Major drug bust from Jamaican trials in 100 meters

dre217 wrote:

I'm going to be honest, I don't think there's anyone and I mean this, ANYONE in track since the 1970's that wasn't on something or the other.

What PED(s) would you guess that Imani Stafford is taking?

So what were YOU on, dre217?

In the same article, it referred to a new drug-testing agency:

"The Word Anti-Doping Agency"

Word.

You dismiss Bolt off hand without any particular thought. If you have a rationale beyond him being too fast, I'd love to hear it.

I get the feeling that I'm going back-and-forth with a single person who posts using different pseudonyms...

But OK, let's have a go, "Holmes". Let's expose what's going on, if that's what you really want to do. Forget about your conclusory statements and vitriol, and get serious--or get lost.

Let's look at Bolt specifically, and start from basic facts that are generally agreed-upon. The following list is not exhaustive, and we will add undisputed facts to it as they are required throughout the course of the discussion:

1) he ran a non-serious 9.69

2) he ran a serious 9.58

3) he ran a 19.30 into a headwind

4) he ran a serious 19.19

5) he was 195cm in height at the time

6) he was about 210 lbs in weight at the time

7) he was 195cm in height at 15 yrs of age

8) he ran a serious 19.93 at age 17

9) his 9.69 was a WR at the time

10) his 9.69 was the greatest margin of victory ever in an Olympic 100m final in the FAT era

11) his 9.69 was the greatest margin of decrease ever over the previous WR

12) his 9.58 was, and still is, a WR

13) his 9.58 WR is the furthest ever ahead of the next-fastest man

14) Francis Obikwelu is 195cm in height

15) Carl Lewis was 191cm in height when competing

16) Carl Lewis was about 180 lbs in weight when competing

17) Asafa Powell is 190cm in height

18) Asafa Powell weighs about 190 lbs

19) 9.59 (+0.9) in Berlin is 9.62 corrected

20) the fastest 100m by Carl Lewis was 9.86 (+1.2) in Tokyo which is 9.92 corrected

21) the fastest 100m by Asafa Powell was 9.72 (+0.2) in Lausanne which is a 9.74 corrected

22) the fastest 100m by Francis Obikwelu was 9.86 (+0.6) in Athens which is a 9.89 corrected

23) his 19.19 was, and still is, a WR

24) Bolt has never returned a positive test

25) Bolt has never admitted any PED use

26) his 19.93 at age 17 was, and is, a junior WR

Like I said, there will be more facts that we will add as needed--lots more. Please let me know if you disagree with any of the above.

The 9.58 and 19.19 marks are clearly qualitatively exceptional, as they are not only WR's, but outstanding WR's. They are probably quantitatively exceptional as well, but we need not debate that at this moment.

Because 9.58 and 19.19 are exceptional, we as curious beings seek to explain these performances.

As our standard method of inquiry, we currently generally try to employ a rational analytical reasoning process. From among our options we can choose from among the various recognized species of rational analytical reasoning methods.

Assuming for the moment that we agree on the above facts, let us now attempt to explain the 9.58 and 19.19 performances.

The basic inquiry takes the form of seeking an explanation as to exactly how Bolt achieved lower times over 100m and 200m than anybody else ever recorded in the modern era.

We must drill down from superficial answers like "because he ran faster" to answers that take the form of a testable proposition, such as, for instance "because he is taller".

We can look at the facts that we have, and choose an appropriate proposition, and support it using the agreed-upon facts and the relevant reasoning process.

I have been generous with the agreed-upon facts that I have presented as an initial outline, and I will let YOU formulate the proposition of your choice, to explain precisely how Bolt achieved lower times over 100m and 200m than anybody else ever recorded in the modern era.

So give us your testable proposition and reasoning from the agreed-upon facts and any others that you would care to provisionally add, and we will proceed from that point.

What I will of course do, as you must anticipate, will be to attempt to reveal the reasoning process you are attempting to use, and to identify any inadequacies in that reasoning process to make your proposition less probable than it is presented. Once your proposition has been taken to its lowest accepted level of probability by this process, I will offer my own proposition, and attempt to show that it is at least as probable as is your own, and hopefully more so.

So, give us your testable proposition and reasoning.

Geezer, Bolt isn't on the drugs at the moment. All I'm saying

Van West wrote:

NYER1 wrote:

Totally agree with you.

It's like thinking FloJo,Jarmila Kratochvílová and Marita Koch ran clean

That's like saying the US meat packing industry had virtually the same level of cleanliness and safety in 1900 as it did in 2000.

I hope you don't believe the two are really that different ;)

And now Mike Rogers has been reported to have failed a test.

He thought it was red bull he was drinking.

Mullings has asthma

kelli white (remember her) had some sort of sleeping issue

say what you may - the reps for these athletes are truly innovative

Knowthisasafact wrote:

Geezer, Bolt isn't on the drugs at the moment. All I'm saying

Agreed.

If you want to go fast, you always looking at the power / mass ratio.

I do not think Bolt was 210 pounds at record time. I had him at just under 90 Kg. or about 190-5 pounds.

Think he is now about 210 maybe down to 205 by now. Bolt has not improved his power weight ration, in-fact it has decreased.

PHOTOS 2008 AND 2011.

http://celeb.wohoo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/usain-bolt-200-record.jpg

http://www.insidethegames.biz/images/stories/Usain_Bolt_4x100m_relay_Beijing_2008.jpg

http://www.diamondleague-rome.com/Global/Rome/BOLT-PRESSCONFERENCE/bolt_100romab.jpg

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Sport/Pix/pictures/2011/6/2/1307006623584/Usain-Bolt-Ostrava-2011-007.jpg

dre217 wrote:

Van West wrote:

That's like saying the US meat packing industry had virtually the same level of cleanliness and safety in 1900 as it did in 2000.

I hope you don't believe the two are really that different ;)

You're right, there not: both have drastically improved since the introduction of regulations and monitoring.

longjack wrote:

If you want to go fast, you always looking at the power / mass ratio.

I do not think Bolt was 210 pounds at record time. I had him at just under 90 Kg. or about 190-5 pounds.

Think he is now about 210 maybe down to 205 by now. Bolt has not improved his power weight ration, in-fact it has decreased.

PHOTOS 2008 AND 2011.

http://celeb.wohoo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/usain-bolt-200-record.jpghttp://www.insidethegames.biz/images/stories/Usain_Bolt_4x100m_relay_Beijing_2008.jpghttp://www.diamondleague-rome.com/Global/Rome/BOLT-PRESSCONFERENCE/bolt_100romab.jpghttp://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Sport/Pix/pictures/2011/6/2/1307006623584/Usain-Bolt-Ostrava-2011-007.jpg

Did anyone of you actually stood next to the guy?? You can speculate all you want on his weight and 'added muscle', but he isn't that much different compared to '09, believe me!

Considering the drugs; the way he runs and executes right now are so very different from from the his golden years, that there can be 2 reasons;

He couldn't put in all the necessary training because of injury,

He couldn't put in all the necessary training because of him not being on the stuff right now.

I hope for, and was convinced of the first, but every race I see him run tends to move me more to the other. Even the pre-race bravado has fallen off.

Doubles and pelau. Wash down wit' Solo Cream Soda.

Form does not change weather you are on or off PED's...

Sure

Van West wrote:

dre217 wrote:

I hope you don't believe the two are really that different ;)

You're right, there not: both have drastically improved since the introduction of regulations and monitoring.

Sure they did ;)

Overall I think you're correct, but there's one small (?) area in which I think it does change your form, 359.

PED use enables different form, especially at the start.

Referencing BJ's start once again, that start, especially the 2nd/3rd steps, are just not possible to do quickly without PED's. You will get buried, and be unable to make the transition to running acceleration.

Even Johnson had problems with it, and nearly got buried in his 9.83, but managed to recover--but only just.

By Seoul he had powered up enough to be able to pull it off.

But that's splitting hairs, as nobody else has even tried that start, even convicted drug cheats.

So overall I would say that you're right on, with a small exception--but that small exception can be the race, all other things being equal.

dre217 wrote:

Sure

Van West wrote:

You're right, there not: both have drastically improved since the introduction of regulations and monitoring.

Sure they did ;)

Okay, you got me. You were an above average troll. Nice job.

SG (or should I say Trevor Graham)

So do you think Carl Lews was or was not using PED's? I just want to make sure I understand your rationale behind "progression" that you use.

Here are some numbers to consider....

Lewis ran 10.67 100 when he was 18

Bolt 20.58 200M at 15

Bolt 19.93 200M at 18

At 20 Carl Lewis ran 10.00 100M (improveemnt of .67 in two yrs)

At 20 Usain Bolt ran 19.88 200M (improvement of .05 in two yrs)

Bolt took of .74 off his 200 meter time from his 18th birthday to his 23rd birthday.

Lewis shaved another .16 off his 100M time through his career. but lowered it almost a full second from his 18th birthday. Bolt lowered his 200M time just .74 in a race twice as long in the 200. If your perception is Bolt is doping, it's only fair to say Carl was doping when he lowered the 100M record and improved his LJ from 26'8 to 29'2 (according to your theory).

Why are you using 200m for Bolt and 100m for Lewis?

Lewis didn't lower it by almost a second--he lowered it 0.81 to be precise.

In 1979 Lewis was not training for the 100m. Under Tellez, he went from 10.67 to 10.21 in one year, which is remarkable--but his baseline 10.67 was essentially untrained, so the improvement is not really that surprising.

Plus, he was still young, and improvement is to be expected.

More amazingly, the next year he ran 10-flat and was ranked #1 in the world.

All this while there was no change in his physiognomy other than what would normally come with maturing between the ages of 18 and 20.

Bolt, on the other hand, by the time he was 18, he was a 200m specialist, along with the 400m. He had been running it, and running it well, for a long time, as his time at 15 shows.

Bolt was already 6'5" at age 15, and his early development combined with his specific training account for his advanced success in the 200m by age 18.

If you want to compare progression, consider this: Bolt in 2007, at basically 21 yrs and 6'5, ran 10.03 (+0.7).

ONE YEAR LATER HE RAN 9.69 (0.0) WHILE GOOFING AND LEANING BACKWARDS. THAT WAS A 9.58 RUN THAT HE SCREWED AROUND ON.

IN ONE YEAR HE IMPROVED BY 0.45s, ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AMOUNT THAT CARL IMPROVED BY IN ONE YEAR.

CARL WAS STILL MATURING DURING THAT YEAR WHILE BOLT WAS ALREADY MATURE.

CARL WAS NOT TRAINING FOR SPRINTING FOR HIS BASELINE WHILE BOLT WAS TRAINING FOR SPRINTING FOR HIS BASELINE.

CARL'S IMPROVEMENT TOOK HIM TO 10.00 AND A WORLD LEAD, BUT A FULL 0.05 FROM THE WORLD RECORD, SOMETHING THAT WOULD TAKE CARL ANOTHER 6 YEARS TO ONLY EQUAL.

BOLT'S IMPROVEMENT TOOK HIM TO 9.5x AND A WORLD RECORD BY THE LARGEST MARGIN IN HISTORY.

IN HIS SECOND REAL 100M, HE RAN WITHIN 0.02 OF THE WORLD RECORD.

BOLT SET THE WORLD RECORD IN HIS FIFTH SENIOR 100M RACE, WHILE LEWIS ONLY EQUALLED IT AFTER TRAINING AND COMPETING FOR 8 YEARS.

And there is lots more, but that is enough for now.

So in conveniently ommitting many facts essential for the understanding of this issue you have done all of us a disservice, although your attempt at a comparison is probably well-intentioned.

Make no mistake, I understand what you're saying, and I appreciate that Lewis' progression in the 100m was fantastic--but when you consider other facts, it is not in the same league as Bolt's progression in the 100m--nobody's ever has been.

Bolt is for sure a huge talent, and again may well be among the best 3 or 4 ever--but his 9.69 and 9.58 are highly suspect, especially considering that the 9.69 is believed to have been an honest 9.53-9.59 without all the stupidity.

And the concurrence of the implementation of a new anti-doping regime in Jamaica and the dramatic fall of Bolt's times is very suggestive--although I admit the fall in his times has also been concurrent with Bolt being injured...

BUT we have no basis for our knowledge that Bolt is injured, save for his own testimony and the testimony of those who support him, neither of which carries substantial weight as they are entirely self-serving...

BUT we DO know about the new Jamaican anti-doping regime, and the problems with the old regime it has replaced. We don't know exactly the effects of the changeover, all we know is that there WAS a changeover, and that is more than we know for certain about Bolt's injury status.

I would dearly love to believe that Bolt was clean, I just cannot.

HOWEVER, if he either this year or next, runs mid-9.8x corrected with a crappy start, but demonstrates substantially better starting ability on a completely separate occasion, I would be willing to entertain the suggestion that he could run a 9.6x clean, with a +2.0 wind and a great start.

And if he goes even faster than mid-9.8x corrected, I will have to concede that 9.5x was for him a possibility clean, and at that point I may need to revise my beliefs in light of the new information.