Sprint Geezer wrote:
Freelove--
I hesitate to get too deeply into "what is evidence" with you, but suffice it to say that evidence for a proposition is that which renders the proposition more likely.
Comparing Bolt's current 100m season (9.88 +1.0,[9.93] 9.91 +0.6 [9.94], and 9.91 -0.2 [9.89]) to either his 2008 or 2009 100m seasons, and drawing conclusions from that comparison, is entirely legitimate.
The conclusion you have drawn, based on that comparison likely combined with other evidence, is that "he was doping in the past". That is precisely the conclusion I reached, using evidence that I used, in conjunction with other evidence.
Some of the other evidence I used is, for example, that a 9.58 IS too fast. While I build a case to show the strength of that evidence, based on such things as historical performance, I add to the strength of that evidence.
Your suggestion that Bolt may be a 1 in 100 years freak
is not evidence of the contrary proposition--that he was clean--but instead would tend to reduce the WEIGHT of my evidence. The degree to which it reduces it is related to the quality of your evidence, for which there is none--it is a mere suggestion, not a fact. The only actual support for your suggestion would be the existence of the 9.58, the very performance in question. For your suggestion to have any merit, you must assume what you set out to prove--that 9.58 was a clean time, and that Bolt is therefore a 1 in 100 years freak.
Your suggestion, having to assume what it sets out to prove, is therefore worthless, and does not diminish the weight of my evidence at all.
You might not understand this precisely, but intuitively you know it to be true--that is why, even in view of your suggestion that he is a 1 in 100 years freak, you nevertheless reach the conclusion that he was doping in the past.
His corrected average 100m this year, when potentially clean, is around 9.91, which is certainly excellent from an historical 100m season perspective, but it doesn't seem like the work of a 1 in 100 years freak--I don't even think it's any better than, say, Powell's 2007 or 2006, or maybe even 2005 seasons. Two 1-in-100 years freaks at the same time, from the same country? Even less likely than your suggestion of one 1-in-10 years freak, which again has no support whatsoever.
Again, his 2008 or 2009 100m seasons are not evidence of his being a 1-in-100 years freak, because again that would assume what is to be proven.
Higher than usual testosterone is I think what got Mullings banned the first time. So you can't base good performances on having unusually high testosterone. It would be like the Castor Semenya situation, except it's presumably understood that with men it can't have a genetic or otherwise natural basis.
Freelove wrote:
You are assuming that he is using drugs because he is better than everyone else. I am stating that it is in fact possible that he is just better than anyone else due to a combination of size, genetics, naturally high testosterone...
So . . . consistency/inconsistency can be seen as a sign of both doping and being clean? Or is it more like consistency within a season indicates doping, while consistency between seasons indicates being clean?
USADA informant wrote:
As far as how fast people can run clean I would say its possible for certain athletes to run 9.6 clean but to do so consistently thus remaining healthy is the challenge. Extreme forces are placed on the body to run fast and "performance enhancers" actually serve a better purpose to help repair tissue that has been damaged in training to try and exceed normal limits. Does that mean I conclude Bolt was clean in his efforts? No, but knowing elite sprinters that have run clean in the 9.8's that were not at max makes me very aware of what SOME people could be capable of doing.
How high level are the other athletes and were they all busted at the Trials? Because in which case this could be quite the scandal lol.
USADA informant wrote:
Been out awhile but for the record Mullings is with Adidas. Note the bright green bodysuit he has worn all season.
To letsrunner: There is amongst the elite coaching community a very real development in technique in sprinting that has allowed athletes to run faster. Some historically did it on their own while others learned later in their careers. Technical efficiency has a big effect on how some runners are consistent or lacking thereof in performances. Executing this technique at high speed is very challenging but makes tenths of seconds of difference.
to dre I only know at the moment that the 5 total busts are according to my sources all Jamaican and all sprint/hurdlers.
Anyone who thinks Mullings or any other athlete randomly took something like furosemide is ludicrous just like Merritt's claim of personal performance usage of extenze.
As far as how fast people can run clean I would say its possible for certain athletes to run 9.6 clean but to do so consistently thus remaining healthy is the challenge. Extreme forces are placed on the body to run fast and "performance enhancers" actually serve a better purpose to help repair tissue that has been damaged in training to try and exceed normal limits. Does that mean I conclude Bolt was clean in his efforts? No, but knowing elite sprinters that have run clean in the 9.8's that were not at max makes me very aware of what SOME people could be capable of doing.
Now, if you replaced Powell any other name with a sudden 9.8 outburst out of nowhere in 2011...you'd be on the spot!
CHANGPANGA wrote:
If you think Powell is a clean man you must be on something :/
i understand that some of bolt's fans want to give him the benefit of the doubt but check out that bell curve. very suspicious.
zero gravity said:
2011 19.86 0.7 Oslo (Bislett) 09/06/2011
2010 19.56 -0.8 Kingston (NS), JAM 01/05/2010
2009 19.19 -0.3 Berlin 20/08/2009
2008 19.30 -0.9 Beijing 20/08/2008
2007 19.75 0.2 Kingston (NS), JAM 24/06/2007
2006 19.88 0.4 Lausanne 11/07/2006
2005 19.99 1.8 London (CP) 22/07/2005