and to think in the 2003 Paris world champs it took 10.07 to win the 100 and 20.3 to win the 200. That was the same year BALCO went down.
and to think in the 2003 Paris world champs it took 10.07 to win the 100 and 20.3 to win the 200. That was the same year BALCO went down.
TRACK AND FIELD IS DIRTY
MOST PRO SPORTS are NOW
TIME TO GET REAL
TO TOP IT OFF YE YANG BEAT TIGERS WOODS IN THE PGA OPEN
WHEN WILL IT END?
Amazing. Bolt had a great start this time (unlike 9.69) and he didn't celebrate ar 65m, so I'm not really that shocked with 9.58, and maybe he will do 9.49 before he is done.
He raised the bar last year, and look at Gay....he almost did the unthinkable, and matched Bolt's Beijing run. Unfortunately for Gay, the bar was raised again today.
Others will start doing 9.6 soon.
I'd bet that every single guy in that final is doping; the dopers are always ahead of the testers. Sooner or later it will come out that people have been using something undetectable at this point.
joe satriani wrote:
Fast times are not evidence of cheating. Sometimes people are just good at things in life, whether it be running or anything else. Don't take their accomplishments away from them just because you don't understand how they can do it.
dumb.
dumb.
dumb.
Just because Johnson, Jones and Gatlin were cheaters doesn't help your argument. There have been a lot more clean sprinters over time that have done great things than dirty ones.
Again I've met Bolt and I've seen doped up sprinters up close. And if Bolt is as doped to the gills as people say he is the skinniest doped up sprinter I ever did see. Skinny, lanky and goofy in a fun kind of way. If I did not know who he was I would not have believed he was the fastest anything.
You gotta admit those top guys are talented, you make it seem like its only the drugs that make the sprinter/runner. If an average joe were to train and use steroids I don't think he'd come close to touching the times that Bolt has put out.
Clean wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7W4kbobqIwHe aint on roids here, look how skinny he is. Thats talent. He runs a sick time with poor form. If anyone can run 9.58 its the dude who runs 20.5 as a 15 year old.
Roids does not always equal muscles. That's been said time and time again, yet people still don't get it. Certain steroids provide the increased recuperative abilities without the added muscle mass.
I'm much more impressed that he's taking drugs, just like everyone behind him, yet he still blows them out of the water. The question shouldn't be IF he is taking. The question should be WHAT he is taking and HOW he is cycling it.
So, just assume everyone is on the juice and it's astounding that he has the genetics and training to put him almost 2 tenths ahead of 2nd.
Alan
Outliers wrote:
Again I've met Bolt and I've seen doped up sprinters up close. And if Bolt is as doped to the gills as people say he is the skinniest doped up sprinter I ever did see. Skinny, lanky and goofy in a fun kind of way. If I did not know who he was I would not have believed he was the fastest anything.
I agree that he physically doesn't fit the mold. Other than physical maturity, his build has not changed drastically since his late teenage years.
Line-man wrote:
I agree that he physically doesn't fit the mold. Other than physical maturity, his build has not changed drastically since his late teenage years.
people might not get this, but his body type IS the mold now. we saw that again today. but i doubt he's clean, just like i doubt any top athlete is these days.
-- Testing has been proven to be a joke (e.g., Marion Jones)
-- Plenty have been busted anyway
-- These guys are not out there for fun...it's how they make their living
-- If the sport is in fact as dirty as it seems it could be, they have no choice but to quit, be an also-ran, or dope. This is a particularly difficult decision if all you have to fall back on is some crappy little farm or day laboring.
Nothing against Bolt in particular. He's a freak. But please stop pretending he's above suspicion because he seems nice or ran fast when he was young. It's so stupid, you should be ashamed of yourselves.
The guy is amazing, check out the video of his 19.93 when he was a HS'r
Fat pensive man wrote:
Nothing against Bolt in particular. He's a freak. But please stop pretending he's above suspicion because he seems nice or ran fast when he was young. It's so stupid, you should be ashamed of yourselves.
We should be ashamed for believing in people? What a strange notion.
It is true that roids do not always equal muscles. But Bolt is a sprinter not a distance runner. Sprinters who juice up tend to favor roids that increase muscle mass to give them better starts and push for the short sprints rather than the PEDs that doped up distance runners use to increase endurance and recovery. Nine times out of ten juiced up sprinters tend to look like juiced up body builders a la Dwain Chambers, Ben Johnson.
Until he tests positive, Im assuming he is negative. I'll give the same benefit of the doubt to Gay and Powell and others running. The facts are what they are. His progression is there, he was crazy fast as a high schooler running sub 20s at 200 and he has since matured physically, technique wise and that shows in his speed. His speed at 200 logically translates to the 100, i.e. he was blowing people away over 200 he has the speed to blow them away at 100. The whole juice thing is clearly coming from Americans sore that Bolt is beating Gay. Why isn't Gay questioned as much? His physique reminds me of the typical doped up sprinter's physique much more than Bolt's. He has clear physical disadvantages yet can still sort of hang with Bolt (especially if Bolt is juicing), which to me seems much more suspicious than Bolt doing what he is doing. But again, Ill give Gay the benefit of the doubt and assume he is clean. Just like Bolt.
Why is the choice only a) dope to be competitive or b) be an also-ran? Why can't someone just be that damn good? If he was American, he would surely be given much more credit.
SeoulTrain wrote:
Why is the choice only a) dope to be competitive or b) be an also-ran? Why can't someone just be that damn good? If he was American, he would surely be given much more credit.
It's not. Those choices only apply to letsrun, which is full of idiots.
you might as well quit...bolt ran 9.58
Lancy, we been here 100x Man, hahaha. Just bump one of your other 100 threads on the subject ffs.
Sir Lance-alot wrote:
Hey Skuj, since people of west african descent clearly don't produce more talented sprinters than people whose ancestry traces back to other parts of the globe (like asia, europe, etc) (and for those reading, THAT is skuj's theory), then why is Bolt now OVER FOUR TENTHS ahead of the fastest non-black guy in history ?!?!? ( I don't count patrick johnson, he is 1/2 black) Read that again: FOUR TENTHS!! In the 100, that is like being a mile ahead of your competition in a distance race, ie, another universe. Insane.
Once again skuj, another fact (like Bolt's 9.59 vs no white sprinter ever breaking 10.00) comes along to show you that I am right on this subject, and always have been (the subject being: does east africa produces more genetic freak distance runners, and west africa more genetic freak sprinters than the rest of the globe combined?). :-)
(while most of you probably are saying: so what, everyone knows what I am stating, keep in mind that there are plenty of people out there like skuj who actually believe that black sprinters and black distance runners (albeit from different parts of continent of africa) are NOT more talented on the average than their white counterparts, and that there is zero evidence of a talent or genetic advantage, and that is all culture or some such nonsense. Sure.....4/10's of a second of a "culture advantage" in the 100. Just filling you in on our long running "debate".)
To everyone who talks about his performance being 'in line' with what he ran in HS, remember a couple things. Marion Jones was perhaps the most celebrated prep sprinter in recent memory - she still ended up taking 'roids.
And who's to say he wasn't taking PEDs in high school? Plenty of prep football/baseball players acquire 'roids and other things to help themselves out (see: HS teammates of Alex Rodriguez calling him 'bitch tits' in high school), so why are we to assume he did all of his prep stuff while clean? You can ask kids at almost any high school, and they'll tell you about so-and-so, who takes 'roids. Being in high school doesn't mean you can't take PEDs.
9.58 is just ridiculous. Gay's 9.71, just as ridiculous, especially considering that he's been hampered by a hammy problem for months.
I'd be much more shocked to learn they ran that race clean than to learn they were both taking PEDs.
And forget this 'if he were American, we'd love him' business. As I said, Gay's 9.71 is just as suspect.
I can't help but wonder what Carl Lewis must think, watching these guys put up such ridiculous numbers.
The jamaican sprinters are probably part of the biggest scam in TF since Balco. Mark my words.