Christian Coleman facing a possible suspension for 3 missed tests

Exactly what was the bait, and what was the switch? I probably won’t go to the trouble of finding where in the archives I stated exactly what I just said.

There is no such thing as a “demonstrated clean performance”, therefore that was not the object of the exercise. Performances are prima facie legit and believable unless there is sufficient evidence to the contrary.

Believability is not “largely based on some personal sense of justice guided by my personal moral compass”, it is an analysis of likely equipment or operational defects. To the extent that legitimacy is, my personal sense of justice and moral compass” are aligned with not only those of the regulatory system, but also with those of our society in general.

While you may personally disagree with some of the criteria, you likely don’t disagree with the overall set of criteria, unless you are a sociopath. Where my personal judgment enters is in deciding what weight to assign the various pieces of what society in general considers to be evidence.

It is not about the athletes, but about the performances.

As to your last paragraph, I have but one word in response: obviously. But what it does mean is that they are tainted, which is why the thread was not entitled “Fastest historic clean 100m times”

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.

I don't need to change my argument, nor retract 9.1.

I also find it slightly distasteful that you would try to attack the personal credentials of the writer of an article published by the IAAF, rather than read his paper and provide considered, scientific based criticism of it.

It appears you are back tracking from your assumption of a clean limit also.

I am going to stay firm with my opinion that I do not believe a limit in human performance to be attributed to drug usage, and maintain that there are no drugs that will take an athlete beyond the biomechanical, physical limit of a human. There are factors such as the force human bones and joints can take, of course.

But I believe the limit in human performance to exist somewhere in a graph of functions including principally, among others; Force generated, athlete weight, frequency of muscle contraction, fatigue performance.

You will notice that some of the factors balance themselves out, such as maximum force and athlete weight. More force is absolutely possible, but then athlete weight increases.

Also the higher the frequency of muscle contractions, the faster the athlete will fatigue.

It's a balance.

Again, none of this means that I don't think the drugs some athletes took helped them to improve. It just means that it is possible to get to those same levels clean also. Training is about optimising the athlete. You can't just have more of everything, even with drugs.

that's weak. pretending to be 'calm and rational' after throwing despicable tantrums is not exactly a high iq move, nor is it believable. and I was obviously replying to you, not engaging anyone else, you numbskull.

btw dailymail called, said they already miss you in their comments section

I won't force you to search the archives. Just simply scroll to the top of this page, where you said:

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

Note your previous use of the word "tainted" (the bait), and now your use of the word "cleanly" (the switch), and now the switch back to the word "tainted". If I understand your carefully crafted criteria to be considered "tainted", these words are not interchangeable.

I don't disagree with the criteria, but simply find criteria like "justifiable cloud of suspicion" can mean 100 things to 100 people.

If it's about performances, and you align yourself in part with the regulatory system, these factors don't explain why Bolt, a 2009 Gay, and a 2015 Gatlin are off the list. It must be something else. Is it society in general? They love Bolt. They hate Gatlin. Gay is in between.

Whoa there, how did I “attack his credentials”?? I wrote “physiologist” precisely because I haven’t yet read the paper, and I have no idea of his credentials, or if that’s what he calls himself. That description was from the article, not from the paper.

And yes, I will read it and offer commentary, of course! I am pretty sure that I have read it in the past.

And I haven’t backtracked, you can look at what I wrote. I don’t believe I have discussed a “clean limit”, only demonstrated performances.

By definition, drugs can take humans beyond their natural biochemical and mechanical limits.Biochemically it is obvious, even if just before metabolism occurs. It is why alcohol or thc gets you wasted. And anabolics build tissue that cannot otherwise be either built or sustained. That is why you will never see a natural bodybuilder look like Ronnie Coleman.

But if you believe 9.1 is possible, then you might also believe that a Ronnie Coleman physique is possible. Of course it is impossible to prove such a belief false—but I will give it a huge lol and just say ok, then.

Believe it or not, guys at the top of sprinting really are the fastest. Essentially everybody sprints, even in deepest Africa. There are agents combing the continent for talented kids, combing the world. Look at the kid-from-nowhere in Indonesia.

Somewhere around mid-9.8’s to low-9.9’s is the best that anybody has done who has not used. Even if you believe Bolt to be clean, 9.6 is where 1 person has ended up. 9.1 not only stretches belief, it is laughable for the foreseeable future. As for the unforeseeable future, that’s pure fantasy. I will say that that optimum genetically engineered and trained human as we understand them would go 9.2 at some point in a fantasy future. A clownish piece of engineering might go 7 seconds, who knows—but would it be human?

aaaand some more guesses and conjectures. just the same after same. 'used' apparently means drugs made them run faster than naturally able. no proof, just guessing. cause ronnie coleman. 9.2 is a fantasy. no proof, just guessing. doesn't matter if the ban was excessive, for a substance not on the banned list. doesn't matter if you got caught with a simple drug they'd caught earlier if you used, or that it happened years after your pb's. 9.8 and 'ok lol then' are the best arguments ay.

oops forgot he's now ignoring not just arguments but me in general. lol ok then

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.

Why do you always ignore the fact that maximum sprint speed is genetic? Because you were not really a true sprinter? That’s the truth really isn’t it? But something you can’t admit.