Blake 19.26 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NYRun1 wrote:

what was bolt's PB in the 400 as a 17 year old? what did kirani run?

let's compare apples to apples shall we?

first of all Bolt is a 200 m specialist that ran the 400 m for endurance while James is 400 m specialist that runs the 200 m for speed, so if they are to be compared it has to be at their respective specialist event.

Bolt at 17 19.93 and 45.35.

James at 17 20.94 and 45.01.

moshimoshi wrote:Drugs cannot make you exceed your natural limits

Vertigo wrote:Someone doesnt't know how PED's work

You put aside what I was saying about genetics. I don't think it's mere semantics to say that while you can take something to make your performance better, you cannot be better than your genes. And nothing gives you a bigger advantage over the next person than your genes.

Consider how people muddle through an explanation of the subject of PEDS and elite performance in sprints.

They're all at it, although this doesn't explain elite performance by a few.

A few people on a small slightly chaotic Caribbean island are at it, but not people in the US or Europe or Asia.

Two people (Bolt, Blake) in a particular training group are at it, but no-one else in the training group.

There's no possibility of a unique gene pool here, it must be doping, but on the other hand it's accepted there is a unique gene pool in Kenya.

Well...

This weekend will see the Great North Run in Gateshead in England. According to the website there are 54,000 runners. This means somebody will win the race, and somebody will come 54,000th. What will separate these two people, across this vast gulf of performance differential, will be largely genetic (and also, whether or not they are dressed as a lion and carrying a plastic bucket).

Bam! wrote:

For those of you who saw the race live, did you see Bolt's kind of hesitant reaction at the end of Blake's race, when he "congratulated" Blake?

It was really funny! No swagger there! Just some...hesitation...

I used both steroids and SARMs and I can tell you that SARMs (specificly S-4) are far superior as a stuff increasing strength endurance. I call it the "Stakhanovite effect". So yes, it can markedly improve performance in the regime of anaerobic glycolysis, which was a problem for all dopers in the past.

notkosher wrote:

I hear you. Same way I felt when I heard a white guy had broken 10 seconds for 100m and 20 seconds for 200m. And then today Rupp finished ahead of several Africans and sets an Amercian record. Not to mention Uceny. Hmmm....

And when Africans cheated on a mass scale 10-15 years ago and finished ahead of white guys, you didn't mind it?

C'MON, do you mean it seriously? The guys are professional athletes. They are aware of the fact that they are tested and that they must watch, what they eat. These are one of those pathetic excuses that we hear over and over again.

@ SARMAN, I know you are not defending Blake. Blake is highly suspect and regardless if he took a sexual enhancement drug, he of all people should know that any foreign substance taken in his system is highly risky. So, yeah, I am not buying that story.

BTW, did you see how he motored past Dix in the backstretch? Dix ran one of the fastest times in the 200m ever BUT the way Blake ran him down, that was outright scary. I don't even think Bolt would stand a chance with a fully amped up Blake racing against him.

I know. No way!

no. let's try to have an honest discussion here, shall we do not try to re-write history.

at 17 Bolt was a 400 runner. There was no thought of specialization as yet. He was not running any 400M for endurance. If that was the case, he would still be doing it now.

now when they ran their PBs at 17 were their 200/400 performances done in same meet thus a degradation of times due to having run rounds?

NYRun1 wrote:

no. let's try to have an honest discussion here, shall we do not try to re-write history.

at 17 Bolt was a 400 runner. There was no thought of specialization as yet. He was not running any 400M for endurance. If that was the case, he would still be doing it now.

now when they ran their PBs at 17 were their 200/400 performances done in same meet thus a degradation of times due to having run rounds?

____________________________________________

Not sure iof I buy into the importance of these statements orr the ones that precede them.

When I was an athlete and 17 years old my goal would be to prepare myself for 'adulthood'. Your event is not rock solid at 17 yrs. His coach / their coaches, could very well be preparing them for other things.

The fact that they ran those distances and times is not really anything more than demonstrating their great talent. And future potential. Bolt may not be the next coming of the great 400 runner. (I do think he may be able to set a new world record now). He and his coach may have determined early that he doesn't have the psyche to run rounds of a 400 m. Given a choice of being the best 100 m and the world, or the best 400 m man. I think I'd choset he former. I suspect their coaches were smart enought o build them towards their current goals. I wouldn't put too much thought into it.

And I was a 400 m man.

Bottom line is Blake is a beast. To the guy who can't believe that Dix is faster than Lewis and Marsh, come one man, that was a different era. What was the world records back then? 9.9 and 19.7. Different training, different shoes, different track surfaces. Is that so hard to believe?

Sprint Geezer wrote:

I mean that Jeter hasn't been caught.

Now some guy named Yohan Blake, who is about the same size physically as me, has a WR run in the 200m, a PR by, what, half a second, after averaging something like a 9.84 corrected this year?

The fix is so totally in.

Amazing run, though!

If you're going to dope, you might as well win, or run a WR race!

.

Like Paula Radcliffe's 2:15 marathon?

Oh wait. Paula is white, she wouldn't cheat. Sorry.

You are very insecure that you must always make things racial. Weak, just weak.

second_that wrote:

I second that! He seems to be very insecure!

bobskinuts wrote:

[quote]The New UncleB wrote:

[quote]NYRun1 wrote:

no one is accusing every winner of cheating. we are accusing the outlier performances. the

flojos

lance armstrongs

mark mcguires

usain bolts and now

yohan blakes

of the world

But not Sally Pearson's 12.28??

___________________________

See you're response to any doping accusation - and remember that Blake has already been found to be a doper - is to accuse a white person.

You are one sorry SOB. And a person with an incredible inferiority complex. If you were 14 years old I might understand, but I actauly think you are over 21 years old and should know better. Note I never called you an adult. That would be obviously incorrect.

Your answer to everything is to throw someone else under the bus. What a ponce you must be in the real world.

Let me see if I have this right. To put up a list of black runners who we can suspect of drug use without any documented evidence because of "outlier" performances is just fine but to ask why a white athlete should not be included on that list as she also has an outlier performance makes you angry? Can you explain this to me?

dudeas wrote:

You are very insecure that you must always make things racial. Weak, just weak.

I see. White posters accusing black athletes -- and only blacks -- of cheating is not "racial".

But pointing out that the standards used to accuse the black guys of cheating also apply to whites such as Sally Pearson and Paula Radcliffe makes me insecure and makes me guilty of making things "racial"?

Think that through and then see if you can articulate why you feel this to be the case.

UNcle B.

What makes Sally Pearson's run an outlier?

She's been within 15 hundredths of her PB for the last couple of years, and history shows that at her age she's still in the up side range.

She isn't 31 years old and established.

Still I do get your point. I've never seen a whiter person than her, and if finding a white person to go after is your goal, then you couldn't find a whiter one to pick on.

But you should learn a bit more about the event. I don't think womens hurdles are a particularly great event establish limits on. Not all world records are equal.

The womens hurdles are too low to really need a great hurdler to perform well. So you end up with a bunch of people who are neither super sprinters, nor super hurdlers.

One day a pretty good sprinter, and an excellent hurdler turns up - Sally Pearson - and she runs a great time. Not a 19.19 or 19.26 great time, but a great time.

Another thing. I don't think the 100 mh record is a good one. Even though it was set by the 'evil' European. It's not of the same strength of the mens 110 hurdles.

I think you have to get to around 12.05 - 12.1 before it is of the same calibre of the 12.9 runs in the mens.

Sally Pearson is the possibly the best hurdler in the world. (Short hurdles withstanding) There is not one women hurlder in her races who is as technically astute as her. She is also the fastest sprinter in Australia - which historically is a great sprinting nation for women. She's probably in the top 15 women sprinters in the planet.

It's no surprise that she threatens this record. But it doesn't mean she'd doping.

I don't think there is an athlete on earth who has been accused more often than Lance Armstrong. He's white. All the talk about European doping doesn't meet your color expectation? No black sprinters from Russia in my memory. Plenty of white ones. Plenty of dopers.

I don't think there is a sport with more positive tests per super start than Cycling. They're are all white.

Methinks you try to hard to thow the race card.

I could give two hoots who they catch as long as they catch them.

One thing I will give you. If you want to find dopers, look in the list of fastest and strongest athletes. That's where they are.

So who are the fastest and best right now?

[ [/quote]

I see. White posters accusing black athletes -- and only blacks -- of cheating is not "racial".

_____________________________________________

How do you know I am white?

Was it my grammar? If so I find that a little insulting.

I am not sure about Paula Radcliffe. She has run about 2 good races in her life, and makes a career of promising to turn up, and never turning up. I think she is more sad than juiced.

The fact that she seems to have blown up after her one big run tells me that maybe she is not juiced.

All I can go on is the tests. So she's clean until they find otherwise. Like everyone else.

Thankfully there is plenty of great advice for WADA to follow, right here on this amazingly educated and knowledgable board.

Your bitterness is so funny. You cheer me up every time I read your posts. I know Blake. I know he is a phenom. Always has been from he was 14years old and training with the 'big boys'.

You purport to use 'statistical analysis' to point to outliers but I understand that what the human mind cannot comprehend, he criticizes.

When they were talking about Bolt I was quietly saying wait till Blake matures. Now, he has and your panties are all in a bunch. I cannot convince as long you hold on to these outlier theories, lack of surprise, muscular builds or whatever crap you say that is easily explained.

Muscles that come eating real 'strong Jamaican food' as opposed to pasta,steaks and whatever 'weak sauce' Americans eat. Lack of surprise comes from the fact that these people actually train so they know what they're capable of and we are not sissies and jump and giggle when we win a race we expect to.

The main one is outliers such as the fact that Blake runs the 200m sparingly on the circuit but far more in training so he knows what he can do. He relaxed the first 100 and was still close to Dix who is not much better than a 9.9-10.0 runner. Dix was trying to maintain while Blake had not expended much energy and just dusted that fat show-off.

Bolt jumps from 10.03....so what. That was his first real 100m race and even that was an experiment. That was with no training for the event so that debunks your sh1t even more

Finally, we are just better...either accept it or whine all day...your choice.

As I said Mullings trains and lives abroad. He and your American hero Mr.Gay are buddies so ask them about it. We know nothing of what he does.He is a visitor to Jamaica.He IS good but many of us don't trust him. Find a local athlete who has been caught with anything more than a painkiller for a toothache or a stimulant similar to what Rodgers or Merritt took and you have a point.

Merlene Ottey was as good if not better than our current female athletes. She was just born in an era when every American and East German took drugs for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

LOL...it bun unnu bad. 197 posts and counting....bad mind is active

Iamnot visible wrote:

[

I see. White posters accusing black athletes -- and only blacks -- of cheating is not "racial".

_____________________________________________

"How do you know I am white?" You're not?

"All I can go on is the tests. So she's clean until they find otherwise. Like everyone else." Well. like everyone else who is white you mean.

"Thankfully there is plenty of great advice for WADA to follow, right here on this amazingly educated and knowledgable board". Wow!

UshouldwakeupracistB wrote:

One thing I will give you. If you want to find dopers, look in the list of fastest and strongest athletes. That's where they are.

So who are the fastest and best right now?

.

Black athletes have been known to be the fastest and best for at least 60 years -- since well before the doping era.

You argue, on the one hand, that Sally Pearson is likely not doping because she is "technically astute" and the "fastest sprinter in Australia - which historically is a great sprinting nation for women". I guess being the fastest and the best in the 100 meter hurdles for women is somehow excused from your rule of look to who the fastest and best are to id the dopers?

Y. Blake, who is accused of being a doper in the original post to which I responded and introduced Sally Pearson's name, is not "technically astute"? Does techically astute apply to any black athletes that you cn think of? Or maybe you want to argue that Jamaica is not historically a great springing nation for men.