Is Bolt doping? An intelligent discussion

Blah blah blah, more of the same from you. Answer the question I posed: How can your hypothesis be falsified? What evidence wold satisfy that Bolt is clean?

hypnotoad wrote:

Blah blah blah, more of the same from you. Answer the question I posed: How can your hypothesis be falsified? What evidence wold satisfy that Bolt is clean?

it can't be...these people have already decided that bolt is dirty, nothing that is said or done will change that

easysolution wrote:

Perspective, you're better than that. Trevor Graham, who was based in the US by the way, is one man. If it is discovered tomorrow that Alberto Salazar's athletes are cheating, does that mean that the coaches of Tegenkamp, Symmonds and Vessey are cheating as well?

Fact remains, US coaches are not the be all and end all of track knowledge, however painful that may be for many to accept. Instead of getting all bent out of shape about cheating, maybe some US athletes and coaches should get their asses down to Ethiopia, Kenya, Jamaica, Cuba and wherever else in order to see what they can learn about the sport.

My point was to dispute the notion that the Jamaicans were incapable, either due to lack of finance, intelligence, or connections, to establish a drug program. I mentioned Graham because he had been caught doing just what some people characterize as beyond Jamaican sophistication.

Even when the US dominates the sprints the issue of drug use is never far behind. We know it to be a very real problem in our sport. So why should we bury our heads in the sand?

My sympathies are entirely with the great athletes who compete cleanly, albeit in the shadows of some who don't.

If US sprinters compete clean, I'm proud of them. I don't care if they medal or not. But when the signs of drug use are staring you in the face, then you need to speak up, whether it is by US athletes or anybody else. Turning a blind eye to drug use, in my opinion, is very unhealthy for our sport over the long haul.

To hypnotoad and forest:

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. If you refuse to read what I have written, and insist on throwing tantrums, that is your choice.

BTW: I'm going to be "off the grid" (literally, not the Letsrun poster) for a few days, so no further responses from me for a while.

That's too bad SI, because your writing and discussion points are very well put together.

I whole-heartedly agree that just because he has not failed a drug test does not mean that he is clean.

To give one example: Marion Jones has NEVER failed a drug test, but it took a federal investigation into her financial troubles (not even into her drug use), to find out her connections with the drugs and that she was doping.

If I were Bolt, I would definitely like to be scientifically studied to figure out why exactly I am so gifted. I think that would be awesome (granted it didn't affect my training). SAnd to boot, something that would probably not be to difficult. I am positive that there are some labs and doctors/scientists that would be willing to be set up in Jamaica for a year to find out more about the extremes of the human body.

Everybody on here that straight up bashes SQ should take a deep breath, go over his arguments, and then reply.

To SI: why do you find it necessary to even discuss whether bolt is dirty? why not just accept the fact that bolt is inecent until proven guilty? i'm not trying to "bash SQ", and i read all of his arguments. i am just curious why you cannont seem to execpt that bolt is just incredibly talented?

as to why he has improved this much - it is obvious, to me at least, that he does not train as hard as other sprinters. however, if after 2007, when he came very close to winning worlds in the 200. he could have then decided to put more effort into running, and turned the talent that let him be the youngest world junior champion into these world records. this seems just as likely as him doping. also, he didn't come from nowhere, as proven drug users ben johnson or justin gatlin did, he was very talented early on.

sorry if seems like a tantrum to you.

also, hynotoad raised a very good point, you should try reading it

Scientific Inquiry wrote:

To hypnotoad and forest:

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. If you refuse to read what I have written, and insist on throwing tantrums, that is your choice.

How's that for scientific inquiry? I don't know if your ignorance or childishness is more staggering... or entertaining for that matter.

It's one thing to just be stupid, but when you start to dress it in fancy words taken from textbooks you don't understand, you just make an even bigger ass of yourself. Let that be a lesson to you, should you one day grow up.

Scientific Inquiry wrote:

BTW: I'm going to be "off the grid" (literally, not the Letsrun poster) for a few days, so no further responses from me for a while.

Translation: I got my ass kicked, so I'm changing my handle.

hypnotoad wrote:

What, then, would be acceptable evidence that Bolt is clean? If you're oh so gifted in the scientific method, then explain how your hypothesis can be falsified. An autopsy? 15 more years of testing? What?

For extra credits, I'd be interested to know why the empirical evidence that other fast sprinters (but by no means all or even a majority) have cheated is trustworthy, whereas the empirical evidence of Bolt's negative tests somehow should be completely disregarded.

1. You are an ass. If you have basic reading skills, you would see exactly what SQ was saying that would legitimate Bolt's performances. A 3rd party laboratory, that conducts tests, takes samples, analyzes his biomechanics, whatever etc., for one year (or hell, even for a few months). If under this scientific investigation they find the natural reason(s) for his insane ability, and he can still run fast, then that would prove he is clean.

The reason WHY SQ believes that this should be done, is because his times and performances are BEYOND what is normal, and as such, he should prove that he is clean BEYOND what is normally expected of athletes.

2. Your dumbass "extra credit" question. The reason why Bolt's 100% negative tests should be disregarded, is because there have been MANY cases of athletes that have also had a 100% negative tests either in season of world record performances or even throughout the entire span of their career, but had been doping nonetheless the whole time. Examples: Marion Jones (never tested positive, admitted to doping), Carl Lewis (never tested positive by IAAF or WADA, see Wade Exum of the USOC), Ben Johnson (broke WR in 100m, did not test positive until a year later, admitted to doping during his WR season), to just name a few.

It seems that most people who think Bolt is clean dont seem to know the sport of T&F that well, and have a poor understanding of sprint times. To lower the record by that much, in such a short period of time, and to just claim that it was hard work and long stride...is just not good enough. For me, 9.58 is the same as 8.58. They are both absolutely ridiculous times. There have been many athletes who were talented, disciplined, had the perfect training, AND who were doped, that have only run 9.8's. Bolt is NOT that much more talented that he doesnt have to work as hard and doesn't have to dope, and still beats those athletes by tenths of a second. You just do not understand the sport.

So you think Gay is dirty as well? 9.71 makes a whole lot of sense to you even though it's faster than the times of all those 9.8 dopers you mention.

lottacrap wrote:

So you think Gay is dirty as well? 9.71 makes a whole lot of sense to you even though it's faster than the times of all those 9.8 dopers you mention.

Yes I do think Gay is doping. To be catastrophically injured last year, and then to come back to be injured this year, and then to come back and still run 9.71 on a slow track?

Everyone who has run under 9.80 except for Gay, Powell, and Bolt have either tested positive, or have had major obvious connections with drugs (e.g., Maurice Greene and Balco).

Now I'm not saying that EVERY single person that runs or will run under 9.8 is doping, but that to run faster than athletes who were also extremely talented, had the right coaching/training, and who were ALSO doping, casts a heavy shadow of doubt over them.

Ok, so first of all, why are you changing your handle if you're gonna keep posting? Oh hell, we all know why. You sad little person.

Second of all, there's absolutely nothing "scientific" about a hypothesis that is not falsifiable. I'm going to assume you're also a Creationist because you argue like one. Until science has delivered evidence that is 100% valid and complete by your own arbitrary standard, you are going to stick to your beliefs. Well, in my book that makes you a contemptible moron.

And it's probably not necessary to mention that you did not score any extra credits. You are completely subjective in what data you accept and what you ignore, thus reinforcing your already resounding F in "scientific inquiry".

Being called a dumbass by you is a badge of honor.

Ok, I am not SQ, I am just another person that whole-heartedly agrees with him. You can think that this is him or not, I dont care.

Anyway, in order to get this back to a civil discussion, let's try and clear some things up. I think some of this may be due to semantics:

1. SQ's hypothesis. I've taken it from the posts that his "hypothesis" as you put it, is that Bolt is dirty. You want to know how this can be "falsifiable". Correct?

2. I don't really understand what you mean by myself not accepting certain data. What data did you propose for your argument? You have only posted questions other than your first post:

"The burden of evidence is not on the "absence" claim. Had he run 8.59, maybe. But the man improved a WR by one lousy tenth of a second, which can easily be explained by his physiological advantage over his competitors."

This doesn't really make sense to me. First of all, he has not improved the record by only one tenth, he has improved it by almost 2 tenths (0.16 to be exact) in the last year, which is an extreme amount. The reason for that, is because the world record progression from 9.90 to 9.74 (0.16 seconds) took 19 years. Bolt takes off the same amount of time in just ONE. Second of all, the sentence: "The burden of evidence is not on the 'absence' claim." absolutely makes no sense to me. I will admit that perhaps my reading comprehension is poor, but this response to SQ really had my head scratching.

3. You also seem to be completely subjective in what data you accept and ignore. How come you do not comment on the sprinters (among many other athletes) that have never failed a drug test in their life, but have admitted to doping or were caught in some other fasion? How do you explain that?

Right there with you wrote:

The reason for that, is because the world record progression from 9.90 to 9.74 (0.16 seconds) took 19 years.

Excuse me, this took 16 years.

Excellent Post!

So basically by being a sprinter and being fast, Bolt is automatically cheating. You and toady can talk around it all you want but this is the essence of your argument. There's no other basis for the claim than that.

Well then, why not shut down the sport? In fact, let's outlaw it. From this day on, sprinting is a crime if it's done for competitive reasons. If it's done to escape a mugging it's ok but you have to prove that you were in danger.

Oh wait. I just had another idea. We can keep the sport legal and just ignore those naysaying penis-envying tools who think everybody cheats. On second thought, let's go with that.

Oh, and you are so obviously the same person as SI or SQ or whatever. Pathetic.

Isaac Newton wrote:

Excellent Post!

Oops sorry, I meant crappy post. Totally retarded.