Fastest historic untainted 100m times

What is the point of this list? Does anyone care?

It seems like everyone astonishingly good or making astonishing improvements (pretty much a requirement of getting astonishingly good) is suspect. What you're left with is the best guys who were never good enough to get enough attention to be suspect.

Guy improves from 10.15 to 9.88 in one year? Too quick. Guy improves from 10.15 to 10.04 to 9.93 to 9.88 in four years? Too late of improvement, he should have reached his prime back when he ran 10.0.

As Neil de Grasse Tyson once said, "People who don't understand statistics feel compelled to explain what are really just expected outliers in the data."

killarney wrote:

What is the point of this list? Does anyone care?

It seems like everyone astonishingly good or making astonishing improvements (pretty much a requirement of getting astonishingly good) is suspect. What you\'re left with is the best guys who were never good enough to get enough attention to be suspect.

Guy improves from 10.15 to 9.88 in one year? Too quick. Guy improves from 10.15 to 10.04 to 9.93 to 9.88 in four years? Too late of improvement, he should have reached his prime back when he ran 10.0.

As Neil de Grasse Tyson once said, \"People who don\'t understand statistics feel compelled to explain what are really just expected outliers in the data.\"

Yesss!!!, exactly, how can u put an arbitrary limit on clean times ie. anything under 9.80 is definately doped,youre saying that Bolt must be using to get 9.58 but u dont think anyone(incuding bolt) could go 97x clean??If doped times can improve so can clean times, baileys 9.84 (which you say is clean) was in 1996, im pretty sure 17 more years of technology,nutrition and training methods can get an extra 5 milliseconds off the clock.

Canova>God wrote:

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.

Do you think you can only dope to reach those speeds? So why is it that no one else, doped or clean, has come close to 9.58, even years later? Bolt is an outlier and you can't simply accuse him of drugs when even the best druggies can't enter his realm. You need a better argument to explain why this is the case. Obviously, he has some huge physical differences and to just about any sprinter running today... you can see it when he is towering over everyone in the starting blocks and taking fewer steps to finish the race.

Assuming Bolt doped (which I don't), the more interesting question would be: why is this doped up guy so much better then all those other doped up guys?

Whichever way you cut it he is the GOAT.

Interesting conversation. But, a number of things on here worry me.

1. First Pfaff is not a dirty coach. Athletes do things all the time against the wishes of their coach. Marion Jones is a great example of this as she jumped between a number of different coaches along with jumping between a number of different lovers. She is not to be trusted and shouldn't be held as the standard against to a great coach like Pfaff.

2. Usain can be clean. Just because he improved and is faster then any clean or dirty again means nothing. We are quick to point to dope. Considering his early talent, with terrible work ethic, suspect coaching, bad start, and scoliosis. That is a huge amount of things that were changed or treated to help him become the runner he is today.

3. I think steroids have less of an effect if you are doing everything right. Sadly a lot of this new crop of athletes are coache by thugs who hav no clue how to coach. Instead these thugs are just trying to make a name for themselves at all costs. A lot of of ego is involved in world class sprinting. Now these former diva athletes have the name Id and have become diva coaches. These are the people who are most killing our sport.

4. People improve a .2 in the hundred is not impossible. Even from 10.0 to 9.8 or faster. You act as if coaching, periodization and training doesn't have an effect. Athletes improve all the time. Think about just improved reaction time and new drive phase can do that. What about dropping five unnecessary pounds? All the British sprinters could be lighter (except for Gemili and Dasole) and would ran faster.

5. Just because someone runs great one year a slow the next means nothing. Speaking from experience I have a lot of athletes assassinate their fitness all the time. This can happen in few short months and takes much longer to get back in shape.

6. Just because you were elite doesn't mean you can make bold, unsubstantiated statements, without considering many of the above mentioned items above in this post.

Thread should be named "fastest times by runners that Sprintgeezer likes."

Seriously, no consistency, no verifiable criteria, just one man's blatherings.

Same guy argued on a thread a few weeks ago that Lewis was clean and here throws his times out.

threads like this mean the drug cheats are winning.

you are prosecuting bolt before he's been proven guilty. you're fooling yourself into thinking cynicism is some kind of wisdom - that by being pessimistic, you understand the world better. this is not the case. you are letting cheats ruin the sport. bolt is legitimate until proven otherwise. everyone is legitimate until proven otherwise. to continue, we MUST assume that. even if we know it is probably not true.

jonnylangenwanker wrote:

you're fooling yourself into thinking cynicism is some kind of wisdom - that by being pessimistic, you understand the world better. this is not the case. you are letting cheats ruin the sport

+1

Well said.

Fastest clean runner; Usain Bolt 9.58

SG just needs to grow up and get over it.

Ryry wrote:

4. People improve a .2 in the hundred is not impossible. Even from 10.0 to 9.8 or faster. You act as if coaching, periodization and training doesn't have an effect. Athletes improve all the time. Think about just improved reaction time and new drive phase can do that. What about dropping five unnecessary pounds? All the British sprinters could be lighter (except for Gemili and Dasole) and would ran faster.

Yes thank you ^^

Great post, including all the other points.

SprintGeezer's arbitrary limit of 9.8 would also imply that all these athletes running 9.8 ran the perfect race with no room for improvement.

Glad to see you finally took Bailey off.

Carl Lewis was accused of cheating by Calvin Smith's coach on the doc about the Ben Johnson fiasco. If you say that for the whole world to hear you have no fear of being sued.

If you ran 10.49 clean you could have ran 9.8/9.9 seconds similar to Michael Fraters range. A program just like Racers is impossible to do without drugs but gets you very fast. If you do it clean you get injured. The coaches look for basic 10.5 sprinters to be able to train in the 100 meters. Those are the ones that can go 9 seconds. Before Bolt ran 10.03 in 2007 he was running 10.3's. I remember laughing at him with some of his training partners at practice because we couldn't believe he could run a 10.3 100 meters. He was slow out of the blocks and too tall. Once he got going though he was dangerous that's why he ran 200 meters not 100 meters.

Resurrecting this thread...

Martina is ON at 9.91

Bailey-Cole is ON at 9.93

Ogunode is now ON at 9.93(!)

Harden at 9.92 is OFF due to his 6.46 annulled for a doping offense.

Drummond at 9.92 is OFF for lots of reasons, including most recently his association with the Gay affair.

Spearmon at 9.96 is OFF because his doping status is now tainted due to his 2014 suspension for injected cortisone.

LOL, Ogunode is now OFF, having recently come off a 2-year suspension for CLENBUTEROL.

You're letting facts get in the way of a good story.

How about the ladies? Do you have a list for them?

No, not yet.

Boy, would there be lots of women who would be off, just think of the names...

If LBJ focused on track he would go 9.3x with horrible technique sorry sprintjizzer you rong regards joe