Major drug bust from Jamaican trials in 100 meters

I love how this Herb Elliot character throws American (and other) blacks under the bus while mking out Jamaicans to be a sub-race of "Super Blacks":

“We passed exams at universities abroad because of the strength where other blacks (failed),” he said.

He then goes on about their supposed Jamaican Christian morality, etc.. As I understand it, Kingston is not the safest city in the world and a number of reggae artists have met violent ends. Certainly the themes of gang life are common in their song lyrics.

All in all, the Jamaican national team doctor is a tremendous source of BS and not someone who should be personally managing their testing program.

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/track_field/news?slug=jo-jamaicans082308

informant--

"possible for certain athletes to run 9.6 clean"

Exactly which athletes?

Let's exclude the Big 3 for now...Based on the best available evidence, the only athlete possibly capable of having done that would have been Donovan Bailey, based on his 9.84 in 1996. Only IF he had run the same race with a start equal to the field, and IF he had had a maximum allowable wind, could he perhaps have gotten down to 9.6x

Bailey's 9.84 (+0.7) in 1996 was a 9.88 corrected, which would have been a 9.78 with the max +2.0 wind. Subtract another 0.10 to give him a start equal to that of most of the field, and he would be down to 9.68...only just barely into the 9.6x's, IF he had extreme luck of 2.0 wind, and IF he ran his best possible race as he did in Atlanta, and IF he had his best possible start, which would have had him even with most of the field.

Those are big IF's, and it is readily apparent that Bailey never ran when all these factors were present, as he never did go 9.6x

The other 3 possibles are Surin 9.84 (+0.2), Fredericks 9.86 (-0.4), and Boldon 9.86 (-0.4), which all correct to 9.85, which would all be around 9.75 with the max allowable +2.0 wind.

The difference between these runs and Bailey's is that Surin in Seville, Fredericks in Lausanne, and Boldon in Athens all had excellent runs, with excellent starts--i.e. essentially the best that could be hoped for by those athletes. Unlike Bailey, there is no glaring weakness in their start or elsewhere that would get them the additional 0.6 required to reach 9.69

Boldon's race was essentially flawless:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO8ciTUEztQ&playnext=1&list=PL8B919936B4E65148

Surin's race was essentially flawless, except for perhaps a slight bit of tightening from 80-100m:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT6J0nEIEYs

Fredericks' race was essentially flawless--can't find a video, but I remember it.

None of those guys, based on the evidence, could have gotten 9.6x, even running their perfect race under perfect conditions.

Nobody else is even in the running.

The only other probably clean athlete even in the discussion is Carl Lewis. His 9.86 (+1.2) in Tokyo corrects to a 9.92, which would have been a 9.83 with a max +2.0 wind. Like Bailey in Atlanta, Lewis in Tokyo had a crappy start. Although he was never a great starter, he certainly showed throughout his career that he could start at least as well as the general field. Like Bailey in Atlanta, Lewis probably gave up 0.10 at the start, but even if he started with the field, that would only get him to 9.73, running essentially his perfect race under perfect conditions with his best start possible.

Excellent, but not 9.6x territory.

Johnson, Gatlin, Montgomery, and IMHO Greene are out of the discussion, as you referred to running 9.6x "clean".

That leaves the Big 3.

You say you know elite sprinters that have run clean in the 9.8's, and who were not at max. The only 9.8x guys I can think of, other than the Big 3, who were not at their max are, as I mentioned, Bailey and Lewis, who did not have their best possible starts yet still ran 9.8x--and of these 2, only Bailey could possibly have run 9.6x

So, because you believe that "certain athletes" (plural) could run 9.6x clean, and Bailey is only a single athlete, that must mean that you believe that somebody other than him is capable of a clean 9.6x.

Based again on the evidence, nobody other than one of the Big 3 is in the running.

Which of the Big 3 do you think could run a clean 9.6x, and why?

Bolt gives no indication that he can do it. His times of this year don't correct to 9.6x, and he has never demonstrated a significantly better start during the years when he was not under suspicion for using.

That leaves Gay and Powell.

I'm down with that. I suspect that Gay's 9.6x and low 9.7x were not done cleanly, but I also suspect that he could achieve those times cleanly, he has a beautiful running mechanic, and I don't think there's any particularly necessary reason for his inferior start.

And Powell has a beautiful start and acceleration mechanic, although he could use some tweaking at full speed--but he can run well at full speed, as evidenced by his 37.10 relay leg. He has run so many meets, over so long a time period, been tested so many times, been overshadowed by a new golden boy, etc., that one would think that he would have been caught at some point had he been using. But the same could be said for Greene, although with Greene there is other evidence of use that is absent in Powell's case.

So, for you, is there anybody other than Bailey, Powell, or Gay that is possibly capable of running 9.6x clean?

And your statement that "There is amongst the elite coaching community a very real development in technique in sprinting that has allowed athletes to run faster." is misleading.

More accurately, the elite sprinting coaching community has begun to successfully incorporate elements of superior technique demonstrated by some athletes in the past, into the training regimens and race technique of current athletes.

What that means is that a particular athlete who would not naturally run with that technique runs faster than they otherwise would.

It does NOT mean that there is a general improvement in the field, because some athletes run naturally with that technique and do not improve based upon changes to their already-excellent technique.

The best sprinters of the past used elements of this newly-recognized suite of techniques, and the very best of the past, in their very best races, used essentially ALL elements of this newly-recognized, but intrinsically OLD, suite of techniques.

So-called "new" techniques allow individual sprinters deficient in technique to run faster, but do not allow elite sprinters in general, as a group, to run faster.

Freelove--

You're missing the whole point. I am NOT assuming that he us using drugs because he is better than everyone else--I'm not going to re-iterate, it's all in the posts.

And of course it is not CERTAIN that he was a doper.

Reasoning by analogy, a form of inductive reasoning, only makes the conclusion that he was doping probable, given the truth of the premises, but not certain.

Please take some time to read the claims and the reasoning to clear up your misunderstanding thereof.

Also, brush up on your argumentation and reasoning skills--it is most certainly NOT impossible to draw any conclusions. Those conclusions that are drawn may have varying degrees of probability of being true, but it is certainly possible to draw them.

And about Powell--I am essentially undecided about him, and that should show you the reasonableness of my argument. Even though he has run smoking times, repeatedly, times better than convicted dopers have run, and even though he is associated with a tainted program, for me to draw the conclusion that he is doping is possible, but that conclusion has significantly less of a probably of being true than the conclusion that Bolt was doping.

I'm entirely comfortable with the conclusion regarding Bolt, and will defend it to anybody, but the same is not true regarding Powell--although his career is not yet over.

Jesse--

Do you want me to respond seriously to your post?

Your statement that "the evidence that you have utilized to "render the proposition more likely" (than not) is your own assumption beforehand that such a performance is not possible without PEDs" is false.

I deal not only with times in general, but with the individual athletes who have achieved those times. You should read more closely.

Again, do you want me to respond seriously? It would be easier if you would read the posts instead.

Unfortunately, some of you are so delusional it is depressing as to witness as a human being and I am embarrassed for you. The argument you purport to be gospel about Bolt and every other person who has ever run fast smacks of hate for the success of others and delusions that you actually know Bolt or know anything about Jamaica other than what you will yourselves to be true.

I have watched Usain Bolt as a 15 year old running 20.61 and running 19.93 less than two years later. Are you suggesting that William Knibb high school took this boy away from cricket at 14 years old and was pumping him full of PEDs when he was in the 8th grade. Your ignorance about the wider world is stunning and yet you pose on these forums as Gods.

Please get a life...Stop clutching at straws like when you sing that Yohan Blake tested positive. For what? What do you know of Yohan Blake as a 16 year old at St.Jago high School. KMT

Sprint Geezer wrote:

Jesse--

Do you want me to respond seriously to your post?

Your statement that "the evidence that you have utilized to "render the proposition more likely" (than not) is your own assumption beforehand that such a performance is not possible without PEDs" is false.

I deal not only with times in general, but with the individual athletes who have achieved those times. You should read more closely.

Again, do you want me to respond seriously? It would be easier if you would read the posts instead.

SG, You assert that you deal "not only with times in general, but with the individual athletes who have achieved those times." Well, yes...this is of course implicit in my appraisal of your method. Of course, you are also dealing with the individual athletes, but without any foundation other than "this looks suspicious in relation to this particular athlete." The only real difference is you are ASSuming either that you have some special knowledge as to the athlete's non-PED-using innate ability or that you detect a red flag-raising pattern to their performances. Both constitute rather flimsy evidence, and would be considered laughable by the more intelligent. Why don't you admit that you believe that to reach a certain level, these athletes use PEDs? What lends objectivity to your method beyond the this?

I know a LOT about Jamaica, about Jamaican culture, and about Jamaican people. I grew up with Jamaicans, and my exposure to Jamaican culture was the whole reason I started T&F in the first place.

Which of course has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with suggestions that Bolt was doping in 2008 and 2009.

If you'd read anything, among those sprinters I consider to be the best clean guys ever, Surin is a native Haitian, Boldon is a native Trinidadian with a Trinidadian father and a Jamaican mother, and Bailey is a native Jamaican. I'm still even willing to entertain the idea that Powell is clean, and I think that Blake is the most exciting young sprinter out there, and the heir to the throne.

I'm hardly expressing "hate" for either Jamaica or for the success of others, as you suggested.

Exactly the opposite. I've posted my views before on these boards that Caribbeans, especially Jamaicans, are in my experience a breed apart when it comes to sprinting. I've blown sunshine up the asses of many of the top sprinters and even of some lesser sprinters--all of which, by the way, have had more success than I have at sprinting.

But that doesn't prevent me, and shouldn't prevent anyone, from looking at a situation rationally and analytically. Unlike you, I don't LOVE Jamaica, and by extension I don't LOVE any of Jamaica's national heroes like Bolt.

But you're too dull to recognize that. You're just a mentally weak individual who can't handle it when one of your idols is brought into question, because that brings into question your own judgment, and by extension your own self.

Get a life, grow up, and stop having sports figures as your personal heroes.

Irie, mon.

BTW, lumped in with Surin, Boldon, and Fredericks, should be Blake.

His runs last year and this year are 9.85/9.86 corrected, but his were also excellent races, with maybe some room for improvement at the start, but certainly nothing like the room for improvement that Bailey or Lewis had on the start in their 9.8x efforts.

But Blake is the one to watch out for. To be mentioned in the same league as those other guys, at Blake's age, is truly amazing.

Powell and Bolt are the present 100m greats, but Blake is the next one.

SG, I have noticed that when your "methods" are found to be sorely lacking, your response is invariably "do you want me to respond seriously." It is like a nervous tic of yours...

Jesse--

First of all, one has to take what I present, and combine it with their own experience to evaluate its worth.

I claim no special knowledge over and above what anybody else who has been around top sprinters would claim.

I use performance data, performance history, doping history, career trajectory, characteristics of particular races, characteristics of particular meets, knowledge of national doping-control practices, knowledge of the physiologic requirements of sprinting, knowledge of the symptoms of steroid use, individual physiognomy, behavior expressed by national programs and particular training groups, etc. as the raw material.

Why don't you look closer. You will see that I have no particular bias. I'm even willing to concede that at least 1 person and probably 2 have been capable of running 9.6x given the conjunction of a perfect race and perfect conditions, and I am willing to believe that a third is also capable of doing it, but I don't have to come down on one side or another on him yet because he is still competing.

I'm also willing to entertain the possibility that a fourth person has come along recently, who is likely to exhibit that potential in the next few years.

There is no bias at all, and the evidence is not "flimsy", as you put it.

You are just unwilling to even entertain the conclusion that, for instance, Bolt was doped at 9.58 and 19.19

You're not presenting any evidence to support your position, nor are you successfully refuting the evidence that I have presented. To the extent that you're not mischaracterizing what I said, you're simply contradicting my conclusion with conclusory statements, which hold no persuasive value whatsoever.

And finally, of course this has nothing to do with anything relating to Mullings, who isn't even one of the best of all-time, especially considering that his 9.80 from Eugene was totally bogus.

Sprint Geezer wrote:

Jesse--

You are just unwilling to even entertain the conclusion that, for instance, Bolt was doped at 9.58 and 19.19

SG, this is where I lose respect for you. I believe Bolt was doping. However, it is just a belief, much as I believe that you are a 40ish sprinter living in the Minneapolis area. I don't really know for sure on either subject. I don't pretend to...I don't have to provide evidence that Bolt was not doping, because, 1)I don't believe it, and 2) I never asserted that he wasn't. This is where you have fallen into a trap I didn't even intentionally plant. Why would I put weight in your assumptions about Bolt when your assumptions regarding myself are so palpably erroneous?

Sprint Geezer wrote:

And finally, of course this has nothing to do with anything relating to Mullings, who isn't even one of the best of all-time, especially considering that his 9.80 from Eugene was totally bogus.

Maybe It's just me and my lack of understanding...but why are you insistent that the results from this year’s PRE and the Clermont meet were inaccurate?....is it because a ton of guys hit their season or lifetime PR's there or do you actually have some insider info or another reason?... just curious, not trying to be rude.

Many people suspect Alberto Salazar's runners. Is that what you think too ?????????

This is an interesting thread.

Everyone is under suspicion in track and field. I sucked and people said I doped. It comes with the sport.

I don't like to buy into the "well X is faster than anyone else so they must be doping" but I understand the thought.

As for Bolt, my one observation on him this year is he is bigger. My thought is his bulk could be slowing him down. Sprint Geezer what do you think of that as an explanation?

And generally I would argue a guy gets bigger when he dopes, not when he doesn't, so that would support Bolt being clean. Just another explanation for why he might be slower this year.

Ruben Sierra was my favorite baseball player. Great hitter. He then bulked up and his career suffered. Wonder if the same thing could be happening to Bolt.

And if anyone on this thread like SprintGeezer or USADA Informant wants to discuss these things anonymously offline feel free to email me. I'm assuming that USADA informant is really not a USADA informant. Clever name but we had a complaint on it and we don't want people impersonating others but I think people can realize this is an anonymous board and you're not taking a real person's name.

Bolt wasted too much time last year at parties in Jamaica. He doesn't have the passion to train that a Tyson Gay or a Blake has. He is now paying for it.

I noticed that SprintGeezer referred to Asafa's camp as being tainted. Tainted by what might I ask?...since you know everyting bout Jamaica. Surely not medication for a painkiller that actually slows an athlete down.

Bahamas has a good anti-doping record.

There was a time in world athletics when a great cloud of suspicion hovered over countries from the Iron Curtain Bloc. The strong feelings of many in the rest of the world that athletes from those countries were competing unfairly and winning medals due to enhanced substances, were later justified.

It was established that there was in fact a system of doping that favored many of those athletes. The falling of the Iron Curtain caused a lot of information regarding systematic doping to surface. Incidences of former medal winners suffering physically from the ravages of doping further cemented the understanding of what went on for many years within the Iron Curtain.

From the 1980s to now, there has been a focus of anti-doping officials on North America as well. Many high-profile athletes (Jamaican-born Canadian Ben Johnson being the most noted) have been found guilty of using illegal substances to heighten their chances for success, and subsequently suspended and disqualified.

Following the emergence of the terrific sprinters from Jamaica during the last decade, a high point being reached during the 2008 Beijing Olympics when Usain Bolt captivated the world, that country found itself under the microscope. At least eight of that country’s athletes got into trouble in recent years including top female sprinter Shelly Ann Fraser.

Earlier this year, the Jamaican Anti-Doping Commission was dissolved.

Accordingly, this entire Caribbean region is now being watched. Here in The Bahamas with the ongoing emergence of outstanding junior and senior athletes in track and field, swimming and amateur boxing there is additional pressure on the anti-doping principals to do an excellent job of monitoring.

The Bahamas signed on in 2003 to work with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and leading the way for this nation has been the Bahamas Olympic Association (now Committee-BOC) and in particular former Minister of Sports Desmond Bannister. While the signing did take place under the previous central administration, it was Bannister of the present government who drove the initiative.

The BOC in its role as the National Anti-Doping Organization (NADO) has done a wonderful job. Testimony is the fact that just two Bahamian athletes during the era of high scrutiny have been suspended. It must be emphasized that WADA and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) have been generally quite satisfied with the BOC in the lead Bahamian role of the anti-doping battle.

Now, there is a Bahamas Anti-Doping Commission that would do well to work diligently with the BOC. It just makes good sense to seek to ‘piggyback’ on what has been happening since 2003 under the BOC up to 2010 when the Commission was appointed.

Indeed, going forward with the full government’s responsibility for anti-doping, it is the Commission that is thus challenged to continually rise to the occasion in order to enable The Bahamas to maintain its fine reputation in the ongoing fight to discourage doping in sports.

As this country’s first NADO, the Olympic body did a fine job. The former and present Olympic executives are to be congratulated.

King Carl was on something wrote:

Carl Lewis clean? hahahaha

Whether you like Carl Lewis personally or not, he is by all measurements, the greatest track-and-field athlete of all time. It would take an entire page to list his accomplishments. Carl Lewis won numerous national age-group, H.S. national junior, NCAA, USA Nationals and professional championships. He won at every level, set records at every level and most importantly he won World Championship and Olympics medals in multiple events. Anyone who thinks you can cheat your way to a Carl Lewis type career is either stupid, ignorant or both.

Before there was a Usain Bolt, there was Carl Lewis. Carl was a freak of nature as far back as age group and H.S. competition, although his greatest successes at that time were in the long jump. Carl was very fast in H.S., I think he ran a couple of 10.4s and was a world class long jumper at age 17. Prior to college, Carl was skinner than a distance runner, probably the skinniest sprinter I had ever seen. As Carl started to physically mature in College, he got much faster and he was lucky to have been coached by the arguable one of the world’s greatest sprint coach, Tom Teliz. By the end of Carl’s freshman year, he was one of the top sprinters and long jumpers in the world. At age 19, he won the US National Championship and made the 1980 Olympic team. By the end of his sophomore year he was number one in the world in the 100, 200 and long jump. You either have to conclude Carl Lewis was bound for greatness, or perhaps you think Carl was taking drugs as a 20 year old college sophomore. Carl was a staunch opponent of doping and gottjn himself in trouble public by at times suggesting some athletes were doping, which btw, turned out to be true in a couple of cases. Carl asked for testing at certain meets that didn’t have testing.

Carl wasn’t just good, he had a long career and was about as consistent as they get; simply put, he was the best in the world on the 3 event for a decade. Late in his career, Carl tested positive for stimulants that were found in over the counter cold medicine, which had only been added to banned list a few months prior. Carl was later cleared based on inadvertent use. Only Carl himself and God knows whether he took a stimulant knowingly or unknowingly, but to label his to a career as made possible by doping as in EPO or anabolic steroid use is a bridge way too far.

Zero Gravity wrote:

I love how this Herb Elliot character throws American (and other) blacks under the bus while mking out Jamaicans to be a sub-race of "Super Blacks":

“We passed exams at universities abroad because of the strength where other blacks (failed),” he said.

He then goes on about their supposed Jamaican Christian morality, etc.. As I understand it, Kingston is not the safest city in the world and a number of reggae artists have met violent ends. Certainly the themes of gang life are common in their song lyrics.

All in all, the Jamaican national team doctor is a tremendous source of BS and not someone who should be personally managing their testing program.

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/track_field/news?slug=jo-jamaicans082308

Yes, he says a lot of bogus or dubious things but it is worth reiterating that he is more or less correct when he talks about the Jamaican population being distinct, in whatever small way, from for example African American populations across the US. It's also true for other Caribbean populations. This is elite sport - it's the small differences that can make a difference when you put performance under a microscope. Unfortunately he is not the best person to talk about it as much of what he says is impossible for a fair-minded person to agree with.

USADA informant wrote:Anyone who thinks Mullings or any other athlete randomly took something like furosemide is ludicrous just like Merritt's claim of personal performance usage of extenze...

The argument with the Brazilian swimmers is they took a contaminated supplement. I can't see through walls or into the past so I have no idea what happened but their argument went to the CAS and was believed. It's especially clear that because of the condition of the furosemide in their urine there was no masking effect and, so it could also be seen for certain, no steroids.

In itself it is definitely not a PED. The ordinary name for it is 'water tablet' and old ladies take it to reduce their swollen ankles. It can produce various side effects like any medication: upset stomach, blurred vision, dizziness, feeling faint, tiredness, ringing in the ears, weakness, dehydration, skin rash, sensitivity to light. I was surprised to hear about all of that, but it has me thinking that an athlete in competition would take it either inadvertently in a contaminated supplement - or - would be taking it for some time so he would know which side effects he has (if any). I think he would need to know this if he proposed to take it just before a meet, especially the National Trials. If the second case I must say I find it hard to believe that his coach or maybe nutritionist wouldn't know something about it.

I would be interested to know what the condition of the furosemide was with Mullings but in any case it doesn't look good. Neither imo do these swimmers come out of things too well, I find it a strange case. But overall it does highlight for me that careless or unlucky can be treated the same as cheat and that's not very satisfactory.