He's back baby!!! Olympic 100 champ Marcell Jacobs returns to action and looks great (6.51 FTW)!

You are going on as if drugs are the only way for sprinters to improve more than tiny fractions. Do you know if Lamont Jacobs made significant changes to his cross training such as plyometrics &/or weight training? Do you know if Lamont Jacobs' coach added 300m repeats? There are many reasons to explain an improvement. 9.80 100m is elite as we know. Some will get there by improving a 1/10 of a second per year, others will make a big jump in performance. Is he taking more P.E.D.s than other 9.80 guys? I am not surprised when jumpers, sprinters and throwers have T-levels near allowable limit. They may actually be clean. I am suspicious when 5000m to Marathoners have T levels near allowable limit.

It'll be funny if Jacbos beats America's favourite doper at World Champs. By the time Paris rolls around Coleman will be 27 and still have zero Olympic medals. That's if he even makes it that far before before earning himself an 8 year ban.

T&F utility man (200-3000)m wrote:

You are going on as if drugs are the only way for sprinters to improve more than tiny fractions. Do you know if Lamont Jacobs made significant changes to his cross training such as plyometrics &/or weight training? Do you know if Lamont Jacobs' coach added 300m repeats? There are many reasons to explain an improvement. 9.80 100m is elite as we know. Some will get there by improving a 1/10 of a second per year, others will make a big jump in performance. Is he taking more P.E.D.s than other 9.80 guys? I am not surprised when jumpers, sprinters and throwers have T-levels near allowable limit. They may actually be clean. I am suspicious when 5000m to Marathoners have T levels near allowable limit.

Finally somebody who gets it, bravo!!!!

DinoZ wrote:

Sprintdom is chocked full of sprinters running out of nowhere times, that has been going on forever, so....???

Mike Marsh had never broke 20.35 BOOM....19.73 and it goes on and on.......

Mike Marsh ran for the Santa Monica track club and that was PED central in that era.

Ghost of Viktor Bryzhin wrote:

DinoZ wrote:

Sprintdom is chocked full of sprinters running out of nowhere times, that has been going on forever, so....???

Mike Marsh had never broke 20.35 BOOM....19.73 and it goes on and on.......

Mike Marsh ran for the Santa Monica track club and that was PED central in that era.

Marsh ran that 19.73 in 1992 the HSI came into existence in 1996, so........

So yo can't think of any tracksters who made dramatic improvements from one season to the next without having use drugs, well?

Duh!

HSI????

So Mike Marsh was dirty?

dullard wrote:

It'll be funny if Jacbos beats America's favourite doper at World Champs. By the time Paris rolls around Coleman will be 27 and still have zero Olympic medals. That's if he even makes it that far before before earning himself an 8 year ban.

Italy's favorite doper beating America's (so called) favorite doper. Yeah, what justice!

By the time Paris rolls around Jacobs will be a non factor with that single fluke of an Olympic gold he STOLE from Fred Kerley.

When all is revealed, Coleman will look like a choir boy compared to the Italian cheat

DinoZ wrote:

T&F utility man (200-3000)m wrote:

You are going on as if drugs are the only way for sprinters to improve more than tiny fractions. Do you know if Lamont Jacobs made significant changes to his cross training such as plyometrics &/or weight training? Do you know if Lamont Jacobs' coach added 300m repeats? There are many reasons to explain an improvement. 9.80 100m is elite as we know. Some will get there by improving a 1/10 of a second per year, others will make a big jump in performance. Is he taking more P.E.D.s than other 9.80 guys? I am not surprised when jumpers, sprinters and throwers have T-levels near allowable limit. They may actually be clean. I am suspicious when 5000m to Marathoners have T levels near allowable limit.

Finally somebody who gets (sh)it, bravo!!!!

Fify

Sprintgeezer wrote:

DinoZ wrote:

Finally somebody who gets (sh)it, bravo!!!!

Fify

Question for ya my man.

Meet is being held up in Denver Colorado, when the 100m came around there was a + 2.6 wind. The track was wet from an early morning rain, so the winner cooks a 10.34 so what would his basic be?

Jacobs combines the natural talent of a great top speed with great technical prowess. Rarely does a guy with his very muscular build race the way he does with a gradual acceleration. He runs very relaxed and patient instead of trying to force himself to a fast start.

T&F utility man (200-3000)m wrote:

You are going on as if drugs are the only way for sprinters to improve more than tiny fractions. Do you know if Lamont Jacobs made significant changes to his cross training such as plyometrics &/or weight training? Do you know if Lamont Jacobs' coach added 300m repeats? There are many reasons to explain an improvement. 9.80 100m is elite as we know. Some will get there by improving a 1/10 of a second per year, others will make a big jump in performance. Is he taking more P.E.D.s than other 9.80 guys? I am not surprised when jumpers, sprinters and throwers have T-levels near allowable limit. They may actually be clean. I am suspicious when 5000m to Marathoners have T levels near allowable limit.

Tiny fractions? What tiny fractions are we talking about here? A tiny fraction in sprinting terms is measured in the 100th of a second range - not the tenths my friend and certainly not multiple ones that happen in a 12 month span. You are "going on as if" 0.3 seconds in the 100m is a small jump - this isn't the mile we are talking about - I just gave the context as to the kind of jump it is relative to other events - it's the same as going from 3.33 to 3.27 in the 1500m. It is an incredible jump, especially at this level of performance (not the same as 10.8 to 10.5).

What I don't get is this - if we had Marcel Jacobs, some of his family, his coaching and management team on these boards trying to explain this completely implausible and unprecedented jump in this performance I would completely understand it. What I don't get is how the average follower of the sport, presumably with some knowledge (the fact you think 0.3 second in the 100m is a "tiny fraction" shows me you don't) are doing the mental gymnastics to make themselves believe in the tooth fairy here. It's akin to the way that so many cycling fans convinced themselves that Lance was clean for all those years and then were so mortified and shocked when the truth finally came out. It's this odd psychological concept of wishful/fearful thinking at play - wishful that everything is as it seems because the mere notion that it isn't is a scary proposition (ie. that the sports we watch isn't what its made out to be - clean and fair).