uk, you are quite possibly correct, although I hardly think that his long suspension was to his advantage.
uk, you are quite possibly correct, although I hardly think that his long suspension was to his advantage.
This weekend, Gatlin outperformed all the NCAA 60m guys, including Demps with his 6.52 best.
That's pretty amazing, when you think about what a beast Demps is generally considered.
It was great to see Demps approach 6.4x this year...another year or two dedicated to sprinting, and he should go 6.4x for sure.
And what if Rodgers returns, and Kimmons and Gatlin stay in form? Could we see American 60m races, especially at altitude, with 4 guys going 6.4x?
Now that would be significant in American sprinting.
Also, I wonder what Gatlin will do after London this summer. I guess that might depend on what actually happens this season, but heck, he got to take 4 years off the travel and pounding that takes its toll on other sprinters.
I wouldn't be surprised to see him around for the 2016 trials!
I just watched the second vid again, and I'm sorry, that was f-ing amazing.
Gatlin accelerated all the way through the line, just like he was still accelerating at the 60m mark in Albuquerque.
Where the heck did that turnover come from?
He is BACK.
Watching that kind of late acceleration, I would say that he has an excellent shot at mid-9.8x this summer, a very good shot at making the olympic team, and a decent shot at making the final.
Wow.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
This weekend, Gatlin outperformed all the NCAA 60m guys, including Demps with his 6.52 best.
That's pretty amazing, when you think about what a beast Demps is generally considered.
It was great to see Demps approach 6.4x this year...another year or two dedicated to sprinting, and he should go 6.4x for sure.
The problem is that football is probably as important if not more so than running is for Demps.
That was truly AMAZING! Beautiful.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
Doping is contagious and he is a perfect example that under the current rules it pays to cheat
Why?
Sprintgeezer wrote:
I just watched the second vid again, and I'm sorry, that was f-ing amazing.
Gatlin accelerated all the way through the line, just like he was still accelerating at the 60m mark in Albuquerque.
Where the heck did that turnover come from?
He is BACK.
Watching that kind of late acceleration, I would say that he has an excellent shot at mid-9.8x this summer, a very good shot at making the olympic team, and a decent shot at making the final.
Wow.
Agree it was a great run. His technique and control is a marvel. He uses the angles and the surface beautifully. I can see him running very fast on a track that pays back what you ask of it. He is running with so much discipline.
Add to that he is a real competitor. Probably the best of the US sprinters. If he is in shape, he will not beat himself.
Well said malacoochie.
In response to what d said on a companion thread, what we actually know is this:
1. Gatlin is consistently around 6.45 in March
2. Gatlin is the fastest guy over 60m currently competing in that event
3. Gatlin ran 9.76/9.77 doped
4. Gatlin's race, although impressive, has obvious room for improvement
5. Gatlin has historically been good between 60-90m
Really, that's all we know. We can speculate about whether he will remain healthy, what time he will run, whether anybody else will remain healthy, whether anybody will false start or stumble, etc., but really the above is all we know about Gatlin's chances at the moment.
We know Bolt has scratched a couple of expected races.
We know Gay is rehabbing from surgery.
We know Dix had an MRI.
We know what times Blake is running for the 400.
None of which is informative of how Gatlin will do in London, or if he will even make it past trials.
For now, Gatlin is the world short sprint champ, and that is damn impressive.
How much do you really put into indoor performances? Obviously Gatlin or anyone running a sub 6.50 is in sprint shape but does it really go any further than that in your opinion?
I don't put much into indoor anythings. I could never....well a 6.45 will be a 9.85 knowing Andre Cason 6.41/9.92. Knowing Tim Harden 6.43 and never broke a 9.90. But...Gatlin does have that speed endurance to go with that 6.45 so maybe his situation is different.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
He is BACK.
Back at what, doping? He never "was", without it.
If he was Jamaican, you'd be ripping him a new one right now. So now you think he is the new hope for team USA? Laughable and pitiful!
Avante wrote:
How much do you really put into indoor performances? Obviously Gatlin or anyone running a sub 6.50 is in sprint shape but does it really go any further than that in your opinion?
I don't put much into indoor anythings. I could never....well a 6.45 will be a 9.85 knowing Andre Cason 6.41/9.92. Knowing Tim Harden 6.43 and never broke a 9.90. But...Gatlin does have that speed endurance to go with that 6.45 so maybe his situation is different.
6:46 is 6:46, indoor or out.
Andre Casin was a tiny guy who exceeded expectations to get to 9.92. Apples and oranges. Not an issue of indoor / outdoor.
Gatlin will run 9.8 or better. He's moving better than I ever saw him before. And he was fast as heck before.
With his time out, the challenge will be keeping healthy. He hasn't run at this level for quite some time.
I personally welcome Chambers back, just as much as I do Gatlin. Why?
Because there is no way that Bolt, Blake, and Carter have not doped, so who gives a cr@p.
For me, there are now 2 classes of sprinters--doped, and clean--and I have different standards for them.
I expect to see insane times like 9.5-9.7 and low 19.x from the doped guys, along with some WR's along the way, but from the clean guys, I expect to see the best they can do, and hope that it compares favorably with other guys I think may have been historically clean.
Guys like Collins, Lemaitre, Patton, etc. should be given consideration.
If Bolt were suspended for 4 years today, upon his return I would treat him exactly as I am treating Gatlin right now.
But, I also believe that once convicted of a serious offense, all senior performances of that athlete should be expunged from the books. There is no way that Gatlin should have that 9.85, Mullings that 9.80, or any marks prior to the completion of their suspension, period. I would erase their senior athletic history from the books.
And yes, in an ideal world, I would erase them from history, and forever ban them from competing any time, any place, at any sanctioned event. Including Gatlin.
As it stands, first Bolt with the WR 9.58 and 19.19, and now Blake with the WR 19.26 with cr@ppy RT, have made short sprinting a joke, so really, to preserve myself psychologically, I no longer give a F if Gatlin competes, because he's morally equal to the top guys against whom he is competing, in my view.
Too bad for the clean guys out there, they will never win--but we know who they are, and love them just the same--and when by accident they do well, like Collins or Lemaitre, they are, and should be, celebrated loudly and genuinely, and without the equivocal taint that rightly accompanies celebration of a ridiculous new WR.
Guys like Bolt and Blake may be the fastest sprinters, but guys like Collins and Lemaitre are the best athletes.
Lemaitre is clean,don't make me laugh.He just happens to be the only white man that can run under 10 secs.Yeah,right.He's doped to his eyeballs.
I seriously doubt Collins and CL are better athletes than Bolt and Blake. I'd bet the farm the team of Bolt and Blake would beat up on Collins/CL in any sport. Really surprised you'd say that.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
uk, you are quite possibly correct, although I hardly think that his long suspension was to his advantage.
It was more to his advantage than a life ban
WIC is not the WCs. WIC is not a major.
correct.
Although true, that was not the point of the original comment, and is a totally different issue.
"WIC is not a major."
I'm not saying that WIC is the be-all and end-all--in fact, I don't think I really said anything particularly relating to WIC.
Rather, I'm concentrating on Gatlin's individual race. It doesn't matter where he ran it--it was still really excellent. It was also excellent in Albuquerque, and I am on record as having found Gatlin's race there to have been of more value than Kimmons' winning race.
I know how it must suck to hate Gatlin, or dopers in general, and to have him come out and win something, and look so good while doing it. I offer no opposition to moral criticism of Gatlin, but in that spirit I demand a similar treatment of other athletes.
It boils down to a simple question of evidence, and the quality of that evidence. Gatlin was found with metabolites in his urine, but IIRC the exact source is not known, nor was there any evidence of intent--Gatlin has denied intent all along.
Other evidence is the fact that he ran 9.77--like it or not, any time 9.80 and below suggests the existence of doping. Of the 7 guys who have ACTUALLY and UNQUESTIONABLY recorded 9.80 or below under legal conditions of wind and altitude (Carter's "Rieti 9.78" and Mullings' "Eugene 9.80 excluded), 3 so far have actually been sanctioned--3/7, or 43%. IMHO Greene must be added to that pool, based on social evidence--that makes 4/7, or 57%.
So statistically there is a 50% chance that anybody who runs 9.80 or below has violated doping rules and is worthy of suspension. That 50% possibility doesn't change if you include Mullings and Carter in the pool.
By this standard, there is evidence to suggest that Bolt, Powell, and Gay either are doping, have doped, or both, to a 50% standard based on statistics alone. Any additional amount of evidence will reasonably push the possibility past 50%, which is sufficient to support a civil finding on a preponderance of evidence standard.
Because you will soon be able to add Blake to the pool (he would already be in it if he had even slight wind in his 9.82's), and because Blake tested positive for stimulants and was actually sanctioned, as soon as he does it, there would be a better-than-even chance that he is doping, especially when one considers that he has actually tested positive and been sanctioned in the past, therefore his inclusion makes the base possibility now rise to over 50% itself.
Every one of the Jamaicans has another piece of evidence that suggests doping, and which makes them stand out...these evidentiary facts, although they may not be directly implicative of any particular individual, serve to implicate the Jamaican program itself, which therefore impliedly implicates the individual athletes involved:
Bolt--5 individual world records in 2 events; 9.58 is a statistical outlier
Blake--youngest sprinter ever to have broken 10.00; individual WR 200m time but for RT
Powell--2 world records; more sub-10.00 legal clockings than any other sprinter in history
Each one of these achievements is singularly significant, in ANY field--the best single performance, the best body of work, and the quickest to rise to the top.
That all 3 of these accolades belong to the same program at the same point in time is evidence that there is something unique about the program (and this is just the men). The question then becomes: what is unique? The training? No. The diet? No. The sleep? No. The physiotherapy? No. The meet scheduling? No. The tapering? No. etc.
The best way to find out what is particular to the Jamaican program is to look to historical examples of other programs that have had similar successes, and identify what particularity of those programs was responsible.
The answer, as many have already posted, is to look to places like East Germany and China, and the responsible particularity was doping. The counter-example is possibly Kenya, but Kenya has the particular dimension of a singular genetic base that is not to be had by Jamaica; and in any case, the 2 examples of GDR and CHN outweigh the single example of KEN.
(There are other examples, I know this is incomplete--but ultimately it is not strictly required, it is simply cumulative to the individual evidence.)
So, the association of Blake, Bolt, and Powell with the Jamaican program can be considered, in and of itself, suggestive of the possibility of doping. How suggestive? I don't know, that would require more specific analysis.
But it doesn't really matter HOW suggestive it is--if it is suggestive at all, the total possibility now exceeds 50%, if only just, and is still sufficient under a civil standard.
Finally, the same as Gatlin, none of Blake, Bolt, Powell, or Gay have admitted any intent to dope.
So, some evidence is there, for all of them, while there exists no evidence for any of them (except maybe Blake) of intent.
IMHO that is why, as long as Gatlin is running at the same time in history as any of those guys, all those guys should deserve equal treatment.
We either call out all of them and present the evidence for doing so, or we call out none of them, and leave the assessment of violation and sanction to the doping authorities--IMHO, both of these approaches are legitimate, as long as they are applied equally and without bias.
If Gatlin is considered a doper, then they all must be considered dopers; and since they are all allowed to compete, Gatlin should be allowed to compete.
If the others are not considered by the authorities to be current dopers, in that they are currently allowed to compete, then Gatlin is not to be considered a current doper, and should be allowed to compete.
Since an individual cannot be immediately sanctioned on the basis of a 9.80-or-lower time alone, according to the rules they must be allowed to compete, as they are not considered by the authorities to be current dopers.
Therefore, Gatlin should be allowed to compete.
Avante--
By "athlete", I meant a person who competes in their chosen event according to the rules of fair play. It is a combination of ability, honor, integrity, commitment, and sportsmanship.
So even though others may be better performers, by my definition they are inferior athletes.
(Major caveat, again: I think that Bolt would be amazing even if he was clean, assuming arguendo that he has doped.)