michael johnson doper?

I am not naive to think that it's not a possibilty that all athletes at a high level are doping. However, it is a shame that every time someone does something extraordinay people who can't fathom it automatically jump to the doping conclusion. Hard work and natural genetics do play a large role still.

MJ may or may not have doped, but even if he did, he was still by far the most talented 400m runner in the world. The reason he was so fast over 200m and 400m is because he had the speed of a world-class 100m sprinter (YES HE DID HAVE SUB-10 SPEED, EVEN IF HE NEVER DEMONSTRATED IT IN A RACE), but he trained for longer distances.

and yes he might have used drugs. But he was still a monster.

44 flat and 19.9 is extraordinary, MJ's times are laughable. I am American, our guys doped and everyone else did too. I don't see why everyone has to defend their countrymen's cheaters to the death.

My thoughts exactly. How said is it that everyone is so paranoid/realistic/jaded/whatever that any amazing performance is automaticly questionable. If John Landy made the kind of amazing jumps in ability today that he did in the early 1950s, everyone would scream "Druggie!" We've gotton to a point where the sport is so saturated with drug use that there could never be another Billy Mills or Bob Beamon. Sucks.

Why can't people believe that he was just genetically talented/lucky? The fact that he was so dominant says that it couldn't be due to doping alone, if he was even using. Do you think he had the magic pipeline to the Wizard of Oz to get the magic steroids that no other runner was allowed to get their hands on? I guess the Wiz only liked MJ and turned down money from all the other athletes?

Everybody can get the same drugs, but not everybody has the same genetic gifts nor does everybody train the same way.

I don't know whether I believe MJ was doped or not but the following I think is to his disadvantage:

MJ had an interview in Swedish television which I saw on TV. The interviewer told in the beginning of the interview, in Swedish, that MJ had demanded no question about doping!! The interviewer tried a question though. MJ became irritated and said he would leave the studio immediately if they kept on. Well, Swedish TV broke the agreement but why wouldn't MJ want to talk about doping?

Another episode that has nothing to do with doping. Some weeks before Atlanta 96, MJ sat track record at Bislett/Oslo - I think it was 19,8-something so he crushed the old record. Afterwards he was asked by the speaker how he could run that fast on Bislett because Bislett with its narrow bends has never been a good track at 200/400. Besides the weather was a bit cold. MJ answered: "The track is not bad, the other runners are too slow". He obviously was ironic and the audience understood it and laughed. It should also be mentioned that before the race when they warmed up the crowd only called for Frankie F and Ato Boldon. MJ just looked at the crowd shook his head is if he was saying: "They don't know what they are talking about". - Which turned out to be right.

If MJ was doping, by now we surely would have some type of accusations from competitors. He retired, what, 3-4 years ago? Someone would have come out by now. Also, he never tested positive (although doesn't mean as much now, thanks to V. Conte) but there was never any missed tests, (like Keteris/Kenderis) shady coaches (K. White/M. Jones), shady coaching changes (M. Jones/T. Montgomery), unrealistic improvement (K. White; although some may try to use his 19.32 to refute this, but hey, F. Fredericks ran out of his body in Atlanta as well), or missed meets (R. Jacobs).

So, to my untrained eye, the circumstantial evidence is weak.

The 19.32 is a freak incident. Like Beamon's 8.90m. One in a million, perfect conditions. Perfect competition. The crowd, the heat, the track.

Even if we do the statistics thing aand throw out the number one time, he's still 19.66 and 43.28.

He was the model of consistency.

Question wrote:

what happened to 78Champ's post?

Good question.

JW

Actually, Frederick beat MJ in the 200M at Bislett '96 before Atlanta to end MJ's 21-race winning streak. So MJ couldn't very well have set a track record or given that interview on that occasion.

One thing not mentioned in this thread is Johnson's unique running style. Perhaps this, coupled with talent and hard work helped push him.

trackhead wrote:

He was the model of consistency.

Exactly. And that 19.66 was an ease-job.

jrun wrote:

If MJ was doping, by now we surely would have some type of accusations from competitors. He retired, what, 3-4 years ago? Someone would have come out by now. Also, he never tested positive (although doesn't mean as much now, thanks to V. Conte) but there was never any missed tests, (like Keteris/Kenderis) shady coaches (K. White/M. Jones), shady coaching changes (M. Jones/T. Montgomery), unrealistic improvement (K. White; although some may try to use his 19.32 to refute this, but hey, F. Fredericks ran out of his body in Atlanta as well), or missed meets (R. Jacobs).

So, to my untrained eye, the circumstantial evidence is weak.

Great post. The ONLY reason we suspect him is because he was really good for a really long time.

It's sad.

That and the fact he's a yank. I hate to say it guys, but the whole world is waiting to see who your next plethora of drugs cheats are...

i coach several athletes on the high school level that have more muscle mass than many of the elite athletes. In no way are these kids on drugs. Just hard training and in the weight room. If I didn't believe it from my own eyes I would have the same view as many of you.

Too many people jump all over anyone whenever they do something great these days. If there is good evidence (or atleast some substantial evidence) people have somewhat of a right to. However, when there is no evidence that someone is doping, why do we all have to start assuming they are on drugs. It completely takes away from the sport, we used to love our "genetic freaks" and marvel in the amazing things that they could do. Now we just chastize them and call them "druggies" or "cheaters".

All the Brits are clean, eh? Are you sure? Check with:

Gary Cadogan, Dwain Chambers, Linford Christie, Mark Richardson, Carl Meyerscough, Doug Walker, Janine Whitlock.

Brit wrote:

That and the fact he's a yank. I hate to say it guys, but the whole world is waiting to see who your next plethora of drugs cheats are...

Probably not the whole world. Italy has had more than their fair share recently in cycling. Same with Australia. Add Museeuw, Meirhaege and Vandenbrouke in there for Belgium. Even South America has had more than they should recently for the number they have in pro cycling. Add Millar in there for Britain. Nina Kraft in for Germany.

Maybe you are right, maybe they are waiting for more high profile American cheaters to get caught since so many all over the world have been already.

Americans dope the same as the rest of the World, there just are so many more citizens here and so many more athletes in many more sports. For every Bonds or Giambi who does it there are none in other countries, because so few countries have American-style football and basketball.