Gout Gout’s stride length equals Bolts!

The question people fear wrote:

Jamaican Yam wrote:

It might be that, but how fast would Bolt have run if he was doped then?

I'm not a big fan of the 'dopers can only beat dopers' argument, but I am suspicious when it's said about athletes who had so many of their countrymen confirmed as doping (examples : El G didn't need to dope, Bolt didn't need to dope, Kipchoge didn't need to dope etc). I mean, these freak clean athletes always come along in countries with massive and confirmed doping cultures?

Why do you believe doping makes someone faster?

anecdotally wrote:

I've never heard anyone say doping had no effect or made them worse.

chaka wrote:

anecdotally wrote:

I've never heard anyone say doping had no effect or made them worse.

Not a real person, but trolls like the Rekbot on letsrun do that all the time.

chaka wrote:

More to the point, why do you think you know more about doping than, say, Francis or Graham or Mitchell or Drummond or Salazar etc.?

Not even close to Bolt wrote:

Bolt is 6’05”. He took 41 strides in 100m world records, while other super elite sprinters take 43-44.

If Gout, as reported, is the same height as Lyles, 5’10”.

Watch a video of Gout’s 100m best and count his strides.

There is no way he comes close to matching Bolt’s stride length.

Then, there are the other variables besides stride length, i.e. stride frequency, start, confidence, etc.

Gout does not even have a single legal sub 10 or sub 20 100m or 200m time.

He’s a rail thin and 5’10. He isn’t ready to race the best internationals at senior level. He needs to run world juniors, etc.

The question people fear wrote:

chaka wrote:

Not a real person, but trolls like the Rekbot on letsrun do that all the time.

So ignore rekrunner for a few days if you can hold out that long?

Tell your amazing scientific reasoning that explains the nuances of bioenergetics?

rekrunner wrote:

The question people fear wrote:

So ignore rekrunner for a few days if you can hold out that long?

Tell your amazing scientific reasoning that explains the nuances of bioenergetics?

Don't confuse "rekrunner" with "rekbot" posters -- these are anonymous caricature posts.

Speaking for myself, I look for data for evidence, and patterns in data for correlation, to help support claims.

PreWee Herman wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Don't confuse "rekrunner" with "rekbot" posters -- these are anonymous caricature posts.

Speaking for myself, I look for data for evidence, and patterns in data for correlation, to help support claims.

Stride Length, rekrunner. Maybe put yourself to good use and look for evidence to support OPs claim. (or automatically delete my post because i said your name)

The question people fear wrote:

Jamaican Yam wrote:

It might be that, but how fast would Bolt have run if he was doped then?

I'm not a big fan of the 'dopers can only beat dopers' argument, but I am suspicious when it's said about athletes who had so many of their countrymen confirmed as doping (examples : El G didn't need to dope, Bolt didn't need to dope, Kipchoge didn't need to dope etc). I mean, these freak clean athletes always come along in countries with massive and confirmed doping cultures?

Why do you believe doping makes someone faster?

anecdotally wrote:

I've never heard anyone say doping had no effect or made them worse.

yay marxism wrote:

The question people fear wrote:

Why do you believe doping makes someone faster?

More muscles can make you go faster. Steroids build more muscles. Therefore steroids make you faster. More red blood cells give you a higher aerobic capacity. EPO produces more red blood cells. Therefore EPO makes you faster.

yay marxism wrote:

anecdotally wrote:

I've never heard anyone say doping had no effect or made them worse.

Its just Rekrunner. He posts anonymously sometimes and you can see that with the poster from before.