Gatlin 10:24

Yep. He is naive as Gatlin admitted he doped at one point.http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-22-2006-106350.aspThen he changed his mind.That being said, I think Gatlin was drugged by may have been sabotaged much like Ben Johson. Johnson was dirty but then got sabotaged in Seoul.

Stating the obvious wrote:

OK... you're Naive

bulldog35 wrote:

call me Naive, but I feel Gatlin has never knowingly put any illegal drugs in his body.

He is one runner I believe deserves a full re-instatement. I just don't see him the way I see Dwayne Chambers or Marion Jones. For some reason I think he is completely innocent.

joecrunner wrote:

I think after four years, he learned his lesson, if he dopes again though, I'll lose all respect for him.

He already has doped again

By the way I've got some sub-prime stocks and looking for investors

'Johnson was dirty but then got sabotaged in Seoul.'

Is there any proof of that? It sounded like the excuses of a liar to me

..and as for Gatlin being drugged - what twice? Are you sure you sure it's not you who is being naive as well?

bulldog35 wrote:

call me Naive, but I feel Gatlin has never knowingly put any illegal drugs in his body.

Oh, please. I suppose that if he were black he qould be guilty? If Tyson Gay tested positive for PED's you would say he is a dirty cheat, right?

ukathleticscoach wrote:

'Johnson was dirty but then got sabotaged in Seoul.'

Is there any proof of that? It sounded like the excuses of a liar to me

Charlie Francis spoke honestly and openly about Johnson's sabatoge. While his credibility was certainly dubious, his explanation was almost unassailable.

Johnson tested positive for stanozolol. Francis countered that (1) Johnson never took stanozolol since there were better drugs out there (2) that no one would take stanozolol during their peak racing phase as it wouldn't help and (3) the quantities found in Johnson's urine would have killed a small horse. Francis openly admitted that Johnson used drugs but made a very persuasive case that he never took stanozolol.

Thats a really bad time, he said he could go sub sub 10 I don't think he ever will again.

To be his first time in competition in over 4 years, 10.24 is a pretty decent time.

It falls between the 'A' and 'B' standard for Worlds.

He is only 4% off his best time in his first race back in over 4 years. If he even cuts that in half and runs 10.0 he will have a pretty decent shot of making the World's final next year. From there who knows, but not a bad race for the first one I say.

i say not a bad start. here's some shaky video of the start:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhU_zZws2iY

and here's the good race video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt7eo7m_y-Q

stronger down the stretch than Samuels.

bulldog35 wrote:

call me Naive, but I feel Gatlin has never knowingly put any illegal drugs in his body.

He is one runner I believe deserves a full re-instatement. I just don't see him the way I see Dwayne Chambers or Marion Jones. For some reason I think he is completely innocent.

Way to follow your gut there. George Bush would be proud.

Charlie Francis spoke honestly and openly about Johnson's sabatoge. While his credibility was certainly dubious, his explanation was almost unassailable.

Johnson tested positive for stanozolol. Francis countered that (1) Johnson never took stanozolol since there were better drugs out there (2) that no one would take stanozolol during their peak racing phase as it wouldn't help and (3) the quantities found in Johnson's urine would have killed a small horse. Francis openly admitted that Johnson used drugs but made a very persuasive case that he never took stanozolol.

That's not proof just more BS, lies on lies

In any case he was caught 2 times just as Gatlin was. There is a site call steroid nation where the bodybuilders piss themselves about the excuses athletes like Gatlin come out with.

Having athletes like Gatlin back in the sport is an advert for would be dopers. how ever many time you get caught you can still come back

you read that site too? it's amazing what the say on T nation. but yes ukathleticscoach fricking mind boggling.

Sprint Geezer wrote:As it is, I don't see 10.24 into that wind as world-class.

It's not? Well, you certainly have high standards.

I really don't think it is.

It is fast for sure, but if I were running 10.24, I wouldn't expect to be invited to all sorts of great international meets.

There are plenty of guys around the world running 10.24. It puts him tied at 80th place so far this year, with 100m greats like Simone Collio and Wallace Spearmon in front of him.

"World class" should have the highest current standards, second only to "historically great".

OK, so he's top 100 by current standards. I'd take it!

Sprint Geezer wrote:with 100m greats like Simone Collio and Wallace Spearmon in front of him

err...

wally ran 9.96 whupping tyson in the process

mention collio in same breathe when he runs 9.96 or whups tyson

Obviously you missed the sarcasm.

Spearmon isn't generally considered a serious 100m threat, and neither is Collio--notwithstanding Spearmon's 9.96 in 2007 (which was amazing).

If Spearmon had a start, he would be formidable!

On second thought, top-100 is world-class.

It's just that the time is unimpressive, although it lands him in 80th this year.

if you had a clue about sprinting you'd have realised that for a 200 guy running 9.96 off just mostly 200 training with little/no 100 training woud indicate < 9.90 clockings & consistent 9.90 - 10.00 if he had

think before you post

Hey ventolin, watch me totally ignore you.

Isn't that your mom calling from upstairs?