Ben Johnson vs Usain Bolt

As far as Bolt being clean goes, we saw the REAL, un-modified Bolt at the Jamaican trials in 2012

200m: 19.83 (-0.5)

100m: 9.86 (+1.1)

Those are times that can be believed--essentially, he is as fast as Lewis was.

He was gripping--tight arm action, gritting his teeth, last out of the blocks, up too early, etc.

But there you have it, THAT was the real Bolt in 2012.

I grant the possibility that he did gain some fitness, and that his adjusted 9.75 100m could have been done cleanly...

...however, I think that the above numbers are honest.

The question is whether or not Bolt would have undergone the Wohlfahrt modification had it not been for having lost to Blake in the 1 and the 2 at trials. Considering he went an adjusted 9.75 later in the season but pre-Games, that would have been good enough to beat anybody in the world except for Blake.

Had it not been for Blake, I think we could have seen a clean Olympic 100m--if one can characterize Gatlin as clean.

In any event, I am certain that those clean times from Bolt would beat any clean times by the likes of Johnson--but I think that Johnson was maybe the highest-responder ever to PED's, higher even than Bolt.

Also, I think that Lewis would have put up Bolt's times if he had used what Bolt is using, and if he had competed and trained in the same era as Bolt.

How about a race between in Beijing or London with Bolt, Lewis, all versions of Johnson, Powell, Blake, ect with all of them doping using today's chemistry. Who wins?

Just wanted to comment on Ben' start.

He held the world record at 60m with a 6.41.

Bolt's 60m split in his 9.58 race was 6.31 and he lead at every phase of the race.

Clearly neither Blake nor Powell, because they can't beat Bolt now.

That leaves Lewis, Bailey, Johnson, Hayes, and Bolt.

I think that Lewis and Bolt are intrinsically very similar--that is to say, Bolt is basically a doped Lewis.

I think also that Bailey had more intrinsic 100m ability than either Lewis or Bolt, so I would have to put Bailey above those two. Why do I think that? He had Bolt's legs cleanly, with a more compact upper body that didn't weigh as much. He was like a walking spring, all wonky and weird, but the raw material that was there to be harnessed was, in a word, unmatched.

That leaves Bailey, Johnson, and Hayes.

Although almost without a doubt we did not see the best from Johnson, what we saw was great for him. With only a bit better track and equipment, Bailey almost equalled clean what Johnson did massively doped. Put Bailey on the same stuff and he'd beat Johnson.

That leaves Bailey and Hayes. Can there be any doubt that Hayes, a 10-flat/low 10.0x guy on a crap cinder track in borrowed leather spikes, would have run at least 9.85 on a modern surface in modern equipment? No.

In fact, I think he would have gone even faster than 9.85, somewhere between 9.85 and 9.80

For his part, Bailey could have gone that fast in Atlanta had he not ambled out of the blocks.

Were Bailey and Hayes both clean and training and competing under the same conditions, I have no idea who would win--it would depend on how they were feeling that day, and how well they ran their race. A long series between the two would see-saw back-and-forth as to who won.

Some argue that Hayes was doped. To be sure, there were doping compounds available in his era. I have zero idea whether or not he took anything during his athletic career. Somehow I doubt it--it cost money (of which he had none), and I find it difficult to believe that during an era of crappy race relations, anybody would undertake to supply a black man with something that would contribute to his success.

Unless somebody made a bunch of money gambling on him, that is. I don't know, do you?

I assume that Hayes was running cleanly, as was Bailey.

Doped with today's dope, sprinting on today's tracks and using today's training and equipment, I sincerely believe they would both be in the mid-high 9.5x range adjusted.

And although Johnson was a high responder, I don't think he starts with as much intrinsic ability as either of those 2 guys, so he wouldn't end up quite as good in the end--I would give him around 9.60-9.65 adjusted, the same as Bolt.

Sprintgeezer-

You cannot just make up facts that benefit your claim. You cannot say "well obviously Bolt is on drugs", when you have absolutely ZERO evidence to back this up. That is not an argument.

In the academic world, the fastest way to loose credibility is to make things up.

What you have are theories and ideas on what you think Bolt is using, but until you have concrete proof (i.e. positive drug test, EPO bottles in his bedroom, whatever), your claims are just speculative nonsense.

Master Troll--

I do not, as you suggested, simply say "well obviously Bolt is on drugs".

I have described the proposition, arguments, and evidence many times.

You need to think about what evidence is, and how it relates to a proposition, and how an argument is developed.

It is all here within these posts on this message board, the latest being his winning style in London and his visits to Wohlfahrt, and how his trajectory tracked wonderfully well that of Johnson in 1988--it was almost too good to be true.

But that was only the icing on the cake, really.

**************************

Back to the main topic, I guess that Gatlin and Gay must also be considered.

Between those two, IMO we have seen what Gatlin is capable of while doped, and it's not as good as what Gay has produced, whether doped or not.

So that leaves Gay for possible inclusion. I have stated before that his 9.69 (+2.0) is right at the limit of what I believe naturally possible. IF it was doped, then he's not up there with the best, and Bailey and Hayes still battle for the #1 position.

IF it was clean, then we have seen his limit--he ran that, as well as his 9.71 (+0.9), and destroyed himself in so doing. Although I have my suspicions about Gay, I err toward the possibility that he is clean--his injury status, among other things, suggests that there is at least as good a chance of him being clean as not. So, at an assumed-clean 9.7, I think that he would do maybe a 9.62-9.67 adjusted if doped the same as, say, Blake.

So, I still don't think that he could challenge Hayes or Bailey for top spot, unless he was a high responder--although he would be right in the thick of things in any given race.

And yes, I know that this is talking out my a$$, in case you think I have any delusions to the contrary.

Gay is the one about whom I have the weakest feeling about being correct. He really is an unknown to me. Powell is also in that camp, if his alleged injuries are physical rather than just hurt feelings.

The other guys--Mullings, Greene, Montgomery, Carter--can be entirely forgotten about in this discussion, IMO.

Surin would need to be in the discussion as well, but I would give him adjusted times a bit worse than Gay's. Surin was already highly developed physically, and well-trained, and I don't know that he would have been a high responder to drugs.

I put Fredericks in around the same category as Surin, with Boldon not far behind.

How about another hypothetical.

This time let's pretend that the results of Lewis, Bailey, and Bolt were doped using the available chemistry of their era.

How fast does each run on modern tracks and equipment and using today's chemistry?

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Master Troll--

I do not, as you suggested, simply say "well obviously Bolt is on drugs".

I have described the proposition, arguments, and evidence many times.

You need to think about what evidence is, and how it relates to a proposition, and how an argument is developed.

It is all here within these posts on this message board, the latest being his winning style in London and his visits to Wohlfahrt, and how his trajectory tracked wonderfully well that of Johnson in 1988--it was almost too good to be true.

But that was only the icing on the cake, really.

Sprintgeezer-

I realize you never outright, specifically stated that Bolt was on drugs. However in your various posts you have implied that Bolt has used drugs at least since 2008, and used that implication repeatedly to further your claim that Johnson could beat Bolt. An argument based on non-evidence, is nonsense.

I know exactly what constitutes evidence. Evidence is something physical, that cannot be disputed. 2 positive drug tests cannot be disputed as evidence of drug use. Those are the rules laid out today by anti-doping agencies.

You don't have this. You don't have a link of ANY KIND to a reputable source informing the public of such a positive test. Therefore, YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE.

I'll concede, Bolt's 2012 season was spectacularly impressive, and I have doubts myself. However THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE. Somebody having a good season IS NOT EVIDENCE OF DRUG USE.

If it was, then where do we draw the line? How well does someone have to perform for us to start tossing around accusations? Does it start at someone running 9.9? 9.8? 9.7? Have you ever considered that maybe Bolt is just that good?

And lots of athletes travel to other countries to receive advanced treatment. Sarah Faucet went to Europe (Germany I believe) for cancer treatments. It's not about drugs, it's about where the best doctors are.

You are the one who needs to be educated on what constitutes evidence. If you tried your type of snake-oil techniques in modern academic debates, they'd cut your b*lls off. No one would ever listen to what you have to say ever again.

Master Troll--

Uh, I'm no sure what to say without sounding like a lecturing dipshxt.

However, your belief that "Evidence is something physical, that cannot be disputed." is completely wrong.

Briefly, evidence for a proposition is anything that tends to render that proposition more likely than not. I will leave it at that.

Advanced treatment? Absolutely--but what was his illness? Slowness?

He runs tight 9.8's while gripping and losing to Blake, and for help he goes to a doctor rather than to a coach, physio, the track, or the weight room? lol, EXACTLY tracking Johnson's 1988 trajectory.

I won't belabor that point any longer, it is well-described on another thread.

"It's not about drugs, it's about where the best doctors are."

Because doctors don't confidentially administer or supply drugs. Oh, wait...

Where do we draw the line? I don't know about "we", but I know about me, and I draw it at 9.80, and for good reasons, also well-discussed on other threads.

Come on, man, don't be such a fanboy of Bolt. He's great, there's no question--even if he were clean, he'd be great--but he's not super-human.

Research the concept of argumentation a bit, and really think about evidence in relation to the Bolt situation.

9.30--

I had a big post that got eaten!

Short answer: Bolt 9.58, Bailey 9.76, Lewis 9.86 on old chemistry, Bolt 9.58, Bailey 9.70, Lewis 9.77 on new chemistry.

All sorts of reasons--wind, race execution, track surfaces, likely doping agents and dosing levels for each of the athletes, etc.

What do YOU think?

Once again, here is the real "smoking gun":

My sources are convinced that WADA may not be completely happy with everything we are doing. This was an Olympic year, and we admitted to doing minimal drug tests in the months leading up to the national trials. Is that one of the things that could be concerning WADA?

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20121005/cleisure/cleisure4.html

And this is from an award-winning JAMAICAN journalist in a JAMAICAN publication.

I used to believe that it was only Glen Mills and Salazar that were really cheating, and many others (Asafa, I think) were clean. But there seems to be more and more evidence that the whole operation in Jamaica is corrupt. When JADCO started, the Jamaicans tried to stack the board with athletic federation members, and WADA required JADCO to be reconstituted. Now we seem to have a situation where the anti-doping agency, JAAA, and possibly the Jamaican government are all working in concert to NOT produce drug test positives. And when WADA started looking at this situation, suddenly a couple of sacrificial lambs were (ahem) "caught."

You can't get a drug positive if the anti-doping agency and perhaps the nation's government don't want to conduct any tests. Victor Conte has pointed out repeatedly that you don't catch real cheaters in the Diamond League in competition tests. The real cheating goes on much earlier in the fall-spring period. And that is the period where the Jamaican testers are apparently avoiding any testing that might produce positive results for their key athletes.

On the matter of Bolt vs. Ben 1.0, there was once a discussion of the subject on charliefrancis.com, where Charlie Francis himself said that he felt with modern tracks and technology, Ben would be capable of 9.6x, but would not be able to beat Bolt at his best.

What could you run on this new chemistry?

d!

Fun post, and fun that Charlie gives him a 9.6x like I did, talking out of my azz.

However, was he talking 9.60 or 9.69? Big difference, with respect to beating Bolt. 9.60 would be essentially even with him, 9.69 would be behind. I don't think we saw Johnson peak, and I assume that he would be around 9.60 if at his peak.

That is relevant, because I do believe we saw Bolt peak, in Beijing, and that is where I give him an adjusted 9.58, it doesn't come from his Berlin race.

In any case, it would be damn close, like I said.

"The real cheating goes on much earlier in the fall-spring period."

Readers need to know that now--RIGHT NOW, AT THIS VERY MOMENT, AS LANCE IS CONFESSING--guys are dosing, maybe while watching the Oprah show. And there's not a thing to be done, right now.

* wrote:

What could you run on this new chemistry?

lol

What's semi-interesting to me is that all these guys who used in the past are still around, and don't yet seem to have manifested any of the horrible effects that are often attributed to roid use.

Of course, I'm sure there's stuff I don't know about regarding their individual health--anybody have any info?

Here's an analogous question:

Who would win, 1988 FloJo vs 1999 Marion?

100m

Sprintgeezer wrote:

9.30--

I had a big post that got eaten!

Short answer: Bolt 9.58, Bailey 9.76, Lewis 9.86 on old chemistry, Bolt 9.58, Bailey 9.70, Lewis 9.77 on new chemistry.

All sorts of reasons--wind, race execution, track surfaces, likely doping agents and dosing levels for each of the athletes, etc.

What do YOU think?

Old: Bolt 9.72, Ben 9.75, Bailey 9.84, Lewis 9.86

New: Bolt 9.58, Ben 9.60-9.62, Bailey 9.70, Lewis 9.75

9.30--

Did you mean Lewis, Bailey, and Johnson, rather than Bolt?

Because if you assume that Bolt did the drugs of his era (THIS era), then his "old" should be the same as his "new", no?

I agree with all your numbers.

Regarding Bailey, however, I assume that he was clean, therefore using that assumption he would go faster than 9.70 on today's stuff, because the spread between his potential and his old performances would be greater.

I personally would put him ahead of Bolt in that situation.

A good look at a typical Bailey-esque start is to be had at around 0:33 of this vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UR4o8X9p_Y

Typical, but he was capable of so much better.

It's too bad that Bailey started real sprint training so relatively late in his career. His sprinting style--right from his start to his top-speed phase--left much to be desired.

There is no doubt that he improved under Pfaff. There was visible improvement in technique even from 1995 to 1996, although Pfaff must have groaned watching tape from Atlanta.

Too bad about the false starts and the ginger start he did, he should have cemented a 9.7x into the record books when he had the chance, because he was an injury waiting to happen, with that form.

To be fair, I don't know that his problems could have been substantially eliminated through having received better coaching, earlier. Although his deficiencies may have been lessened, I think they were structural to some extent--but I can't help wondering if that structure could have developed more favorably had he trained more seriously from an earlier age, under good guidance.