Out of curiosity, why do you follow the sport if you, apparently, automatically asssume that all great performances are the result of cheating?
Where's the fun in that? Or do you just get pleasure from wathcing people run fast, but not too fast?
Out of curiosity, why do you follow the sport if you, apparently, automatically asssume that all great performances are the result of cheating?
Where's the fun in that? Or do you just get pleasure from wathcing people run fast, but not too fast?
laughifyouwant wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote:Of course they are not very helpful. That is why so few fast sprinters have ever been connected to drugs.
Show me the science. There is none.
The East Germans did quite a lot of very detailed, "German Style" science on the effects of steroids on track and field athletes. Which means every i was dotted, every t was crossed. And they used low doses, by and large. Much of it is available online. You are a ventolin-caliber imbecile.
blanquito wrote:
Out of curiosity, why do you follow the sport if you, apparently, automatically asssume that all great performances are the result of cheating?
Where's the fun in that? Or do you just get pleasure from wathcing people run fast, but not too fast?
Not a valid question really. What do most NFL or Baseball fans think of drugs in those sports? is it a "turnoff" factor?
i gave up on watching track - the last few meets that i watched on tv, the stands were empty. doubtful that this is the reason, but nobody really cares.
blanquito wrote:
Out of curiosity, why do you follow the sport if you, apparently, automatically asssume that all great performances are the result of cheating?
Where's the fun in that? Or do you just get pleasure from wathcing people run fast, but not too fast?
Little man, I am more conservative than you when it comes to absolute statements. "Impossible, never, always..." Used with extreme caution. There are lots of drug users in track. But I don't know enough about Miles to make an informed call about Bolt. I know that Ricky's clean, so I wouldn't worry on that end. It's as simple as that.
true facts wrote:
laughifyouwant wrote:Show me the science. There is none.
The East Germans did quite a lot of very detailed, "German Style" science on the effects of steroids on track and field athletes. Which means every i was dotted, every t was crossed. And they used low doses, by and large. Much of it is available online. You are a ventolin-caliber imbecile.
I know about the east german stats I've seen them. The steroids had a far more dramatic effects on the woman. The east german woman ruled in the 70s/80s but the men weren't so good. What it shows is how drugs plus training can turn an average athlete into an elite and that if you're a woman the expected percentage improvement is far greater BUT there's no data on what happens if you take a clean elite athlete and put them on a drugs program (and don't tell me there are no clean elite athletes out there).
Why is Bolt by far the best in the world at the moment? "BECAUSE HE'S ON DRUGS" you all shout. Fine, lets assume he's on drugs. For this answer to make any sense you'd have to assume that everyone else behind him is clean and I know that many of you don't believe this for a second OR that Bolt alone has access the greatest, most cutting edge, most wonderful speed-drug known to man and everyone else has to rely on old-school steroids do we believe this?
I'm a rubbish 100m runner. If I start on a drugs program and train for 2 years I will likely still be a rubbish 100m runner at the end of it. Why? Because I have no 100m talent. Bolt does have talent. He was on of the best teenage sprinters the world has ever seen so can people please shut up about drugs and give the man some credit. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
I may be wrong but I'm having a hard time accepting Usain Boit SHATTERED an already impressive WR and ran 9.72 clean in his first serious HALF (this is just June 1st) season of 100m running. I stated my case on the other Boit thread!
I can't believe how sure everyone is one way or the other!I think it's a good sign he ran fast at a young age and had the freakish frame. You can't be blind to history though. Think of how much faster he's going than Carl Lewis, Donovan Baily, Tyson Gay, Doped Ben, Justin, and Tim...
For now I'll hope he's clean knowing there's a chance he isn't.
what is the ratio of runners under 9.90 to test positive?
Killa Mike wrote:
I'm not sure I think he is(clean). But please, please, please, don't be a drug user. I will kiss your sister if you are clean.
I love your headline bro. I'd hate to be disappointed again. Gatlin, Montgomery, Kelli White, Marion Jones ............
VIPAM wrote:
I may be wrong but I'm having a hard time accepting Usain Boit SHATTERED an already impressive WR and ran 9.72 clean in his first serious HALF (this is just June 1st) season of 100m running. I stated my case on the other Boit thread!
Not that I can say he is or isn't one way or the other, but the fact that he never trained all-out to focus on 100m could be a sign he's clean too. This is the first time he's ever trained for it seriously. The IAAF article actually says he had been begging his coach to let him run 100s for a while because his coach seemed to think he would be a 200-400 type the last few years.
If you look at the history of both olympic and world records you would see that the records successively get better as training, techniques and equipment improve. I believe Bolt is clean just like Gillian Russell was clean. Bolt might be knew to a lot of Americans and track and field fans that only pop up in an Olympic year.
But those of us who follow the sport know that records will fall and they will improve men are some of the slowest species in the animal kingdom, selective breeding could improve our 100M times and as we continue to adapt. There was someone who did a study to show world records being broken and it alwys stayed within a certian percentage from the 1800 to now. Based on the scale he was able to show which athletes were possibly cheaters and he demonstrated the chinese girl and many former eastern bloc athletes as well as ben johnson and flo jo. I think base on the .02 second Usain's would fall into the no need to question category.
I will have to find the article. It makes for a great read and eye opener.
the real mobile9 - you act as if you "know" every elite runner from Bolt to Geb - and "know" that none of them would ever use PEDS - in reality you don't know sh1t and are nothing more than a jock sniffing apologist.
Jesus has bigger problems than doping in athletics. Anyway he'll be all right if he repents, won't he?.
You'd be surprised.