Whaaat?--
Yes, he has "the best chance", which is to say, no chance at all.
Whaaat?--
Yes, he has "the best chance", which is to say, no chance at all.
sayin': "SG was preachin every thread about asafa powell bein the fastest clean"
You know that's not true. Up against your comment, I will put the vast history of posters complaining about my always saying that everybody is doped except Collins.
As far as allowing PED's, I dealt with that--that was when everybody was running unrestricted.
Today is a different day, with everybody--EVERYBODY--I called out, in trouble--either totally out, or no longer pre-eminent, even if still competing.
I still have hope that things can be managed, if not perfectly, then pretty well--except for Bolt, of course.
Look--
There is no question in my mind that Galea is sketchy today, but the question is when he became so, and if that was before or after he worked with Bailey and Surin.
Same for Pfaff.
Nobody is providing more details.
Yes, Bolt likely has phenomenal talent, maybe on a par with Bailey's--but Bailey went only 9.84, once in his life--Bolt went 9.58, 9.63, and worst of all, a goofed-and-negative-leaned crushing 9.69 Olympic final. If the two scenarios are compared, it is easy to exclude Bolt and include Bailey.
For now, Bailey and Surin remain ON.
Not sure what your love affair with Bailey is. As others have stated and provided evidence for, there is no way he belongs on that list. Sorry.
According to the original criteria, the only way he is not on the list is if there is "a justifiable cloud of suspicion".
Yes, in my opinion, since I'm the one who started the thread.
Some red flags:
associating with a dirty coach
associating with a suspect doctor
incredible recoveries after doctor visits
multiple amazing performances in a single season
multiple consecutive amazing performances
insanely long, high-level career
last-minute withdrawal history
9.80-or-below times
etc.
All of these things have to be considered relatively, relative to other athletes who are both on and off the list.
I have tried to do that. You haven't. You have been merely conclusory.
Yes, it is I who get to decide what his associations with Galea and Pfaff mean, and I have decided that there isn't enough specific information about those associations to elevate them to the level of tainting his 9.84 in Atlanta.
If you have more information on that specific issue, let's have it. If not, deal with the fact that Bailey is ON.
For instance, think about Boldon--what takes him OFF the list?
It's cumulative. He has a history of mid/high 9.8x performances--9.86 four times, 9.87 once, 9.88 twice, 9.89 once, and performed at that level more than once in a single season, over multiple seasons. The only others who have that kind of record are OFF the list, guys like Greene, Powell, Gatlin.
He had a dirty coach and dirty training partners.
BUT, the thing that seals it is the positive test for stimulants and the sanction of a warning.
What that says, more than anything, is that he permitted his body to be compromised, which for me is something that, in combination with other facts, taints his entire career enough.
Boldon is OFF.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
Fasuba, 9.85, Doha.
fever?
wind reading?
100m times the rest of the year nowhere near?
never sub-10 before or since?
Not only are the time and wind reading suspect, he was sick and not training properly, and then he drops this time, after hitting only 10.11 at CWG a few weeks before?
Too many anomalies. Fasuba and his 9.85 are OFF.
I just noticed that Fasuba's 9.93 earlier that same day is on.
Fasuba 9.93 is now OFF.
I think Atkins may also have to be removed.
He drops from an adjusted 10.18 best in 2006, to an adjusted 9.88 best in 2007, a drop of .30 in a single year?
Also, in 2007, he goes 9.91, 9.95, 9.98, and 10-flat into a minor headwind, after having multiple 2006 results around 10.15?
Anything else about Atkins other than that he trained in North Dakota?
Sprintgeezer wrote:
I think Atkins may also have to be removed.
He drops from an adjusted 10.18 best in 2006, to an adjusted 9.88 best in 2007, a drop of .30 in a single year?
Also, in 2007, he goes 9.91, 9.95, 9.98, and 10-flat into a minor headwind, after having multiple 2006 results around 10.15?
Anything else about Atkins other than that he trained in North Dakota?
He disappeared as a meaningful sprinter on the world stage once he was subjected to the weak OOC testing pool. Pretty pathetic.
Also, about Bailey's "poor form"...
...the closest thing to Bailey in terms of form might just be Bullet Bob Hayes.
VERY similar, "poor form". Also, VERY fast.
Note that in 1968 steroids were legal and not tested for. And Hayes was a hulk next to his competition.
Dot Connector--
Yes. You need not worry, Hayes is OFF.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
I agree about not feeling confident about Burrell. The 9.90 WR was OK, but how he just went after it to 9.85 after Lewis lowered it to that huge 9.86 was just a bit too definitive, like it was the product of just a decision to do it, which is a hallmark of doping.
But for me, there has to be something more than that, and his association with SMTC.
For now, Burrell is ON.
So you are buying Burrell's story about why he had braces at the peak of his career?
Fair point, not enough to matter to me either way - but noted none-the-less.
Look More Closelerly wrote:
Ben L. Wrong wrote:More on Galea threating Surin and Bailey.
http://www.canoe.ca/2000GamesColumnists/gross_jul29.htmlI read the article too and the nature of their association doesn't seem all that off in the beginning. If I tore my achilles I would want serious medical help putting it back together too.
The thing that makes it suspicious is that he is following him to meets, a la the infamous doctor following Ben Johnson around to meets, and that he is now working with the whole group. I don't think Dr. Andrews who helped RGIII is helping Alfred Morris for no apparent reason.
From my non expert point of view I doubt any clean man can go under 9.85 and any clean sub 9.90 is extremely impressive. I think a lot of these dopers who are world class would be just trying to break 10 if they were clean. A clean Gay might be in the high 9.80s which is impressive but nothing like what he has done with the dope.
Doping has distorted what the world thinks is fast. 9.5x and 9.6x are not natural.
+1
Bailey and Surin DOPED!!!!! PERIOD end of story. Surin gained rediculous muscle mass after Barcelona and had a chest like a female porn star. I know somebody that competed at the domestic level in the 100 and he said 2nd or 3rd hand he had his own fridge when guys trained with him in Texas with Pfaff. It was full of syringes. I talked to this with a friend who competed in bicycle racing and he said it could be for vitamin b supplements. But what was the most likely scenario. He also came out of nowhere in his late 20's to be a world champion against obvious drugged up competitors. This list would be tiny without druggies.
factoring in all your issue points Del Meriwether might come out with the best score
Not sure what you mean by n0 wind assisted times- Dr Del like all the athletes before and after went to the line when the clerk told him to, what Mariah was upto totally out of their control.
If the mark is windy or alt assisted it comes out of the set of times you evaluate- or am I missing something here?
I think John W. Carlos had a 9.0 hand timed yards race during a low key meet on his home track at San Jose that had a 7.x windy connected to it- would anyone really throw that in the mix of his races to evaluate???
{well until AlSal started designing t&f meets anyway :)}
spintgeezer-
By "issues", I mean:
no sanction for substance-related rule violation
no justifiable cloud of suspicion
no positive test results
no generally-agreed-upon bogus race result or wind reading
no altitude-assisted times
no wind-assisted times
Who in your opinion are/were the greatest clean long jumpers?
Jon Drummond's 9.92? Martina 9.91? Tim Harden 9.92? Leonard Scott always seemed excessively jacked up to me. Cason clean? Who had worse sub-10 form than Donovan Bailey? None other than Daniel Effiong's 9.98 in 1993 in Stuttgart.