For all of you who definitely think Usain Bolt is on drugs, this is for you (amazing video)

Gotchu wrote:

Lamine Diack should just come clean on whether Bolt has ever been caught doping or not. And also give a list of all those caught doped during his reign as the Iaaf chief and whom he protected. He has nothing to lose and might in fact redeem himself by also revealing all the Iaaf and WADA officials who were part of the cover-up.

With respect, I don't think you have a sufficient understanding of the level of Diack's depravity. He is a pathological liar, and I mean that not as hyperbole but as a clinical diagnosis. He will go to the grave (hopefully sooner than later) with no self knowledge of his crimes, and certainly will never make a gesture of goodwill to the sport he left in shambles.

Whilst it would be career and reputational suicide, if ever there was a time when you'd be expecting skeletons coming out of the closet on high profile athletes like Bolt, Radcliffe, Johnson, etc etc, now would be it - and the silence from those now ostracised from the sport is deafening. Diack could make millions from the book deal!

I will eat my proverbial hat if there is ever anything more to the tinfoil hat theories about protected athletes than just messageboard loons.

I'm not saying that there isn't a possibility that some of those household names doped - its possible some did, and the evidence of that may never be uncovered. But I am saying that I don't believe there is any shred of evidence for the conspiracy theories promulgated here.

Drug use by teenagers is commonplace. There are millions of teenagers using steroids right now.

If a doping free world existed, then the probability a particular individual could become a world record holder is incredibly small, but some lucky individual has to be the world record holder.

In an environment where it is easy to beat doping tests, the probability of a lifetime drug free athlete could become the world record holder is almost zero.

Even if you are convinced that Usain Bolt is clean, you must concede that the probability of him being clean is infinitesimally small.

The problem is that androgenic/anabolic steroids have be labelled as just a minor performance-enhancing drug.

Many still argue that steroids are just a shortcut, and that it is possible to achieve the benefits of steroids by just hard work. Therefore, they argue that it is possible that drug free athletes can beat steroid junkies. This is a viewpoint of an individual that cannot understand basic biology.

This viewpoint is analogous to arguing that gifted 8 year old boys could beat elite 18 year old males, or that elite female athletes could beat all the records set by elite male athletes. This argument is so absurd it beggars belief, yet this is the argument people are essentially making when they claim Usain Bolt is clean!

Natural athletes are limited by their natural hormone production, dopers are not. Elite natural athletes have absolutely no chance of beating elite junkies.

There has already been a gigantic experiment involving thousands of extremely gifted athletes using steroids, and we have accurate records of what the best junkies in the human race were capable of.

Androgenic/anabolic steroids use was PERMITTED in every single Olympic Games before 1975. It is a reasonable assumption to state that practically all the athletes in the 1972 and 1968 Olympic Games were using steroids.

It is enormously unlikely that any natural athlete today could outperform any athlete that competed in an era were steroid use was permitted, yet there are millions of people who are irrational enough to believe that the impossible is possible.

As I have already stated, the probability of Usain Bolt being clean is tiny. This is not a subjective opinion, but an undeniable fact. This infinitesimally small probability is enough for some people to convince themselves that Bolt is clean.

larkimm wrote:

I'm not saying that there isn't a possibility that some of those household names doped - its possible some did, and the evidence of that may never be uncovered. But I am saying that I don't believe there is any shred of evidence for the conspiracy theories promulgated here.

Five years ago, many letsrunners called it a conspiracy theory that the IAAF accepts bribes of dopers.

Turns out, it was bribed. Repeatedly.

Ten years ago, many letsrunners used Paula's pro-transparency stance as evidence for her to be clean.

Turns out, she is actually against transparency. At least when it comes to her revealing her own test results, although she promised to do exactly that for several years (without doing so of course).

Now, some - albeit very few - call it a conspiracy theory that not all misdeeds of the IAAF are uncovered. I am still laughing.

Fortunately, I was never that naive, otherwise I'd be very embarrassed now.

Having said that, it is quite positive that Bolt - unlike Armstrong - really never had a positive test. Apparently that is not that difficult.

rjm33 wrote:

Usain Bolt has been a client of Dr. "Healing Hans" Wohlfahrt (who originally came from EAST GERMANY and moved to Munich)

Bvllshit

Jealousy? wrote:

We know he is doping

How? How do you KNOW he is doping? All of this is speculation and more of you supposed athletics lovers hating on your own sport.

Clerk doesn't need to explain why, he just knows. Just like how some people just know the moon landings wered faked. They just know.

I somehow bumped into this on twitter today and was blown away by it.

https://twitter.com/JustSportsTweet/status/719497034135244800

Yes, it doesn't prove he's clean. People could dope when they were 17 but it also very well could be that he's just a freak as I've stated all along.

It looks like he's a different species than everyone else in the race. It looks like a robot - or a car - is racing humans.

For all of you who love the internet for its clickbait, this LRC headline is for you.

U Asked For It wrote:

OK rojo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVkJTcW5aZk

Well played. For those of you who didn't watch it, it's a video of MarionJones winning the Calfironia state meet in HS.

My response to that is.

1) Great post. I'm just trying to get people to think. You clearly are tihnking.

2) Jones missed a drug test in HS and was iniitally given a 4-year ban from the sport (got it over turned).

3) Women's sports and men's sports are a lot different. But when I watch that vidoe, Jones doesn't look way more athletic than everyone. She just looks way bigger almost like a Semenya in a women's 800.

I don't get what you are saying. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

You point out that Paula Radcliffe went to the same doctor as Usain Bolt, starting at age 20. Then you point out that she was such a talent she was beating Wang Junxia at age 18 before she'd ever even seen the doctor.

So basicalliy you are saying what I was saying about Bolt - child prodigy!!!

You basically beat yourself with your own argument by my reading of it.

myfirstandlasttheorem wrote:

Rojo,

The right genetics for sprinting plus PEDs equals domination.

This is a good argument.

Take child prodigies and dope them. Yes, that's a possibility.

aduck2022 wrote:

logic says doping.

everything seeing in track since ~2005 says likewise.

when igf-1 lr3 hit scene,

sprinting changed

Can someone tell me what igf-1 lr3 is and does and if it's undectable?

As for everyone else being dirty, I'm not counting 3 and 6 months bans. Means nothing to me.

Let me be clear. I don't know that these people are clean.

I'll admit everyone has doubt over their heads. Everyone. If you put a gun to my head and said I die if I'm wrong were the following people clean or dirty, "Haile G, Paul T, Michael Johnson, ec" - virtually any big star I'll admit I'd be very nervous giving my answer one way or the other as I'm not sure.

The idea that it was "easy to cheat back then" and "no one is touching those times now" is persuasive. But I also know the human body is capable of greatness.

On a lesser level, I know my brother went from 30:13 in college to 28:06. I'm pretty damn sure he was clean (although maybe he was dirty as he was way better than me and I have the same genes??).

Fentrekker wrote:

Lance Footweak wrote:

Case in point - Lance Armstrong.

I don't think this is a case in point at all. Lance was nowhere near as good in biking at age 17 as Bolt was at sprinting, at age 17.

He was coached at the time by the Team USA Triathlon guy who has a doping past dating back to the early 80's. That's evidence enough for me...

I really don't get the Healing Hans angle of attack on athletes.

Beyond the fact that he uses "unusual" treatment regimes (which he is fairly open about) and that his treatments do appear to be successful, why does any association with him automatically have to mean a PEDs association.

He was the club doctor for Bayern Munich (a "West" German football team) between 1977 and 2015, which (for the geographically challenged) has never been part of East Germany, and he was born in a town in Germany in 1942 that became part of West Germany. So "east german" accusations are simple nonsense.

He uses Actovegin which is not on the banned list. He works publicly with many high profile athletes. If he's hiding something, he's doing it in plain sight in a way which no-one has been able to spot.

Just tossing out a name and then some negative phrases doesn't make for a cogent argument.

I would counter that Bolt looked like a man among boys, or rather, a Semenya among girls.I see Jones' little snafu with the testers as the difference between USADA and whatever agency was responsible for Jamaican (non) testing. In my mind Bolt is the Marion Jones of mens sprinting with a more likeable personality and a better system of protection.

rojo wrote:

U Asked For It wrote:

OK rojo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVkJTcW5aZk

Well played. For those of you who didn't watch it, it's a video of MarionJones winning the Calfironia state meet in HS.

My response to that is.

1) Great post. I'm just trying to get people to think. You clearly are tihnking.

2) Jones missed a drug test in HS and was iniitally given a 4-year ban from the sport (got it over turned).

3) Women's sports and men's sports are a lot different. But when I watch that vidoe, Jones doesn't look way more athletic than everyone. She just looks way bigger almost like a Semenya in a women's 800.

rjm33 does this a lot.

IFG-1 lr3 is Insulin Growth Factor Long R3, (long lasting IGF-peptide). Victor Conte and Angel Herredia have both discussed its widespread use.“a growth-promoting polypeptide that plays a key role in promoting muscle growth, development and healing,” George Spellwin, a research director, wrote on the body-building website elitefitness.com, where it’s described as “a powerful upgrade on IGF-1 that causes an explosion of muscles.”Regarding IGF-1 Long R3, “we know people are getting it, and they are using it, and they are running very fast, and it’s much different than just growth hormone because it’s like combining growth hormone and insulin, and insulin is a very powerful anabolic hormone,” Conte told The Japan Times.http://www.japantimes.co.jp/sports/2015/08/07/more-sports/conte-says-top-officials-hindering-fight-doping/#.V0RpCimj595From Der Speigel interview (I'll find the link later)

and IGF-1 LR3 is a long lasting version of IGF-1 peptide. This substance has the capability of stimulate the muscles’ cellular growth helping to generate new fibers; moreover increases the absorption speed of most integrators, avoiding the muscolar loss and forcing nutrients in it, including aminoacids.

According to Conte, this peptide is invisible in usual WADA protocols, and whoever is using it will not be discovered and punished.

Victor Conte likes to hear his own voice. Herredia doesn't care what he hears or says as long as he's getting paid, so take these opinoins for what they're worth.

ADuck trolls about igf-lr3 but has never actually posted information on it. It can be a powerful PED. People look at peptides as the new generation of doping. Peptides are simply amino acid chains. They are naturally occurring. Many are banned, but not all. Lots of good information here

key points:

The biggest issue with peptides is the detectability. Because so many are naturally occurring, it is similar to the issue in developing the EPO test: distinguishing between naturally produced and exogenous.

With peptides though, the molecules are even simpler. Because peptides are just the on/off switch for hormones, taking a peptide as a drug is much more similar to what is naturally produced, than say, EPO CERA.

The Hans angle of attack is most often a trolling argument. He is a common thread through a lot of suspicious athletes: Bolt, Radcliffe, Bekele, Gay, Bayern-Munchen soccer (not anymore though). It is a lazy argument because it links one suspicious athlete to another, without confirming suspicions.

If you look at my post, the concern is less that Bolt visited Hans Muller-Wolfhart, but the fact that he visited any world-famous doctor at the age of 16. The myth is that he was some Jamaican boy, and his huge natural was discovered.

But being sent to Germany, to a world famous doctor, shows that he had some very wealthy benefactors at his side, from early in his career. Not even American 16 year olds like Mary Cain had that high of a profile at that age. This fact shows that "the innocent boy with huge natural talent" is a myth, because he was developed scientifically and methodically from such a young age (that he is as susceptible to being taken advantage of or corrupted as any other pro athlete.)(and that this video of him running fast young is irrelevent.)

Regarding activogen, most think it should be on the banned list. IOC considered it. FDA has not approved it in the US. If it works as well as it should, it should be considered performance enhancing. Not much else to say on that; the facts are clear (what it is, WADA's stance, use by athletes), just a difference of opinion.