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

We agree. I've said in this thread:

Don't confuse the fact that I wrote this

and other general suspicions about Hans (worked with numerous dopers, and many athletes under scrutiny), with an argument that an athlete is suspcious because they visited Hans. You're right. ?It is too loose a connection, and there is no grounds to make that kind of jump.

I believe Hans is a suspicious doctor, for the reasons listed above. I believe Bolt is suspicious, for a variety of other reasons, unconnected to my suspicions of Hans.

Do you have any comments about the other arguments I presented about Bolt?

Do you have any comments about Angel Heredia's Der Spiegel interview? He is an insider, claiming that 8 out of 8 100m mens finalists will be doped. (Also, I could talk about Lemond's integrity too, but that is a different thread...)

Blake was caught for 4-methyl-2-hexanamine. That is not banned by WADA, but it is structurally similar to tuaminoheptane, which is banned.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

TAA wrote:

Just a quick note. Blake was never caught for taking banned substances. He took something that was similar to something that was banned and thus received a penalty for that. He never broke the rules.

Really

I haven't looked into the case. To say he never broke the rules is up to argument. It is now banned specifically (since 2010, I believe)

You have a hard time understanding my points, sorry. I'll try to be a little more clear.

I am not saying he was not a prodigy. I am saying that the myth that Usain's performance level: 9:59 and 19.19 is believable because he was a prodigy, is not true. Eliminating that and other explanations for his unworldly performances leaves only one explanation for being the top sprinter ahead of dozens of others who are known dopers: doping.

That is the point being made in those quoted posts.

You seem to be on some sort of mission. Here's what you are missing.

Bolt's superiority is his speed endurance, which he gained from running the 200 and 400 in his teens. He isn't 'faster' in real terms, he just pulls away from the opposition as they slow down due to their inferior speed endurance.

Who else among the 100/200 guys ran the 200/400 as youngsters?

That's the difference and the reason for his superiority. When he moved down to the 100 it took everyone by surprise.

Why are these points alwyays overlooked by all of you internet conspiracy theorists?

You aren't being thorough at all, you are cherry picking your points of reference.

But if I'm understanding your logic you're suggesting that a potentially clean world record holder aged 15 doesn't logically translate into someone who could be a potentially clean world record holder in his prime. That sounds like flawed logic to me!

Doesn't sound like you are.

A potentially clean world record holder- You mean someone that could run 9.58 clean? Then no, I don't think that person exists at all, or will exist for several decades.

The point I think you're trying to make is that the worlds fastest 15 year old should be expected to be the worlds fastest 15-20 years later, also.

I disagree.

The fastest 15 year old is likely the one who peaked earlier.

Here's where I made that point before

So lets look at the hypothetical peak/decline curve. The graphic is from baseball, but whatever.

Example of athletes who perform well at a young age, J-Mee Samuels, Obea Moore, Alan Webb, show that it is not that their curve was higher, but that it was shifted to the left: they peaked earlier.

The person who is the age-group world record holder at 15 is rarely the person who goes on later to dominate the sport. Here are the U18 records:http://www.iaaf.org/records/by-category/u18-world-best-performance Only Bolt is a current senior WR holder in track events (that list is subject to debate, age-cheating and such, but off-topic). Change the display to U20 and you see the same thing: Bolt and Shaheen are the only current senior WR holders.

Because performing well at a young age is about being closer to your peak earlier, not about having an absolute higher peak overall.

I don't believe that any individual can be as much of an outlier (as is Bolt, for example). Someone has to be the best, but the differences between the first and second best shouldn't be large. The stars align to make one individual the best, but the likelihood that almost all the stars align for other individuals is much higher.

Imagine a standard distribution curve.

That means that the best individual isn't that much better than the next person, and there are increasingly more individuals performing at lesser performance levels.

The best individual certainly can't be that much better, so as to dominate at every age, even to dominate athletes who peaked at those earlier ages

That's the point is seems you misunderstand.

For everyone else reading, here's the rest of my thoughts on his progression

20.58 at 16 (or U17 age group) - 2002

19.30 at adult - 2008

1.28 second improvement from 16 to adult.

About a 1 second improvement from 15 to 16. Again - normal.

How are they unusual improvements? It's in the middle of the range. Some improve less or more, mainly based on how physically mature they were at 16, and how many years training they had at 16.

You other argument is "someone flew him to see a specialist wen he was 16, therefore he must be doping". It's not the tightest argument, you'd have to admit. It's innuendo and supposition - nothing more.

rekrunner wrote:

Right now, the only ones making any allegations against Healing Hans are anonymous outsiders with pseudonyms like "Clerk", "Cleans", "rjm33", and "casual obsever".

And the only ones defending him are anonymous outsiders with pseudonyms like "Rekrunner".

So your comments are as irrelevant as ours.

And if you had done your research, you would see that I am a little bit less anonymous than you are. Please let me know if you have ever been nationally ranked.

Yours,

"Outsider Cleans"

Cleans wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Right now, the only ones making any allegations against Healing Hans are anonymous outsiders with pseudonyms like "Clerk", "Cleans", "rjm33", and "casual obsever".

And the only ones defending him are anonymous outsiders with pseudonyms like "Rekrunner".

So your comments are as irrelevant as ours.

And if you had done your research, you would see that I am a little bit less anonymous than you are. Please let me know if you have ever been nationally ranked.

Yours,

"Outsider Cleans"

I have - so what? Everyone's anonymous on here.

Clerk wrote:

I don't believe that any individual can be as much of an outlier (as is Bolt, for example). Someone has to be the best, but the differences between the first and second best shouldn't be large. The stars align to make one individual the best, but the likelihood that almost all the stars align for other individuals is much higher.

Imagine a standard distribution curve.

http://www.mathplanet.com/Oldsite/media/27934/normal_distribution_500x263.jpg

That means that the best individual isn't that much better than the next person, and there are increasingly more individuals performing at lesser performance levels.

Exactly my point. Note that for example Clerk is one of the moderate people here, somewhere between the two extreme views that basically all elite runners dope and that basically nobody dopes (apparently rekrunner's view).

Considering how helpful the drugs are, and how poor the tests, and how corrupt for example IAAF's last president was, it is hard to imagine a clean world record holder. And in case of Bolt, it gets incrementally more unlikely:

- the world record is from the last dirty decade,

- the world record was a huge performance jump,

- nobody came close to the world record in this decade,

- the world record was achieved in one of the most dirty T&F competitions.

None of this amounts to evidence. But to claim that there are no grounds to suspicion is absurd.

That's the thing - it is natural to be suspicious because someone is better than the rest. But there is nothing concrete about Bolt, or Farah for that matter.

They might both be dirty, but on the scant evidence against them to this point, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt (for now).

I never said the range is suspicious. Read my post again.

I never said someone flew him to a specialist, therefore he is doping.

My arguments have been laid out several times.

Karma police, if you keep misrepresenting my argument or ignoring where I already explain it in posts up thread, I'm going to consider you a troll: if I fail to make myself clear, that is my fault. But choosing to ignore where it is already explained is yours.

Karma Police wrote:

I have - so what? Everyone's anonymous on here.

I wasn't the one commenting about the worthlessness of 'anonymous posters' on here. Go check Rekrunner's post. He's the one who will only listen to those who can somehow show 'authority' in what they post. Someone like Greg Lamond. (Although the rule apparently doesn't apply to Victor Conte because he was bad in the past.)

So I agree with you - so what. Everyone's opinion is worthwhile on here.

Some people think Bolt's clean, some think he's dirty, it's an interesting discussion. No proof either way, that's why there is a debate.

Karma Police wrote:

You other argument is "someone flew him to see a specialist wen he was 16, therefore he must be doping". It's not the tightest argument, you'd have to admit. It's innuendo and supposition - nothing more.

Dude, don't misrepresent people using double quotes. He never wrote that.

OK, let me be clear - I do understand the caveats that you are making to the expectation of a linear progression from someone who is the worlds best at a certain age etc. And the points you make about peaks and domination are valid in the main. You rightly describe Bolt as an outlier. I suppose the question which some statisticians could possibly work through is how much of an outlier is he, and how much this outlier should be considered to be "bad data" - i.e. something which exists due to factors other than those which are being controlled for.

What I was pointing out was that whilst it isn't the norm for age 15 world record holders to go on to dominate the sport (frankly, it would be very boring if there was only linear progression), I don't believe it should be considered to be a "never" event.

It is not beyond the realms of possibility that someone demonstrates exceptional talent aged 15 and then retains / builds on that.

Perhaps if framed in the negative it looks more persuasive - could you argue that the worlds best 15 year old will never be the worlds best 25 year old? I don't disagree that it is often the case that the worlds best 15 year old does not turn out to be the worlds best 25 year old, but I would suggest that to argue that it cannot happen (and therefore to argue that this means that someone like Bolt is more likely than not a doper) is implausible.

I'm content to believe that in someone like Bolt the stars have aligned to produce something close to perfection in men's sprinting. I want it to be the case that such a phenomenon can exist in my lifetime, and whilst there is some good science and statistics which you use to demonstrate that we've not seen anything like it before, I just can't make myself believe that it isn't at least possible. And if it is possible, and in the absence of tangible evidence of cheating, I err on the side of trusting that possibility.

No offense intended.If I had made arguments that Hans must be clean, you might have a point.But I'm commenting on the lack of support for arguments made so far against Hans, and the lack of any doping opinions coming from persons with verifiable credentials to make them.

Cleans wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Right now, the only ones making any allegations against Healing Hans are anonymous outsiders with pseudonyms like "Clerk", "Cleans", "rjm33", and "casual obsever".

And the only ones defending him are anonymous outsiders with pseudonyms like "Rekrunner".

So your comments are as irrelevant as ours.

And if you had done your research, you would see that I am a little bit less anonymous than you are. Please let me know if you have ever been nationally ranked.

Yours,

"Outsider Cleans"

Keep in mind my original comment wasn't to you. I found "casual obsever" 3 point argument was "not cogent" and adding the names of doped sprinters did not make them "cogent".I greatly admire your effort to find data that supports your assertions -- that puts you head and shoulders above many.Since you asked about Bolt and Heredia, here are some of my comments:- Despite the volume of data, I wouldn't go so far as to say you've succeeded in debunking many, or any, Bolt myths.- And even if you had debunked them, you often conclude with "doping is the only possible explanation left" without any proper discussion.- There's a certain contradiction in saying that doping tests often fail, and highlighting all of the remaining sprinters have failed doping tests.- There is something physically unique about Bolt that is a combination of factors -- focusing just on his height is too reductionist to be meaningful.- You can't compare Bolt to tall decathletes, who by selection are better "all around" athletes.- You don't fly a mediocre talent 16 year old to a German specialist. Was he flown there because he had talent, or did he have talent because he was flown there?- If I look at the edge of bell curves, they can extend much further than the rest. Extremely once-in-a-lifetime outliers can fit.- Angel Heredia is a chemist who is convinced that success can only be achieved by including chemistry, much like the hammer who sees every problem as a nail.- Doping is popular in men's sprinting. As with all doping, it's hard to separate belief, and placebo from the physical benefits.

Clerk wrote:

...

We agree.

...

Do you have any comments about the other arguments I presented about Bolt?

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6730255

Do you have any comments about Angel Heredia's Der Spiegel interview? He is an insider, claiming that 8 out of 8 100m mens finalists will be doped. (Also, I could talk about Lemond's integrity too, but that is a different thread...)

rekrunner wrote:

Keep in mind my original comment wasn't to you. I found "casual obsever" 3 point argument was "not cogent" and adding the names of doped sprinters did not make them "cogent".

My problem with you is that you are very often so extreme in your responses. Sometimes but not always. This discussion here is a good example; after all these points made about Dr. Müller-Wohlfahrt (not just by me, but also by ESPN, cleans, and clerk) your banal comment was "you still got nothing". Not evidence, ok, not cogent, maybe, so why don't we call it "inductive", but seriously, "nothing"?

Similarly after literally 100s of pages and arguments about Paula's doping, you concluded that there wouldn't even be any reason for suspicion.

On the other hand, once in a while you appear to be interested in serious arguments, so frankly I am still not sure whether you are just trolling around here or whether you really think that we are enjoying a clean sport here.

Karma Police wrote:

That's the thing - it is natural to be suspicious because someone is better than the rest. But there is nothing concrete about Bolt, or Farah for that matter.

They might both be dirty, but on the scant evidence against them to this point, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt (for now).

"scant evidence" - I'd agree with that opinion. But there is more to this than just them being "better than the rest". Examples were given in this thread and elsewhere here on letsrun, in short including among others

- being a lot better than the - evidently doped - rest (Bolt, Radcliffe)

- having huge improvements out of nowhere at an advanced age (Farah, Radcliffe)

- not hearing the doorbell or the phone while at home for a full hour (Farah)

- having suspicious off-scores (Radcliffe)

- training at remote, virtually test-free locations (Bolt, Farah)

- training at the EPO paradise Albuquerque (Radcliffe)

- associating with dopers (Bolt, Farah)

- associating with Healing Hans (Bolt, Radcliffe)

- anti-transparency stance (Radcliffe)