad" for the sport. Prove me (without Cram's bragadoccio about Bolt "saving the sport") that TV ratings would fall if Gatlin win a gold medal.

Prove me that the average joe knows that Lashawn Merritt did positive for Extense, or that Mo Farah didn't hear the bell when the testers arrived,

And then you have BBC, telling the kids a fairy tale, with Gatlin as the bogey man...booo...

And there wouldn't be "a death" for the sport if Bolt comes positive.

Every of us loves athletics because the sport by itself, not because certain athlete is the face of that sport.

There was life after Lance Armstrong. And there is life after Bolt.

HeIsClean wrote:

A lot can change in 4-8 weeks.

You're naive to assume that he can't back. He's a guy who has ran 19.19.

Getting back into 19.5 shape shouldn't be that hard. You must be new to the sport.

And you're naive if you think that Bolt was in 20 flat shape 8 weeks before Berlin 2009.

In July 7th (2009) Bolt ran 19.59 with heavy rain and -0.9 headwind in Lausanne.

That was a strong 19.2 indicative.

I'm talking from London 2012 to Beijing 2015.

Waaah! No guys who look like me are winning anything. They're all cheaters! Waaah! Not fair!

starsandbars wrote:

Waaah! No guys who look like me are winning anything. They're all cheaters! Waaah! Not fair!

I'm sorry for you. You can dream big. And you believe in miracles.

.

Ben L Wrong wrote:

Les wrote:

Your comparison is not valid because, as you yourself state, Coe made that statement BEFORE he was elected IAAF president. In any case, what would be worse for the sport -- a twice-convicted doper (Gatlin) winning or (worse case scenario) an unconvicted doper (Bolt) winning? Obviously, it would be worse for the sport if Gatlin won.

There's no "good" or "bad" for the sport. Prove me (without Cram's bragadoccio about Bolt "saving the sport") that TV ratings would fall if Gatlin win a gold medal.

.

Of course there is. If there wasn't good or bad for the sport, at least in public perception, which is what we are talking about, then why did the cycling federation cover up multiple Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong's positive tests? In fact, it was only until multiple ex-teammates of his came forward that finally they acted and stripped Armstrong of his titles. If Bolt is dirty as you insist, then why would the IAAF cover up his doping if it were not bad for the sport? It was huge NEGATIVE news when Armstrong was stripped of his titles. It Bolt was caught doping it would be the same. Of course the sport would survive like cycling but it would certainly take a hit with the general public. If doping did not have negative connotations then why did the NOP athletes look like deer caught in the headlights when allegations were made about them? They were very, very uncomfortable with the attention and allegations. Even though he has served his time, Gatlin won't even acknowledge his prior doping. It's a very, very negative thing, certainly for the doping athlete and also for the sport as a whole.

I think Bolt doped for a couple of weeks before the WCs. ; see the thread

Ben L Wrong wrote:

He was running unbeliebable times, unbelievable splits (sometimes even running 3:32 in the heats).

lol

Let's just run with the tinfoil hat theory that IAAF allows Bolt to dope with impunity.

So in 2007 (or earlier), someone in the IAAF said "Hey, there's this naturally quick teenager, wouldn't it be great if we allowed him to dope so that he can win the 2008 Olympics with a WR time. He can become the poster boy for the sport."

And those policing doping, at all events, were instructed not to find Bolt guilty, even if there was a positive test result.

And then, lo, the plan came together - and the calculations made in 2007 about a teenage boy came true.

And then, given that he has the highest status of any athlete ever in the sport, no-one, not a single person in the whole plan to dope him, hide test results, medicate him, provide him with dope, no-one thought "hey, I could make a ton of cash from selling this story to the press" and no-one in the IAAF thought "hey, this is the riskiest strategy to support a sport ever in the history of sport, but it'll work".

Yeah, plausible that...

He's naturally fast. He was aged 15, he is still aged 29.

Stop imagining the world is being run as the plot of a Hollywood movie - you'll enjoy life so much more.