The fastest clean 100m? Mid-9.8's

Your first and last sentences contradict each other. That's what I think.

White Lightning wrote:

Please be kind...

My opinion is that the fastest anybody can run clean is somewhere in the mid-9.8's. Here's why:

My 2 cents worth. By the way, I don't even know what to think about Bolt. Even if he is doping, a 9.58 likely translates to a 9.7-something clean. He really may be the fastest ever.

It's too early to include Bolt in any of this.

Besides, he upsets my tidy little apple cart.

And not just mine, either.

9.59

The chemical freak that is Bolt is a fine concoction of low income country combined with cutting edge European and American biomedical science.

Its so much cheaper to test our new products on Athletes who will do if for free, even get promoters to pay us, than it is to organize hundreds of human trials and years of research.

You athletes really are a 'gift' to humanity. Thank you and keep up the good work!

What time in the 100m is acceptable to say NOT drug aided?

It depends on the individual competitor, and how the time stacks up compared to their historical times.

9.85 for Burrell

9.86 for Lewis

9.84 for Bailey

9.84 for Surin, etc.

I would say that, for someone who somewhat consistently runs 9.9's, around 9.84, maybe 9.83 or 9.82 with a 2.0 tailwind.

Look at the other people in the 9.8's--Thompson, Dix, Patton, and so on--close to 9.90. Give them a little bit more wind--middle 9.8's.

Obviously only my 2 cents worth.

I can't even talk about Bolt.

Titan wrote:

What time in the 100m is acceptable to say NOT drug aided?

There is no such way of coming up with a reasonable answer.

The original poster says "9.8 something is legitimate" so he'd accept a 9.82. And maybe 0.01 faster. But if 9.81 is believable, it's only 0.01 to 9.80 and another 0.01 to 9.79 and then you're in the 9.7s -- uh oh. And with the way that times are rounded, a guy could have run 9.791 and the official time would read 9.80 and this poster would say, "ok, I can see that," but just one one-thousandth of a second quicker and he declares that it must be a fraud? Does that make sense?

Men who have never broken 10.00 have been busted for cheating, and some of the best sprinters in the world would never touch any drugs and everything inbetween.

I'd accept a 9.82 only from a select group of people, and only with a 2.0 tailwind. Only from those who had done a mid-9.8 with a lesser tailwind, and a 9.9 in calm conditions.

I stick by what I originally said, mid-9.8's, unless conditions are exceptional, and then only once in a blue moon by any particular athlete.

Except for Bolt.

Those mid-9.8's are where the athlete has an exceptional experience--many of us have had it, where the stars align and everything is perfect, and we never again near that magical performance. Maybe the wind gauge malfunctions. Maybe there is a great gust at the start, or somewhere that doesn't register on the gauge. Maybe you accidentally put together the perfect race. Whatever. Mid-9.8's, 9.82-9.87 once or maybe twice in a career.

Except for Bolt.

this thread is f***ing stupid

I don't think it's so stupid,100 years of human evolution in 15 years?? suspicious to say the least..remember carl lewis was busted as well as linford christie, and they were 'only' in 9.8x, so why 0,2-0,3 seconds less in so little time, it doesnt match with maths,evolution or whatever imho

hmmmmmmm wrote:

this thread is f***ing stupid

carl lewis was never busted

kipketer ftw wrote:

I don't think it's so stupid,100 years of human evolution in 15 years?? suspicious to say the least..

remember carl lewis was busted as well as linford christie, and they were 'only' in 9.8x, so why 0,2-0,3 seconds less in so little time, it doesnt match with maths,evolution or whatever imho

hmmmmmmm wrote:

this thread is f***ing stupid

'carl lewis was never busted'

actually everybody knows it but here you go:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/17/1050172709693.html

even carl lewis has admit it, bit said 'it was not intent' LOL

an extract:

"to have their secretary-general writing in the letter, where he advises an athlete of a positive A sample, 'I have to send you this, but we already decided this was inadvertent.' That whole process turned into a joke."

You douchebag, you conveniently leave out that he tested positive for over the counter cold medicine.

Do you know that those medications, dayquil, nightquil (sp) and their active ingredients are found in more variations, under more brands, in the USA than anywhere else in the world?

And at the time, for athletes still getting used to the banned list...well those substances were in many many products, uncluding night time tylenol, and over the counter sleep aids.

We, the USA, have those substances in so many cold remedies that are over the counter...that inadvertent was the right call at the time...

What Carl never tested positive for, was steroids.

And Carl never showed any of the typical signs of sterod ped use of the day.

Ben Johnson was so juiced, that people were telling me before the games, that the whites of his eyes were yellow from the 'roids.

Black people always have Jaundice

carl lewis and ato boldon. both got caught using stimulants.

My guess...given the decade...was that the yellow eyes was from something else...or could have just been sickle cell....very common in African Americans....could also be hepatitis....lots of things cause yellow eyes....steroids included.

Alan

9.82 is ok but not 9.81? In reality it could be as little as 0.001 seconds difference between a 9.81 and 9.82.

A bit arbitrary, wouldn't you say?

I don't think it's arbitrary, and here's why: I arrived at the figure through a process of mixed reasoning and conjecture. Admittedly, the "evidence" on which I based the process is weak, and the assumptions I built in have not been tested. But still, the percentage of runners having a top time of mid-9.8's who have not tested positive is likely much higher than it is for those whose top times are lower.

That .001 second difference is possible, but that is what gets you to 9.82 from 9.83, 9.83 being a mid-9.8 to me, but not from 9.82 to 9.81. It is why I mentioned 9.82, when I really wanted to stop at 9.83--to account for the "arbitrariness" of the cutoff.

There still seems to me to be a doping step function after mid-9.8's.

I would also expect some sort of a an increase in doping percentage for runners who are high 9.9's, but less dramatic. I think that running below 10.00 is a huge incentive, and if someone is running 10.00-10.09, then they can smell the possibility of sub-10.

Maybe I'll do the stats if I have the time and can find the info.