Assume Bolt is clean at 9.58 -- how fast could he run on drugs?

Sprint Geezer

- Steroid usage in bodybuilding and track and field are two different things. You don't go on the same cycles. They don't actually CHANGE your body because they only operate on the hormonal level not genetic.

The reason they work so well for sprinters is plain and simply because they prevent muscle breakdown so well. This facilitates better training intensity. This is the concept i was trying to explain in my aforementioned post.

Now anything after what i stated above is simply all conjecture but this is my theory:

There are two "peaks" in athletic prowess. For explanation purposes I'll call it Peak A and Peak B.

- Peak 'A' is the realistic peak that all athletes are capable. This is your absolute best during your lifetime. Bolt has reached this potential already despite what anyone might say of him holding back in Berlin. So yes, with the help of steroids Bolt can go 9.4.

- Peak 'B' is the unrealistic peak that little to any athletes are capable. You will know when you have because it is associated with nagging injuries to full blown ones. Tyson Gay is one of the few who i know has reached this peak. He is simply running too fast for his own body SOMEHOW. There is nothing special about his race, his start is trash, but his finish and turnover is incredible. Ever since he's hit this 9.7 territory with just pure top end speed he's been having tremendous injury problems. No other athlete does it with such a bad start. Literally the week he finally hit 9.7 (at olympic trials) he got injured.

Tyson seems to be taking something not as potent as a steroid which is why he isn't recovering as well as you would when on them. Something non-hormonal not triggering a positive test. Perhaps the right combination of legal supplements. He even says it himself, "after running so fast the last three years my body just needs a break." If Tyson Gay were to take steroids the only difference would be his injuries would go away. He would be more consistent but I doubt his PR would drop in the 100.

What I'm getting at about Peak B is that it isn't- it shouldn't be- possible without steroids aiding in recovery. Ben Johnson was capable of 9.7.

The problem lied in his training. Ben didn't have the 200m stamina needed to do a 100 well. All the greatest 100m runners had 200m stamina. Gatlin, Fredericks, Bolden, Lewis. All Ben had was a blistering reaction time. No drive phase though. Given those things be corrected he would be a 9.8 guy with a lucky 9.7 +2.0 wind.

Thought experiment. Let's take Bolt's example. Suppose we take his stride rate and bump it up by 25 so that he takes the same number of steps at a faster rate (note that at his peak, he's around 270 (not thoroughly verified), so assume 295 - which is what shorter sprinters get to, like Boldon and Gay. Trindon Holliday has to get well over 300 to get his 10.0 because he's only 5'5"). Now let's take a hypothetical 7' sprinter who had the requisite background and talent and strength/power generating ability like Bolt to become a world class sprinter (basically an ostrich). After some calculations, that person's peak stride length would be about a foot greater than Bolt's. Take all that together to form a seemingly superhuman runner with about a 1.4 sec improvement from 9.58, peaking at 33 mph. Considering that an ostrich would probably run the 100m in 6.5-7 seconds tops (according to some biomechanics experts out there - no link), 8 seconds for a non genetically modified or bionic human is a reasonable absolute physical limit for humans (not that we'd even see close to sub 9 in the next few centuries, if ever).

AquaFina wrote:

At what point will physics limit the 100m? I mean they cant run it in 4 seconds, so what is the human limit? 8.9? Any good guess?

I really don't think someone of Bolt's size could physically withstand that kind of turnover. Something has to go if you stress the body too much - muscle tears, ligament sprains, tendons, stress fractures, outright broken bones? Steroids won't protect against these things.

Let's assume that Bolt is faster than every person who ever cheated.....oh wait.

I'd say somewhere in the neighborhood of 6.79

9:58

Master!

I agree with you on a bunch of things--

The idea of 2 peaks, I totally agree. I have seen it in select others, and in myself as well, as far as running is concerned. I had a very rapid .3 improvement, and it began right after...first shin splints, then shoulder bursitis, then a severe ab strain, constant hamstring strains, etc.. Never got near that time again, went back to school and left competition, took a couple of years to heal up, and came back an old hack.

I agree that Gay was there a few years back--how he has managed to continue to run 9.7x I don't know. He has NO serious issues--if he did, he wouldn't even be able to train, let alone run 9.7x

Regarding BJ, nobody runs 9.79 when all they have is a blistering reaction time--if that were true, I would run 9.79! All phases of his race were sound, the first 3 steps exceptional; even his speed maintenance was OK over the 100m. What I think was lacking was his top-speed in the 100, and you're right, he had no speed maintenance in the 200.

So, with your idea of 2 peaks and Bolt having reached the first with his 9.58, why couldn't he hit the second peak and run 9.48 once, and be forever injured thereafter?

Or do you think that 9.58 was actually his second peak, and that what we're witnessing is the post-injury Bolt, who will never again be the same?

But imagine, 9.4x

It's amazing to think that in something commonly viewed as purely athletic, like a 100m, can be subject to such change in so short a period of time. After all, it is "You and me, from here to there."

Although it is a short span of time, a lot happens in between 0 and 100m. Maybe what we're seeing these days is the result of the scientific breakdown of the race, and the benefits of coaching and training techniques that are successful in transferring that knowledge to increased performance--and maybe that change has taken 20 or so years to be fully realized, as unsuccessful strategies were weeded out over time.

Bolt, 9.4x

If only Bob Hayes were around to take advantage of modern tracks, equipment, training, coaching, and legal supplements. If they are the cause for improvement, he would kick Bolt's ass.

And what about Carl Lewis? He competed FOREVER ago. He grew up in the 1970's, the era of the AMC Pacer, rotary telephones, and newspapers. My guess is that he would at least be competitive with Bolt.

Bailey, good as he was, was maybe in a transitional group, but I think he would kick ass too.

I guess that's my fastest list--Hayes, Lewis, Bailey, Bolt, Gay.

Asafa who?

Hmm... I never thought about it like that. A post 9.58 Bolt that will never be the same again. From the looks of it that is exactly what we are seeing. A Bolt that struggled to run 19.8 when last year in an OFF season he opened with a 19.5

In retrospect, remember, this is the same Bolt that said after his back injury that NO ONE would be able to beat him come this World Championships year. And now we have this 9.9x iteration still talking smack. Bolt is scared. He knows the only event he isn't vulnerable in is the 200.

You have to realize, Sprint Geezer, that in order to hit the second peak I believe that you need a sound motivation. Tyson Gay had Bolt. Now he's pushing his body to past its limits on a principle that "Bolt can do it i can do it" which is highly unrealistic.

Usain won't hit that second peak because there is no motivation to. No reason to. This is from a guy that says he'll quit Athletics well before his 30's during the 2016 Olympics. He's bored.

Your speculation about weeding out unsuccessful strategies is correct. And it has taken this long to do so. Look at the second step of Powell and Bolt. Even Richard Thompson. It's a leg drag of sorts, their toes scrape along the ground before coming forward and up.

I know by fact that this revolutionary step alone can increase your starting speed. For one, you are making the start a single movement instead of having so many individual movements to get out. Two, you resist inertia better when you do it by getting more power.

It's simple things like that that redefine the sport and drops times. Along with lighter spikes and faster tracks.

Now look at Tyson Gay. I'm positive he's privy to this same second step secret as I am. But he hasn't yet used it. Hell, his start looks roughly the same it did since Worlds in Osaka!

So to answer your question, no. I don't think Bailey and Carl Lewis would benefit that greatly to be kicking or even rivaling Bolt if they ran today. At best I see both .10 faster. So Bailey at a 9.74 PR but remember he was much more prone to be running 9.9. So a solid 9.8 guy.

The fastest clean athletes are at 9.8 to 9.9. Everyone faster is on some PED. The issue is really how the body can hold up under the strain of racing at top speed and even if it holds up in one race, how it will handle multiple races over a championship meet and of course a season.

The drugs allow one to heal faster and to train harder.

And how the heck would you know what is possible without drugs?

9.74

When you start tampering with perfection things begin to slide.

AquaFina wrote:

At what point will physics limit the 100m? I mean they cant run it in 4 seconds, so what is the human limit? 8.9? Any good guess?

From relativity we know that no sprinter can run faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, c = 299,792,458 m/s.

Therefore physics limits the time a human being can run in the 100m dash to (100 m) / (299,792,458 m/s) = 0.000000334 s.

Hey Speed Limit, are you talking under still conditions at sea level? Because if not, you must believe that Bruny Surin, Donovan Bailey, and Frankie Fredericks must have been dirty.

From another post I made:

_____________________________________________

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.

____________________________________

So, since the wind could arbitrarily have been different in Bailey's, Surin's, and Fredericks' races, and since they would have run 9.78, 9.75, and 9.74 respectively if they had the legal accident of a +2.0 wind instead of what they had, do you believe them to have been dirty?

I absolutely agree. However, I feel like Bolt has already shown that he's a bit of an anomaly himself - (which is why I don't think he's on steroids - other stuff, who knows). For him, to be able to get up to 295spm at the same stride lengths to get the ~.7 sec improvement would be close to impossible. Then again, who knows?IMHO, with his weight gain and upper body growth, I don't think he's touching 9.58 again.

lllll wrote:

I really don't think someone of Bolt's size could physically withstand that kind of turnover. Something has to go if you stress the body too much - muscle tears, ligament sprains, tendons, stress fractures, outright broken bones? Steroids won't protect against these things.

The thing is... Powell's form is incredible. From a physics standpoint...because that is what you need to understand in order to be a good technical coach.... from a physics standpoint all his movements propel him forward with the most efficiency i have ever seen.

If you want I could break down what he is actually doing but it would require a long post that I am not willing at the moment to type.

Powell is not taking any drugs, plain and simple. Especially considering he makes known he's only human by flopping at all the big meets.

body master wrote:

The thing is... Powell's form is incredible. From a physics standpoint...because that is what you need to understand in order to be a good technical coach.... from a physics standpoint all his movements propel him forward with the most efficiency i have ever seen.

If you want I could break down what he is actually doing but it would require a long post that I am not willing at the moment to type.

Powell is not taking any drugs, plain and simple. Especially considering he makes known he's only human by flopping at all the big meets.

Yes darling~ please do!

Sprint Geezer wrote:

Let's say Bolt hit the stanozolol for a while...what could he run?

Johnson shaved off something like 0.4, didn't he?

That would give 9.18, assuming Bolt would be a high responder like Johnson was.

And what about the 200?

Imagine a 9.18

Stanozolol is terrible for sprinters. That's why the whole Ben Johnson deal in '88 was so fishy. He used drugs, but Stano (Winstrol) dries out the joints. Good ol' dbol would be much better, never mind what some independent chemists have cooked up, a la Patrick Arnold.

You're a conundrum for me, master.

I totally agree with many of the substantive things you say, but then you offer conclusions that don't follow from that substance.

I agree about the first step, the fact that Powell is mechanically very efficient (except at top speed IMHO), the fact that Gay's start hasn't changed, that Bolt is scared, that he is essentially untouchable in the 200. I even agree with you regarding motivation for the second peak, except that I believe that that motivation can be entirely internal like it was for me--a sort of beneficial narcissism that had me wanting to see just how great I could be. Remember, ego is huge in sprinting, as you well know.

But how can you say Bailey would have run only 9.74? See my earlier post--he would have run 9.68 in that race with a legal limit +2.0 wind, and with a start only equal to the start everyone else had. Such a time would put him on a par with Gay, who has to be said to be competitive with Bolt, even when Bolt went 9.58

Plus, even though Bailey had the great Dan Pfaff in the 1990's, a lot has changed since then, as you know. What if he could have used modern knowledge and techniques to effect a GREAT start, like Powell? Another tenth? There's 9.58 right there, but requiring +2.0 wind, more than Bolt had--but it would be very competitive. If he were around now, maybe we would see that second peak from Bolt.

You and I seem to agree on lots of things, I'm guessing you actually used to run seriously, or that you still do!

Bodybuilder Sprinter wrote:

Sprint Geezer wrote:

Let's say Bolt hit the stanozolol for a while...what could he run?

Johnson shaved off something like 0.4, didn't he?

That would give 9.18, assuming Bolt would be a high responder like Johnson was.

And what about the 200?

Imagine a 9.18

Stanozolol is terrible for sprinters. That's why the whole Ben Johnson deal in '88 was so fishy. He used drugs, but Stano (Winstrol) dries out the joints. Good ol' dbol would be much better, never mind what some independent chemists have cooked up, a la Patrick Arnold.

D'bol? for a sprinter? You must have limited knowledge of how these drugs work. The best, if we are talking early or pre-90's roids would be any testosterone or test blend like Sustanon 250. Closely tied with test would be deca-durabolin (one of the trade names). Deca is so smooth at increasing lean muscle mass and most importanly aiding in recovery from tearing down your body during training.

On a related note - it is so nice to actually see someone - Master - who actually understands how steroids help athletes. You don't just take a shot and go bench 350. You still have to put in some hellacious work and Master hit it right on the head. Steroids allow your body to recover much faster than the non using athelete and then the user can traing at 2, 3, 4, or more times intensity and frequency than the non user.