eh ???
i'm sure you recalled when he jogged around in 20.03 in the semi when any tutored eye expected his final of
19.80 - 19.85
eh ???
i'm sure you recalled when he jogged around in 20.03 in the semi when any tutored eye expected his final of
19.80 - 19.85
Alan, are you saying that, all other things being equal, PED use will not improve performance?
By definition, PED's are "performance enhancing".
I'm a convert, Alan. I actually now do not believe that every finalist has been on something.
Runningart2004 wrote:
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
As someone who has worked with many Olympic finalists, I have to disagree. How can you make such a generalizing statement? You're saying Jonathan Edwards would skip the World Championships because he didn't want to compete on a Sunday, but that he's bearing false witness and cheating his competitors by taking illegal drugs?
I'm saying the reward far outweighs the risk when getting past the tests is easy.
Alan
- wrote:
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?
Ritz, Teg, Solinksy much?
If using the correct substance, with the correct dosage, with the correct person...yes they are performance enhancing.....but I've seen guys take stuff and not see ANY improvement. I've heard of (read here even) of guys taking stuff and seeing no improvement.
I've seen guys use stuff for no other purpose than personal glory in the weight room.
A 1984 survey by Jay Silvester showed that 68% of Olympic athletes admitted to using anabolic steroids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_performance-enhancing_drugs_in_sport
What the heck happened in '96...why so few busts compared to other years...makes you wonder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_performance-enhancing_drugs_in_the_Olympic_Games
Also an article in SI leading up to the '96 games asked Olympians if they would take PED's if 1)they would never be caught and 2)would win every major competition in the next 5 years. Something like 95% said yes. The second question was same as the first but added 3)you would have serious health issues the rest of your life due to the PEDs....still something like 75% said yes.
Don't be fooled.
Alan
Runningart2004 wrote:
I'm saying the reward far outweighs the risk when getting past the tests is easy.
Alan
I say it doesn't. Justin Gatlin is not "set for life" as you put it. You know what John Capel was doing after his second pot bust? Working at Wal-Mart.
You can probably count on your fingers and toes how many track athletes are set for life based upon their athletic career.
If Surin had had a +2.0 wind instead of +0.2 in Seville, he would have run 9.75 in 1999
If Fredericks had had a +2.0 wind instead of -0.4 in Lausanne, he would have run 9.74 in 1996
If Bailey had had a 0.1 better start in Atlanta (achievable), he would have run 9.74 in 1996.
Assuming those 3 guys were clean--which I think is a decent assumption especially about the Canadians, since they were right after the Dubin Inquiry about Ben Johnson--performances down to 9.74 with a +2.0 wind are credible.
If Bailey had had a +2.0 wind in Atlanta instead of +0.7, AND had had a 0.1 better start (i.e. equal with other competitors in the race), he would have run 9.68 in 1996
That would make performances down to 9.68 with a +2.0 wind credible, if they included a pretty good start.
And that isn't including any real allowable altitude, like in Rieti or Lausanne.
This makes Powell's 9.74 in Rieti with a +1.7, his 9.72 in Oslo with +2.1, and other runs of his credible.
His 9.72 (+0.2) in Lausanne would have been a 9.64 with +2.0, just 0.04 ahead of Bailey's achievable 9.68 To me that is still credible, as Bailey's 9.68 would have been with a reasonably good start, but Powell can have truly excellent starts--so for me, his 9.72 in Lausanne could have been clean as well.
It also makes Gay's 9.68 (+4.1), 9.69 (+2.0) and 9.71 (+0.9) credible, also Obadele Thompson's 9.69A (+5.0) is credible, Greene's 9.79 (+0.1) is credible, and Carter's 9.78 (+0.9) is credible.
Now we come to Bolt. Considering only his 4 fastest clockings, his 9.76 (+1.8) and 9.72 (1.7) are credible--only his 9.69 (0.0) (while goofing) and 9.58 (+0.9) are outliers, well beyond reach of the bottom of the range established by Bailey, or even if you want to extend it to include Powell.
So, either we believe him to be clean and move the goalposts WAY out just for him, or we believe him to be dirty based on the fact that his 2 performances are so far ahead of the pack where everybody else exists, with Bailey at the margin, and Powell in the gray zone.
So for me, based on times alone, I have no reason to suspect that anybody except Bolt, and possibly Powell, is using.
Of course, that is based on times alone, and on 2 assumptions that I think are justifiable: that Bailey could have had a .1 better start in Atlanta, and that Bailey was clean.
Getting back to Patton, sure, he could possibly be a 10.3x guy doping down to 9.9x, but based on his times, his trajectory, his injury history, etc., and comparing both his physique, running style, competition schedule, etc. to other runners historically, I think he's clean--although if all these other guys are now clean, he lands clearly in the second tier of competitors historically.
I think the issue with most of this comment thread is that there are quite a few assumptions being tossed around - and that is always dangerous.
Yes, there are athletes who make poor decisions - and those decisions impact their lives and fan perception of the sport - but to assume that all athletes (regardless of their performance level) have used PEDs (in the absence of legitimate proof) is an unfair generalization, and it is one that discredits those athletes who DO train and run clean. It would be great to have a list of all of the clean and dirty athletes out there, but since we can't do that, we have to go on what we know. Speculation makes for great message board banter, but if you look at the facts, and I'll use Patton as an example here, he has been consistent while healthy - which I believe was mentioned previously.
However, what was not mentioned was that in June 2010, he had surgery to repair a groin injury, which sheds some light on his less-than-typical times that year. It's reasonable (in my opinion) to infer that after a year of rest, recovery and training that he'd be back on track this year with times similar to those he dropped in 2009 and previous years.
Now what's reasonable to me, won't necessarily be reasonable to others, but just thought I'd toss that into the conversation.
That's all. Carry on.
I can't believe there is something that has caused me to post, apart from Canova/Cabral/EPO.
So Patton just went 9.75 (+4.3) in Texas, in late March, in a WC year, after an Olympic year in which he qualified for, and ran on, the 4x1 relay team, in a time which was then a US record.
Basic, it's a 9.93 Keeping in mind his history of performances, it is clear that this is his best performance to date, if the timing and wind reading were accurate.
The top 4 times, basic in parentheses:
Patton 9.75 (9.93)
Spearmon 9.92 (10.10)
Rodgers 9.93 (10.11)
Silmon 9.94 (10.12)
Let's consider finishers 2-4, and in order to guess at whether the timing and wind readings were correct, see if their times are credible.
Without any specific analysis, yes, I think they might credible--but if they are, then the other top finishers are all performing to their potential, already in March! This is equivalent to what Rodgers was running all last season--which is credible, if he doesn't improve this year. etc.
This is Patton's fastest opener, ever.
Strange. He seemed to have run the same race he always runs, except for what looked like a mid-race surge relative to the field.
My reaction to this is a big "meh". It's an absolutely smoking opener, I can't believe the time--but the race was uninspiring to my eyes, and did not hold out any promise for anything greater this season. His start is horrible, his finish only good (by elite standards, of course).
I cannot reconcile the way his race looked, and the official clocking. I have no current explanation. The timing is not obviously bogus like in Eugene.
So let's assume he really did open in 9.93 basic. How did he do it, at his age? I posted my opinion before that if a runner runs within their natural envelope, they should have greater longevity at around the same performance level, which was his history up until now.
His best basic times, up until now, not corrected for altitude, have been 9.98, 9.97, 9.95, 9.99, 9.98, 9.97, 9.98--remarkably consistent at 9.97/9.98, once dipping down to 9.95
All those times are from 2008 or 2009.
He hasn't really come close since, even running with bogus Eugene timing.
Now, 4 years later, he runs a significant basic PR, at the age of 35. In March.
Performing within your demonstrated envelope into your mid-30's, I believe is entirely possible.
Setting a significant basic PR, that is unexpected. Setting it in March, that is exceptional.
We will have to see how his season shakes out after this. If it proves to have been a one-off, then it will have been fantastic, and too bad the wind was too high. It could just be a vet having performed well early in the season, before injuries started to take their toll, or something bogus about the timing.
If, OTOH, he delivers a record-breaking season, that will be cause for concern, and he will have to answer the question of how he was able to achieve this remarkable feat.
This time is still well within the believable clean range for the top clean runners, of which I believe he is one, and therefore not by itself enough reason for any concern. Had he run a 9.8x basic, I would be screaming right now. As it is, I'm just watching.
If he does have a significant record-breaking season, I will be interested in his explanation. If he moves down from 9.97/9.98 basic to, say, 9.93/9.94 or 9.92/9.93 basic, I won't be at all worried...but if he goes below 9.90 basic, well, then I'll be really interested in his explanation.
To shave off nearly .10 consistently in your mid-30's, after the best years of your career, would be astounding.
Well, he did run the new PR at this past Millrose Games in the 60m (6.50), which is a new Armory record. Sure - none of the other names in the field below were in that Texas Relays 100m, but he did look good running that 60m.
NYH&RC Men's 60m Final
Event Records
Record Tag Time Athlete Affiliation Date
Armory A 6.56 Gatlin/Scott/Trammel/Smoots/Holiday 2002
Millrose M 6.45 Maurice Greene 2000
Place Athlete Name Affiliation Time
1 Doc Patton OTM 6.50
2 Gerald Phiri adidas 6.64
3 Keith Ricks Unattached 6.67
4 Reggie Dixon Speed Elite 6.70
5 Kind Butler Unattached 6.71
6 Jeremy Bascom CPTC New Balance 6.73 [6.721]
7 Joe Morris University of Colorado 6.73 [6.724]
8 Richard Browne Unattached 8.23
Race video:
Post-race interview:
Doc ran his 9.89 with +2.0 in Shanghai, in what happens to be the exact same meet where Jeter ran 10.64, so that time is at least as suspect as the two from Eugene. The 9.75 is equivalent to 9.84 with 2.0, so it really does come to a 0.1 PR if you throw out the Shanghai result.
The 6.50 is also almost a 0.1 PR, and from that you could almost predict what happened, but expect it later in the season. Monte Stratton is one of the best there is, and it could simply be that they experimented this winter with a lot more work on his 60 indoor (getting his accel up so he can reach a higher Max V). If this is what there is in terms of results and he ends up with 9.8-low, well, improving his short speed might explain that. It will not explain continued improvement through the season.
OTOH, Doc has said that this would be his last season, and if he went over to the dark side and gets caught, he might say, "Well, I was going to hang them up anyway."
guys-
Moving the discussion from "why did he improve outdoors" to "why did he improve indoors" gets us nowhere.
d--I think it's better to look at adjusted times. His 9.89 in Shanghai is something like 9.98 basic. It doesn't matter if it's thrown out or not.
The magnitude of the indoor PR is more significant. His drive out of the blocks sucked there, too. He has never had good drive out of the blocks, I suspect that has something to do with his body proportions and wanting to get him into a good position for a rangey acceleration, like Donovan Bailey.
If he ends up in 9.8-low this season, basic, well...he would be the first male in the history of elite sprinting to exhibit that sort of gain, at that age and stage of career, I think. Yes, I know about the people everyone mentions--Lewis did not PR in the sprints at 35, nor did MJ.
I don't think it's impossible to PR at 35, just unlikely, and the gain had better not be too much. .05, OK. .10 is stretching it, .15 to get to low 9.8x strains credibility.
I've never seen Patton run what I consider would have been his "perfect race". I have no reason to believe that he can't run low 9.9x basic cleanly, which would get him to around low 9.8x with max wind--but to do it at 35 would be surprising, just based on historical precedent. Of course, there is a first time for everything.
So far, I see nothing to be concerned about, just a guy who has been training hard, was uninjured, and got in a nice, windy race. That run still didn't look like a 9.75 to me, windy or not. Regardless, beating Rodgers and Spearmon by that margin has to leave him feeling decent. He is national finals material, and that is absolutely fantastic. Maybe it will give him more confidence.
Gatlin
Gay
Dix
Demps?
Bailey
Patton
Kimmons
Rodgers?
Maybe sub in an improved college guy for Rodgers or Kimmons, or maybe Bailey will get busted, or Dix will go down--regardless, Patton will be in there.
There's the video. He clearly did not get off to a blazing start. Hard to tell if that was the plan (but don't think anyone can do 9.7x holding back at the start) or if he just didn't react well, and in that case there's probably even more in the tank.
What comes to mind is something Charlie Francis posted when Tyson Gay ran a wind aided time like that in the OT (9.69 +4.xx?). Charlie said something to the effect that now Tyson knows his legs can go that fast, so its up to him to get his training in line. So if Patton gets that perfect race, he may get that 9.75 wind legal.
Huge tailwind.
As you know, sprinting is an all-or-nothing type of deal.
The world cares only about Bolt and his protege Blake.
Certain countries care about their best, in the US it's basically Gay and Gatlin.
In order for Patton to get any real benefit from doping, he would need to crack the top 2 nationally, as there's nowhere else for him to go in sprinting, he's so high up the rankings already. Going from, say, 5th to 3rd really doesn't get him anything.
Even going to 2nd doesn't get him much, unless he runs 9.7x or low 9.8x
Consistent 9.8x would get him lots of tickets. He would be medaling at major circuit meets, IF he could get invited--being #1 or #2 in the US could do it, but #3, IDK--the money gets less and less.
With Gay and Gatlin around, it isn't realistic that Patton will get to #1 or #2 unless those guys are both injured, or unless Patton dopes massively.
Here's the thing, though--he's close. And ahead of him is Gatlin, a known doper. And, it is entirely possible to get away with it, because he knows the Jamaicans are using something and not getting caught.
I have no trouble believing that Patton could go high 9.7x doped. That would be a big deal for him. He would be the US #2, unless Gay got injured again, and people might invite him everywhere, if only for the opportunity to exclude Gatlin. If he went mid-9.7x, he would be in the money, medaling in big meets and maybe WC.
He would have to dope significantly in order to make it worthwhile, assuming he is now clean. Time will tell.
I currently have the utmost respect for him, and will have even more if he can realistically lower his PR after 35.
DARVIS M-F PATTON wins 2013 Bahamas Invitational 100m in
10.09 (-2.0) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is 9.96 basic, right in the neighborhood of his 9.93 basic in Florida.
In mid April!
I can't believe it. He's actually running low-mid 9.9x in April at age 35, and already has 2 wins on the season, and easily the world lead by basic times, with some decent guys having run.
I think that winning these types of races is great for him. He's learning how to emerge from the pack to the front of the race, and to lead. Nice!
IF those races had been run with max headwinds, they would have been 9.84 and 9.87 Can you imagine Patton opening in the 9.8x's, twice?
Of course, being 35 and opening so fast immediately brings to mind...injury.
How long can he keep this up? That is fast by anybody's standards, ever--and to already have done it twice, in April?
I'm still not worried about doping, at low/mid-9.9x I am worried about him peaking too early, and not quite fast enough.
Look for him to blow up sometime soon.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
I can't believe it. He's actually running low-mid 9.9x in April at age 35,
It's almost as if something is enhancing his performance.
I don't know about that. Possibly. Alternatively, his 2013 season is accelerated.
He's definitely not only faster this year, but faster, sooner. I worry that he will not be able to build on this, but that he will get injured, or as a best case scenario, run this same race all year.
That is what Gatlin was able to do last year. Essentially the same race a number of times, under different conditions.
But Patton's basic times won't get him anywhere compared to the big guns. Of course, the big guns may go down throughout the season, who knows...but so may Patton.
Also, 35 is not dead. I remember at 33 or 34, I was still fast, and was only a hack amateur. These guys train all year, every year, at a high level. 35 is still high-performance territory.