A basic improvement of 0.57 over 2 years, from 729th place and obscurity in 2019, to 2nd place globally in 2021, a mere 0.01 behind the world’s #1 performer.
14-month ban, betamethasone.
He’s just another name on the men’s 9.80-or-better wind-legal list. Busted.
Tell us exact details of his training from age 19 to age 24. Tell us exact details of training from age 24 to age 25.
Possible ways to improve:
* Quit drinking and ceased hanging out in night clubs
* Added plyometrics.
* Weight training over all helps most sprinters. Maybe Omanyala stopped weight training and is now fresher but he still maintains the strength gain from years of weight training.
A basic improvement of 0.57 over 2 years, from 729th place and obscurity in 2019, to 2nd place globally in 2021, a mere 0.01 behind the world’s #1 performer.
14-month ban, betamethasone.
He’s just another name on the men’s 9.80-or-better wind-legal list. Busted.
Tell us exact details of his training from age 19 to age 24. Tell us exact details of training from age 24 to age 25.
Possible ways to improve:
* Quit drinking and ceased hanging out in night clubs
* Added plyometrics.
* Weight training over all helps most sprinters. Maybe Omanyala stopped weight training and is now fresher but he still maintains the strength gain from years of weight training.
Yes, maybe—but maybe he took drugs, a possibility for which there is historical precedent in his particular case.
A basic improvement of 0.50 over 2 years, from #107 in the world in 2019 and from not even in the top 2500 performers all-time, to the #6 performer all-time, #3 basic performer in the world and a world medalist, behind two of the 3 fastest women all-time...and closing.
Track fans will not rest until every competitor is banned.
Football, soccer, and basketball fans don't care, they just enjoy the game. And, because the governing authorities understand that there's no incentive to ban every competitor, they regulate testing accordingly.
As a result, fans of those sports see the dearth of drug busts for football, soccer, and basketball and conclude the sports are "clean." They see the busts in track (and the neverending speculation/demand for more busts by hardcore fans) as further proof that track is "dirty."
IAnd impose some assisted speed demands he hadn’t experienced previously. We have not done speed endurance at the level he needs to go low 9.8’s, but he can hit high 9.8’s. He is capable of that if all is perfect.
This post was edited 44 seconds after it was posted.
A basic improvement of 0.50 over 2 years, from #107 in the world in 2019 and from not even in the top 2500 performers all-time, to the #6 performer all-time, #3 basic performer in the world and a world medalist, behind two of the 3 fastest women all-time...and closing.
You make too much out of times, what matters is accomplishments what has an athlete won. A lot of sprinters have ran fast times but were they winning anything?
Yes he was very young, and so some natural progression is expected...BUT he has been suspended for GW1516.
He goes from a competent 16-yr-old to tied for 4th in the world at the tender age of 18, in a world U20 record of 9.89 (0.8) in Sao Paolo, a basic improvement of around 0.65 over 2 years.
From very good, to history's best, while having tested positive.
If anybody has FAT times for him from 2021 and 2022, let's hear them.
While I appreciate SG’s observations and efforts (and I sincerely do), I would like to see more quality.
Somebody (other than me) should work up some stats on this half-second improvement over 2 years among sanctioned sprinters.
Surely there's some eager senior undergrad who wants to do this for a senior honors project in maybe stats, maybe kinesiology, exercise physiology, whatever!
Now we have Knighton, whose sample was found to contain the metabolites of Trenbolone. We could present his times as well, because the fact is that he was competing while having taken a banned substance, knowingly or not.
Raw, his time improved 0.92s from 2019 to 2021, then a further 0.12s in 2022...in which year he put up that epic 19.49, the 5th best 200m performer all-time, again at the tender age of only 18, for a world U20 record.
His basic time in 2021 was 10.26 (10.29 (-0.4), in the top 100 in the world.
Like Asinga, yes he was very young so he could be expected to naturally improve, but there are 2 important facts for the both of them: 1) they didn't just improve, they improved a huge amount of time, to World Junior Records; and 2) they did have metabolites of banned substances in their bodies, which is the very thing we are looking for.
This lends some more weight to the suggestion that if an athlete who has shown a 0.50s improvement over 2 years is tested, metabolites of a banned substance may be found in their system. Would a positive finding be more likely than for athletes who didn't show that improvement? I don't know, someone should do some meaningful stats.
I would suggest that one way of addressing guys like Asinga and Knighton would be to test them and test them hard, while they are under 20 and set WJR's, but then to use the results as mostly informational--that is, issue them a warning that they have something in their system, give them some time to clean it out while serving maybe a 2-month suspension from competition but not training, test again after those 2 months, erase all records, and give them a clean slate after which they will be treated in the normal adult fashion. If they are still hot after those 2 months, decide what to do on a case-by-case basis, depending on the facts.
YES I know that this wouldn't address microdosing; yes I know that this wouldn't address possible long-term benefit from using certain PED's--BUT these are still kids. I don't think there should necessarily be any greater sanction for intentional use, because kids are both experimental in their own right, and also subject to undue influence from adults. I think that the trade for an only 2 month ban should be disclosure on their part, to help identify for the record how these things happen. They might own up to it, or they might put the blame on someone else, or it may be a legit accident--but my point is that these kids should be helped along, and encouraged to do things the right way.
However, I do think that there should be an age cutoff for this sort of thing, in my mind maybe 18 yrs, maybe 20. I don't know how this would work for field or distance.
In addition to all of this, there should be a completely confidential helpline that these athletes can contact, to get information and assistance with no fear that anything will result from their disclosure unless they want that result to happen, like a SafeSport type program. It would help them understand options, it would help them understand what ramifications could result, it could help them navigate a way out of a bad situation, etc.
These are, of course, preliminary ideas, not yet really formed--but with all the resources that go into things, it strikes me that the population that needs help the most, is possibly the most under-served.
While I appreciate SG’s observations and efforts (and I sincerely do), I would like to see more quality.
Somebody (other than me) should work up some stats on this half-second improvement over 2 years among sanctioned sprinters.
Surely there's some eager senior undergrad who wants to do this for a senior honors project in maybe stats, maybe kinesiology, exercise physiology, whatever!
Now we have Knighton, whose sample was found to contain the metabolites of Trenbolone. We could present his times as well, because the fact is that he was competing while having taken a banned substance, knowingly or not.
Raw, his time improved 0.92s from 2019 to 2021, then a further 0.12s in 2022...in which year he put up that epic 19.49, the 5th best 200m performer all-time, again at the tender age of only 18, for a world U20 record.
His basic time in 2021 was 10.26 (10.29 (-0.4), in the top 100 in the world.
Like Asinga, yes he was very young so he could be expected to naturally improve, but there are 2 important facts for the both of them: 1) they didn't just improve, they improved a huge amount of time, to World Junior Records; and 2) they did have metabolites of banned substances in their bodies, which is the very thing we are looking for.
This lends some more weight to the suggestion that if an athlete who has shown a 0.50s improvement over 2 years is tested, metabolites of a banned substance may be found in their system. Would a positive finding be more likely than for athletes who didn't show that improvement? I don't know, someone should do some meaningful stats.
I would suggest that one way of addressing guys like Asinga and Knighton would be to test them and test them hard, while they are under 20 and set WJR's, but then to use the results as mostly informational--that is, issue them a warning that they have something in their system, give them some time to clean it out while serving maybe a 2-month suspension from competition but not training, test again after those 2 months, erase all records, and give them a clean slate after which they will be treated in the normal adult fashion. If they are still hot after those 2 months, decide what to do on a case-by-case basis, depending on the facts.
YES I know that this wouldn't address microdosing; yes I know that this wouldn't address possible long-term benefit from using certain PED's--BUT these are still kids. I don't think there should necessarily be any greater sanction for intentional use, because kids are both experimental in their own right, and also subject to undue influence from adults. I think that the trade for an only 2 month ban should be disclosure on their part, to help identify for the record how these things happen. They might own up to it, or they might put the blame on someone else, or it may be a legit accident--but my point is that these kids should be helped along, and encouraged to do things the right way.
However, I do think that there should be an age cutoff for this sort of thing, in my mind maybe 18 yrs, maybe 20. I don't know how this would work for field or distance.
In addition to all of this, there should be a completely confidential helpline that these athletes can contact, to get information and assistance with no fear that anything will result from their disclosure unless they want that result to happen, like a SafeSport type program. It would help them understand options, it would help them understand what ramifications could result, it could help them navigate a way out of a bad situation, etc.
These are, of course, preliminary ideas, not yet really formed--but with all the resources that go into things, it strikes me that the population that needs help the most, is possibly the most under-served.
One thing is for sure, doping tests have gotten a lot more sensitive in recent years, they can now detect absolutely minuscule amounts of metabolites now. Knighton is certainly not alone in this, there have a been a bunch of cases recently given a pass because of contamination. It is a very real concern and there is evidence that everything from meat, over the counter drugs and even athletic wear are contaminated with this stuff. Lizzy Banks has a pretty good write up about her fight.
We may actually be on the threshold of the testing being ahead of the dopers, for once. The question now is does the sport have the stomach to follow through with it? Are we all going to be OK with the winning times at the Olympics and WC being 10.1 for the mens 100m? This summer Olympics is going to be very interesting...
Surely there's some eager senior undergrad who wants to do this for a senior honors project in maybe stats, maybe kinesiology, exercise physiology, whatever!
Now we have Knighton, whose sample was found to contain the metabolites of Trenbolone. We could present his times as well, because the fact is that he was competing while having taken a banned substance, knowingly or not.
Raw, his time improved 0.92s from 2019 to 2021, then a further 0.12s in 2022...in which year he put up that epic 19.49, the 5th best 200m performer all-time, again at the tender age of only 18, for a world U20 record.
His basic time in 2021 was 10.26 (10.29 (-0.4), in the top 100 in the world.
Like Asinga, yes he was very young so he could be expected to naturally improve, but there are 2 important facts for the both of them: 1) they didn't just improve, they improved a huge amount of time, to World Junior Records; and 2) they did have metabolites of banned substances in their bodies, which is the very thing we are looking for.
This lends some more weight to the suggestion that if an athlete who has shown a 0.50s improvement over 2 years is tested, metabolites of a banned substance may be found in their system. Would a positive finding be more likely than for athletes who didn't show that improvement? I don't know, someone should do some meaningful stats.
I would suggest that one way of addressing guys like Asinga and Knighton would be to test them and test them hard, while they are under 20 and set WJR's, but then to use the results as mostly informational--that is, issue them a warning that they have something in their system, give them some time to clean it out while serving maybe a 2-month suspension from competition but not training, test again after those 2 months, erase all records, and give them a clean slate after which they will be treated in the normal adult fashion. If they are still hot after those 2 months, decide what to do on a case-by-case basis, depending on the facts.
YES I know that this wouldn't address microdosing; yes I know that this wouldn't address possible long-term benefit from using certain PED's--BUT these are still kids. I don't think there should necessarily be any greater sanction for intentional use, because kids are both experimental in their own right, and also subject to undue influence from adults. I think that the trade for an only 2 month ban should be disclosure on their part, to help identify for the record how these things happen. They might own up to it, or they might put the blame on someone else, or it may be a legit accident--but my point is that these kids should be helped along, and encouraged to do things the right way.
However, I do think that there should be an age cutoff for this sort of thing, in my mind maybe 18 yrs, maybe 20. I don't know how this would work for field or distance.
In addition to all of this, there should be a completely confidential helpline that these athletes can contact, to get information and assistance with no fear that anything will result from their disclosure unless they want that result to happen, like a SafeSport type program. It would help them understand options, it would help them understand what ramifications could result, it could help them navigate a way out of a bad situation, etc.
These are, of course, preliminary ideas, not yet really formed--but with all the resources that go into things, it strikes me that the population that needs help the most, is possibly the most under-served.
One thing is for sure, doping tests have gotten a lot more sensitive in recent years, they can now detect absolutely minuscule amounts of metabolites now. Knighton is certainly not alone in this, there have a been a bunch of cases recently given a pass because of contamination. It is a very real concern and there is evidence that everything from meat, over the counter drugs and even athletic wear are contaminated with this stuff. Lizzy Banks has a pretty good write up about her fight.
We may actually be on the threshold of the testing being ahead of the dopers, for once. The question now is does the sport have the stomach to follow through with it? Are we all going to be OK with the winning times at the Olympics and WC being 10.1 for the mens 100m? This summer Olympics is going to be very interesting...
Here's the link to Lizzy Banks story of her fight with doping control, an interesting read for track fans, and seems directly related to Knighton's situation:
Track fans will not rest until every competitor is banned.
Football, soccer, and basketball fans don't care, they just enjoy the game. And, because the governing authorities understand that there's no incentive to ban every competitor, they regulate testing accordingly.
As a result, fans of those sports see the dearth of drug busts for football, soccer, and basketball and conclude the sports are "clean." They see the busts in track (and the neverending speculation/demand for more busts by hardcore fans) as further proof that track is "dirty."
Go, sprintgeezer! You'll get them all eventually!
So you want the sham that the NFL is with guys who look like pro wrestlers playing every week?
At least baseball got some testing and the drug cheats can only micro dose and look fairly normal now.
