First of all, one has to take what I present, and combine it with their own experience to evaluate its worth.
I claim no special knowledge over and above what anybody else who has been around top sprinters would claim.
I use performance data, performance history, doping history, career trajectory, characteristics of particular races, characteristics of particular meets, knowledge of national doping-control practices, knowledge of the physiologic requirements of sprinting, knowledge of the symptoms of steroid use, individual physiognomy, behavior expressed by national programs and particular training groups, etc. as the raw material.
Why don't you look closer. You will see that I have no particular bias. I'm even willing to concede that at least 1 person and probably 2 have been capable of running 9.6x given the conjunction of a perfect race and perfect conditions, and I am willing to believe that a third is also capable of doing it, but I don't have to come down on one side or another on him yet because he is still competing.
I'm also willing to entertain the possibility that a fourth person has come along recently, who is likely to exhibit that potential in the next few years.
There is no bias at all, and the evidence is not "flimsy", as you put it.
You are just unwilling to even entertain the conclusion that, for instance, Bolt was doped at 9.58 and 19.19
You're not presenting any evidence to support your position, nor are you successfully refuting the evidence that I have presented. To the extent that you're not mischaracterizing what I said, you're simply contradicting my conclusion with conclusory statements, which hold no persuasive value whatsoever.
And finally, of course this has nothing to do with anything relating to Mullings, who isn't even one of the best of all-time, especially considering that his 9.80 from Eugene was totally bogus.