Rojo and Usain Bolt

rojo, I would stop all this man.

You're coming off as a sycophant and fanboy. This + the Puma advertising makes the whole thing doubly embarrassing.

If (and to me it's more of a "when" than an "if") Bolt is found to have been doped, you will have huevos on your face. Big time.

It's okay to root for Bolt. You like him, we get it. It's okay for you to say he might not be doping. But it's not a wise idea to bluntly state "he most certainly is not doping for x, y, z reasons." I just don't see that ending well. I anticipate you'll be deleting that article in a few years, or at least adding an addendum.

Rojo is in for a big surprise re: Bolt.

Take it from an inside source.

I'm not so sure about the outliers, but I am sure there are some outright liars.

Dowper wrote:

what is this Rojo? amateur hour?

you sound like my 12 yo sons talking about how Usain Bolt is taller than his competitors therefore he is faster

and yes hes a total freak, but so is basically everybody sub-10, and while he might be the biggest freak of them all (maybe 9.7s legal) the stats don't lie, and his 9.58 is comparable to the likes of FloJos 10.49 relative to the next best times (also doped)

LetsRun.com's Editor's Note: Robert Johnson has now written a full column with his views on this subject matter. This thread which was a reaction to one or two lines Rojo initially said on the HP about today's Quote of the Day. You can read the column Robert has written (without reading any of these posts) here: How Can Usain Bolt Be Clean? He's the Lebron James and Babe Ruth of Track and Field

I think Mr. Johnson also believes in the Easter Bunny.

What bothers me isn't that Rojo believes Usain Bolt is clean. I obviously don't know whether or not Bolt is doping, though I suspect he is, and neither does anyone else. Perhaps he's not.

My problem here is that Rojo has constructed an argument on a third grade level to "support" his belief that Bolt isn't doping. "Usain Bolt isn't doping because Babe Ruth and LeBron James are good athletes too" is about the silliest argument I've ever seen. It's embarrassing, frankly.

How could any person with self respect (and who calls himself an expert) publicly post such an embarrassingly fallacious argument?

Perhaps it's meant to drum up hits on the site, in which case it's working, since we all keep posting here.

It is the worst argument I read put out by the brojos. No doubt. NO one valid point was apparent. Plus, if one considers the air resistance, a taller runner with the same build would have a greater cross-section for wind resistance that is even more prominent at high speed. That aspect only renders less , not more, advantage to a taller runner.

The discussion on F=ma is irrelevant.

rojo's worst ever wrote:

It is the worst argument I read put out by the brojos. No doubt. NO one valid point was apparent. Plus, if one considers the air resistance, a taller runner with the same build would have a greater cross-section for wind resistance that is even more prominent at high speed. That aspect only renders less , not more, advantage to a taller runner.

The discussion on F=ma is irrelevant.

I've heard it all now. So you will consider air resistance but think that F=ma is irrelevant? How do you think they calculate the effect of air resistance???

rojo wrote:

Observationalist wrote:

This is very much worth a read:

http://www.nairaland.com/1014517/usain-bolt-using-performance-enhancing

A crazy article except it's hard to believe any of it as a huge part of is another huge lie that has been repeated about Bolt - that Bolt has worked with Angel Heredia/Hernandez.

BALCO was in the business of engineering the fastest, strongest, and most dominating athletes. Conte, Heredia, etc, not only knew what they were doing, but proved their effectiveness by Olympic medals and clean tests. All of them, coaches and athletes included, reveled in their crime and rewards within the moment. It was a PED arms race among camps.

In 2009 5 of Glen Mills' athletes, including Blake and Anderson, tested + for methylhexanamine--but this stimulant was only one ingredient of a combo and it's emergence after '09 showed just how ahead of the curve the Jamaican's were with unknown PEDs.

One degree of connection to Heredia is established through Raymond Stewart (banned for life) who Mills coached. Of course Stewart "didn't do drugs" nor did he "know Heredia" until the truth came out. Then it was as open as could be.

Finally, Mills and Trevor Graham were/are very close. In fact, have a read of Graham's take on Bolt back in 2005. Keep in mind that Graham is now banned for life.

The most damning evidence is that this was Heredia's secret let out within the boxing world as he bragged about having worked with Bolt. Remember, Heredia wasn't just a sideline guy--he referred to himself as "the chemist". Conte also made comments that former Heredia has worked with Stewart and Mills, and connected Bolt. To be clear, Heredia knew Bolt back in 2005.

You have to half-wonder if someone from PUMA called Brojos and asked if they could write up an editorial response to the most excellent writing and logic of Mark Zeigler.

We see that anchor--the very first PUMA Letsrun singlet worn by wejo and every Puma contest or FAAS challenge held by this site through its lifetime and think..."Everybody wants to keep their sponsor."

And here's what we know. As great as Mark Zeigler's article is, it is no longer listed anywhere on Letsrun.com's mainpage. ANYWHERE. Kind of damning. And, Asafa Powell just lost a sponsor.

We'll do what we need to do to get sponsors (PEDS) and we'll do what we need to do to keep sponsors (Lie or cover-up).

Awaiting "deletion" Mr. Johnsons.

brain hurts wrote:

I've heard it all now. So you will consider air resistance but think that F=ma is irrelevant? How do you think they calculate the effect of air resistance???

How is F=ma relevant?

It's power/energy "generated" (by the runner's body) that is concerned. The force (F or a as is mass-normalized F) measured by F=ma, if can be accurately calculated, shows the end result, not the cause.

1) I don't think you read what I wrote. I never said hemost certainly wasn't doping. I just said he isn't automatically most certainly doping like so many assume.

I just think a child phenom is less suspicious than someone who has struggled to break 10.00 their whole career running 9.8.

To be clear, I may write another article saying he could be doping just to be clear.

2) Puma? Really? Since then we've had adidas GP advertise, Nike Prefontaine. We're a running website, shoe companies advertise on here.

Puma had nothing to do with it except my buddy Matt Taylor used to work with Puma and spent a lot of time with BOlt and I met Bolt in 2008 Beijing because of that.

3) If I eat crow, so what. People like people to take opinions in this world. It's not the critic who counts.

rojo wrote:

To be clear, I may write another article saying he could be doping just to be clear.

Why? Oh, right: to be clear.

Rojo, I am just curious for your response to those arguing that your argument about athletes from other sports is invalid?

Had you considered Ruth's accomplishments placed in the context of his time? (I.e. coming right after the deadball era, the different style of play, the weaker overall field, etc.) I want to believe you didn't really try to draw an analogy to something you didn't understand...you don't think Ruth's accomplishments are comparable to someone in a different sport 100 years later, do you?

For example, would you compare Bolt's accomplishments in relation to his peers to say, Jackson Scholz, who held the record (10.6) in 1920?

You do realize why their accomplishments aren't really comparable, right? Eras, competition, and all? And that's in the SAME sport.

rojo's worst ever wrote:

brain hurts wrote:

I've heard it all now. So you will consider air resistance but think that F=ma is irrelevant? How do you think they calculate the effect of air resistance???

How is F=ma relevant?

It's power/energy "generated" (by the runner's body) that is concerned. The force (F or a as is mass-normalized F) measured by F=ma, if can be accurately calculated, shows the end result, not the cause.

Did you read my comment? "How do you think they calculate the effect of air resistance". By using F=ma.

Force is not the end result. The force generated and the energy generated are essentially the same thing occurring at the same time. Neither is a cause or the end result of each other.

F=ma is relevant because you are comparing runners. The one with the biggest acceleration wins. That is why it is relevant.

hhxh wrote:

HoHoHo wrote:

And yes I believe that Bolt's advatange is that he is a 6' 5'' guy with the turnover of a much shorter sprinter.

Lol please explain how his height and turnover affect his speed

Little thing called leg speed velocity

Rojo-

I believe Bolt is doping but I am with you that I hope he isn't.

I think the important thing is that whether or not Bolt ever took anything and whether or not he ever tests positive it won't change the fact that he is already guilty. People will see him that way now.

That's the story. Gay and Powell made Bolt look guilty and that's enough. It's way harder to prove innocence than prove guilt.

Marion Jones was a child phenom. I think many of us wanted to believe she was clean.

Lance Armstrong was an outlier. Many people wanted to believe he was clean, even while he supremely kicked the butts of every other doper.

Everybody can have his own idea about Bolt.

For me is clean, because I was in Kingston when, in 2002, he won World Juniores in 200m running 20"58 when was not still sixteen.

At that time, he was 1,96 tall and 75 kg heavy. Now, he is still 1.96 but his weight is 88 kg.

When I saw him, immediately I said "this guy goes to be the WR holder of 200m and 400m", opinion which became still stronger in my mind after he ran, in 2003, 400m in 45"35 when not still seventeen.

The fact to put 13 kg of muscles on a tall body in 7-8 years from your weight when you are 15 is something normal, of course depending on the type of training you do.

And not forget that, when he was 16 without muscles, was able in any case to run in 10"09, with very bad start.

What I can't totally agree is that, in all these types of speculations, NEVER I READ SOMETHING ABOUT DIFFERENT LEVEL OF TRAINING.

When you wright "2008 - Doping" because he suddenly improved a lot, you have instead to write "2008 - Training", because people well knowing Usain know he till 2007 "joked" in training, and all his results were due only to his incredible talent.

At that time, I was the coach of Shaheen, WR holder of steeple, and Shaheen had the same manager of Bolt : Ricky Simms. So, several times we spoke about Usain, and always Ricky told me "the boy has the training of a student, may be 4 times per week, no volume, everything easy".

The big change was when Usain met Glenn Mills, deciding to follow him.

This type of analysis, which many times we can read in Letsrun, ALWAYS HAS THIS WRONG POINT : PEOPLE NEVER SPEAK ABOUT TRAINING, like everything can change in the life of an athlete, except his training.

This happens when you speak about long distances, not knowing there are athletes running already fast ALMOST WITHOUT TRAINING, who of course if, and when, find the opportunity of REAL TRAINING can improve quickly to top level. This happens when you speak about Bolt.

For example, I found at the beginning of March in Iten a young athlete who was introduced to me by a group of Polish runners, staying in the High Altitude Training Camp of Lornah Kiplagat. They collected some money among them and organised a race of 3000m, one Saturday, on the dirty track of Kamarin (where every American or European athlete refuse to run because holes and small stones). This boy lapped all the other runners one lap before the finish, did a mistake stopping running, was pushed on the track again for the last lap, and finished in 8'16".

When I spoke with him, I discover he was 17 (born in 1996), was in training from 6 months without any coach and any program, joining casually other athletes, and of course didn't have any type of assistance.

I followed him directly for one a half month, when I left Kenya I gave his program to a collaborator of mine, and in June he was 2nd in Kenyan Youth Trials in 1500m in 3'39"7, winning bronze medal in World Youth Championships in Donyetsk some day ago at the 3rd race of his life. His name is Titus Kipyego Kipruto.

Nobody knowing the reality can be surprised if this guy, next year, runs 3'32" or 7'38" in 3000m or, may be, tries steeple in 8'05". Instead, if this happens, ALL PEOPLE NOT KNOWING THE SPECIFIC SITUATION IMMEDIATELY LOOK AT DOPING.

I don't say doping can't help athletes, especially where they have to use muscle stength at high level.

What I say is that everybody has to understand there are athletes with more talent, in every sport and every event, and these athletes are far from every statistic analysis.

If I put Bolt near Montgomery, and I ask somebody not knowing athletics who can be the best sprinter between the two guys, everybody answers Bolt, and in my opinion is exactly the fact Montgomery WITH doping was able running 9.78 that makes me thinking of a CLEAN BOLT, because in my opinion the difference between them, based on their natural talent, must be of 4-5/10.

Why have I to suppose Valerie Adams, for example, is on PED's, when everytime I meet her in some meeting I see a women so much different from the most part of other throwers (taller, more muscles, less fat) ? The surprise is if Ostapchuk can beat her, and in fact Ostapchuk was doped, not Adams.

Remember always : every performance, at any level, depends on these factors :

1) Personal talent (something natural, gift from God, mom and baba)

2) Quality of training (depending on personal motivation and on the ability of the coach)

3) Quality of strategies (good manager against bad manager)

4) Professionalism in the own life (including how eating, how resting, how recovering, how focusing)

5) Mental and psychological attitude

6) Sel confidence

7) If you want to consider this factor, doping (but only giving little advantage, depending on the event, and in any case NEVER being able to replace any other factor).

I see you've added more athletes to your unrelated analogies. Note that Golf and Tennis are highly skilled sports and also highly dependent upon expensive coaching and access to opportunities to practice. In other words elitist sports where the common man hasn't had the same chance to excel thereby dramatically reducing their talent pools.

Anomalous athletes popping up in them as socioeconomic structures have shifted is not particularly surprising. So great athlete plus trained skill = superstar.

None of that has any bearing on the one sport every freaking person on earth has the chance to try at some point which is just running as fast as you can so your continued arguments are for his possibility are terrible.

And again, being a young superstar is meaningless because more often than not they peak very young - unless of course you are pumping yourself full of HGH and changing your genetics.

Now which is more likely?

Shut up, guy who thinks a 20 mph tailwind doesn't make you run faster.