Fastest historic untainted 100m times

You can just tell her that I'm not going away. I have a program to build.

he said that below 9.85, he found it questionable, so no doubt he's not suspicious of Vicaut. Meanwhile, Trayvon Brommell ran wind legal 9.84 at age 19.

Though I would look up this old thread in view of recent doping revelations. Nice to see that it's still alive!

Bromell & Vicaut:

Bromell's fastest intrinsic race this year was 9.96 with zero wind in Eugene. That would be 9.86 with max wind on a track known to be "fast". No problem.

Vicaut's 9.86 (+1.3) adjusts to 9.92 Like Surin, he theoretically "might" have been able to go 9.82 with max wind, but he didn't, so it's moot. His time is 9.86, right up there with the very best of all-time.

However, he did go to see Hans Muller-Wohlfahrt, the Munich doctor famous for his questionable alternative therapies. Does that taint his 9.86 enough to get him off the list? Not yet, but it's close. His 2015 time was an improvement of 0.03 basic on his prior PR, and believable.

If HMW goes down, then Vicaut must go down with him. It's really, really close for me at the moment with Vicaut; the slightest push will send him into the red zone.

Hot damn! Welcome back Geezer!

Any thoughts on the potential of Degrasse?

flo'da boy, i remember yr sprint training thread,

caution, this might not be the real sprintgeezer

It's me. I know the true believers will never understand what life at the top of the track world, and in the world of money, is like--but I was curious to see what people here thought of the latest doping revelations.

I don't even remember who I had on my untainted list, I will have to go back and check.

Flo'da, good to see you're still around. How did your 100 pan out? Any FAT times?

DeGrasse is interesting. He's thin and lightweight, one of those light "whip-fast" guys I have talked about before. His key is is lightness, he has an excellent force:weight ratio, which gives him good acceleration, foot speed, etc.

I think his lower body form is actually pretty good, no overstriding, good knee lift, good knee drive, good hip position. People slam his arm action, but I know what he's doing there, he's throwing his hands just like Gay does, hence the good turnover and SE, the ability to relax at speed.

On that topic, I think the 200 is his better event. I see him maxxing out in the 100 at around only 9.90-9.93 if he stays with his current body, or 9.89 if he gains useful strength; but he could rock a good 200. He's young, he's slight, he's wired, he's jacked, and he knows how to conserve. The 200 is his best bet BY FAR, IMO, but I think he has a window of this year, 2016, and maybe 2017. He needs to do it while he is still young.

Yes I know how he blew away Bromell, but I'm not convinced that Bromell is as fast as everybody believes him to be. I like his sprinting, I give him 9.96-9.98 now, and actually better than DeGrasse if he improves properly, to 9.88-9.90.

If both these guys use properly, they will both be at least 9.8x-low.

Maybe I should revisit my list in view of some of the times put up this year, like Ashmeade, Bracy, Bromell, etc.

Thanks for your insight Geezer! His wind assisted times coupled with his training age (he's only been sprinting like 3 years or so?) have got some people talking that he could be the dark horse in Beijing, and could even be a favorite come Rio. I could see him maybe nabbing bronze in Beijing if he really is on as steep an improvement curve as people think, but it's really crazy that he skipped the 200m where, after Gatlin and Bolt, the field is pretty wide open.

The really interesting thing about this year, that I feel has been somewhat marginalized by the Gatlin/Bolt conflict, is the crazy depth in the 100m this year.

It's not so top heavy as I'm the past, but I belueve 2015 has seen more sub 10 individuals than any preceding year, by a good margin. We've even seen China's first sub 10, Gemili finally break through (tearing his hamstring in the process), Kiryu run a windy 9.87, and several also rans in North America break the barrier.

is it too good to be true?

Oh and I've kept the training thread irregularly updated. I did manage a 13.68 FAT 100m, still working at it

Believers or non-believers? Nice to see you back Sprintgeezer!

What about Schippers and Asher-Smith? At last a UK female has broken 11! SAFP will get a 10.7x winning time, but it's nice to see the best Europeans in 10.9x form.

London 2012 had the best times for each position, except Powell pulling up and FloJo's winning time; substituting them with SAFP 10.75 and a Powell non-choke, they are the fastest finals overall. Bailey 9.88 and Bartoletta 10.85? Long jump champion, and then 2/400m champ Felix 10.89..

PS. How they mucked up the '15 WC scheduling is beyond me, 200m F and 400m SF on the same day.. not even Felix can do that back to back.

DeGrasse - Markham, Canada

9.75 with 2.7 wind

19.58 with 2.4 wind

This isn't Sprintgeezer, or Sprintgeezer never existed. Weird sh*t

crap never dies

now

impress me

what were their RTs ???

any guy with a clue fetches RT & adjusts basic after shaving down to 0.12 - 0.13

so what are their bests when shaved down to 0.12 - 0.13 for RT ???

nonsense

go fetch RTs

nonsense

9.80 - 9.85 basic off 0.13s is what the guys behind gatlin/bolt need to aim for

as always, you never look up RT which is huge part of story

Sprintgeezer wrote:Bromell's fastest intrinsic race this year was 9.96 with zero wind in Eugene.

what is this fuuckin crap ???

he ran 9.84 with 1.3 which ->

9.91

Nobody has ever even run sub 10 clean. Speed got the 100 from 10.2 to 9.9 in a few years, then it hit a brick wall that no steroid made could bust through for two decades. Since then steroids + speed substitutes.

What I would like to know is what stimulant they're on now that ephedra has been cracked down on. They've obviously got something new, all the crazy fast performances this year suddenly.

i agree with you.i also think it depends on the dose of drugs involved.low dose steroids can turn a clean 10.2 sprinter into a 9.9,high,more potent dose can probably allow them to go 9.7,and if theyre a 200 metre runner they can improve by almost a second.of course with women,the gains would be even more.Potent steroids could probably make a 23 second woman run 21.8 in the 200.And yes,well over half the athletes on that list were drugged up to the gills on steroids,hgh,or both.

nah,many,if not most of the guys on that list were juiced.Its near impossible to go under 10 seconds,clean.Some might have done it,but usually you have to be freakishly talented to do it.surin was definatly roided.bigger,and more muscular than ben johnson,who was on high dose,potent steroids.im into building my body(not a body builder)and i can tell you,the only way to get a ripped physique like bruny surin had,is to take steroids.

Is it problematic that Donovan Bailey had a relationship with Dr. Tony Galea?

OK, so it's time to revisit the original list and modify it according to the thread, and current events.

First I will take people off the existing list; then, I will add new ones based on 2016; and last, I will consolidate the information into an updated list.

Going from the top down:

Bailey is still ON. The timing of an athlete's association with tainted coaches and doctors is important. In Bailey's case, the combination of his association with Galea AND Pfaff, combined with the fact that from 1993 on he spent his time in the USA and therefore not squarely under the blanket of Canadian scrutiny, bring his 9.84 into question, but IMO not enough to taint it for the purposes of this list. He went to Galea only after his 9.84, and he went to Pfaff before Pfaff's association with Marion, Monty, etc.

Surin however is OFF. Pfaff+Galea, especially considering Galea's client list, which for t&f included Mark McKoy and Desai Williams; and Surin worked with him before Surin's 9.84, unlike Bailey's 9.84. And Pfaff--even if he wasn't directly involved with actual knowledge (which he may very well have been), he at the very least was demonstrably unaware of what his athletes were doing, meaning that he provided an environment in which doping was not only possible, but actually done. Add to that his peak at 32 yrs old, as Ben L. Wrong pointed out, (which again by itself is plausible but which, when added to everything else, builds the questionability), and he's OFF.

Fasuba 9.93 is OFF. Same questionability as his 9.85 result the same day. See page 5 of this thread.

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.

Kimmons at 9.95 is OFF. 2-year suspension in 2016 for a banned stimulant.

Carter at 9.85 is OFF. 6-month suspension in 2016 for a banned stimulant.

Ezinwa at 9.94 is OFF. Suspended in 1999 for Hcg (Human chorionic gonadotrophin)

Bailey-Cole is ON at 9.93. His participation in that total joke of the Jamaican sprint program, including both clubs, is not enough to taint his performances. His performance trajectory, his form, his body, his absolute times, his inconsistency, and the fact that he seems to be an outsider in their HUGELY tainted program all militate in his favor. His 9.92 (-0.8) was run in a race in London in 2015 that had some questionable clockings and is a basic time that he has not backed up, so I have rejected it in favor of the very close 9.93. Bailey-Cole is ON.

Vicaut 9.86 is ON. Vicaut's 9.86 (+1.3) adjusts to 9.92. He theoretically "might" have been able to go 9.82 with max wind, but he didn't, so it's moot. His time is 9.86, right up there with the very best of all-time.

However, he did go to see Hans Muller-Wohlfahrt, the Munich doctor famous for his questionable alternative therapies. Does that taint his 9.86 enough to get him off the list? Not yet, but it's really close. His 2015 time was an improvement of only 0.03 basic on his prior PR, and believable.

If HMW goes down, then Vicaut must go down with him. It's really, really close for me at the moment with Vicaut; the slightest push will send him into the red zone. For the moment, Vicaut 9.86 is ON.

Bromell is ON at 9.84. Even though the specific meet and facility is highly suspect, the clocking is well within reason of his clockings in Beijing later that year, which adjust to 9.93 and 9.89 basic (the 9.84 adjusts to 9.91 basic). The Beijing meet and facility had clockings that are generally considered legitimate.

DeGrasse is ON at 9.91. His Olympic bronze 9.91 (+0.2) in Rio was not only legit, but was actually slightly slower in basic terms than his 9.92 (-0.5) the year before. With a favorable wind he should get down to where Bromell currently sits, mid-9.8x. DeGrasse is ON.

Ashmeade is ON at 9.91. His 9.91 (+0.9) at the end of June 2015 in Kingston was a boss run, and he has backed up that time in basic terms. Like Bailey-Cole, his association with the hugely tainted JAM program isn't enough to taint his performances, because also like Bailey-Cole, he seems to be somewhat of an outsider in that program, and definitely not a favored son. Ashmeade is ON.

Simbine is ON at 9.89. His 9.89 (+1.9) in Hungary in 2016 is just under 10-flat basic, and he has shown consistency, although he DOES come from an increasingly suspect South African program that has had testing-related suspensions like 100m man Magakwe, and sudden miracle world records like Van Niekerk. For now, Simbine is ON, although like SMTC guys from the 80's, he needs to be watched closely.

Vaughn is ON at 9.93. His 2015 9.93 (+1.7) in Mobile was a 1-off great run, with an excellent wind, but everybody's entitled to get good and lucky at the same time, once or a few times in their career. Good for Vaughn, he is ON.

Same with Bracy, he is also ON at 9.93, with his 2015 9.93 (+2.0) in Birmingham. Got a perfect wind, that clocking was "only" 10.03 basic. Very nice.

Batson, Fisher, and Webb are all on at 9.94, with winds of (+1.7), (+1.4), and (+1.0) respectively. Nice races by credible athletes.

What about Collins 9.93 (+1.9) in 2016? It stretches credibility that a sprinter can be getting faster at age 40, but is that sufficient to taint the performance for the purposes of this list? IMO yes. Not only is he equal in the 100m to his all-time best, he appears to me more consistent season-over-season, just when you would rightly expect him to incur more injuries. Not only that but he is PR'ing in the 60m, where he can't get lucky with wind, etc. He is not only an outlier, but so far an outlier, that according to the original post, there is IMO "a reasonable cloud of suspicion" due to "an insanely long, high-level career" from page 5. He is the poster child for the insanity of the length and high level of his career.

*****************************************************************

So here's the revised list, as I see it, unadjusted, with an arbitrary cutoff at 9.95:

Bailey 9.84

Bromell 9.84

Burrell 9.85

Thompson 9.85 (I have questions about Port-of-Spain results)

Fredericks 9.86

Obikwelu 9.86

Bledman 9.86 (I have questions about Port-of-Spain results)

Vicaut 9.86

Dix 9.88

Frater 9.88

Padgett 9.89

Patton 9.89

Makusha 9.89

Simbine 9.89

Scott 9.91

Atkins 9.91 (I have lingering doubts)

Martina 9.91

Dasaolu 9.91

DeGrasse 9.91

Ashmeade 9.91

Cason 9.92

Lemaitre 9.92

Marsh 9.93

P. Johnson 9.93

Williams 9.93

Ashmeade 9.93

Bailey-Cole 9.93

Vaughn 9.93

Bracy 9.93

Ogunkoya 9.94

Batson 9.94

Fisher 9.94

Webb 9.94

Henderson 9.95

Aliu 9.95

J. Johnson 9.95

Martin 9.95

Forsythe 9.95

Hyman 9.95

There you have it, the top 39 historic untainted 100m times, by my judgment and criteria. I have listened and considered carefully, and have taken off big guns like Surin, have taken off guys who tested positive like Kimmons and especially Carter, and have put on some new big guns who are both very close to and at #1 like Bromell, Simbine, DeGrasse, and Ashmeade.

I have also continued to question guys who barely squeak on, notably Bailey and even Vicaut; I still have my HUGE doubts about Atkins. Thompson's and Bledman's amazing POS results still carry heavy asterisks.

The list makes more and more sense to me the more time goes by, and the more that guys like Carter are removed. Really, there was no question about Carter in my mind, but I had to stick to my original criteria, even though it pained me to have done so.

What we see is, as one would expect, the absolute best of the newer crop of sprinters penetrating the historic top ranks, but not exceeding them; and if guys are taken off such that the new guys DO become #1, only exceeding them by the slimmest of margins so far, 0.01 or 0.02, and not actually exceeding them at all if the times are converted to basic.

IMO the list has been significantly refined. For sure there are guys on it who wouldn't be if I had more information, but who they are is anyone's guess.

Remember this is not a "clean" list, this is an "untainted" list, by my criteria and judgment.

Can you enumerate the cloud of suspicion around Bolt?

Sprintgeezer, why is Calvin Smith not listed? Thanks.