Lets look at Bolt's physique. He is 6'5" 190-195 lbs.
There has never been a elite level sprint like him before. Perhaps he is the steward to a new age in sprinting It is a biomechanical fact that a taller runner has a higher top speed capability then a shorter runner. Since Bolt has not tested positive yet. Maybe we should look at possibilities of him being clean and why he is so good.
Control Freaks suck wrote:
He is no reposting under other names, so you look stupid saying it.
So is this your new new name now? Otherwise, how can you make a statement like that?
Dumbass. How old are you?
yyy wrote:
The Jamaicans may be better partly because they are doping and
it has become more difficult to cheat in the US.
Let's get real here folks. Who do you think you are fooling.
you are a pathetic piece of shit.
USA never dies! we will be back on top! f*** Jamiaca in the mutha f***in ass!
Doggpund wrote:
USA never dies! we will be back on top! f*** Jamiaca in the mutha f***in ass!
I think we finally have our intelligent discussion.
I don't see what a "high tech analysis" at MIT or Harvard would prove. They would find the following things:
1) bolt has long legs
2) bolt has a high proportion of FT muscle fibers
3) these FT fibers are more powerful than those of his rivals
and not a whole lot else. He's not operating under different physiological principles. He is just a lot faster than anybody else. He doesn't have an extra hamstring or anything. Rigorous scientific analysis of Bolt (a la 5th element) wouldn't validate his innocence past what his completely clean record (in this era, where Jones WOULD be busted) does already.
I think PR progression is the best way to determine this. Take a look at someone like Gay. His PR's over the last 8 years are so close to a quadratic function that they look unrealistic (R=.99). Then look at Bolt. His PR's follow a similar curve up to 2006 or 2007. After that, he jumped in one year as much as he jumped between 16 and 17 years old. (Hopefully, you realize why dropping half a second from 19.8x in your 20's is different from dropping half a second from 20.4x at 16 years old).
My guess is that he started doping late in 2007 or just after. You can almost see a new quadratic-looking function between 2007 and 2009. If he gets down to a new plateau, say around 19.10, over the next few years, it will be a good indication.
I don't know how to do the math, but if someone can calculate the chances of reaching a plateau and then dropping that much time in one year (maybe deviation from a perfect curve?), it would help. (I'm talking about 2007-2008; this year's was right on track given last year's drop).
I've also been looking at Montgomery, Gatlin, Powell, and others. So far I only have a small data set but it's interesting that the convicted cheaters all have an R value of less than .90, whereas the others (except Bolt) all have R greater than .95. Bolt has a .86, which is a bit lower than Gatlin's.
This is just using Excel, anyone can do this. It's not perfect, obviously, but PR's tend to decrease in magnitude over the years, as you get diminishing returns. Maybe a quadratic is not the best fit, but in any case, the cheaters + Bolt have the best linear R value...and PR progression over 8+ years should definitely not be linear.
Think this is BS? look at Marion Jones versus Gay. The difference in the pattern is incredible.
Oh no, don't say that. If it turns out he doesn't have an extra, bionic hamstring then he's obviously cheating. Haven't you been reading the thread?
You think you're ever gonna answer my prompts from page 4? Or are you just gonna keep bitching about how people keep posting under different names to support a widely-held theory? Here, I'll even help you out so you don't have to go back.
Right there with you wrote:
Ok, I am not SQ, I am just another person that whole-heartedly agrees with him. You can think that this is him or not, I dont care.
Anyway, in order to get this back to a civil discussion, let's try and clear some things up. I think some of this may be due to semantics:
1. SQ's hypothesis. I've taken it from the posts that his "hypothesis" as you put it, is that Bolt is dirty. You want to know how this can be "falsifiable". Correct?
2. I don't really understand what you mean by myself not accepting certain data. What data did you propose for your argument? You have only posted questions other than your first post:
"The burden of evidence is not on the "absence" claim. Had he run 8.59, maybe. But the man improved a WR by one lousy tenth of a second, which can easily be explained by his physiological advantage over his competitors."
This doesn't really make sense to me. First of all, he has not improved the record by only one tenth, he has improved it by almost 2 tenths (0.16 to be exact) in the last year, which is an extreme amount. The reason for that, is because the world record progression from 9.90 to 9.74 (0.16 seconds) took 16 years. Bolt takes off the same amount of time in just ONE. Second of all, the sentence: "The burden of evidence is not on the 'absence' claim." absolutely makes no sense to me. I will admit that perhaps my reading comprehension is poor, but this response to SQ really had my head scratching.
3. You also seem to be completely subjective in what data you accept and ignore. How come you do not comment on the sprinters (among many other athletes) that have never failed a drug test in their life, but have admitted to doping or were caught in some other fasion? How do you explain that?
redundant wrote:
Rather than assume that everyone is clean, I just assume that everyone is doping. When you assume that, then it doesn't really matter. Then it shows that Bolt is supremely talented. So is Gay. But Bolt is better.
When you're competing in a road race, do you cut the course because you assume everyone else is?
It's unfortunately not that hard. BALCO developed just such an undetectable substance. Increase performance by 30%? Like some magic potion? You think he would have gone from 19.7 to under 14.0 for 200m??? All the drug needs to do is aid in recovery and allow him to maintain his top speed for longer. That'll make all the difference in the world.
The Looks wrote:
I think that if Bolt were doping, he would have to be taking something that neither the scientific community nor the rest of the running world even knows about. Some mad scientist would have had to develop some incredibly advanced drug that could not be detected and would enhance performance by like 30% and then would have gone to Jamaica, picked some random cricket playing teenager and given him the drug. And after all of that he would collect no profits from said drug that would likely have cost billions of dollars to produce.
Outliers wrote:
If he is doping then people need to step up and say what PEDs they think he is on, cuz he is skinny for a doped to the gills sprinter. What PEDs is he taking that accounts for his tremendous speed but which do not result in him looking like a steriod bunny? Personally I think his speed can be accounted for by his giant stride relative to other sprinters. Tyson Gay got a better start than him in the 100 but yet within the first 10 meters Bolt's 6'5 frame was clearly ahead. Its in the stride and he has the same turnover rate as a much shorter sprinter would.
How about real HGH from cadavers?
What was his superior 6'5" frame doing for him from 2005-2007? Why did he go from 19.7 to 19.3 in a single season? He was tired and spent after just the 200m at Worlds two years ago, doing well to hold Spearmon off for the silver. Fast forward nine months and he's the 100m WR holder? Him?
9.58_InnaYuhBombo wrote:
Bolt is clean. Who cares whate these losers think. I know he is clean and will enjoy watching him as he breaks record after record. I just hope he doesn't go somewhere and drink something from the wrong person or have the wrong thing rubbed on him. I think a setup is something he has to watch out for as I'm sure there are people trying to bring him down.
Do you know he's clean like you know that FloJo was clean?
Cheating athletes don't volunteer themselves for tests to make it easier to detect drugs.
Interesting approach, "well..." the next step would be a multivariable analysis factoring in his height progression, maybe weight too. If that info can be found. Then you could factor out how much of the "jump" in 2007 was due to growth, and anything that remained would require another explanation. Anybody know if there's height data for bolt anywhere?
Analyze my PR progression:
Age, 1500m time
19, 4:05
20, 3:54.6
21, 3:52.4
22, 3:42.9 (hint, I must have started taking drugs this year)
23, 3:46.3
24, 3:45.0
25, 3:42.1
I never liked using PR progression as any evidence of use. Too many other factors.
What's left out here is that I focused on the 800 thru age 21 and ran more 1500m races when I turned 22.
I am not arguing that Bolt is clean. He is two tenths faster than the most notorious steroid users.
And I really do not think Bolt's competitors are clean.
My opininion is that he does not have a chemical advange over his competitors.
So to ask 'is Bolt doping' without extending the question to the rest of the field is an incomplete inquiry.
Are we watching a juiced up Bolt run against clean atheletes? Does Bolt have better doctors than Gay?
more superlative wrote:
Interesting approach, "well..." the next step would be a multivariable analysis factoring in his height progression, maybe weight too. If that info can be found. Then you could factor out how much of the "jump" in 2007 was due to growth, and anything that remained would require another explanation. Anybody know if there's height data for bolt anywhere?
Not exactly the answer you seek, but good info nevertheless.
"In one of the published interviews, his coach revealed also that there were changes made to Bolt's running technique at that time which led him on a string of victories and straight into the history of sprinting two years later. That fact alone should make it clear that talent is great, but an improved skill is even better, and that's the real deal maker or breaker.
Bolt is a beautiful example of good genetics and raw talent reinforced by better technique. His running technique alone is far more superior than anyone else's in the recorded history of running. Compounded by his physical and psychological attributes, that seem to be superior to other athletes as well, Bolt paints the future of sports in radical colors.
Funny enough, some of the physical qualities that really contribute to his success, are traditionally thought of as negative factors. His height (6'4), for example, is deemed inappropriately tall for a sprinter. It is true, a tall dude with a bad technique is bound to be a mess. Yet a tall dude that uses his body's natural mechanics instead of powering through them - will always be ahead of the pack. Why? Simple. Geometry, physics and biomechanics at work, and they will work beautifully in synergy, if you let them.
An analysis of the footage from Berlin reveals that Tyson Gay (274spm) happens to have a higher cadence than Bolt (257spm). Bolt actually upped his cadence from 254 spm at the Olympics in '08. Gay's (18.6) and Bolt's (18.5) degree of falling (leaning forward) is virtually similar. Yet Bolt is taller (Gay is 5'11) and his technique is better, and the combination of all of that contributes to the difference in output and the result produced. More likely than not, the power runner Gay will never be able to run faster than Bolt. The same goes for Asafa Powell, who was considered to be the "promised one" by the Jamaican federation officials. Unless there is a change in their technique - the future belongs to Bolt.
One of the most significant differences in the technique of these three stars is their ability to use the forces at work when running. Both Powell and Gay try to muscle their way whereas Bolt uses gravity to his advantage, he describes it as "smooth sailing". In the game of muscles vs gravity, muscles will always loose and you can bet on that."
a.) here is a theroy. in 2007 bolt realizes he doesn't have enough quickness to run a really fast 200. so the next year he and his coach decide to work on his 100m speed. he finds that he thrives at the 100m, and it also brings his 200m to another level. is this any less plausible that the theroy that he is doped to the gills?
b.) bolt's biggest genitic atributes are his long-ass legs. to my knowledge they have not made a PED that can cause your legs to grow. also, compared to past steriod users, bolt is not the well-built. look at justin gatlin and ben johnson. that are jacked to shit. even compared to other clean sprinters, tyson gay, shawn crawford, etc., bolt is not that cut.
c.) bolt has always been good. he was the youngest world junior champion ever. he was a silver medalist in osaka. he has competed at huge number of high level meets from a young age. before 2008 he was not a 100m runner, that is why his 100 dropped so much in '08, and, as i said in point a, why his 200m time dropped as well.
9.58_InnaYuhBombo wrote:
One of the most significant differences in the technique of these three stars is their ability to use the forces at work when running. Both Powell and Gay try to muscle their way whereas Bolt uses gravity to his advantage, he describes it as "smooth sailing". In the game of muscles vs gravity, muscles will always loose and you can bet on that."
So bolt is using the pose method?
Why don't you just go back to your original handle?
Yes, the thesis must be falsifiable to meet the scientific criteria. If your hypothesis is "he is dirty" then the alternative would be "he is clean". So you need to establish the criteria for cleanliness. You haven't done that. You've rambled on about finding other acceptable explanations for his performance, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with your hypothesis. There are very clear and generally accepted criteria of cleanliness. It involves testing for a list of "dirty" substances on a regular basis. Those tests have been carried out and they have refuted your hypothesis. But you keep acting like a stupid little kid who wanted a bigger scoop of ice cream and you insist that your criteria haven't been met. You want to be a whiny, querulous asshole here on letsrun, fine, you're totally entitled. But don't try to use fancy words like "scientific" when you don't have a fuc\king clue what they mean.