Out of the top 11 fastest men in history 10 of them are dirty, why should we believe Bolt was clean?

You began by raising the "presumption of innocence", which has no relevance to an inquiry of fact. You quoted the USADA to reinforce that position - which is also irrelevant to the same purpose. If speculation is what you are opposed to then, referring again to the example of Armstrong, there were years of speculation about him before his doping was proven. If passing tests isn't the measure, you offer no other standard by which you can confidently proclaim any athlete is clean. Indeed, by your introducing WADA and USADA into discussion of whether Bolt has doped you effectively score an own-goal, because the existence of both organisations points to their failure to change the general picture, which is that many more dope than are caught. That means Bolt also could easily have doped and not been caught. My views on whether Bolt doped are not based on your facile interpretation - I haven't argued them. It is your "smokescreen" attempt to close the discussion down that I take issue with. When pressed, all you are able to say on the substantive question of whether you think that he has doped is that you "can't tell". You should have left it at that. On that question, the rest of what you say means nothing.

And now we come to the root of your self delusion. This is not an "inquiry of fact". This is not a "discussion of whether Bolt has doped". You have fundamentally failed to understand the subject of the thread. If you read the subject line, this thread simply asks "why should we believe?" I gave several reasons why. I did not give arguments, but answers to the question of the thread. It does not ask "why should we not believe?" You offer no facts about Bolt and no reliable method to determine clean from dirty. You only offer vague generalizations and logical fallacies, and "could have" propositions, to justify discarding principles such as justice, fairness, and unrecklessness. If that is good enough for you, that tells me a lot about you. It is not doping and lack of testing that is undermining the credibility of sport -- it is the idea that, if doping enhances performance, that the opposite must always be true: all the best performances must be enhanced. I'm not unique in this opinion. Here is a quote from a 2014 study "Prevalence of Doping Use in Elite Sports: A Review of Numbers and Methods": "It is tempting to attribute outstanding performances to the alleged use of doping. The main problem with such a line of thinking is that the athlete will always lose in any such discussion: no matter how much he trains without the use of any prohibited substance, as soon as he excels he is, by default, a doping suspect. The essence of sport is to excel, and if excelling becomes synonymous with suspicions of cheating, each and every sport performance turns into an attack on the essence of sport itself. If such reasoning persists, this will seriously jeopardise the credibility of sport." So there is another reason why -- this "line of thinking" "attacks the essence of the sport itself".

If the thread is not a question about whether Bolt has doped it is meaningless. But your feeble efforts to redefine the question - in a way that none but you would choose to understand it - is merely to avoid the embarrassment that your contribution is irrelevant. As it usually is. But sententious you're good at.

Alabama BS wrote:

What you don’t understand is how great his doctor was in Germany. Bolt would magically be running tenths faster soon after visiting him. Of course what could the guy have done except for you-know-what?

He give him some sort of magical massage? Stretched him somehow that solved all of his old man problems in 2016 after earlier bad performances?

Anyone who thinks he was clean is living in a fantasy land and totally divorced from reality.

Whatever massage he got it was a happy ending that's for sure.

However the ultimate absurdity in your position is your frequently maintaining that the problem is not doping as such but the widespread "belief" amongst coaches and athletes that doping is necessary to succeed (ergo, it enhances performance). If doping does not significantly enhance performance then the "belief" that it does is no more harmful than choosing to think the moon is made of green cheese. It can therefore be of no consequence to you if anyone (such as Bolt) is accused of doping, because if they are doping they aren't doing anything that materially affects their performance. But, clearly, it does matter to you.

You can answer any question you like, but if you are replying to me, I directly answered the explicit question we can all see in the subject line: "why should we believe Bolt was clean?" Is English your first language?

Armstronglivs wrote:

If the thread is not a question about whether Bolt has doped it is meaningless. But your feeble efforts to redefine the question - in a way that none but you would choose to understand it - is merely to avoid the embarrassment that your contribution is irrelevant. As it usually is. But sententious you're good at.

These are all problems. Do you disagree that belief in doping is widespread? I always thought conceding that would be uncontroversial. There are ways to correlate doping to performance -- you need to appeal to mathematics, and not logical fallacies. My "frequently maintained position" was never in the context of sprinters like Bolt. But this thread (my contribution anyway) is not about whether doping enhances performance. It is about reasons to believe a performance was not enhanced by dope. I've already explained why this matters: - This "line of thinking" "attacks the essence of the sport itself" - "If such reasoning persists, this will seriously jeopardise the credibility of sport"

Armstronglivs wrote:

However the ultimate absurdity in your position is your frequently maintaining that the problem is not doping as such but the widespread "belief" amongst coaches and athletes that doping is necessary to succeed (ergo, it enhances performance). If doping does not significantly enhance performance then the "belief" that it does is no more harmful than choosing to think the moon is made of green cheese. It can therefore be of no consequence to you if anyone (such as Bolt) is accused of doping, because if they are doping they aren't doing anything that materially affects their performance. But, clearly, it does matter to you.

Bold bolt wrote:

Everyone but Bolt comes up dirty or is caught deflecting tests and Bolt was faster than all of them and yet we are supposed to believe he was clean ??? What makes Bolt so good that all of the dirty competition wasn’t even as quick? Will he ever get busted?

What makes Bolt so good?

Superior stride, superior speed endurance.

He spends less time in that decelleration phase of a race.

I see no reason to think the guy is lying, he's obviously the most physically gifted sprinter we have seen. Why shouldn't he be the unique one?

Accusing these athletes of being dirty with no proof of that simply sucks.

rekrunner wrote:

You can answer any question you like, but if you are replying to me, I directly answered the explicit question we can all see in the subject line: "why should we believe Bolt was clean?"

Is English your first language?

Armstronglivs wrote:

If the thread is not a question about whether Bolt has doped it is meaningless. But your feeble efforts to redefine the question - in a way that none but you would choose to understand it - is merely to avoid the embarrassment that your contribution is irrelevant. As it usually is. But sententious you're good at.

You couldn't answer a doorbell directly, let alone a question. But, as surprising as it may seem to one of your solipsistic temperament, I am not really interested in any "belief" you have about Bolt and doping. It would inform no one but yourself. But you advanced the view that those (like Bolt) suspected of doping are entitled to "a presumption of innocence", which if you were an official from WADA or the USADA might apply but on a discussion board is of no relevance whatsoever. The athletes' rights are not at issue. That so many top athletes dope is an issue. Most get away with it. Bolt could be one of them. While the enforcement authorities lag far behind the dopers, talk of "a presumption of innocence", to imply they should be assumed to be clean, is hollow rhetoric. But it does show that your intention is, as always, to deflect and minimise on any question related to doping in this sport.

Did you understand the question?

Is English your first language?

rekrunner wrote:

Did you understand the question?

Is English your first language?

A thread is not a school exam with only one answer permitted but can involve discussion. More agile minds than yours can grasp that. I appreciate that you also seek guidance on the English language, since you are apparently new to it.

But your feeble efforts to redefine the question - in a way that none but you would choose to understand it - is merely to avoid the embarrassment that your contribution is irrelevant.

Armstronglivs wrote:

A thread is not a school exam with only one answer permitted but can involve discussion. More agile minds than yours can grasp that. I appreciate that you also seek guidance on the English language, since you are apparently new to it.

rekrunner wrote:

But your feeble efforts to redefine the question - in a way that none but you would choose to understand it - is merely to avoid the embarrassment that your contribution is irrelevant.

Armstronglivs wrote:

A thread is not a school exam with only one answer permitted but can involve discussion. More agile minds than yours can grasp that. I appreciate that you also seek guidance on the English language, since you are apparently new to it.

Now that really is a schoolboy effort. But of course it is. As I have had to point out to you, the rights of athletes are not at issue when the question is whether commenters believe Bolt has doped. That is an inquiry relating to fact - not "belief" in some quasi-religious sense, as you strangely seem to infer - and not rights. Oh dear. But that isn't so much as redefining the question on your part as missing the point altogether. Better luck next time.

As I have pointed out to you, the question is not "whether commenters believe Bolt has doped" -- it is "why should we believe Bolt was clean?" This is not an "inference" -- it is explicitly stated in the subject. This is not "redefining" -- it is explicitly stated in the subject. This is not "an inquiry relating to fact" -- the word "believe" is explicit in the question. This is not "not "belief"" -- the word "believe" is explicit in the question. I'll let the reader decide if "rights of athletes" is a "red-herring", a "strawman", or simply "moot" -- but I will concede they are not "at issue" here, regardless. Talk about schoolboy effort and missing the point altogether. This particularly schoolboy flunked.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Now that really is a schoolboy effort. But of course it is. As I have had to point out to you, the rights of athletes are not at issue when the question is whether commenters believe Bolt has doped. That is an inquiry relating to fact - not "belief" in some quasi-religious sense, as you strangely seem to infer - and not rights. Oh dear. But that isn't so much as redefining the question on your part as missing the point altogether. Better luck next time.

Unreadable after three words in. You should stick with statistics; words are clearly not your province.

The main issue here is that during Bolt’s Track career Jamaican drug testing was a joke. Go back and try to find a single time that he was tested out of competition. Even the Jamaican federation admitted that they were doing a terrible job and that no one was getting tested.

I think that there’s no way that Bolt was clean, he was just never getting tested outside of meets.

Leave it to Beaverton wrote:

The main issue here is that during Bolt’s Track career Jamaican drug testing was a joke. Go back and try to find a single time that he was tested out of competition. Even the Jamaican federation admitted that they were doing a terrible job and that no one was getting tested.

I think that there’s no way that Bolt was clean, he was just never getting tested outside of meets.

The Jamaican whistleblower, Ann Shirley, received death threats for what she published about the paucity of testing in Jamaica. If Bolt (or anyone else) was doping, no one in authority wanted to know.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Leave it to Beaverton wrote:

The main issue here is that during Bolt’s Track career Jamaican drug testing was a joke. Go back and try to find a single time that he was tested out of competition. Even the Jamaican federation admitted that they were doing a terrible job and that no one was getting tested.

I think that there’s no way that Bolt was clean, he was just never getting tested outside of meets.

The Jamaican whistleblower, Ann Shirley, received death threats for what she published about the paucity of testing in Jamaica. If Bolt (or anyone else) was doping, no one in authority wanted to know.

None of the arguments for why Bolt was so good apply to his training partner and world's second fastest man: Yohan Blake. Blake is only 6-1, you can't explain his speed away with stride length arguments. Or is it that Blake was dirty but somehow Bolt was clean? Same coach, same agent...same visits to the doctor in Munich.

How is it that Jamaica went from having 3 guys sub 9.8 seconds in the 100 at nearly the same time to barely having one guy sub 10 in a world championships year? As it stands right now we might not see a Jamaican in the men's 100m final at the world champs this year, a decade ago they dang near swept the sprint medals! Jamaica's mens 4x100m relay might not even be able to finish in the medals at the world champs or olympics the next two years, looking at their depth it's definitely not a foregone conclusion. Since the implementation of the Jamaican testing program and the advent of Biological Passport, the Jamaican sprint dominance has dropped off big time.

I see the fourth word was two syllables. Sorry about that.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Unreadable after three words...