USAIN BOLT emergence and the Jamaicans unseen sprint domination, your thoughts?

unlikely wrote:

The more unlikely event in the Jamaican set of results than one phenomenal performer, though that is extremely unlikely, is the 1-2-3 sweep of the women's 100 meters in Beijing

americans burnt themselves out the trials & squad was torrie ( shitty consistency ), lauryn ( short & slow ) who just fazes less in big races in the past ( not peking, when jamas weren't fazed - her short & slow was finally shown up )

yanks didn't have granite-hard galz of yore there like evelyn, gwen, inger, gail, who i guarantee wouda gone 10.6s & 21.6s to wipe the floor with these jamas

the yank 1-2-3 sweep is likely playing basketball

2.8 million people. 41 million people.

That isn't circumstance, it is fact.

Throwing in the millions of others not in either country, the 2.8 million simply do not produce the first, second, and third fastest women. The odds are better of going to the roulette wheel and winning on green on 3 consecutive spins. The pool of 2.8 million does not, all things being equal, produce 4 person relays that handily beat the 4 person relays from the pool of 41 million. All things aren't equal.

Clearly the 2.8 million Jamaicans have a higher interest and participation in track, but that does not come remotely close to compensating.

The non-circumstantial fact is that the Jamaicans have a significant factor to their advantage. PEDs are the most plausible explanation, but I certainly acknowledge others exist. Your case to make is what are they, and why are they to be believed over Occam's razor?

In 2003, at age 16, Track and Field News seemed to see Bolt's potential. Given what he did then, what he's doing now doesn't seem so shocking.

https://www.trackandfieldnews.com/archive/past_issues/issues/200309issue.html

I agree with the spirit of your reply ...

and say ... that

THIS POSTER IS ONLY CALLING ATTENTION TO HIMSELF!

Anyone can raise a famous name and get hits when

trying to, so ignorantly, accuse them of using drugs

without having a shred of information ... NOT EVEN

HEARSAY FROM A FAMOUS NEWS PUBLICATION.

This poster is an

IDIOT.

DON'T GIVE HIM ANY MORE HITS ... THATS ALL HE

WANTS YOU ALL TO DO BECAUSE IT IS STARVING FOR

ATTENTION.

unlikely wrote:

2.8 million people. 41 million people.

That isn't circumstance, it is fact.

Did you ever stop to think that more Jamaican kids aspire to be sprinters than American kids?

How would you explain this: About 1/4 of our swim team for Beijing was born in south Orange County, even though south Orange County is a tiny fraction of the overall US population of white people. I'm not talking about people who moved there. I'm talking about people who were born there. Shouldn't there only be 1 south Orange County person on the team if they're lucky?

"unseen sprint domination"?

jamaica has been very good for a very long time.

another fact that leaves the OP rendered an idiot.

Gay voluntarily signed up to participate in the US Anti-Doping Agency's "Project Believe” where athletes undergo extensive blood and urine tests beyond World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) rules to create baseline body chemistry readings for hormones and other substances. They are tested randomly and more often than all other athletes. Felix and Clay also take part in this program.

Anyone who believes that Gay must be considered equally as dirty as Bolt is uninformed. Jamaica already has a more relaxed testing history than the US, so add that to the reasons of who I would bet on being clean and who was dirty if I was forced to pick based on odds. Bolt also made more drastic improvements.

With that being said I like both Bolt and Gay and hope that they are both healthy. I don’t crucify athletes before they are found guilty unless the circumstances seem to be blatant (like Ramzi), so for now they are two stellar, clean athletes, but gun to my head Im picking Bolt as who I think is more likely given the circumstances.

Bolt has made bigger improvements than Gay? When Tyson Gay was 20 his PR was 20.88. When Bolt was 20 his PR was 19.88. Gay, at age 23 had run 19.93. Bolt has run 19.30. Gay Improved by 4.5% whereas Bolt improved by a little under 3%. I was just using the farthest back point of Gay's IAAF bio, and I'm sure if you went back further for both athletes the difference would be larger.

As for the drug testing, you can't penalize bolt for being from a certain country. His country may not test him but you can be sure as hell the IAAF tests him a lot.

No to 2012 wrote:

I wonder about all those subscribers to LetsRun who claim every great runner most be doped.

What possible pleasure can they get following the sport.

One imagines them sitting, watching the coming world championships and sneering at the finish of every race - “he/she’s on drugs.”

I wonder what sort of championships we’d end up with if the only athletes allowed to compete were those deemed ‘clean’ by these people.

And even then - I doubt the meeting would start because they’d all still be arguing amongst themselves as to who is - and who isn’t.

You're probably one of the best on Letsrun.. you must be on drugs.

Bolt is dirty, as was FloJo, as was Marion Jones, etc. I really don't understand the logic people like the Brojos use. Innocent until proven guilty for sure, but just because you haven't been proven guilty doesn't mean you're innocent. No one drops times as much as he did in one year unless they're dirty. It's blatantly obvious Bolt is not clean.

Guppy wrote:

No one drops times as much as he did in one year unless they're dirty. It's blatantly obvious Bolt is not clean.

We know the guy is a genetic freak by how fast he was at such a young age.

Seems to me he was running the wrong event for several years. They thought he was a 200/400 guy (maybe because of his height?).

2007 was the first year he ran the 100, and I doubt he maximized his potential that first year. As someone else already stated, the dude ran 19.75 that year. 19.75 guys can break 10, so that 10.03 pr was soft.

So in reality he didn't go 10.03 to 9.69, he probably went 9.8 or 9.9 to 9.69.

Agreed. For the same reason, Barringer and Vessey are dirty and so is Symmonds - look how much time he has dropped!

For all you Bolt haters. He is the only man in history to run sub 20 at such young ag so y the suspicion. That mean this man has been doping since a teenager. Yall need to get over that the man is good. Go back to 2000 olympics and look at the young bolt running from lane one and you know that something special was coming

Mike T wrote:

For all you Bolt haters. He is the only man in history to run sub 20 at such young ag so y the suspicion. That mean this man has been doping since a teenager. Yall need to get over that the man is good. Go back to 2000 olympics and look at the young bolt running from lane one and you know that something special was coming

As someone said earlier, it's not really that Bolt has run those times that has made people suspicious. It's the fact that it coincided with the emergence of a whole host of other Jamaicans. Why is Melaine Walker so slow this year?

Why is Alan Webb so slow this year? Why has Tegenkamp not run as fast as he did sveral years ago? Why is Lauryn Williams not as fast this year as she was in previous years? Shalane Flanagan? She was really fast last year.

This argument is getting old and stupid at this point, everyone will believe what they believe and the only thing that can change anyone's opinion is a positive drug test. The naysayers will stick to their guns even in the case of a negative test, not saying that the testing methods are perfect, we all know they are far from that. But, whatever the reason is that people believe what they do, in this situation there really is no way to change it.

For those who think all these runners are on drugs, they will find any argument that suits their side, sometimes skewing facts and circumventing logic. The same people who will claim that EL G and Lagat should be credited with faster PR's for the 800, will use Bolt's outdated 100m PR as evidence of drug use. I'm just waiting for someone to try to use Bolt's 400m PR as evidence of his doping.

Vipam your a moron"

-the pinnacle of irony....

Why do people hate Vipam now? I haven't been on the boards in about 3 years and all of a sudden people hate one of the smartest and most educated posters on here?

He makes a good point, weather Bolt is clean or not is another issue. Part of the reason is as somebody else said, Bolt has been good for Track and Field. Nike has made sure he is above reproach. The guy more than likely is clean but Vipam does raise a good point about how quickly his times have dropped. Maybe it was great training. Maybe it was drugs. Right now the only folks who know are Usian Bolt.

I think Puma would be upset to read that last post. Unless he's been seen walking around Beaverton too.

skinny runner dude wrote:

Nike has made sure he is above reproach.