Major drug bust from Jamaican trials in 100 meters

---

Sprint Geezer wrote:

Jesse--

You stated that you "don't really know for sure [if Bolt was doping]...and that you "don't pretend to [know for sure]", and that any conclusion that Bolt was doping "is just a belief".

The clearly intended implication of your comment, aimed at distinguishing yourself from me, is that your situation is contrary to mine, and that I represent myself as knowing for sure that Bolt was doping.

This is completely false.

I really wish you'd read the posts and contribute to the discussion.

I clearly stated in a post prior to your own that "And of course it is not CERTAIN that he [Bolt] was a doper."

There is nothing unequivocal about that statement. Read the rest of the post and you will understand that any imputation of certainty that you made to me was totally unwarranted and inappropriate, and that you're not contributing meaningfully to the thread by making it.

---

Jesse--

Why do you continue to pick a fight where none exists?

If it helps, I will say it AGAIN: It is my BELIEF, not KNOWLEDGE, that Bolt was doped in 2008 and 2009.

Your characterization of my having no idea whether my belief is true is tortured and difficult to grasp.

This is all: my analysis of the evidence, combined with my personal knowledge and belief, leave me with the opinion that it is more likely than not that Bolt was assisted by PED's in running 9.69 while goofing and spoofing, 9.58, and 19.30 and 19.19

That was my opinion already in 2008, and it has been nothing but strengthened by the addition of evidence from 2009, 2010, and now from 2011.

The worth of the opinion is of course for you to judge, but make sure to judge it on worthwhile criteria.

You will of course bring different personal knowledge and belief to bear on the situation, and may well reach a completely different conclusion for your own reasons.

But stop being a total dipshit about it.

---

Sprint Geezer wrote:

Overall I think you're correct, but there's one small (?) area in which I think it does change your form, 359.

PED use enables different form, especially at the start.

Referencing BJ's start once again, that start, especially the 2nd/3rd steps, are just not possible to do quickly without PED's. You will get buried, and be unable to make the transition to running acceleration.

Even Johnson had problems with it, and nearly got buried in his 9.83, but managed to recover--but only just.

By Seoul he had powered up enough to be able to pull it off.

But that's splitting hairs, as nobody else has even tried that start, even convicted drug cheats.

So overall I would say that you're right on, with a small exception--but that small exception can be the race, all other things being equal.

---

I think Kabayo is correct about PED's allowing a sprinter to hold form better, but I'll qualify that statement.

Some sprinters hold form very well, based solely upon conditioning and training specificity. Maybe strangely, I think they tend to be the skinnier, wiry guys.

Where PED's could really help would be with a sprinter who is fast, but who otherwise has difficulty holding form.

By "holding form", I'm talking about running the 50-100m like, for instance, Maurice Greene.

So I think that Kabayo is right and that PED use can influence top-speed sprinting form in those who have a deficiency in that form -- but I think that in the highest-PED-use scenarios with high responders, it can allow a completely different start form, like BJ.

Right on Kabayo.

---

Sprint Geezer wrote:

Jesse--
This is all: my analysis of the evidence, combined with my personal knowledge and belief, leave me with the opinion that it is more likely than not that Bolt was assisted by PED's in running 9.69 while goofing and spoofing, 9.58, and 19.30 and 19.19
That was my opinion already in 2008

---

jesse--

You are a moron.

Sorry if I have hurt your feelings.

There was lots of evidence in 2008 in addition to the raw times that Bolt was running and how he looked doing it, and it's been posted here in black-and-white.

I love how you conveniently re-phrase everything I said to suit your own bias.

Why not address it directly, rather than distorting it into a form that is more to your liking?

I'll tell you why: either you're just being a vexatious troll, or you really can't understand because you're a moron.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt...moron.

BTW jesse, if somebody wanted to express precisely what you said, that:

"Bolt was running too fast and making it look too easy to not be doping. Since then my conviction that I am right about this has strengthened.",

one would have to accept that as valid.

You use all sorts of mealy-mouthed qualifiers that require more information that you conveniently ignore, like "TOO" fast. That is an entire area of evidence and argumentation, necessary to the conclusion that you yourself stated, that you conveniently ignore--or more properly, failed to recognize in the first place.

Moron.

SG, you are incapable of anything other than ad hominem attacks. I have exposed your "argument" to be nothing other than "Bolt was running too fast to be clean," and you angrily reply that I am a moron. I have NO respect for you by now, and anybody with a modicum of intelligence will concur. You think Bolt was doping and you camouflage this simple evaluation which a drunk at a bar could formulate with all sorts of ostensible evidence which is really tantamount to somebody asserting, "global warming doesn't exist because I just cannot believe that humans are that important." You just cannot believe somebody can run that fast and not be doping. Thanks for playing, but in the future when your intellectual superiors, such as myself, expose you for the fraud that you are, you'd be better served to compliantly acknowledge their superiority instead of lashing out vindictively at your transparently inferior capacity to formulate a cogent argument.

The only thing you have "exposed" is your own inability to disagree in a rational and civil manner.

It's as if your apple-cart was upset, and you can't deal.

Rather than addressing the substance of the actual argument and its foundations, you instead set up something entirely new, attribute it to me, and proceed to attack it. That is the classic "strawman" argument.

It's transparent, useless, and merely argumentative.

It does absolutely nothing to further the inquiry, which is understanding HOW Bolt was capable of running in 2008 and 2009 so much faster than anybody else ever had before or has since--and is thus useless to the discussion.

---

Sprint Geezer wrote:
Rather than addressing the substance of the actual argument and its foundations

---

Same old.

I made a good faith effort in the post in which I tried to proceed from first principles by enumerating certain facts that are beyond reasonable dispute, and by asking to proceed from that point, to establish some basic agreement as to the purpose and mechanism of inquiry.

But no, you prefer to take the easy route and just be a dickwad.

I don't expect anything further from you, except for the same old crap you post every time.

You know, you seem like you COULD be worth going back-and-forth with, if only you gave it an honest effort.

I am willing to let bygones be bygones.

How about this: I'll start another thread dedicated to this issue, and the first post will be directed to establishing agreed-upon facts that can be used as evidence.

What do you say?

New thread or old thread. I am waiting...

u idiots do realize that you are annonymously arguing on a gay message board right?

I have read the debate between Jesse and SG and conclude the following:

jesse is incapable of critical thought
jesse has some kind of insecurity and is taking out his frustration on SG

SG has always made it clear that he was expressing opinions.

Verdict: SG wins by a landslide

---

LOL11 wrote:

u idiots do realize that you are annonymously arguing on a gay message board right?

---

Ugh, you know what Jesse, I started this and realized that I just won't have the time to devote to it.

I guess I was trying to be a bit too charitable.

Anyway here's what I had, in case you're curious.

OK Jesse, here we go...

The first thing we need to agree on is the whole point of this exercise, which in my view is to explain how Bolt was capable in 2008 and 2009 of running as much faster as he did than any other person before or since, in the FAT era.

A related, but different question that will need to be answered, but which should not be conflated with the main question above, is to explain how Bolt was capable in 2008 and 2009 of running as much faster as he did than he had ever run before, or ever has since. This issue will arise at some point, but should not be the initial focus of inquiry.

Do you agree with my initial statement of the question to be answered, and if not, how would you re-formulate it?

As a second step, that we can do simultaneously with the first, we can agree upon a non-exhaustive list of undisputed facts to be used in the discussion, which list will be enlarged as required throughout the course of the discussion:

1) he ran a wind-legal 9.69
2) he ran a wind-legal 9.58
3) he ran a 19.30 into a headwind
4) he ran a wind-legal 19.19
5) he was 195cm in height at the time
6) he was about 205 lbs in weight at the time
7) he was 195cm in height at 15 yrs of age
8) he ran a serious 19.93 at age 17
9) his 9.69 was a WR at the time
10) his 9.69 was the greatest margin of victory ever in an Olympic 100m final in the FAT era
11) his 9.69 was the greatest margin of decrease ever over the previous WR
12) his 9.58 was, and still is, a WR
13) his 9.58 WR is the furthest ever ahead of the next-fastest man
14) Francis Obikwelu is 195cm in height
15) Carl Lewis was 191cm in height when competing
16) Carl Lewis was about 180 lbs in weight when competing
17) Asafa Powell is 190cm in height
18) Asafa Powell weighs about 190 lbs
19) 9.59 (+0.9) in Berlin is 9.62 corrected
20) the fastest 100m by Carl Lewis was 9.86 (+1.2) in Tokyo which is 9.92 corrected
21) the fastest 100m by Asafa Powell was 9.72 (+0.2) in Lausanne which is a 9.74 corrected
22) the fastest 100m by Francis Obikwelu was 9.86 (+0.6) in Athens which is a 9.89 corrected
23) his 19.19 was, and still is, a WR
24) Bolt has never returned a positive test
25) Bolt has never admitted any PED use
26) his 19.93 at age 17 was, and is, a junior WR
27) it was entirely within his control at the time of his having run 9.69 to have run around .10 faster than he did, but he chose not to

Like I said, there will be more facts that we will add as needed--LOTS more. Please let me know if you disagree with any of the above.

---

Official Letsrun Thread Judge wrote:

I have read the debate between Jesse and SG and conclude the following:

jesse is incapable of critical thought
jesse has some kind of insecurity and is taking out his frustration on SG

SG has always made it clear that he was expressing opinions.

Verdict: SG wins by a landslide

---

SG, I take it from the above post of yours that you are acknowledging that all you really need to believe Bolt was doping was that 1)he ran faster than anybody in history, and 2)this, almost by definition, was also faster than he had ever run by a decent margin.
Thank you. That is what I thought was the meat of your argument. It takes little insight to have posited such a proposition...

Jesse, believe it or not, that wasn't me.

And finally, because I'm off this thread, for one last time, that is not what I said.

I concede absolutely nothing to you--sorry Charlie. I'm just bored of your one-trick fantasy storyline. It's really not interesting.

You have killed this thread for me, not out of frustration, but out of boredom.