Christian Coleman facing a possible suspension for 3 missed tests

with a good rt he'd be the official wr holder. discounting rt completely, he ran 18.99- just the run- bolt was over 19

stfu you rambling mess. don't care what you said about vicaut years ago to amuse yourself by showing off how you guessed right that he's very talented (or heard from someone else about him)

I'll just stick with facts, such as the fact that you constantly make tons of assumptions about black athletes and present them as 'facts', then say the lone caucasian under 9.95 is likely the fastest 'clean' man ever. weirdo

casual obsever wrote:

Top-10

Bolt (doped trainer partner, Jamaican clen scandal, DQ’d in 4x 100 relay in Beijing)

Blake - doped

Gay - doped

Powell - doped

Gatlin - doped

Coleman - prov. banned

Carter - doped

Montgomery - doped

Greene - doped

Mullings - doped

Thompson – 9.82 with a 1.7 tail wind

blake- a substance not on the doping banned list, jamaicans themselves insisted he get 1 year after world cleared him

gay- banned when old, years after pb's

asafa- same as gay

gatlin- doped years ago, before pb's

greene- never caught at all

rekrunner wrote:

Six years ago "Sprintgeezer" said some 9.85 basic performances were untainted (also seems arbitrary).

Wow, dimwits are out in force now. Yeah, the whole thread, and my thousands of posts here, and my record on these issues, and all the actual evidence that exists—-and you call it arbitrary.

I set out criteria for “taint”. Said “taint” was the taint of illegitimacy. Yes, I was the initial arbiter of the criteria, but they were out there for a long time, and many had all sorts of input.

If you disagree with the criteria, then do it—otherwise, your disparagement carries no weight.

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.

Yes, that such an estimate exists is a fact—but that it exists has absolutely no bearing on its truth, or accuracy.

How you can believe it accurate in the face of history to the contrary is beyond me. Is it possible? Yes. What is the probability? Effectively zero.

Also, let’s talk about cleanliness. If they didn’t do any reasonable analysis of doping, then they will assume what they set out to prove, rendering it meaningless.

BTW the criteria themselves are not arbitrary—they are not only rationally related to the issue of legitimacy, they are central and critical to that determination.

Moving up the ladder, yes it was I who decided to discuss the concept of legitimacy. It is a concept that is of interest to me, especially so that justice is served via undeserving competitors not receiving unjust enrichment at the expense of deserving competitors.

This interest derives from my personal moral compass. If you have different morals and are interested in different concepts, then state and discuss them like an adult. If you don’t find my interests interesting, then just ignore them. If you find my interest repugnant to your own moral standards, then make it explicit so that there can be a discussion and you thereby may have a chance to convince either myself or others to adjust our moral compasses accordingly.

But don’t just be juvenile, vitriolic, hateful, and stupid, because it’s a waste of time. Each of us has only so much time on the planet. Make sure to make good use of it, because of you don’t, they only person you will be short-changing will be yourself.

I should point out that the taint was not just one of legitimacy, but also of believability—and that’s why questionable races like in Eugene, Rieti, P-O-S, etc are considered. Same underlying quest for justice for individuals via a relevant historical record.

must struck a nerve lol. you're embarrassing yourself. not that thousands of posts of weaseling, pseudo intellectual rambling all designed to end up tainting black athletes with rumors and gloriously concluding that lemaitre just may be the fastest ever clean sprinter weren't embarrassing enough.

no one seems to care to look at anymore of your same thing after same thing rants.

btw you're a racist pos and an all round lunatic

Sprintgeezer wrote:

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.

Yes, that such an estimate exists is a fact—but that it exists has absolutely no bearing on its truth, or accuracy.

How you can believe it accurate in the face of history to the contrary is beyond me. Is it possible? Yes. What is the probability? Effectively zero.

Also, let’s talk about cleanliness. If they didn’t do any reasonable analysis of doping, then they will assume what they set out to prove, rendering it meaningless.

What it means is, physiologists agree we are nowhere near reaching the biomechanical limit of a human. I.e. drugs are not required to surpass that time.

It doesn't mean athletes haven't taken drugs. They evidently have. It also doesn't mean that those drugs didn't work for those athletes.

It just means that 9.58 isn't automatically doped because it's faster than an arbitrary time.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Wow, dimwits are out in force now. Yeah, the whole thread, and my thousands of posts here, and my record on these issues, and all the actual evidence that exists—-and you call it arbitrary.

I set out criteria for “taint”. Said “taint” was the taint of illegitimacy. Yes, I was the initial arbiter of the criteria, but they were out there for a long time, and many had all sorts of input.

If you disagree with the criteria, then do it—otherwise, your disparagement carries no weight.

It wasn't to suggest 9.84 is right or wrong, or better or worse, but to highlight differences that highly depend on personal assumptions and subjective criteria: One poster "blackloud" says the best un-juiced performances of the rest of humanity are "9.9x basic", going so far as to call it the "only way", while another "Sprintgeezer" says several 9.84 performances are untainted.

Having said that, your criteria for "taint" includes "justifiable cloud of suspicion" -- how is that not arbitrary?

I JUST EXPLAINED HOW.?

ex-runner wrote:

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Yes, that such an estimate exists is a fact—but that it exists has absolutely no bearing on its truth, or accuracy.

How you can believe it accurate in the face of history to the contrary is beyond me. Is it possible? Yes. What is the probability? Effectively zero.

Also, let’s talk about cleanliness. If they didn’t do any reasonable analysis of doping, then they will assume what they set out to prove, rendering it meaningless.

What it means is, physiologists agree we are nowhere near reaching the biomechanical limit of a human. I.e. drugs are not required to surpass that time.

It doesn't mean athletes haven't taken drugs. They evidently have. It also doesn't mean that those drugs didn't work for those athletes.

It just means that 9.58 isn't automatically doped because it's faster than an arbitrary time.

Let’s dispense with this—post a link and we can go through the model assumptions, etc.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

I JUST EXPLAINED HOW.?

I just re-read your explanation, and it all seems rather circular, and still subject to the eye of the beholder.

Performances are legitimate and believable if they are not justifiably suspicious.

Ok, then I will start.

I found an ESPN article:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.com/olympics/trackandfield/story/_/id/17106676/speed-limit-how-fast-human-being-run-100-meters%3fplatform=amp

All it says is that 1) many techniques have contributed, and 2) will continue to contribute to, the lowering of the WR.

1 is certain, obviously. Equally obviously, one of those factors is doping, since multiple WR-holders have tested positive while they held the WR, and others afterward.

2 is total conjecture. Nobody knows if 9.58 will ever be broken...but if it will be, doping will be one of the available techniques.

This article says absolutely nothing about clean limits.

Yes one could argue that even if you remove all convicted dopers and likely cases from the record, the record has continued to advance—but that advancement would be small, creeping, and diminishing, and would in no way suggest 9.2, or 9.27, to be possible, as Richmond suggests—nor would it convincingly suggest 9.58 to be possible.

Further, the article presents no data, and no analysis.

Maybe you have more.

rekrunner wrote:

Sprintgeezer wrote:

I JUST EXPLAINED HOW.?

I just re-read your explanation, and it all seems rather circular, and still subject to the eye of the beholder.

Performances are legitimate and believable if they are not justifiably suspicious.

How is it that you missed what the post said? OMG rekrunner, what’s the deal?

Yes those two things say essentially the same thing, obviously—but that was not the chain of explanation offered.

I've linked the full article.

https://www.iaaf.org/download/downloadnsa?filename=4b5bd54f-42ba-4899-9494-8947ee4f8fe4.pdf&urlslug=how-fast-can-a-human-run

The estimations are based on factors such as human quadriceps muscle contraction speeds and the effect on ground contact time.

We can agree to disagree.

I am never going to believe you need drugs to run a certain time and you believe there is a clean limit. That's ok.

Even if someone ran 9.1 I wouldn't assume they are doping. I find the likeliness of an extreme outlier more likely to be due to the near infinite capacity of mutations in the human genome to have produced a wonder athlete; rather than one guy to have got his hands on drugs nobody else has.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I just re-read your explanation, and it all seems rather circular, and still subject to the eye of the beholder.

Performances are legitimate and believable if they are not justifiably suspicious.

How is it that you missed what the post said? OMG rekrunner, what’s the deal?

Yes those two things say essentially the same thing, obviously—but that was not the chain of explanation offered.

Sorry, I'm not using the term "arbitrary" correctly. What I mean is "subjective".

It was not my point to challenge the legitimacy of your idea of legitimacy, but to contrast one person's limit of 9.9x un-juiced performances, for anyone that is not Bolt, with another person's idea that several 9.84-9.85 performances are legitimate.

ex-runner wrote:

We can agree to disagree....you believe there is a clean limit.

Even if someone ran 9.1 I wouldn't assume they are doping.

I don’t think I have ever said that there is a clean limit.

What I have said is that nobody thus far has ever demonstrated that it has been possible to go sub-9.84 cleanly.

And your last part about 9.1, well...I’m charitable, maybe you want to walk that back. The “physiologist” who wrote the article thought that 9.26 could well be possible this year.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

ex-runner wrote:

We can agree to disagree....you believe there is a clean limit.

Even if someone ran 9.1 I wouldn't assume they are doping.

I don’t think I have ever said that there is a clean limit.

What I have said is that nobody thus far has ever demonstrated that it has been possible to go sub-9.84 cleanly.

And your last part about 9.1, well...I’m charitable, maybe you want to walk that back. The “physiologist” who wrote the article thought that 9.26 could well be possible this year.

This looks like bait and switch.

Your exercise was not about demonstrated "clean" performances, but rather your judgement, with some collective input, of "untainted" or legitimate or believable performances, largely based on some personal sense of justice guided by your personal moral compass.

Your list does not mean that any of the top 67 performances by the top 10 fastest athletes, accepted by World Athletics, are not clean. Nor does it mean that the performances you've decided were untainted are clean.