Carmalita Jeter! UGH

What about Bolt's progression?

2007 10.03

2008 9.69 ???? Seriously!

2009 9.58 ???? Again Seriously!

2010 9.82

2011 9.88

Jeter may or may not be dirty, but so are many others...including many of the best of all time. It is frustrating to see suspected dopers, or proven dopers, winning meets.

That being said, we want to see fast times and big throws/jumps, so when 9.92 wins the 100 and that is the only athlete under 10 flat people complain and say they were cheated out of a good race...how can the IAAF win?

jacabo wrote:

So.....

Some 18 year-old ran 17:30 in high school and only improved to 16:50 in college. And your progression has him running 13:40 because he decides to run for a club team when he's 27. Sorry, but if you're only running 16:50 in college, there is no way you're running even sub 15, even with drugs.

wrong

Bolt hardly ran any 100m races up until '07. Surely this is the progression we should be more interested in:

200m

2001 age 15 - 21.73

2002 age 16 - 20.58

2003 age 17 - 20.13

2004 age 18 - 19.93

2005 age 19 - 19.99

2006 age 20 - 19.88

2007 age 21 - 19.75

2008 age 22 - 19.30

2009 age 23 - 19.19

Your hypothetical 5K guy is not supportable, and makes a ridiculous caricature of what we are trying to visualize with the data.

In the following table, I used Purdy points to equate the performances of Carmelita Jeter to that of a hypothetical female 5000m runner, and extrapolate the equivalent time.

Carmelita Jeter..5000m Woman

Age Time..........Age Time

20 11.69.............. 20 16:39.2

21 11.82.............. 21 16:54.9

22 11.77.............. 22 16:48.8

23 11.61.............. 23 16:29.7

24 11.56.............. 24 16:23.7

25 12.00.............. 25 17:16.8

26 11.48.............. 26 16:14.2

27 11.02.............. 27 15:20.7

28 10.97.............. 28 15:15.0

29 10.64.............. 29 14:37.8

30 10.82.............. 30 14:58.0

31 10.70.............. 31 14:44.5

Bob's your uncle. Either one of them is a doper.

26 yo swedish high jumping twig Emma Green has a 100m PB of 11.58. What would she do if she "got serious" about sprinting and got on a "proper strength training regimen"? 10.5? 10.4? Jeter's progression is ridiculous. As is her change in appearance. She's the single most obvious doper in athletics today and that's saying something. She's no less blatant than Flo-Jo.

AGECHEATER wrote:

26 yo swedish high jumping twig Emma Green has a 100m PB of 11.58. What would she do if she "got serious" about sprinting and got on a "proper strength training regimen"? 10.5? 10.4? Jeter's progression is ridiculous. As is her change in appearance. She's the single most obvious doper in athletics today and that's saying something. She's no less blatant than Flo-Jo.

I think you are more upset at the fact that you suck and are not willing to put in the years of hard work that has led to Jeter's breakthrough.

truth. wrote:

Your hypothetical 5K guy is not supportable, and makes a ridiculous caricature of what we are trying to visualize with the data.

In the following table, I used Purdy points to equate the performances of Carmelita Jeter to that of a hypothetical female 5000m runner, and extrapolate the equivalent time.

Carmelita Jeter..5000m Woman

Age Time..........Age Time

20 11.69.............. 20 16:39.2

21 11.82.............. 21 16:54.9

22 11.77.............. 22 16:48.8

23 11.61.............. 23 16:29.7

24 11.56.............. 24 16:23.7

25 12.00.............. 25 17:16.8

26 11.48.............. 26 16:14.2

27 11.02.............. 27 15:20.7

28 10.97.............. 28 15:15.0

29 10.64.............. 29 14:37.8

30 10.82.............. 30 14:58.0

31 10.70.............. 31 14:44.5

Bob's your uncle. Either one of them is a doper.

The distance female example is actually more believable due to just physiology; it is much easier to PR in your late 20s/early 30s in distances versus sprints.

The difference between Pharmalita Cheater v. Marion Jones and Regina Jacobs is they weren't as obvious.

Young Throws Coach wrote:

What about Bolt's progression?

2007 10.03

2008 9.69 ???? Seriously!

2009 9.58 ???? Again Seriously!

2010 9.82

2011 9.88

Jeter may or may not be dirty, but so are many others...including many of the best of all time. It is frustrating to see suspected dopers, or proven dopers, winning meets.

That being said, we want to see fast times and big throws/jumps, so when 9.92 wins the 100 and that is the only athlete under 10 flat people complain and say they were cheated out of a good race...how can the IAAF win?

Bolt is the first one with that amount of talent combined with that height who actually tried to run a 100. Most of the time coaches put guys his height on the 400 and 400mh, because they don't want to think beyond what's normal and accepted. The time of 1.75-1.85m sprinters is over. That ended with the Mo Greene era and the rising of Powell. Only then people realised that tall men actually have a better chance of breaking 9.8. Exeption to the rule; Tyson. Overrated for being able to do the same; Blake....will never ever run 9.6x.

with all of the blood tests announcements i would have thought there would be some athletes DQ by now. When will we get the results????

BeiHall wrote:

The distance female example is actually more believable due to just physiology; it is much easier to PR in your late 20s/early 30s in distances versus sprints.

Is it really possible to drop 1 min off your 5k time in your late 20s after a 7 year plateau?

Just like dropping half a second off your 100m time, age 27, after 7 years of running 11.5.

Maybe these things are possible but I doubt it. Some season averages for Jeter would be interesting.

what do i know wrote:

Bolt hardly ran any 100m races up until '07. Surely this is the progression we should be more interested in:

200m

2001 age 15 - 21.73

2002 age 16 - 20.58

2003 age 17 - 20.13

2004 age 18 - 19.93

2005 age 19 - 19.99

2006 age 20 - 19.88

2007 age 21 - 19.75

2008 age 22 - 19.30

2009 age 23 - 19.19

Here we can see that Bolt clearly began taking human growth hormone at age 15 leading to his first big improvement. Age 17 he started on the steroids in order to break 20 seconds. EPO for his speed endurance age 18 helped knock a couple of tenths off but it was only when he was 22 that he finally started on the Ganja which pushed him over the edge and allowed him to break the world record. Because no-one improves, in anything, without drugs, ever, EVER!!!!

You can not be serious? I am sure he totally changed his training when he started running competitive 100s right? How do you explain the .4 second drop in his 200 the same year? He had been running fast 200s for 5 years prior, and I was at Beijing he ran all the way through the line in that race and still was able to cut another tenth off his time the next year. If he was or is clean, why have his times suffered so much in the past 2 years? I am sorry to say it, as he is great for the sport, but if you look at Jeter as an obvious doper, you must look at Bolt with suspicion as well.

BeiHall wrote:

The distance female example is actually more believable due to just physiology; it is much easier to PR in your late 20s/early 30s in distances versus sprints.

If you're saying there's a miniscule possibility of the distance runner example actually happening without drugs, then I can agree with you. It would require some very poor coaching resulting in severe underdevelopment of that person's ability. However, I would still have the same problem because it is beyond the realm of rationality that this same runner would have TWO such massive improvements at such a late stage in their career, and for one of those massive improvements to come after the age of 30 really pushes the boundaries of my imagination.

For a sprinter to follow the same progession without drugs is absolutely impossible.

You do realize he ran two sub 10 second 100's in route to 200 when he was a 17 year old junior in 2004 right? It's easier to compare his 200 progression since that is an event he's done since he was a teen. He ran 20.13 when he was 16 so to think that he improved to 19.19 in his 20's in not that far off. He improved less than a second in 6 years of competition.

2001 age 14 - 21.73

2002 age 15 - 20.40 (local youth coach, just beginning)

2003 age 16 - 20.13 world youth record - sick with conjunctivitis

2004 age 17 - 19.93 World Junior Record (injured before Olympics, turned professional signed by PUMA)

2005 age 18 - 19.96 injured

2006 age 19 - 19.91 (injured yet again)

2007 age 20 - 19.75/10.07 (1st year running 100M - 1st full healthy season in 3 years)

2008 age 21 - 19.30/9.69

Yes it's possible he could be using PED's but I don't think his progression alone is a red flag. He's been injured often and had a breakthrough year in 07 after having a full healthy season. It's not impossible to think the guy could be clean.

The very fact that a guy 6'5", hammering full speed around a turn, was able to sustain 3 consecutive healthy seasons after having been injured for 2, is suspicious in itself.

Why has no one else seen a progression like that in recent years? Michael Johnson is the only person ever to see that kind of gain in a season at the kind of training age in the 200m.

The fact that he was hurt every year, then suddenly had 2 healthy years is also a sign to me...PEDs do not make you faster, they help you recover and remain healthy.

There is no doubt he is talented, but let's not forget the guys his age, with similar training ages that used to kick his butt like Wallace Spearmon.

Again I will say I hope both he and Jeter are clean, but if people are going to look at Jeter as suspicious, we need to examine others with similar performance changes..

9.58

nine-point-FIVE-eight

FIVE.

Not eight, not seven, not even six...but FIVE.

FIVE!

"it is much easier to PR in your late 20s/early 30s in distances versus sprints"

Do you have any empirical evidence to support this?

Anecdotally, for men at least, that is not the case--could very well be different for women, though.

truth:

"For a sprinter to follow the same progession without drugs is absolutely impossible."

Again, where is the proof? You know, you can look at even the top 50 sprinters in the world, male or female, and half of them have crappy form. If you're fast, you're fast--good form won't make you fast, but it is necessary if you want to be super-fast.

I'm not saying Jeter is clean. What I am saying is that sprinters can, in fact, experience huge improvements late in their careers as a result of better sprinting form--the problem is that not a lot of them tend to be very coachable, and it is very difficult to convince somebody who is already fast, that if they want to get super-fast, they will need to make a non-trivial change to their form. So typically, sprinters DON'T experience huge improvement later in their careers--but it is certainly not "impossible", as you suggest.

Carmelita Jeter - "Huge, ripped, and golden"