Major drug bust from Jamaican trials in 100 meters

dre217 wrote:

Tyson doesn't have to be tested if he's injured or post "surgery" so yes, in all likelihood I'd vouch for his withdrawal at US trials in the same weekend that his partner was tested as bloody suspicious, regardless of his well-reported squeaky clean image.

Can you point me to the WADA/USADA code that says an injured athlete is not able to be tested?

Pull out of meet = no testing

Injured and not competing == not likely to be tested because it's cost prohibitive.

Go ahead and claim that the USADA is impartial and not corrupted or inept and that drug testing procedures are all inclusive and comprehensive but I'm not nearly so naive.

'As for Bolt, my one observation on him this year is he is bigger. My thought is his bulk could be slowing him down'

Not an expert on sprinting like SG but maybe Bolt was in the gym more when injured because he couldn't run as much.

On doping I still like to think long distance runners on the male side dope less than spinters especially as a lot caught are not born at altitude and use EPO to close the gap

I reckon our CO was at it. I like to bet and its interesting odds wise on the chances of you changing your training plans on the same day the testers come round. For whatever reason she must have been changing her training a lot. Then claiming to be injured but still racing a lot but just slower!

The more I read this thread, the more respect I am losing for Sprint Geezer. I'm not sure if the man really understands scientific inquiry.

Yes Sprint Geezer is like one of those teenagers that spends extra hours at the library and yet never truly understands the books she reads. I give her homework reports a B minus. Is it wrong to encourage a student to try less hard? Even if they're annoying? It's okay, Sprint Geezer, to be mediocre. Why draw attention to it? Your homework would struggle to break eleven seconds with a 5m/s wind!

dre217 wrote:

Pull out of meet = no testing

Injured and not competing == not likely to be tested because it's cost prohibitive.

Go ahead and claim that the USADA is impartial and not corrupted or inept and that drug testing procedures are all inclusive and comprehensive but I'm not nearly so naive.

So here's what you did:

You made an assumption (an incorrect one) and presented it as fact. It's one thing to just be ignorant, but it's another to just pass fabrications off as being correct.

It is a fact that Tyson Gay withdrew from the US Championships because of his injured hip. His injury was obvious to anyone who saw him there. They didn't just put him under the knife ten days after the US Championship as part of an evasion of testing.

If hadn't done so already, you lose all credibility with your second point. That isn't how USADA works. USADA is the organization that showed up to Chris Lukezic's San Francisco apartment for a piss sample months after he had announced his retirement from the sport, because he was still in the testing pool (and he hadn't properly filed the retirement papers). You would think if USADA were interested in saving money, they wouldn't have their Bay Area testers drive to his apartment with the intent on collecting samples from a guy who, for all we can tell, will never compete again. Tyson was ranked #1 in the world last year, and is the second fastest man in the world this year. He's in the testing pool, even when he's on crutches. There's no DL in track where the world's top sprinter is off the list.

It's so much that you're naive, but that you have a conclusion and you'll pick and choose the factors that help shape the conclusion you want. You want to believe that USADA is paradoxically completely inept at catching people but at the same time engaged in a vast conspiracy to selectively control who comes out as dirty and who doesn't. But that's not true. In my many dealings with USADA, I've found them to be capable, professional and in the capacity in which I have dealt with them. Trevor Graham's #1 guy didn't get a pass, so no one is.

So if Jamaicans are distinct because of originating from West African stock, shouldn't West Africans in Africa be just as fast? After all they are the originals.

This idea of Bolt doping and the powers that be knowing about it and yet choosing to turn a blind eye is worrying.

It reminds me of the concept of "Too Big to Fail". And this is blatantly unfair to those athletes who do not use PEDs.

Having trained for the sprints and competed at a national level, I know it is incredible difficult to go from 11:00 to 10:5; and insanely difficult to go from 10:5 to 10:00.

9:58?!?!? Sprint prodigy my a**!

Athletes and bodybuilders who were doped on SARMS were reporting 30% gains in strength without any gain in muscle mass. For a big guy like Bolt he had a much lower power to weight ratio as is usually the case with tall/big guys. SARMS "leveled the playing field" with regards to power to weight ratio. A test came out for SARMS, then Bolt had to use something else - other drugs have well known clearance times but can be managed by savvy athletes or doctors. The side effect of using anabolics is an increase in muscle mass, which we see now with Bolt and he is now running fast, but not other worldly times due to his now lower power to weight ratio.

So Mullings has asthma and Furosemide is a recognised treatment. Who knew that? (assuming it's true). My 'bright idea' was that no-one would take it except contaminated or to mask steroids, but then I was thinking what sort of fool would have steroids in his system in competition (although there've been plenty of fools before). So I wondered if some sprinters dehydrate like I know at least some jumpers do. But anyway, asthma, that's the claim. At least someone in Jamaica likes Mullings to be printing that argument. So far he's been Steve No-Mates:

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/sports/Furosemide-is-the-banned-drug---report_9435360

NYER1 wrote:

So if Jamaicans are distinct because of originating from West African stock, shouldn't West Africans in Africa be just as fast? After all they are the originals.

This idea of Bolt doping and the powers that be knowing about it and yet choosing to turn a blind eye is worrying.

It reminds me of the concept of "Too Big to Fail". And this is blatantly unfair to those athletes who do not use PEDs.

Having trained for the sprints and competed at a national level, I know it is incredible difficult to go from 11:00 to 10:5; and insanely difficult to go from 10:5 to 10:00.

9:58?!?!? Sprint prodigy my a**!

No, man. They're distinct because they're Jamaican (or a subset of Jamaican). It's not about 'West African' or 'black', it's about the characteristics of small groups. The smallest unit of population is the individual, ie you, and your unique characteristics whatever they may be. Then you work outwards from that. Most likely some of your family share these characteristics, and so on. So, take some random elite athlete. You would expect someone in genetic relationship to them to share some of their characteristics. Go further afield you'd expect these characteristics to show up less frequently, go still further and find yourself in Alaska or somewhere and you'd draw a line and conclude you're not likely to see these characteristics any more.

But you're right sports is not a level playing field. This bothers me with PEDS because I think that's what these cheaters are doing, they think they're just getting themselves to the same start line as everyone else. Then it becomes a contest of working hard and training differences. That's not what people want to see though, people want to see talent.

Ilemy:

"SprintGeezer referred to Asafa's camp as being tainted"

No, I didn't. What I said was that "he is associated with a tainted program", meaning anything under JAAA and their former "doping control" regime.

But you were in part correct, I think, when you said that Bolt wasted too much time last year at parties in Jamaica.

That is almost certainly part of the reason for the change in his performances and fitness.

NYER1 wrote:

This idea of Bolt doping and the powers that be knowing about it and yet choosing to turn a blind eye is worrying.

It reminds me of the concept of "Too Big to Fail". And this is blatantly unfair to those athletes who do not use PEDs.

Having trained for the sprints and competed at a national level, I know it is incredible difficult to go from 11:00 to 10:5; and insanely difficult to go from 10:5 to 10:00.

9:58?!?!? Sprint prodigy my a**!

^^+1^^

What TrackCoach said, although I wouldn't call Lewis a "freak of nature".

He was talented, committed, driven, confident, and purposeful. He believed in himself to the extent that he didn't need to use drugs.

Sure other guys won races against him during his sprint career, but the only guy who really beat him, as opposed to Lewis beating himself, was Johnson, and Lewis knew it.

Thanks TrackCoach for a good review.

And to other posters, I hope my admiration for the careers of Lewis, along with guys like Mike Marsh, Floyd Heard, etc. in another era, and possibly Dix, Rodgers, Spearmon, etc. in the current era, shows that I am not biased against American sprinters.

I'm going to be honest, I don't think there's anyone and I mean this, ANYONE in track since the 1970's that wasn't on something or the other.

Though what they may have been using at the time was either undetectable or not "illegal" itself but possibly belonging to a class of "illegal" aids.

my $0.02

And to be perfectly honest, this "talent" thing and level playing field is patently untrue. Genetics makes the level playing field unlevel. Period.

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.

It is stated in the article that:

"Blake, who scorched the Crystal Palace track last Friday to win the Diamond League 100m in 9.89 sec..."

The accuracy of any facts asserted in the article is in question, as Blake in fact ran 9.95, not 9.89

Another person writing about athletics, who really doesn't give a crap enough to get basic facts right--Jacquelin Magnay, the Olympic Games Editor of Telegraph Sports.

Nice job, Jacquelin.

Totally agree with you.

It's like thinking FloJo,Jarmila Kratochvílová and Marita Koch ran clean

NYER1 wrote:

Totally agree with you.

It's like thinking FloJo,Jarmila Kratochvílová and Marita Koch ran clean

None of them did... at least not in training ;)

Breakfast--

Of course I'm not certain that the 100m PRE and Clermont results were bogus, but I do believe that they are. See my analysis of PRE in particular at:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4160999&page=2

What do you think? All performance data taken from the 2011 IAAF Top List.