MJ's 19.32 Legit or on Drugs

How dense is this guy? A track can be manufactured to almost any "thickness" specified, within the parameters and limits of the materials used. Whether it was thin or not isn't a concern. It's the lack of intelligence of people like this that is disturbing.

redundant wrote:

Have you ever had food poisoning before? I have. I lost 10 pounds within 24 hours and could not run without feeling completely wasted for about three weeks. Also, three years is a long time. It is not hard to get that big and that strong in that period of time because he's not that big. Besides, whenever you take a picture of anyone while sprinting, they look much more muscular because of the strain being put on their muscles. Maybe you should use pictures of him before or after his races to get your point across.

Johnson is sprinting in both pictures.

He was most likely on drugs like almost every other top class sprinter.

dmb wrote:

...On an unrelated note, I heard a rumor in the late eighties that Carl Lewis failed a drug test right after or before Seoul. A lot of other people I knew heard the same rumor. Was this because we all talked to the same people? I never took the fact that we all heard the same rumor as some indicator of its veracity.

So unless you have some evidence from reliable sources - say a sworn affadavit or reputable journalistic accounts, then I really think all you MJ haters should just go stew in your bitter juices until you can come back with proof. Not some nonsense about his physique or conspiracy theorizing, but actual facts. Well, that's just my 2.5 cents...

BTW, MJ sucks as a commentator.

Hey, the story about Lewis has turned out to be true. Look it up on Google - or go here:

You can read about it - and about Lewis' response to being revealed as a cheat throughout his career. "dmb" - does it stand for "dumb"?

redundant wrote:

Besides, whenever you take a picture of anyone while sprinting, they look much more muscular because of the strain being put on their muscles. Maybe you should use pictures of him before or after his races to get your point across.

Irrelevant - he is sprinting in both of the pictures.

buckman wrote:

Here is a pic of him from his 1992 200m semifinal:

http://www.esmas.com/fotogalerias/images/galeria/deportes/johnson/Johnson_02.jpg

Here is a pic of him 3 yrs later at the 1995 World Champs:

http://www.esmas.com/fotogalerias/images/galeria/deportes/johnson/Johnson_07.jpg

That is an incredible change in physique... can you change so drastically by lifting weights and doing pushups?

That first picture looks compressed vertically. Like a widescreen movie compressed to fit a normal TV. I'm sure the change of physique is major (especially after 4 years of lifting) but I don't think it's quite as great as these photos would have you believe

Sorry - you got to it first. Maybe I'll start reading the whole thread before posting.

MJ at Baylor

http://www.texassports.com/images/txrimages/2001_02/johnson_250.jpg

MJ in 95

http://im.rediff.com/sports/2003/aug/25john.jpg

MJ at Atlanta

http://www.angelfire.com/wy/atleta/m_salida.jpg

MJ at Sydney

http://pages.zdnet.com/stanleytech/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/johnson.jpg

I don’t see any obvious difference in his muscles in any of the pictures, not even between the first and the last one.

Any minor differences could easily be attributed to a change in weight lifting / eating regime. To say his build rivals that of an amateur bodybuilder is silly. He is nowhere near as muscular as seim-serious weightlifters can become. This does not really address the issue of drugs. R. Jacobs was on "steroids" and was really skinny. You have to look at other factors besides his build. His consistency speaks well for him, but 19.32 does not... Both his WRs were probably drug aided, and in my opinion, all WRs are drug aided.

1) you can't compare the first two pictures posted, because they are at different angles.

2) I know high school kids who are no where near MJ's caliber(just average HS athletes) at my own school who are really ripped, as ripped as MJ appears. It's rediculous to say his physique has anything to do with steroid use, peopel can get that rippsed with huge ammounts of work.

I say legit.

Monty

Sorry if someone else already responded to this.

"He sure looked doped. His physique was almost bizarre looking by 1995."

What the hell are you talking about?! You are a moron! He looked doped? He was one of the smaller, skinnier sprinters by far. Because he was farely lean with good definition that makes him "look doped"?

Agree...."1972................200?"...drug-questionable performances...unfortunately the innocent will pay the price for the cheaters...

It's even silly to pick one performance...there are so many..

meh wrote:

1) you can't compare the first two pictures posted, because they are at different angles.

2) I know high school kids who are no where near MJ's caliber(just average HS athletes) at my own school who are really ripped, as ripped as MJ appears. It's rediculous to say his physique has anything to do with steroid use, peopel can get that rippsed with huge ammounts of work.

Not while running, even as sprinters. The won't increase their muscle mass drastically, if at all.

The pictures are at different angles. Look at many pictures of MJ before passing judgement. He really did have a drastic change in physique. If you had seen him in person as I did over the years. you'd have to agree. He very well might have been on drugs.

realistic wrote:

the guy was on something everyone is on some type of excercise enhancer. What the hell do you think gatorade and endurox are. the fact of the matter is there are a lot of things out there that aren't illegal.

And there's good reasons that some are illegal and some aren't. Human growth hormone is not the same as Gatorade. Nutritional supplements are significantly different than steroids, HGH, EPO, etc.

BDG

[quote]dmb wrote:

He was so consistent for so long that I really think it is unlikely that he was dirty. On the other hand, if he was dirty, he was exceptionally luck to only have failed one drug test that so many people seem to know about.

quote]

First off, I liked Michael Johnson. I loved watching him take on the "track & field establishment" (Carl Lewis & the rest of the Santa Monica crew). He was the ultimate "bad ass" sprinter. I don't believe he talked that much shit - when he did talk he typically backed it up. Watching MJ run 19.32 was one of the most enjoyable TV sports moments I've had.

That being said, since 1996 I gradually woke up to the LIKELY reality of the situation. You mention that he was "exceptionally lucky" in not testing positive. I think discussions about drugs and athletes become irrelevant when people start talking about athletes not testing positive for drugs that can't be tested for! Athletes had begun using human growth hormone well before the 1996 Olympics. Now we're in 2004 and the testers are finally threatening that they should have a test available for it by the Olympics. So you can say all you want that such and such athlete never tested positive, but that's a moot point.

So we are left to speculate (which, yes, includes rumors, hearsay, and other unsubstantiated stories) based on performances, physique changes, top athletes pulling out of championship meets, athletes retiring at odd times, and even athletes dying at odd times. And this speculation is OK - those of us who are speculating are not suggesting that they should be banned without any evidence. But their performances should certainly be scrutinized.

With that in mind, who believes that Kevin Young's 46.78 was done cleanly? Or any of Flo-Jo's WRs? Boulami's steeple WR? Montgomery's 9.78? Nobody's approached Young's record. Flo Jo went from world class to untouchable, completely changed her physique, retired early and died early. Boulami was busted not long after his WR (but it remains...). Montgomery will likely be busted soon, has a pile of evidence against him, and has not been relevant on the sprint scene for some time. These are some obvious examples, but I'm just pointing out that it's OK to speculate without "proof" of drug use. Such proof is incredibly difficult to get without the tests to uncover such drug use, or a confession.

BDG

man you must be a dense motherf**ker - that's exactly the point I am trying to make - and you try to call me dumb?

I said that I think it is unlikely that MJ is dirty. I stand by that, however, shit that I think is unlikely happens from time to time, like, say 19.32. I object to treating strung together consistencies and coincidence and the like as fact.

I think the way that you wrote about it is great and your point about hgh is well-taken, although I wa under the impresion that if you took hgh for a long time that there were some very recognizable symptoms (& unfav outcomes).

So, what WR's do you think are clean? I think if you call 19.32 into question than 12:3x and 26:2x are just as suspect.

dmb wrote:

man you must be a dense motherf**ker - that's exactly the point I am trying to make - and you try to call me dumb?

So you are dumb, correct? At least, that's we gather from your posts. Still blurting out the wrong answers in class too, no doubt.

dmb wrote:

I said that I think it is unlikely that MJ is dirty. I stand by that, however, shit that I think is unlikely happens from time to time, like, say 19.32. I object to treating strung together consistencies and coincidence and the like as fact.

I think the way that you wrote about it is great and your point about hgh is well-taken, although I wa under the impresion that if you took hgh for a long time that there were some very recognizable symptoms (& unfav outcomes).

So, what WR's do you think are clean? I think if you call 19.32 into question than 12:3x and 26:2x are just as suspect.

You think the 5k and 10k records were set by clean athletes?

So, you think the 5k & 10k are dirty records? What records are clean?