Darvis Patton--let's hear it for this excellent CLEAN runner

Declaring someone a clean runner is probably worse than openly suspecting someone of drug use.

You can possibly prove someone is using drugs.

You can never prove that someone is clean.

You can only say innocent until proven guilty and therefore Dravis Paton must be ranked with all other sprinters with clean records.

Explain to me then(using your logic) why in 2008 and 2009 his performances were significantly better than in previous years and in 2010 his performances dropped off again significantly? Even taking out the wind, his 2008+09 performances destroyed his '10 performances (08 and 09 both Olympic and WCHS years). Of course you are expected to be in great shape those years, but a quarter second difference? A little suspicious..(using your defination of "clean")

Your logic is flawed, Geezer. There are dirty sprinters and there are clean sprinters. Stick to what we do know about these sprinters. You just refuse to believe that these athletes can achieve such times without drugs because your really not all that great(compared to the best in the world at least) sprinters. You have no idea who is clean and who is not. This guy could easily be dirty, easily be clean. The same can be said of(Most) other sprinters. You just don't know.

His performances from '02 to '07 were consistent, both in best time and in average performance, given the 2 yrs off to injury.

In 2008 his best time improved by 0.11, with the same wind--not huge by any stretch, and I think well within the general improvement that comes in an Olympic year.

The following year he matched his best time, although needing more wind to do it, and the average of his times was better. I don't see that as anomalous, because it was the third year back after 2 years of injury, and it came off a breakthrough year for him where he realized how to run faster. The improvement in average times, along with the timing of that improvement in his trajectory, is entirely credible.

His return in 2010 to his pre-2008 times is also entirely consistent with his aging, and with the fact that it was a nothing year--look at what happened with Bolt, for instance. It was a good year to rebuild, and to recover from injuries, conditions, and tweaks, especially at this point in his career. It will be interesting to see what else he does this year, notwithstanding his 9.94 in the suspect Eugene race.

And your point about me not wanting to acknowledge ridiculous times as possible because I'm not as good as they are--if you stop and think about it, that makes no sense whatsoever.

I was nowhere near as good as is Patton when I was competing. In relative terms, he is as far ahead of me as anybody running 9.7x or faster. Anybody under 10 is equally far ahead of me, essentially infinitely faster.

His times are just as unachievable for me as are anybody else's, so that is not any basis for me to differentiate him from the 9.7x and faster guys. I do not believe him to be clean because his times are somehow comparable to my own!

As to your final point, that I just don't know: you are absolutely correct. This is all opinion. I try to support it with some evidence. You only prove negatives by inference, or by comparison. I've looked at his history and his times, compared them with those of known drug cheats and other runners, and concluded by inference and comparison that he is at least not doing the same drugs they were, or at least not in the same quantities, or for the same purpose of performance enhancement.

No, I don't KNOW that he's clean--but I would find credible the argument that he is clean, barring direct evidence to the contrary--and because we can never really know anything with 100% certainty, that is the best that can be expected.

Go Darvis!

Sprint Geezer wrote:

Go Darvis!

+1

Donovan Bailey still the fastest ever that I fell 100% sure about re not doping...

If Bailey had had a start in Atlanta, we would have seen a 9.74 in 1996.

I think that he was clearly capable of a better start--why not? He started better in other races, and a bunch of guys in the final started faster than he did, so why not?

If he had in fact run 9.74 at that time, would you still believe him to have been clean?

Consider the guys who Bailey blew away in that race--Fredericks and Boldon. Fredericks especially, at 9.86 (-0.4), got absolutely blown away.

OK, I'm officially changing my entire tune for the men's 100m (not for the women's)

All the competitors are clean until and unless proven otherwise!

9.7x is achievable, and has been for a long time!

9.6x is credible, given more than a decade of improvement!

9.5x could be done cleanly by the best sprinter ever!

Mike Rodgers can run 9.85!

Nesta Carter can run 9.78!

The entire Jamaican relay team can run 9.7x!

The 100m world record will fall within the next 5 years!!!!!

Sprint Geezer wrote:

If Bailey had had a start in Atlanta, we would have seen a 9.74 in 1996.

I think that he was clearly capable of a better start--why not? He started better in other races, and a bunch of guys in the final started faster than he did, so why not?

If he had in fact run 9.74 at that time, would you still believe him to have been clean?

I think we're actually on the same page. The reason I strongly believe that Bailey was clean not that he never went sub-9.80 - I think he could have, too. The start alone would make that up, and although this was a notorious weakness in his game he in fact had many quick starts over the years if I recall. No way he couldn't have gone 9.7x.

My belief in Bailey, or rather my disbelief in others, is more related to physical build/proportion/etc and rate of improvement. I think there are many clean guys out there, and admit I was harsh to say Bailey was the quickest ever clean. But if you take away a few of the likely/proven-dirty Americans who were on the scene after him, I think his legacy would have been even stronger! <=9.84 was no joke at the time and became more commonplace than it should have.

Sprint Geezer wrote:He has a 9.94 (+1.3) this year, although that was in the suspect Eugene 100m, so I throw out that result

moron

that was the big sprint meet of the mid-year

why the f*** does your peabrain not believe that widely acknowledged fact ???

or why are are you so f***ing stoopid that you believe the wind gauge at eugene is always wrong ???

hey ventolin^3!

what's up?

I don't believe that it's ALWAYS wrong.

What I find suspect is the level of individual performances, at a circuit meet, early in the year.

At this point, since there hasn't really been sufficient time for satisfactory corroboration of those performances, I'm holding off on believing the results.

One performance supporting the Eugene race is Mullings' tie with Gay in New York, Gay having just demonstrated 9.79 capability makes Mullings' 9.80 somewhat believable.

What, you're not giving me any points for my 180-degree reversal of direction on what is cleanly achievable and on who is clean among the men?

Come on man, weren't you one of the biggest detractors of my prior position?

If you were, hats off. I totally recant. I have changed my thinking...I BELIEVE. I now reject my former position, and accept your own (if it was yours). I have seen the light!

Sprint Geezer wrote:If Bailey had had a start in Atlanta, we would have seen a 9.74 in 1996.

I think that he was clearly capable of a better start--why not? He started better in other races, and a bunch of guys in the final started faster than he did, so why not?

If he had in fact run 9.74 at that time, would you still believe him to have been clean?

moron

he ran a basic :

9.885

he mighta been entitled to a low-9.8-basic because of poor start, but talk of low-9.7 is drivel, but you are are a moron, so no surprise

frankie'e 9.86 lausanne altitude :

9.859

indicates he froze in the 100, as he shouda been worth a photo-finish contender for it

as for helsinsiki :

9.964

6/14/2011 6:07PM

you are a f***ing moron

eugene is sprint meet of 1st 1/2 of year

you have the idiotic belief, that USA can't get hold of a legit wind-gauge ???

Nobody said "basic" anything about Bailey's 9.84

If he had a .10 faster start, all other things being equal, he would have run 9.74

Period.

Frankie's 9.859 ("basic") would be a 9.77 (+2.0) at sea level.

Sprint Geezer wrote:Nobody said "basic" anything about Bailey's 9.84

f***ing idiot

it has to be basiced

or are you too f***ing stoopid ???

If he had a .10 faster start, all other things being equal, he would have run 9.74 Period.

are you so f***ing dumb to throw such a figure around ???

0.1s better start means overall ~ 0.2s race gain

does your f***ing peabrain not comprehend this ???

Frankie's 9.859 ("basic") would be a 9.77 (+2.0) at sea level.

moron

we are talkin' basics

get a brain...

No, Ventolin, only YOU are talking about basics.

Bailey's performance, which was the WR at the time, was 9.84

It is listed by the IAAF as 9.84

Only actual performances are ever listed, and never "basics"

If he had gotten to the line 0.10 faster it would have been a 9.74

The wind was, I believe, +0.7

The point is that 9.7x is achievable, and has been for a long time. The fact that it might, and might have, required a wind somewhere under +2.0 is irrelevant, as any such performance condition is accepted as equivalent to any other such performance condition under IAAF rules, below a specified altitude.

What the hell are you talking about?

Ventolin are you f***ing stoopid? Did you even watch his race? I watched more races on satellites than you can count. Do you even know what satellites are? You must be f***ing stoopid.

Moron.

Drivel.

f***ing moron

you drivel about

"bailey" lost 0.1s at start & couda gone 9.74 & then you ignore wind-altitude

f*** off imbecile

I love you, ventolin^3.

You should seriously consider anger management strategies, though...

Somewhere on some paleolithic psycho-social developmental scale is a stratum for you. The strata developed for homo sapiens seem too sophisticated--the anal, the oral, and so on--yours seems to be more closely analogous to a biochemical characterization, rather than to large-scale anatomical structures and events.

I think you harbor some serious issues.

Have you ever seen the movie "Crumb"?

f***ing moron

i talk sprint

you drivel

The problem with this argument is that just because an athlete uses PED's it doesn't automatically means he will be better. People are also assuming that a sharp improvement in performance means that athlete is suspect of using PED's.

I'd say every Olympic finalist in the last 30 years was likely on something. To think otherwise is naive.

We would like to think that professional athletes have some sort of conscious that tells them not to do PEDs....but faced with the possibility of winning a medal, earning lots of $$$$$$ and being set for the rest of your life what would you do? Especially if you knew the majority of the top in your sport were also using?

Alan