using the frame by frame video analysis from first movement plus giving him the benefit of the doubt and giving him the lowest allowable reaction time of .1 (sorry Devon Allen) it shows a 10.18
Kerley did not run a 9.60. According to mboard poster "R.I.C.O. Young" a frame by fame analysis shows something more like a 10.18 if you add in 0.10 for a reaction time.
-
181
-
In a way I respect this.
It's an inadvertent parody of modern social/mainstream media where you can basically just say and claim whatever you want, put it online and what recourse does anyone have to dispute you?
He could have taken a picture of himself in the middle of the Nevada desert at 1.30am and said he had gone to the moon and it's his word vs anyone that disputes him. He could have got his buddy to stop the watch at 8.90 seconds and flashed that up and the same thing would be happening as it is now - we are all talking and writing posts about him.
It's beside the point that I doubt any of this was as calculated as the above, but the guy always seems to find a way to be in the news.
122 -
Anyone see his crasout on Twitter?
Lol. What a goof
20 -
kerley krashout wrote:
Anyone see his crasout on Twitter?
Lol. What a goof
Crashout*
10 -
I don’t know, this is an era in which we are successfully catching lots of dopers and dodgers in the sprints. Im not saying he is 100% clean, but there is a non-zero chance that he is clean+ everyone ahead of him isn’t
31 -
as fake as AI
30 -
kerley krashout wrote:
Anyone see his crasout on Twitter?
Lol. What a goof
Link or it didn't happen.
00 -
Whereabouts did he run this ?
80 -
An investigation by ARD has found that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided against proceeding with cases against Jamaican sprinters, after samples taken from them at the Beijing 2008 Olympics tested positive for low levels of clenbuterol.
....
10 -
sprintzzzzzz wrote:
Off first movement, hand timing it, I STILL only got around a 9.95 at BEST.
What a loser.
I timed it myself, probably 20 times because I'm bored, and I got anywhere from 9.60-9.96. Average was probably 9.76-9.86, so 9.81.
The biggest variance seemed to come from when I decided to stop the timer, as it's difficult to know when his chest crosses the line. That seemed to account for about .20-.25 of discrepancy, the other .10-.15 seemed to come from my reaction to his first move.
Regardless, probably somewhere around 10 flat or slower with the hand time conversion, so nothing crazy.
42 -
So much hype and debate about Kerley.
Meanwhile we all know there's an actual 9.45 that never receives the credit it deserves. Regardless of viewer opinions of the athlete and the method, this remains the fastest any human has ever covered 100m and it's clearly miles faster than Kerley's effort.
73 -
zeropercent wrote:
sprintzzzzzz wrote:
Off first movement, hand timing it, I STILL only got around a 9.95 at BEST.
What a loser.
I timed it myself, probably 20 times because I'm bored, and I got anywhere from 9.60-9.96. Average was probably 9.76-9.86, so 9.81.
The biggest variance seemed to come from when I decided to stop the timer, as it's difficult to know when his chest crosses the line. That seemed to account for about .20-.25 of discrepancy, the other .10-.15 seemed to come from my reaction to his first move.
Regardless, probably somewhere around 10 flat or slower with the hand time conversion, so nothing crazy.
I'd argue if this was an FAT 100m dash with a typical reaction, it would probably have resulted in a 10.35/10.40.
Nothing is more inconsistent and inaccurate than starting a manual clock based off of first movement. Thats what makes the NFL combine 40s a joke; I consistently hand time those 40s in identical, or even slightly SLOWER, times than what the "official" results are. Gimme a break.
31 -
9.58? wrote:
Guy with stopwatch has parkinsons. No offense.
00 -
Pretty good for 80 meters
10 -
Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:
In a way I respect this.
...It's beside the point that I doubt any of this was as calculated as the above, but the guy always seems to find a way to be in the news.
Yes, you should respect it. Maybe he is related to Howard Cosell?
00 -
He's run 9.76 "clean". Is a 9.60 enhanced that hard to believe
20 -
Why is he wasting his (and our) time with this bs?
21 -
ThatsFast wrote:
As someone who believes there is less an a 1% chance Bolt's record was achieved without PEDs, given virtually all of his elite training partners and teammates from that era were eventually popped, I'll hold whatever the new record will be with the same level of respect as the current.
I agree with you that Bolt was almost certainly not just considerably better than all of the dopers without doping himself. But, I would hold an Enhanced Games record with much less respect.
In normal sport, if someone knows they are glowing, they will need to just take the whereabouts failure, and after 1-2 of these, they need to stop doping. Also, you can't exactly show up to the olympics ready to test positive. It seems safe to assume that doping protocols are not optimised in normal sport if you have to prioritise not getting caught. Thus, I think we can state that Kerley can now dope considerably more than he ever did before, both in terms of dose and how frequently he's positive. Kerley has been stuck at a lifetime best of 9.76 since 2022 and hasn't broken 9.8 in 3.5-4 years. If he suddenly runs a legitimate 9.57 (not a hand timed BS 9.60) I think it would be a safe assumption that his doping protocol has changed dramatically.
Basically, there's doping and then there's DOPING. I feel like I'd need to see someone go considerably faster than Bolt in the Enhanced Games to think it might actually be a better performance.
20 -
Not quite. After two "missed" tests, the athlete needs to go back do microdosing.
And let's not forget that Bolt competed long time ago, when out-of-competition testing in Jamaica was done by their NADO.
That wasn't exactly perfect - see here for example:As the accompanying chart notes, in the three months leading up to the Olympics, not one Jamaican athlete was tested out-of-competition—when dopers are more likely to be caught by surprise and fail a test.
40 -
#FreeFred
01
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.