Christian Coleman facing a possible suspension for 3 missed tests

Can someone explain why you all think Christophe Lemaitre is "clean" and, say, Jimmy Vicaut isn't?

nah, deez blacks have been using the all along

no, I'm not ok with doping at all, don't make statements about me if you can simply ask. as for evidence, the only ones on gay is that he DID only use when getting older, and I said I believe high marks can be achieved naturally. you believe otherwise but that's just beliefs too

matt_london_413 wrote:

khorrps wrote:

yohan blake had a horrible start and a phenomenal last 100

bolt cruahed his record next year and went all out no stopping

Blake has the fastest 200.

in his 19.26 he did an 18.99 run (which is fastwr than what bolt ran in his 19.19 with a much better reaction) after a bad reaction and start, recovering towards the end of the turn

the poster I responded to was saying bolt got scared of running 'too fast' in beijing 2008 and slowed down for that reason to not look too suspicious, which is ironic. the next year he went hard the whole way and smashed his record badly

El Keniano wrote:

Can someone explain why you all think Christophe Lemaitre is "clean" and, say, Jimmy Vicaut isn't?

impossible to know

Clearly, Coleman is one arrogant idiot. Nothing special though, just about national average, in respect.

Regarding general doping issues, trends and problems ... out of competition just let people dope as much as they like, while imposing limits on levels of "this and that" during competition.

In biological passport, give them a room for X% variation on average from Y number of years , with strict numbers for levels of "foreign matter".

The only punishment should be life time ban.

Then we could all relax and enjoy "clean" competition.

I'm not saying drugs have no effect. I specifically said they do.

I'm saying you can get there without drugs, it just takes longer. Your body produces HGH and the changes you are trying to achieve by training; neuromuscular improvements, strength, reaction time, muscle fibre recruitment can all be done naturally.

That paper doesn't say HGH increases sprinting ability beyond what can naturally be achieved.

We are talking about the amount of time for a human to run 100m. There are many, many ways to get faster and reduce that time. Let's say drugs might get you from 9.9 to 9.8 over 2 years, clean it might take you 6 years or something.

not fair though since not everyone would have access to the right stuff. only the 'big' countries would dope theirs up to the highest technological standard and sweepup all the medals.

oh wait, that's exactly what they always do anyway

blackloud wrote:

On the subject of Bolt, correct me if I'm wrong;

The only way to have a clean Bolt, but a dirty everyone else, is to assume that the entirety of humanity runs basically 9.9x basic on no juice, but Bolt runs 9.6x on no juice. To me, that's absurd, but I could see one taking that stance, I guess.

The only way? Your choice of "9.9x basic" seems rather arbitrary.

Six years ago "Sprintgeezer" said some 9.85 basic performances were untainted (also seems arbitrary). Then an argument that 0.3 is unrealistic changes to 0.25.

Why stop there?

Assume the best of the rest of humanity can run 9.8x basic on no juice. Now 0.3 becomes 0.2,.

Or assume the best of the best of the rest of humanity can run 9.7x basic on no juice. Now 0.3.

Is there an argument where reasonable-ness is not directly related to a series of arbitrary assumptions?

ukathleticscoach wrote:

They found nothing on Armstrong either. Your gullible assertion that Gay took just to stay on top is based on no evidence. Seems like you are ok with doping anyway.

"They found nothing on Armstrong" is a myth.

"They" found something as early as July 1999, when 4 results came back positive for cortico-steroids.

"They" found more in 2004, when 6 samples from the 1999 tour were retested for EPO and found positive, with 2 more obviously positive, but below the threshold (as was a suspicious sample from the 2001 Tour de Suisse).

Eventually, "they" found a few dozen teammates, and employees, and friends speaking from their own firsthand knowledge.

Coleman is as dirty as any sub 9.85 sprinter in history. Association - agent is same as over a dozen busted sprinters and himself a criminal mobster like thug. Coach - association as he came up through the ranks makes it obvious. Missed test 4 times in little over a year is not carelessness or bad luck. Nike will do all they can to limit the length of the ban. All bans should be suspended until Dec 1, 2020 since no qualifying anyway until then for Olympics so it shouldn’t be used to eliminate bans either.

/thread

The fact for me remains that the human limit for the 100m has been calculated by sports physiologists and scientists to be around 9.2.

We are nowhere near that yet. I don't see any times run by any athlete currently, including Bolt's 9.58, as being humanly impossible without drugs.

Similarly, someone calculated that the marathon could be run in 1:57 in around 1970 when the WR was maybe 2:10. Now someone has run 1:59.

Drugs definitely help athletes get closer to their maximum potential faster, but I think even if drugs helped athletes in bygone eras get to times that we see as difficult today, future improvements in training, nutrition and medicine will help athletes achieve those times clean.

Also, I think you will find one of the UK newspapers did a sting on his management team straight after London 2017, exposing his management team as willing to obtain PEDs for the undercover reporter.

ex-runner wrote:

The fact for me remains that the human limit for the 100m has been calculated by sports physiologists and scientists to be around 9.2.

We are nowhere near that yet. I don't see any times run by any athlete currently, including Bolt's 9.58, as being humanly impossible without drugs.

Similarly, someone calculated that the marathon could be run in 1:57 in around 1970 when the WR was maybe 2:10. Now someone has run 1:59.

Drugs definitely help athletes get closer to their maximum potential faster, but I think even if drugs helped athletes in bygone eras get to times that we see as difficult today, future improvements in training, nutrition and medicine will help athletes achieve those times clean.

I was initially confused by a double negative above, but generally I agree with this.

In the past, I generally focused my scepticisms for male distance running events, but I see much of the same style of arguments for sprinting. It seems that in order to buy into all of the claims, it is obligatory to pick a significant set of assumptions and take them for granted.

We are in a Coleman thread about whereabouts failures.

Is that enough to conclude he is doping? Many seem to think so. But to do that we need to adopt an assumption that everyone is like Lance and US Postal, evading testing because they are glowing.

These top-10, top-20, top-30 lists look damning, but even then, is that enough?

Take Gatlin for example -- double time loser. Can we say he doped in 2015, and that these performances were not possible unjuiced? Not without making assumptions. Can we say that the earlier doping helped permanently? Again not without making assumptions.

I've seen a lot of studies on time trials for endurance events showing small improvements over a 3K or 5K or 10K time trial. Do any similar studies exist for 100m? (Serious question -- I don't know but never looked either).

In any case, these types of studies showing gains in the short term never conclude that athletes have exceeded their maximum un-juiced potential. To put it another way, are we seeing a quick jump to 90% maximum unjuiced potential, or 101% or 105%? Studies don't really answer that. We could be seeing, as you say "athletes get closer to their maximum potential faster", but maybe what a juiced athlete does in three months, could be replicated by the non-juiced athlete in three years, provided he avoids injuries.

Applying this to 100m, is there a clear idea of what unjuiced limits are versus juiced limits? I don't mean subjective conviction, but the best objective data. Assuming for argument that the difference is not zero, do we have any reason to favor 0.5 seconds over 0.05 seconds, besides our own guts and fear?

Seems like we could look to the women, and I would expect whatever gains we see from women on steroids, should be smaller for men, with naturally higher levels of testosterone and other male hormones. (Yes, this is partly my own assumption -- an expectation and not a conclusion).

So I repeat the question:

Is there an argument where reasonable-ness is not a direct consequence of a series of arbitrary assumptions?

khorrps wrote:

matt_london_413 wrote:

Blake has the fastest 200.

in his 19.26 he did an 18.99 run (which is fastwr than what bolt ran in his 19.19 with a much better reaction) after a bad reaction and start, recovering towards the end of the turn

the poster I responded to was saying bolt got scared of running 'too fast' in beijing 2008 and slowed down for that reason to not look too suspicious, which is ironic. the next year he went hard the whole way and smashed his record badly

I don't get where you're getting 18.99. It was 19.12 or 19.13 or something like that given the same reaction that bolt got.

El Keniano wrote:

Can someone explain why you all think Christophe Lemaitre is "clean" and, say, Jimmy Vicaut isn't?

Read the other thread.

And don’t ever bring up racist sht with me. I was exalting Vicaut when you were in diapers, when he was a junior—and have followed him continuously for years. Search sprintgeezer+vicaut if you’re not too lazy.

You people are ignorant because you are lazy. You’re not interesting, you’re not substantive, you go nowhere. You are just a bunch of sht-disturbers who enjoy irritating others, for your own juvenile enjoyment. You are something other than you believe you are. You are self-delusional in your abyss of juvenile woe.

Aspire, and work, to be more than you are.

A post from 2013:

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5285876

No...we can't say for sure about 2015, though a "double time loser" as you say, suggests career doper to me. But as I pointed out earlier, his silver medal at last year's WC with one of his faster times (9.89) at *37* yrs old is laughable!

Here's a good presentation on Gatlin; his cycles, why he used T, and how he got caught:

Yeah...avoiding injuries is one of the keys and sprinters get hurt alot particularly with those hamstrings, calfs & Achilles. Androgens produce increases in muscle mass & strength, which for a sprinter would be valuable since sprinting is pure explosiveness and rapid muscle contraction. More muscle = more strength/power = faster sprint speed.

I remember back in my college football days there were some guys in the off-season who gained tremendous muscular size and chopped tenths of seconds off their 40 yd time. Some of these guys came into fall camp 20-25 lbs heavier than the year before but yet so much faster. There's no way they could achieve that clean. No special diet would produce anything like that. And these guys had already reached maximal potential with years in the weight room with the general lifts we did for football back then (power cleans, squats, leg presses, bench, etc). And some were top sprinters in track when they were recruited out of HS. Of course, many of us knew what was going on "behind the curtain" Lol.