Bolt 9.64 OR!!!!

Bolt is clean

Sometimes there are people who are just that talented, Bolt is one.

what PED are you taliking about? What could he be taking? He is not particulary strong? EPO wont make a difference. Someone please describe what PED he coulld be taking and how it helps him

asu guy wrote:

can't wait for Bolt to retire. he is drugged up freak. 100 has become a total joke.

HA! Yeah, bring back the good ol' clean days of, uh, 35 years ago? 40 years ago?

For your consideration:

Hal Connelly, the late US field events guy, claimed before his death that guys were experimenting with amphetamines as early as '56, ergo the last CLEAN Games may(!) have been 1952

Fact of life: there's money to be made and people will do anything

Either take the money out of sports altogether or just get rid of the drug testing altogether and asterisk any WR, NR or OR set since 1952. Admit we are watching drug-aided freaks of nature/variations of Michael Jackson, Madonna and Marilyn Manson

I'm surprised at some of the naivety in this thread.

Let me see if I have this right. A convicted doper comes back from a four year ban and at age 30 misses his doped up best by a mere four hundreths of a second. So Justin Gatlin is just as fast off the juice, at age 30, as he was on, in his mid twenties? Huh?

And then some supposed freak of nature is not only in an entirely different league than Gatlin, but he's in a different league than Ben Johnson when Johnson was so roided up that his eyeballs were yellow? Johnson would have been in a lean-off for the bronze in this race.

The unfortunate state of the sport is that clean test are no guarantee of anything. So it's a question of what's too good to be true as the dedicated fans try to parse what's happening. The truth will likely come out eventually--see Armstrong, Lance.

But I'm not buying any narrative that can explain how Gatlin can be running so fast and not even be in the freaking ballpark. Or narratives about why a race that progressed by hundreths has suddenly seen drops of tenths. Or mumbo-jumbo about how Bolt is a different athlete than we've ever seen before and has changed the game somehow. It reminds me about all the arguments about Barry Bonds at the end of his career and how he had developed a more disciplined eye at the plate and was more dedicated in the weight as explanations of how he suddenly started hitting 70 homers in his mid-30s.

Bolt was a very good sprinter. And then suddenly he was otherwordly. To be otherwordly in an era when it's impossible to guarantee a level playing field is to be an outlier of such proportions that I, for one, am not buying it. I am a firm believer in the human spirit, which is still in the mix in all of this. I just think that the mix includes designer drugs.

Just a brief correction on Justin Gatlin. You used the singular form on him failing a drug test and serving a ban. I could be wrong, but I believe he has failed two drug tests and served two different bans for those offenses (one for amphetamines and one for testosterone). He should have been banned for life after the second one. Also, when did he admit doing wrong by doping? I thought he blamed someone else for it.

Bolt was a very good sprinter. And then suddenly he was otherwordly. To be otherwordly in an era when it's impossible to guarantee a level playing field is to be an outlier of such proportions that I, for one, am not buying it. I am a firm believer in the human spirit, which is still in the mix in all of this. I just think that the mix includes designer drugs.

___________________________________________________________

Could you give us an idea of what PEDs Bolt may be using and how it improves his performance?

So no one can be faster than a drugged up Ben Johnson?

You realize that the times get better as the years go on, don't you? It wasn't that long ago when a 4:30 mile was world class. We have 14 yr boys running faster than that. Does that mean they are on drugs too?

Prefontaine and Viren would get absolutely toasted by the top college runners. Does that mean they are on drugs also?

Look, it is abundantly clear that all of these guys running sub-9.90 adjusted times are doing something. Access to that something is probably currently limited, and that something is very likely not currently banned, or not currently testable, as unless I am mistaken, a reliable test has to exist before something is added to the banned substance list.

In the shades of gray that pervade the 100m and other high-level power sports, athletes will do anything and everything they can to achieve even the tiniest of advantages, IF they can justify it to themselves. They pretty much ALL take "approved supplements". Why? Because they believe they will run faster by doing so.

As long as something is not on the list, they will do it. Period. And I don't care who they are, or what country they are from--if they can get it, they will do it. Usually, there are doctors involved somewhere, they are often the gatekeepers and administration managers. It is no coincidence that Bolt consulted a doctor in the month previous to the Games. What did he go for? Surgery? No. Physio? No, he can get that anywhere. Training? No, the doc isn't a coach. Any sort of non-pharmacological therapy? No, he can, and does, get that from other sources that are eminently more qualified than the doc. Diagnostic imaging services? By themselves they are not related to performance.

Face it, he went for pharmacology. EVERY ONE OF THESE GUYS HAS AN M.D. WITH WHOM HE IS CONNECTED. I'm not saying that whatever he was administered is on the banned list. Heck, I'm not even suggesting that whatever he was administered wasn't by some determination "medically necessary"--for instance, consider going to a doc after a year of training and running 100m races, a bit broken down, with some verifiable ailments such as small tears, soreness, tendonitis, immune suppression, etc., while telling the doc that in a month's time your job commits you to producing several all-out physical efforts.

Clearly, pharma can achieve a lot. Returning Bolt to a level of fitness that would permit him to perform well at his job, in perfect health, while minimizing the risk of injury due to those future exertions, could legitimately be considered to be "medically necessary", or in the best interests of the patient, from a health perspective.

Whatever. The bottom line is that whatever is available to Bolt is available to any other guy in that race, and they know it, and might actually use it if and when they feel that they can benefit from it.

When I say they're all "clean" this year except for Blake, I mean that they are all "reasonably clean", NOT that they are all ABSOLUTELY clean. Heck, I'm the only ABSOLUTELY clean person I know, I don't even take aspirin or a multi-vitamin--and even I have taken creatine, aminos, and vitamins in the past, so by one standard even I am not absolutely clean.

Cleanliness is judged with reference to the standards of the day. By today's standards, Bolt is clean, unless he tests positive at some point.

At some point, one must change with the times. These are new times. As others have pointed out upthread, all of a sudden 4 guys appear, who blow away everybody else in history, even convicted dopers. There is no question that new things are available, and that they are being used--but that point seems irrelevant. What is relevant is that there ARE things on the banned list, and that ALL of the guys in this final are currently being tested for them according to accepted protocols.

Banning any sort of corruption--e.g. switching of samples, manipulation of test protocols or results, etc. (which is of course a possibility)--these guys must all be considered to be clean, no matter what they are in fact doing.

Of course times get faster. Though I don't think 4:30 was ever world class. Here's your homework assignment. Make a chart of world record progression in the 100 meters, from 1960 onwards. And then let's talk. There's

Is your point that you don't believe PEDs aid performance? Because that's a ridiculous assertion. Here's some reading. Get back to me with your ridiculous arguments to the contrary.

http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/Drug-Test.html

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/05/04/first-hard-evidence-human-growth-hormone-gives-sprinters-a-winning-edge/

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/05/how-sprinter-takes-drugs.html

M.C. Confusing wrote:

Try this. Before Bolt, Gay and Powell all came out at the exact same time, only ONE man had ever run under 9.85 without later testing positive. EVERYONE else that ever did it tested positive. Then suddenly, when the world record had been going to down by only HUNDREDTHS of seconds for years and years, three men at the same time come along and collectively lower the world record by TWO TENTHS?

It hasn't been that crazy.

Donovan Bailey ran 9.84 in Atlanta to set the world record. That was 1996.

Here are IAAF world leaders starting in 1999 which is as far back as their website lists:

1999 - Mo Greene's fastest year

9.79 - Mo Greene

9.80 - Greene

9.84 - Bruny Surin

9.85 - Greene

9.86 - Ato Boldon

9.86 - Boldon

2000 - Greene still best in the world

9.86 - Mo Greene

9.87 - Greene

9.91 - Greene

9.93 - Greene

9.94 - Greene

9.95 - Boldon

2001 - IAAF list incomplete

2002 - Tim Montgomery on top

9.78 - Tim Montgomery

9.87 - Dwain Chambers

9.89 - Greene

9.91 - Montgomery

9.93 - Montgomery

9.94 - Montgomery & Frankie Fredericks

2003 - down year

9.94 - Patrick Johnson

9.94 - Greene

OK, let's just skip the rest of this slow year

2004 - Gatlin win gold

9.85 - Justin Gatlin

9.86 - Francis Obikwelu

9.87 - Greene

9.87 - Asafa Powell

9.88 - Shawn Crawford

9.89 - Crawford

2005 - Asafa Powell now best in world

9.77 - Powell

9.84 - Powell

9.85 - Powell

9.88 - Gatlin

9.89 - Gatlin

9.94 - Leonard Scott

2006 - Still Powell

9.77 - Powell

9.77 - Powell

9.84 - Tyson Gay

9.85 - Olusoji Fasuba

9.85 - Powell

9.85 - Powell

2007 - Powell brings it down some more

9.74 - Powell

9.78 - Powell

9.83 - Powell

9.84 - Gay

9.84 - Powell

9.85 - Powell

2008 - The emergence of Bolt

9.69 - Usain Bolt

9.72 - Bolt

9.72 - Powell

9.76 - Bolt

9.77 - Gay

9.77 - Bolt & Powell

2009 - Bolt!

9.58 - Bolt

9.69 - Gay

9.71 - Gay

9.77 - Gay

9.79 - Bolt

9.81 - Bolt

2010 - Gay has the best year

9.78 - Gay

9.78 - Nesta Carter

9.79 - Gay

9.82 - Powell

9.82 - Bolt

9.83 - Powell

2011 - Pretty even year for everyone

9.76 - Bolt

9.78 - Powell

9.79 - Gay

9.80 - Steve Mullings

9.82 - Yohan Blake

9.82 - Blake

2012 - Bolt is back

9.63 - Bolt

9.75 - Blake

9.75 - Blake

9.76 - Bolt

9.79 - Bolt

9.79 - Gatlin

Maurice Greene was running 9.79 thirteen years ago, and that's still a fast time today. Then Powell dropped it into the mid-9.7's.

Then Bolt hit like lightning, and caused the rest of the world to chase him (see Gay's 9.69 as proof of that). If you take Bolt out of the equation then I think the top-6 all time looks more like:

Powell & Gay in the 9.72 to 9.74 range

Blake 9.75 to 9.77

Greene 9.79

Carter 9.79

Gatlin 9.79

That's not so unreasonable.

Bolt has really shifted everything. He's the guy, the one who is a generation or two ahead. Everything else has been a pretty natural progression, except instead of 9.85 being a top time as it was 15 years ago, now 9.75 is a top time. (Again, Bolt is leaps and bounds ahead).

Nice post, and I think what you're attempting to say is that the definition of "clean" has changed. Namely, it now includes athletes who have set up efficient designer drug programs in the off-season. Yes, they'll likely pass the tests, and so they're "clean," but that's of course different than what we once assumed clean meant.

fsdfsfd wrote:

Of course times get faster. Though I don't think 4:30 was ever world class. Here's your homework assignment. Make a chart of world record progression in the 100 meters, from 1960 onwards. And then let's talk. There's

1500m record progression (4:30 mile was world class at one point):

100m record progression:

Why do you want to stop at 1960?

fsdfsfd wrote:

Is your point that you don't believe PEDs aid performance? Because that's a ridiculous assertion. Here's some reading. Get back to me with your ridiculous arguments to the contrary.

http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/Drug-Test.htmlhttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/05/04/first-hard-evidence-human-growth-hormone-gives-sprinters-a-winning-edge/http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/05/how-sprinter-takes-drugs.html

Placebo effect. Research that.

Bolt is unstoppable.. 18.99 in the 200

now put an asterisk next to convicted cheats like montgomery, chambers, and gatlin. and another set of asterisks next to those who have been accused, like greene. and then even taking that into consideration, look at the crazy, crazy progression in 2008 and 2009. Thanks for helping prove the point. which also happens to be, take any top 100m list from the last decade, and it's bound to have at least one drug cheat on it. and those are the ones who were caught.

you got me! 430 was world class in the 1890s.I didn't want to stop at 1960. i wanted to start there. you realize, of course, that there are many factors that went into progression? such as, an increasing number of athletes from different countries participating in athletics? advances in track technology and spikes? in training techniques? you understand why high schoolers now can run back-to-back 4:30 miles when that was world class in 1890, right? okay, good. now look at the 100 meter chart and tell me how much an outlier bolt is?

sure no wrote:

fsdfsfd wrote:

Of course times get faster. Though I don't think 4:30 was ever world class. Here's your homework assignment. Make a chart of world record progression in the 100 meters, from 1960 onwards. And then let's talk. There's

1500m record progression (4:30 mile was world class at one point):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_record_progression_1500_metres

100m record progression:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/World_record_progression_100m_men.svg

Why do you want to stop at 1960?

fsdfsfd wrote:

now put an asterisk next to convicted cheats like montgomery, chambers, and gatlin. and another set of asterisks next to those who have been accused, like greene. and then even taking that into consideration, look at the crazy, crazy progression in 2008 and 2009. Thanks for helping prove the point. which also happens to be, take any top 100m list from the last decade, and it's bound to have at least one drug cheat on it. and those are the ones who were caught.

The progression in 2008,2009 is not that crazy. Bolt's WR had a huge wind on it. If you use his 9.6 time with no wind, then you see that his improvement on the WR is just like that of his predecessors dating as far back as 1910.

If you look at the progression, you'll see that the record jumps by .1 second about every 10 years. Bolt fits right into that pattern. So there is nothing crazy about him.

But why is there a need to fit into some kind of statistical progression? You can't predict when a great performance or athlete is going to come. It just happens. There is no math that can actually predict that. This is not something that has to fit a pattern.

Yes, Bolt is the outlier. My central argument is that he is basically from the future, he is generations ahead.

But what do you think of my argument that without him the WR is still 9.72 to 9.74? Does that sound reasonable, and would that be a reasonable enough progression for you?