Is 9.69/19.30 believable?

if you think jamaicans suddenly exploded onto world sprinting scene maybe you havent been to penn relays recently. What about merlene ottey? plenty of world relay battles with US.

Also 1-2 years ago everyone thought Bolt was crap again because he had a lingering hamstring problem so he wasnt progressing- when he gets healthy obv he will show more improvement.

If a 6'5" person can have the same turnover due to his body type/ability as a 5'10" person hes going to run faster not that complicated. This is just Carl Lewis 4 inches taller(or however tall he was I know he was considered a tall sprinter).

[quote]hannsen wrote:

What about merlene ottey? plenty of world relay battles with US.

There have been rumors about Merlene since at least the late ' 80s

runner_pucci wrote:

Yup it's beleivable. THere is no drug on the planet that gives you that kind of speed, he ran 20.1 at 15 so yeah I would say he is legit until proven otherwise.

That doesn't mean anything. That just suggests he could have been on drugs at 15.

Take your crap back to dyestat after you prove to us how you know Tegenkamp and Symmonds and Shalane are not dirty.

"but their "preeminence" exploded at Montreal, just like Jamaica's in Beijing"

Hmm, not sure how big an explosion this is. Taking out the relays, at the last big international competition (osaka), Jamaica had 6 medals from the sprints (100-400, plus hurdles). So far they have 6, and really only the womens 200 has a real chance of adding to that (I will bet 1 or 2 more). So moving from 6 to 7 or 8, that's an explosion? Wow.

dirtykamp wrote:

Take your crap back to dyestat after you prove to us how you know Tegenkamp and Symmonds and Shalane are not dirty.

The problem is Tegenkamp, Symmonds, and Shalane aren't destroying the field by 10% of the race. They may be on some PED, but if they are they're on the wrong ones cause they're still behind the rest of the field.

Where as Bolt is CRUSHING an olympic field by 10% or more. I just don't buy it that he's that much better than everyone else.

If you had said Lance Armstrong I'd agree it's a similar situation. They both have never tested positive, yet they're leagues and leagues ahead of the competition.

pwned n00bs wrote:

I don't believe it.

Of course I didn't think MJ's record was legit either.

Just seems too incredible.

you dont have a choice to believe it. its already happened, and its already in the record books.

dd wrote:

"but their "preeminence" exploded at Montreal, just like Jamaica's in Beijing"

Hmm, not sure how big an explosion this is. Taking out the relays, at the last big international competition (osaka), Jamaica had 6 medals from the sprints (100-400, plus hurdles). So far they have 6, and really only the womens 200 has a real chance of adding to that (I will bet 1 or 2 more). So moving from 6 to 7 or 8, that's an explosion? Wow.

No, obviously there wouldn't be any dramatic change in only one year. In Athens (excluding relays which you wish to do) I believe Jamaica won 4 medals in T&F. So "6 or 7 or 8" is a VERY significant improvement. But with the women's (4x100) relay Jamaica won 5 medals in Athlens. Almost guaranteed (save for dropped batons etc.) they will medal in both men's and women's relays in Beijing. That makes 8 or 9 or 10 medals (based on your counting). Versus Athens that is a huge change.

dd wrote:

"but their "preeminence" exploded at Montreal, just like Jamaica's in Beijing"

Hmm, not sure how big an explosion this is. Taking out the relays, at the last big international competition (osaka), Jamaica had 6 medals from the sprints (100-400, plus hurdles). So far they have 6, and really only the womens 200 has a real chance of adding to that (I will bet 1 or 2 more). So moving from 6 to 7 or 8, that's an explosion? Wow.

well as of now (Thursday ... before the relays ... Jamaica has 9 T&F sprint medals

No it wouldn't. Lance was NOT clean and everybody has to know it. Just because he lost a nut doesn't make him better than everybody else. I've said it on here before and I will say it again. Sub 9.8=dirty...period!!

yo wrote:

"If Bolt was a young American it would all be legit."

Just like Lance Armstrong.

the430miler wrote:

pwned n00bs wrote:

I don't believe it.

Of course I didn't think MJ's record was legit either.

Just seems too incredible.

you dont have a choice to believe it. its already happened, and its already in the record books.

I realize you're one of the board idiots but that wasn't the posters point.

pwned n00bs wrote:

dirtykamp wrote:

Take your crap back to dyestat after you prove to us how you know Tegenkamp and Symmonds and Shalane are not dirty.

The problem is Tegenkamp, Symmonds, and Shalane aren't destroying the field by 10% of the race. They may be on some PED, but if they are they're on the wrong ones cause they're still behind the rest of the field.

Where as Bolt is CRUSHING an olympic field by 10% or more. I just don't buy it that he's that much better than everyone else.

If you had said Lance Armstrong I'd agree it's a similar situation. They both have never tested positive, yet they're leagues and leagues ahead of the competition.

Not sure what your point is? As the OP you made your position very clear right off the bat - you think that Bolt is dirty, we get it! Why do you keep on posting? No one is going to change your mind. But what I don't understand is why you do this on so many threads? Do you have a personal axe to grind? Do you think that if you just continually do this (post) that by sheer force of repetition that the general consensus will change to your side?

It's simple, Bolt will either get busted or he won't. MJ hasn't, and neither did D.Bailey (both olympic champions and record-breakers from 1996). Could either of them be dirty - of course it is possible. But unless they get caught up in a Balco-type scheme (like M.Jones) and are compelled to testify to such a thing, they are presumed innocent, as they have retired from the sport. What anyone elses's opinion is doesn't really matter - it's a done deal, get over it.

I have always felt, like Decker too for a different reason, that Marion Jones had the talent to be amongst the best anyway but either got greedy or lazy (or both) and allowed herself to be influence by shady characters (T.Graham, CJ Hunter) whwo looked for any easier way to the top.

I don't buy 9.69 as being a legit record without the use of PEDs. Bolt is crushing the field while getting the slowest reaction time and walking the last 10m. Doesn't seem very realistic you know. Ok enough of being a smartass. In all honesty I was just reposting to clarify an argument that someone made. You could change my mind, if you had a valid argument. I don't buy the "genetic freak" argument or longer legs = faster without some sort of proof. If you were to show me some test that proves Bolt is generating more power, or his genes are different, then I'm on board. I know, longer legs = less strides and more ground covered, but you'd also have to put down my power per stride. Just looking for a valid argument as to how he gets the WR in the shortest event with the slowest reaction time and facing the wrong direction the last 10m.

Why do you feel the need to question why I posted more than once in a thread? Do you have an ax to grind?

because other athletes do a lot more to make us believe that they are clean. where is the out-of-season testing and when did bolt offer to put his blood on ice to test in the future (eg, phelps or radcliffe). as far as i am concerned, anyone putting up ridiculous times in any sport better do that otherwise i just assume that it is tainted. note that lance never saved some of his blood.

I have to agree with you on this. He just looked like he was floating. He just looks like he was born to sprint. It will take genetic freaks to beat these records and I think he is one.But I also think that the performance by the US sprinters in 2008 might indicate that there was more doping going on by our (US) team than what was caught in the past few years.

think about it. wrote:

Watching Bolt run, I think it is believable. He just looks so ntural, perfect body for this stuff.

Heck, looks like he can go alot faster.

These people at the top of the Olympics have incredible work ethic and unbelievable talent. Add in the best coaches, massage therapists, little stress outside of track (for a lot of them), why does it seem unbelievable that these times could occur?

I mean our basketball team is just so much better than the rest of the world so why can't we believe that other countries sprinters or distance runners are just that much better than us?

Not a homer wrote:

If the Carribian nations did out of competition (as in out of season) testing I could possibly belive it.

Yeah, like that really stopped me from doping throughout *my* career.

you idiot..he has given blood 8 times for testing in 2008 last I heard, and I am probably giving a low number...but I guess you didn't get your personal copies of the reports in your mailbox so you wouldn't know about that...

how about this, how about people making baseless accusations do a lot more than make accusations, how about they actually provide evidence..like results of tests, or photos of people sticking needles in their bodies? as far as I am concerned, anyone making serious accusations should do so otherwise I just assume they really do not know what they are talking about.

youdontknow wrote:

how about this, how about people making baseless accusations do a lot more than make accusations, how about they actually provide evidence..like results of tests, or photos of people sticking needles in their bodies? as far as I am concerned, anyone making serious accusations should do so otherwise I just assume they really do not know what they are talking about.

No one's made an accusation. They've stated what they think on the matter. However, most posters know that without a positive test you can't definitively say one thing or another.

Would you like us to censor our beliefs too?