I like how you think ;).
And sadly I happen to agree with you. He is/was the perfect fall guy. The issue with fall guys though is that unless they're paid off in the background or can make money/succeed via other means he will certainly spill the beans.
And THAT is what the track world is going to have to watch and wait for.
Major drug bust from Jamaican trials in 100 meters
Pro News/Info/Results
Sprints
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
No, this is not proof. It is completely possible that Bolt is just a 1 in 100 years freak. Remember, modern training methods have only been around for about 30-40 years. A one in a trillion talent might not have shown up yet.
That said the way Bolt's been looking this summer leads me to think he was doping in the past (but isn't now - he really is a 9.8 or whatever clean). That is evidence, not the "he's too fast" stuff. If he somehow "figures it out" next summer and gets down under 9.7 again, that'd be another nail in the coffin. -
The one thing most clear to me from this thread is that most of you are discussing this subject from the vantage point of ignorance, which is fine, but don't purport to possess knowledge when it is at best an educated guess and at worst an uneducated one.
-
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. -
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, or whatever. In an event that hasn't been around all that long, in the grand scheme of things, and has only had a few (<100, certainly) megatalents come through, it is possible that Bolt is just a huge outlier. It is not CERTAIN that he was a doper; he's never tested positive for anything.
What has followed- his significant regression - changes things somewhat, but again it's impossible to really draw any conclusions because as you said a small change in the 100m can ruin you - could be any number of things slowing him down this year. And we're still seeing Powell run impressive times, so why in your opinion is Powell still doping but Bolt not? -
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.
SG, you state that evidence is that which renders a proposition to be more likely (presumably than not). Well, well, well. OK, so you, in your opinion, have decided that it is more likely than not that these sprinters were doping based on their performances. I, of course, am much too shrewd to say you are wrong, but your methods are, I presume you understand, not sufficient to hold ANY credibility. This is somewhat analogous to you deciding that, for example, any 10,000 meter race run under 26:45 by a human being proves that the person was doping. It is utterly laughable, because the evidence that you have utilized to "render the proposition more likely" (than not) is your own assumption beforehand that such a performance is not possible without PEDs. The truth is that your "evidence" is your decision to assume, arguendo, that such a thing must be because I have decided it could not otherwise be. It may be correct but the method is laughable... -
Looking at the case of the swimmers using the same drug, as I understand it:
a) If you take this furosemide and are tested soon afterwards before it has been diluted in the urine then it hasn't got to the stage of having a masking effect. Therefore it can be seen with certainty whether or not there are traces of steroids. If there are no steroids you probably get a short ban or just a reprimand. This is what happened to these swimmers.
b) But, if you are tested a few hours later than in example a) and the drug has diluted and is present only as a concentration or trace then it has reached the stage where it may be having a masking effect. It is then presumed that it is indeed masking steroids. In which case it's curtains for you.
The funny thing is a clean athlete can find himself in position a) or b) just depending on how soon after taking the drug he is tested. A cheating athlete cannot avail himself of position a) but if he lands in position b) he is indistinguishable from a clean athlete. This is why you get whacked if you are in position b) no matter how you got there. -
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... -
The drug world has enlisted Jamaican sprinters, American baseball players, and Kenyan and Epo-thian distance runners to enforce the idea that all sports have been corrupted. Let no one defend these bums.......
-
I think we all must agree that there is a point where a fast time equates to something fishy...if someone came along and ran the 100 in 3 seconds and everyone else was running in 9 seconds, it couldn't possibly be legit.
-
everybody should join elitefitness.com
check da forum, mad roids -
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. -
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.
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?
All generally speaking, of course. -
Now for some actual data:
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 -
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.
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.
As unfortunate as it is that someone's livelihood is about to be ruined (by their choices of course), the fact of the matter is that we'll have a better understanding of how many, how common and best of all how well-accepted is the use of PED's in elite T&F.
As much as has been made of substances that enhance strength and endurance, the biggest boon athletes get from PED's is the ability to recover much faster and get injured less often from the same or higher levels of exertion. Resilience can make or break a career and when you're earning 200k+ for an appearance, you're going to want to have a reliable body no?
Personally, I don't see the big fuss provided there's a level playing field and the athletes kept health. For that reason I'd prefer to see a separate league for those who have no limitations but their own or their sponsors' pockets but of course that's "unethical" so it won't ever happen.
N.B. No I don't advocate cheating or bending the rules nor do I appreciate the shafting of some athletes at the expense of others simply due to their "appeal". -
If you think Powell is a clean man you must be on something :/
-
CHANGPANGA wrote:
If you think Powell is a clean man you must be on something :/
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! -
according to my analysis, there are only three clean guys ever running sub-10:00:
1) Lemaitre
2) Bolt
3) Carl Lewis -
Carl Lewis clean? hahahaha
-
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
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.
