Fastest historic untainted 100m times

Oh, and with Blake, his next-best is 19.44, which is slightly worse than 2x9.69, which in my opinion is reasonable to expect, given his stature, notwithstanding his apparently excellent SE.

Yes, I know about the turn. Of the top 100 times, only 5 have been done at Brussels, and most by suspect athletes--Bolt, Blake, Gay--and by Dix.

I'm not buying the 19.53. Yes, I know when the meet is run.

Geezer:

Bailey and Surin worked with Dr. Anthony Galea. Do you know who Dr. Galea is?

Donovan Bailey's 9.84 was doped...give me a break. 9.84 with an atrocious start and many false starts called. He was in 9.7x shape at the time.

And Surin peaking at 32 is laughable.

More on Galea threating Surin and Bailey.

http://www.canoe.ca/2000GamesColumnists/gross_jul29.html

Bolt's 200M progression:

2001 - 21.73 (age 14)

2002 - 20.58 (age 15)

2003 - 20.13/45.35 (age 16)

2004 - 19.93 (age 17)

2005 - 19.99 (age 18)

2006 - 19.88/47.53 (age 19)

2007 - 19.75/45.28 (age 20)

2008 - 19.30 (age 21)

Looking at Bolt's progression there are a couple things that stand out. First dude is super fast at a young age. I mean 20.13 and 45.35 at 16 years old is raw talent.

Second, while there are spikes in his progression nothing here looks really wacky. There is a progression spike at age 15/16 of .45 and one at 20/21 by the same amount. But dude is progressing every year in a way that makes you think he is ready for the big break through that came in 2008.

Third when you look at the fact that Bolt ran 19.75 in 2007 but "only" posted 45.28 in the 400 you can see that dude is a pure speed guy and it not surprising then that he took the 100m where no man had gone before after one season of seriously working at the event.

Yes Bolt was very fast...but remember that he was injured in 2003 (he was qualified for Paris WC's 200m with 16 years old, and he was one of the favourites IIRC) and injured or sick in Athens 2004 (he and the americans Crawfor, Gatlin and Williams were the favourites). Then, 2005...he injured again in WC's final (he was leading the race and probably could have ran low 19.9x). For me he started with doping in 2007 (19.75 beating Don Quarrie's NR and 10.03 off-form in Crete...his first 100m career race)

Bolt is OFF.

All these arguments have been considered.

What specifically do you see in what I just posted that shows he is off as you put it. The dude is PRing every year in a big year since 14.

Ben--

LOL, "the kindly old pediatrician"

The plot thickens!

It WAS clearly possible to dope in those days, and get away with it.

MJ was running while Bailey was running, and was obviously doped.

Greene was running while Surin was running, and was obviously doped.

Hmmm, although peaking at 32 is not by itself suspicious to me, the plot definitely thickens.

I am on the verge of considering deleting both Bailey and Surin. Anybody have anything else on them?

Read the threads, it's all there.

I don't deny that he was very fast when he was young. That is obvious.

er.... Johnson 19.32 and 19.66

No, I haven't forgotten.

"To the gills."

One of the worst, ever, right up there with Greene.

But not Dix? hmmmm

Xavier Carter might have the fastest clean 200m ever. Teenage Bolt is up there as well (forget everything 2007 and beyond).

As opposed to overanalyzing not enough, or overanalyzing just right.

just sayin wrote:

ok Sprintgeezer

you just annoy me sometimes

you overanalyze too much

Frankly Bolt's progression is does not help his case in my mind. I think more often then not the absolute superstars at young ages don't continue to improve year after year by such significant amounts. Think Obea Moore - guys like that just stop getting better; however, if you're on stuff and on stuff young perhaps HGH who knows. And arguing that he had to be clean young simply because he was young is stupid to me. I've known plenty of teenagers on PEDS.

I kind of always thought Bailey was doped (only sprintgeezer has gradually persuaded me to be open-minded about him); however what about this articles is suspicious? Seems like he worked with him after his 9.84; and from that article it also sounds like the doctor was a good 10 years ahead of his time in terms of applying aggressive rehab. Think Adrian Peterson and RGIII - doctors now really push the athlete leading up to surgery and quickly after to speed the recovery process which sounds like what this doctor did. How is that suspicious in and of itself; now I do also believe these top NFL guys are on some serious drugs as well - but I see nothing suspicious in this.

Ben L. Wrong wrote:

Geezer:

Bailey and Surin worked with Dr. Anthony Galea. Do you know who Dr. Galea is?

Donovan Bailey's 9.84 was doped...give me a break. 9.84 with an atrocious start and many false starts called. He was in 9.7x shape at the time.

And Surin peaking at 32 is laughable.

More on Galea threating Surin and Bailey.

http://www.canoe.ca/2000GamesColumnists/gross_jul29.html

I assume Shawn Crawford is off due to his associations with trevor graham...why can you take him off, but not carl lewis' training partners...

honestly when i look at an all-time list, I throw out just about everything from mid-70s to early-00s in sprints/field and early-90s to mid-00s in mid-distance/distance.

Also, I was unaware that there was any dirt on Ato Boldon....??

double post...

I would be interested to see a 200m list as well. Do you have a specific reason other than "he's just too fast" for leaving michael johnson off?

I started to not even justify this garbage with a comment. You have your mind set on certain people and as one who knows for certain who has gone dirty and those who for certain are or were clean and then those that people are not certain of but are questionable.

You can't tag everyone with a certain coach as dirty first of all. Ato Boldon was clean and not once in all the Balco BS did his name come up.

Next you can't stick your head in the sand over athletes like Donovan Bailey and pretend they are clean. You had similar feelings for Gay and Powell and look where we are now.

You disqualify a guy like Ryan Bailey despite piles of evidence that he has always been clean. Not one thing has pointed to his being dirty like his Canadian namesake or Bruny Surin.

I just wish before you go hurting the events you love by posting complete BS about some very honest and legit people that you would take a minute before slandering some of our sports best who have no evidence against them.

Mo Greene plent of evidence. Gone! Carl, lots of evidence. Gone! Tyson, Gatlin and others who have a positive test. Gone! But until you have something more than BS or idle speculation please refrain from mislabeling some of our sports best.

And some of the young guys keep improving til they are 23 and become world record holders. I am a heck of a lot more suspicious of a guy running 9.84 at 32 after being a 10.05 guy at 25, then a fast 18 year old running faster at 21.

insightlessness wrote:

Frankly Bolt's progression is does not help his case in my mind. I think more often then not the absolute superstars at young ages don't continue to improve year after year by such significant amounts. Think Obea Moore - guys like that just stop getting better; however, if you're on stuff and on stuff young perhaps HGH who knows. And arguing that he had to be clean young simply because he was young is stupid to me. I've known plenty of teenagers on PEDS.