For all of you who definitely think Usain Bolt is on drugs, this is for you (amazing video)

Clerk wrote:

It is not nothing. Having worked with all 3 out of 3 dopers from the 2009 field should be grounds for suspicion. Larkim is explaining why that is not a red flag below. Can you explain your perspective, why this is not suspicious for you?

...

It sounds like the only evidence you accept as an indicator of doping is a positive test. If I'm starting out on the wrong foot, let me know...

...

Further, why do you choose to minimize the available evidence from the Angel Heredia interview with Der Spiegel about the sophistication and pervasiveness of doping? Why do you ignore the Dwain Chamber's evidence (book and interview)about the sophistication of doping? Why do you ignore the report about how many suspicious blood values there were? Why do you ignore evidence from BALCO that showed athletes are using designer drugs that don't even have a brand name, referred to as "The clear" or "the cream" (and that Chambers, for example only tested positive for one of the several drugs he was on).

And regarding corruption, while the breadth of corruption has limited evidence, the fact that two key IAAF figures, the head of IAAF and the head of anti doping were the ones accepting bribes is what is important when we are discussing the sport's superstars. Further, the head of an anti-doping lab is on record as having shown Lance Armstrong and Johan Bruynel how to beat the EPO test. To say that it is a side show ignores that there is a very real possibility the reality we think we are witnessing is being manipulated behind the scenes: we cannot know that any of the top athletes haven't actually tested positive, or that they haven't actually received doping advice to not get caught. This mistrust is a huge factor in why we must look at other evidence besides test results.

Once again, we are stuck arguing over what you consider evidence. So just to reiterate my questions above, why do you choose to only focus on whether an athlete has tested positive or not? Why do you rely so much on negative tests to indicate someone being clean? Why do you choose to minimize the available evidence (about sophistication and undetectability) of doping?

1000 wrote:

Over the last several decades, thousands of the most gifted sprinters in the entire human race with the aid of every performance enhancing drug available have failed to get anywhere near Usain Bolt’s world records.

For crying out loud, It is more likely that Usain Bolt is an alien than a drug free athlete!

Jamaica’s drug testing agency is one of the most incompetent testing agencies in the world. In addition, the drugs used today are extremely difficult to detect even for testing agencies like USADA and UKAD.

Anyone that thinks Usain Bolt is drug free is incredibly gullible. You would have to be incredibly dumb to think that it is plausible that Usain Bolt could be drug free.

You cannot take a knife to a gunfight and expect to win. Usain Bolt fans would argue otherwise.

jeff tallon wrote: ive read,and even been told,that a top sprinter can only get down to 10.2-10.1 naturally,and anything faster than that is due to chemical means.

Karma Police wrote: What sort of argument is that?

Interestingly, during the official steroid free era (before approximately 1940) the fastest 100m time was 10.2 seconds.

This does not prove that 10.2 is the fastest time possible for steroid free athletes, but it is a point of reference.

The progression of the female 100m world record is more pronounced.

In fact, the progression of all the world records set by female athletes is compelling evidence of steroid use since the changes are so extreme from the official steroid free era.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_record_progressions

Karma Police wrote:

Clerk wrote:

So Karma Police, what's your perspective on Bolt? He's faster than known dopers, and the next fastest non-doped athlete is .2 seconds behind.

Also, the "naturally gifted" attribute is a bad argument to use. A naturally talented athlete looks just the same as a doped athlete, except that a doped athlete goes faster.

If the training and other variables are the same, a more naturally gifted athlete will go faster. How is that a bad argument? If for example Bekele was more naturally gifted (ie faster) than other guys and they were equally fit, surely the faster guy wins? He wins because he can give you a faster last lap, but also because if they run at x% of max over 5km, then his x% of max is necessarily higher. The speed reserve argument.

and they don't look the same. The dope makes someone better. It doesn't change their running style. It might make them faster or fitter.

My perspective on Bolt? I struggle to believe that he was doping at 16, like some have suggested. I've got an elite 16yo kid - who would let someone that age dope? It's possible of course, but your logic isn't as strong as you think. You're assuming everyone is equal. You're saying if person A dopes and person B beats person A, then person B must also be doping. That doesn't allow for the fact that some people are better than others. Doesn't matter how much I dope, I'll never be a 9.99 100 runner, so if I dope and someone beats me, it doesn't mean they are doping. All the dope does is make you better than you otherwise would be.

If he wasn't doping at 16, then the improvement from 16 to adult makes sense.

I don't know either way. He's never been busted or really implicated, other than the "He's Jamaican so he must be" argument. Bring me a smoking gun rather than innuendo.

[myth]- He was a talent from a young age

No. He was bred. He was farm-raised. Somebody was paying for him to travel to Dr. Muller-Wolfharht since he was 16. Someone saw the potential and since then managers, coaches, and sponsors have had their fingers in the pot since he was a kid.

The idea of Bolt as a pure, innocent, untainted junior athlete has to come to an end.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/st...ve-syringe

Muller-Wohlfahrt says they were first introduced when Bolt's coach brought Bolt, then a quiet 16-year-old, to his Munich clinic. Over the years, the doctor says, he has become a fringe member of Bolt's support staff, his duties ranging from tending to Bolt's aches and pains, to analyzing his sprint mechanics during track workouts when he's in town, to crafting specific exercises aimed at helping him withstand the rigors of the sport.

"The first time he came nobody knew him, but his coach sent him here to ask me whether it was worth it to train him," says Muller-Wohlfahrt, who himself trained as a track athlete growing up in a small town in northern Germany, by the Baltic Sea. "He [the coach] was not sure whether he was able to train very, very hard. I said, 'If he does this and this exercises -- yes, then he can.' So he started to do exercises and then the success grew more and more. For example, yesterday he phoned and he does his exercises. We have a very good connection, very good correspondence."and from

http://espn.go.com/olympics/st...n-magazine

Q: You've been diagnosed with scoliosis. How has that affected your training?

A: When I was younger it wasn't really a problem. But you grow and it gets worse. My spine's really curved bad [makes "S" shape with finger]. But if I keep my core and back strong, the scoliosis doesn't really bother me. So I don't have to worry about it as long as I work hard. The early part of my career, when we didn't really know much about it, it really hampered me because I got injured every year. The most talented and gifted man in track and field? Born with a curved spine.

Showed unbelievable talent from an early age? His coach was unsure about him until 16

An accomplished junior athlete, untainted and innocent? Only after being managed and coached by doping coach Glen Mills, and treated regularly by Dr. Muller-Wolfahrt since 16.

...

- [myth]He has a normal improvement curve

Then lets talk about improvement curves. We know that gold medalists live on the edge of bell curves. Most Junior World beaters are there because they are insanely talented, but also because they're more mature than the rest. The result is that their career isn't as long. American Milers Jim Ryun to Alan Webb are example of great juniors who still had typical career paths; those paths just started several years earlier than normal.

Want to talk sprinters? Lets talk about Obea Moore: 16 year old runs 45.15 400m and never goes faster. J-Mee Samuels runs 10.08 in high school and only 10.03 3 years later. Their career fits a normal curve, just that it started at a younger age.

The case of diminishing returns is typical. (and if you regularly see proportional improvements from 19.75 to 19.19, then you must be witnessing some incredible coaching). Even more than that though, is the "double peak". The familiar case is the 30-35+ year old who is on the end of their career and turns to doping instead of face the realities of life after. But for an athlete who just moved the whole curve ahead a few years? A double peak shouldn't happen.

A junior phenom is, by definition, beyond the curve. Applying the same averages and expectations for the general population can't work with the athletes never started on that curve to begin with.

Here is his 200m progression, the only event he ran throughout his career.

2015 19.55 -0.1 Beijing (National Stadium) 27 AUG

2013 19.66 0.0 Moskva (Luzhniki) 17 AUG

2012 19.32 +0.4 London (Olympic Stadium) 09 AUG

2011 19.40 +0.8 Daegu 03 SEP

2010 19.56 -0.8 Kingston (NS), JAM 01 MAY

2009 19.19 -0.3 Berlin (Olympiastadion) 20 AUG

2008 19.30 -0.9 Beijing (National Stadium) 20 AUG

2007 19.75 +0.2 Kingston (NS), JAM 24 JUN

2006 19.88 +0.4 Lausanne 11 JUL

2005 19.99 +1.8 London (CP) 22 JUL

2004 19.93 +1.4 Devonshire 11 APR

2003 20.13 0.0 Bridgetown, BAR 20 JUL

2002 20.58 +1.4 Kingston, JAM 18 JUL

2001 21.73 +0.6 Debrecen 14 JUL

(Full graph available here:

http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/j...rogression

)

Started working with Glen mills in 2005

I see a career in three phases: Pre-Mills (2004 and earlier), 400m/200m in 2005-2007, and 100m/200m 2008- on.

I see an athlete who started their improvement curve early, and got their peak years around 18-22. I see one who then got frustrated that he wasn't living up to the hype and expectation to keep progressing, and with some insane intervention, arrived on the world scene in a wholly new way.