Gay, Powell, and Collins on the London startlist

This is going to be awesome.

It COULD be awesome, if Powell actually races.

What do you think the chances are of his actually showing up?

Hum... I dunno but I think it's suppoused to be a minor groin niggle, all things considered I'd say 50/50.

"I think there's a fair chance that Powell won't run this meet, citing some sort of injury or soreness."

Powell folding like a cheap lawn chair...an easy call.

Asafa Powell is the Paula Radcliffe of the men's 100m.

Well, it appears as though nobody in the London 100m had a start, except for Clarke.

Check out Gay...he gets zero drive from his front foot in the blocks. He basically stands up, then puts his head down a bit and starts running. Gay showed no drive phase whatsoever, and thereby leaves .10 on the table. He relies on his turnover the entire race. He looked sluggish, chugging to the victory.

The thing was that nobody looked any better! WTF? Clarke and Kimmons actually looked OK, but Clarke has no top-end, and Kimmons tied up. Rodgers was looking sluggish too, Bailey has absolutely no start whatsoever, Carter is washed-up, and Collins didn't even bother starting the race!

That looked horrible, although the winning times were OK, but here's the thing: THAT is what a CLEAN race looks like, for those of you who don't know. No 9.7's, no impossibly fast blazing out to a 5m lead, no winding it up the entire 100m and not slowing appreciably. All the races looked to have obvious flaws, notably the starts--and those that actually looked good, weren't the winning times.

There is no ubermensch--at least not clean.

Bolt's "treatments" worry me. We all know these guys can cycle on and off stuff quickly, and that Bolt is a protected species, as is his "training partner" (partner-in-crime), Blake. It will be easy to tell if Bolt has used, come the Games--and no, it won't be just because he wins, or runs a great time, it will be how he does it. Bolt has looked relatively crap recently, like Gay and others did in the London race, because they have been clean. Same with Powell, who can rock a first 50 but who pays the price in the last 50.

So far on the year, the only Terminator has been Blake. Against anybody else, everybody else has a chance. Gay can beat Gatlin, Gatlin can beat Powell, Powell can beat Frater, and so on...but nobody can beat Blake.

Bolt knows this. Bolt's only hope is to dope. He can try to get healthy, but these little sprint things can kill you. Just the smallest tweak in his ankle, and he won't be able to do any block work, and there goes his start. Just the smallest soreness in his back, and he gets up too early, and his drive phase is gone. Etc. All the while, Blake is pumping up like you wouldn't believe.

If all of Bolt's rest worked perfectly and he came to the games perfect, and clean, he would run his Rome race--and LOSE to Blake.

He NEEDS to be able to go 9.6x to win, something he has probably never done while clean, and he knows it. Will his urge or need to win cause him to dope? Absolutely. It's a different era, he knows he is safe. He has 9.58 and 9.69 precedents, so 9.6x would not raise eyebrows.

The bottom line is that Blake is using, and that a doped Blake can beat a clean Bolt; however, nobody can beat a doped Bolt.

At this point, I believe that Bolt has been scoping out the competition, and after having watched this London race, knows that Blake is the only one to worry about (unless guys like Gatlin or Powell do some pre-games dosing). After seeing this London race, he will see the HUGE contrast between Blake and everybody else, and will not be content with being "the best of the rest".

3 concrete predictions, based upon my knowledge of psychology and my fantasy beliefs about doping:

1) Blake will PR in the Games, or come very close to it, and will finish as the silver medalist

2) Bolt will win the Olympic 100m

3) the clean winner of the Olympic 100m will be the bronze medalist

...IF Blake doesn't get caught. The only alternative scenario that I can see is that, even though Bolt will dope, it will be too little and too late to catch up to Johnson 4.0, who is doping like nobody's business.

Nobody has really cared about doping in the 100m, based on the belief that all the top guys were doing it. And they were.

But this year, I really do think there is a decent chance that everybody is more-or-less clean, except for Blake.

If Blake wins, he will be the Ben Johnson of the London games. A whole bunch of the participants in the Seoul 100m had doping issues, either before or after the 1988 Games, but IMHO were "more-or-less" clean in that race, except Johnson, who stood out like a sore thumb, exactly the way Blake will look if he wins.

I really wonder what kind of insurance Blake has to guard against disclosure by Bolt. Would Bolt, if he stayed clean, point the finger at a victorious Blake? I don't know, it's hard to predict what a moment of that magnitude would do to him. I think Bolt knows what's good for him, and wouldn't say anything, and would just concentrate on getting the 200m gold, relatively certain in the knowledge that Blake will get crushed by a Johnson 5.0 in Rio.

But my money's on Bolt for the Games. It won't be long now--just Monaco to go.

BTW, I don't even care about doping, I just find it all fascinating and very exciting. Blake is the one who has done the absolutely smartest thing--he immediately recognized the double standard that applied to Bolt, and hooked into it, so that it now includes both of them. Smart. Powell is on the outside, looking in, without the same options.

Smart move, Blake. It's now a 2-man race, which is 1 more man than we had in Beijing.

You over analyze every race, and go on about these dopping claims in every post, quite sad...

Man man man...it's getting worse and worse with every post you type. And you claim to be the mr know-it-all on sprints?? You obviously know nothing; not about sprinting, not about PED's. That's what we call; armchair coaching.

Stupid*ss

I was wondering how many of you empty-criticizers would respond to this post, so I substituted the name Clarke for Frater to detect if anybody was actually reading, or if anybody actually followed the racing in London.

So, yours wasn't even a nice try. You know I'm right, there's just nothing you can say about it.

The defining moment came last year when Blake ran his WR-quality 200m. He realized that he could not only do whatever it was that he was doing and get away with it, but that he could do it to excess, to produce absurdity like 19.2, just like his big buddy. So he rocks the off-season, comes back hulking, runs sub-10 in his first race, and tapers nicely to a trials win and a world lead.

It is Blake who has laid down the gauntlet for this year's Olympics, and he laid it down in last year's 200m. Bolt should have responded already back then--after all, nobody knows the exact limits of doping. Even Ben Johnson has come out saying that he could have run Bolt's times 25 years ago, and there is no reason to disbelieve him, apart from the fact that he might have died before being able to run that fast.

Now Bolt is scrambling, sort of like Johnson did before the 1988 Olympics, when he was "battling injury". He's scared, and backed into a corner. His belief in his invincibility is gone, and he knows where that invincibility came from, and he will go back to it, begging hard. Regardless of whether or not he beats Blake in the Olympics, you will see a much-improved Bolt--sharper, especially at the start and during the drive phase, which are the parts of the race that break down first due to fatigue, injury, and overtraining--all of which can be corrected by the juice. Also the last 20m, but he has a great last 20m, even clean, so the difference won't be so noticeable.

My guess is that he will win, because he's been close to Blake already this season, cleanly, and that he therefore doesn't need to do too much to surpass Blake, unless Blake ups the ante and megadoses like Johnson did--in which case it would be too late for Bolt to detect and respond appropriately. In that case, Blake would run a huge PR and crush everybody else.

Blake will be so pumped for the Olympics that you won't believe it. Too bad it's somewhere the conditions will likely suck--if it was elsewhere, with a good wind, Blake could threaten that 9.58 IMHO. The whole atmosphere, the electricity, you will see the real envelope.

And you know what? Good for him. Screw Bolt, he's the guy who made a joke of everything back in '08. Sure there were others before him, and I still think Johnson's 9.79 was more severe--but in recent history it has been Bolt who has set the standard. Good for Blake--he saw what was possible, recognized how it was achievable, aligned himself appropriately, and did what he needed to do. Smart.

If Blake ever sets a new 100m WR, which I believe might actually be possible, I'm going to link back to this thread.

Oh, never knew you were a psychologist, must be really good to tell someones mindset based on a race...

You should apply to WADA, would be much cheaper with you there than doing testing

SkyArt wrote:

Oh, never knew you were a psychologist, must be really good to tell someones mindset based on a race...

You should apply to WADA, would be much cheaper with you there than doing testing

That's actually pretty funny.

You do understand that a test result from an accepted testing protocol is only one type of evidence of doping, right? I'm not going to go into evidentiary subtleties, but let me just say that a lay opinion can be based on all sorts of evidence, including performance, individual history, historical performance, physiology, etc..

Even your apparently cherished administrative and judicial decisions, sometimes accompanied by a written opinion explaining the decision, are based on more than simple test results.

I have no problem with the system, including with either the testers or the dopers, as long as the same rules are applied to everybody equally (which they are not, but that is another matter).

As far as being a psychologist, everybody is a psychologist. Every time you decide if somebody is telling the truth, you are being a psychologist. Put 2 people together, and it is a psychological phenomenon in which those 2 people contribute.

Give me a break, SkyArt--with your mentality, we would be left with nothing but weak and empty sarcasm like that displayed in your post. Why don't you put out something of substance, like an opinion with qualifications, or a statement of verifiable fact, rather than simply your vapid retorts?

Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot.

And lastly, I'm on nobody's side. In an ideal world, everybody would be clean, would try their hardest, would be honest and candorous, and would work to help their competitors when in need. In the real world, we articulate what we think are worthwhile policies, make rules to implement those policies, and attempt to equally apply those rules to everybody, while applying the rules of equity because we know that not all situations are as equal as they might first appear.

Is it perfect? Certainly not. Should we scrap it as not worthwhile? Probably not. Do we get our money's worth? Unknown. Do I pick sides in the issue? Absolutely not, unless their is a clear error, misapplication of the rules, or a clear injustice that has resulted, especially when those things would be easily rectifiable.

1) Never said it was the only evidence of testing, but more reliable than your opinions of course

2) You want me to post my opinion? Simple, sprinters are human beings, and you can't expect them to be in perfect health at all times, as well as performing their best. Just because Bolt isn't running as fast as 08/09 doesn't mean he dopped. For all we know he already hit his peak because he developed fast. Then you have to factor in injuries and all that other crap that makes times go up and down.

Then there is other sprinters like Blake, where you seem to ignore the steady progression in times because you have this idea that there is a human limit for clean athletes (as if you would know it) and once they pass it they must be dopping. Your not even consistent with this view because you don't accuse certain sprinters of it

3) You say your not on anyone's side, yet you seem to be against anyone who runs a fast time, sounds like an injustice to me to anyone who worked hard to run those times

1. In the truest sense of the word "reliable", the word does not denote either accurate, precise, or correct. It happens to minimize false positives, I think, which is the basis for testing 2 samples. Nobody, myself included, is arguing that any particular lab-based testing protocol is inherently flawed in detecting what it aims to detect, assuming it is conducted correctly--and if conducted correctly, can certainly be reliable. However, my methods are probably equally reliable. Look up the meaning of reliable.

2. Thank-you for the opinion, but it was very weak indeed. I never suggested that the only evidence of Bolt having doped in 08 and 09 was that he was running faster then, than he is now. Your opinion is based upon a number of false premises--not only that first one, but also your inherent assumption that "developing fast" and "injury status" are independent of doping status, which they are not.

3. Everybody knows by now that my "idea of a clean limit" is not something I pulled out of my a$$, it is based on FACT, although the quality of some of those facts may not be the very best. It is based on the FACT that Bailey ran 9.84 in less than max allowable wind, the FACT that he would have run it faster with a max allowable wind, all things being equal, the FACT that he could have gotten a better start, as he himself previously demonstrated, and the likely fact that he was clean when he did so. Again, he and Surin are IMO the 2 top historical modern-era sprinters most likely to have been completely clean, and it is they who should form the basis of any belief about clean 100m ability.

Each sprinter is an individual, but that is not to deny the qualities inherent in the ever-enlarging historical GROUP of modern-era sprinters. Just because someone runs 9.9 doesn't mean that he is not doping--he could be a doped 10.4 guy--but just because someone runs 9.58 DOES effectively mean that he is doping. Just because someone runs 9.69 with a max wind after having a great technical race doesn't mean that he is doping--but because someone runs 9.69 under still conditions while giving up 30 yards from the finish and negative-leaning DOES effectively mean that he is doping. Even if he is Bolt, unless Bolt is the historical anomaly. Granted, we are early in the modern era of sprinting, but sprinting speed is something that is observable, and that is noticed, and that is rewarded. It is very likely that the WR-holders in the 100m are ACTUALLY the fastest men in the world, IMO. To expect Bolt to be the historical anomaly stretches credibility. It is easy to show that he has no particular advantage due to the regularly-offered factors such as height, nutrition, culture, youth, etc.. To be the historical anomaly he would have to be the perfect storm--something that is rationally MUCH easier to disbelieve than to believe. Put another way, it is MUCH easier to believe that he is doping than that he is clean.

The same goes for Blake, only more so. Much more so. Whereas 9.76 (-0.1) from Bolt running a technically excellent race in Rome (one of the very best clean sprints ever) is not IMO evidence of doping, Blake running 19.2 after missing the start and "deciding" to switch gears near the end of the curve is IMO evidence of doping.

3. So, I'm NOT "against anyone who runs a fast time", as you suggest. I believe that Bailey and Surin were clean at 9.84, Lewis, Boldon, Obikwelu, and Fredericks were clean at 9.86, Bolt was clean at 9.76, Thompson was clean at 9.85, Gay was clean at 9.69, etc. There you have it--different eras, different athletes, different nationalities, and that list is not exhaustive. USA, Jamaica, Namibia, T&T, Portugal, Canada, whatever. Although I believe them to have all been clean, the best arguments for cleanliness have to go to Surin and Bailey.

Bailey is the best example of possible speed other than Bolt, because he proved that he could have gotten a much better start than he did, whereas in those other great times, there weren't any glaring inadequacies or deficiencies that the athlete had demonstrated they could have bettered.

Gay's 9.69 is the best clean unadjusted time, Bolt's 9.75 is the best clean adjusted time, and Bailey's 9.84 is the fast time with the greatest potential to have been substantially faster.

I believed Bolt was doped in 08 and 09. Think about it , he never broke 10 secs before that year and all of a sudden he running 9.7. IMO the only reason he got away with it was because the sport was not in a great place and they needed something to bring fans back. Here comes Bolt and hes setting the track world on fire with all his times. he hasnt done anything spectacular since 09. JA got new testing officials and since then all his times have been normal. It all makes sense if you think about it. Im not here to convince anyone, im just here to make ppl think about it

You know what I meant, going in dept on the length of the word is just pointless

I never suggested that you said that, you stated that he was dopped then

Forget developing fast, I meant earlier than others, which could explain why his peak might have been at 22 when some people peak at 26

Sounds like you did pull it out of there, what is this "FACT"? What does what 2 sprinters run have to do with the potential of others?

A couple things wrong here, first off you don't know the effect of dopping, a 10.40 guy dopping doesn't mean he'll run sub 10, seems like you are assuming the effects on PED's

In that 9.69 race tyson start wasn't good, give him the start he had at berlin and he'd run a a low 9.6, heck maybe even 9.59. Does that mean he dopped?

Bolt running that 9.69 the way he did deosn't mean he's dopping only means he could have ran a 9.6 low, don't know where your assumption is comign from...

Again just an assumption, doesn't explain how that means he's dopping.

You can't know that by looking at a race

Based on what?

Dapistokyo wrote:

I believed Bolt was doped in 08 and 09. Think about it , he never broke 10 secs before that year and all of a sudden he running 9.7. IMO the only reason he got away with it was because the sport was not in a great place and they needed something to bring fans back. Here comes Bolt and hes setting the track world on fire with all his times. he hasnt done anything spectacular since 09. JA got new testing officials and since then all his times have been normal. It all makes sense if you think about it. Im not here to convince anyone, im just here to make ppl think about it

You can't break 10 unless you actually run the distance...

look at his 200m times, that should take doubt away from any reasonable person. Maybe he peaked in 09? ever consider that?

You do realise that he only took up the 100 seriously in 2007 right? He also ran 45.35 as a 16 yr old. I witnessed that and then Bolt was skinny with horrible form but other worldly talent.

Sprintgeezer has unfortunately entered a time of life when dementia has set in. He ignores the supreme natural talent of Bolt and says Gay has the fastest clean time ever. That is ridiculous to the extreme. The U.S are the most blatant dopers since the 1990s taking over from GDR and the other Eastern Europeans.

Based on his 'reasoning', the short, often injured Gay that begins to run 9.86 after having serious 'surgery' is the fastest man ever.

I can vouch for Blake because I know him personally. I played cricket with him. I saw him train for track while training for cricket at my high school. Blake was running 10.26 with a horrible start at 15. You know why he is so good now? The kid is the most determined YUTE I have ever met and he simply wants to make everyone who supports him proud. He is bulky because he eats in a way to achieve that. The weight will slowly come off as he sharpens up.

Sprintgeezer always makes crazy allegations then hedges his bets by saying the Jamaicans will win because they are doped. They WILL probably win but only because they are the best.

People believe that you cannot come from a poor country and excel. They also believe that everyone in Jamaica smokes ganja (the stupidest stereotype here since less than 10% do), that we live in huts and says crap like Ya Mon and Irie. My advise is to stop believing that the 'third world' is so far behind the 'great nations' that we cannot possibly train athletes scientifically. Face it black people have an advantage in sprints and high altitude peoples in distance races just as whites are better at throws.

The myth that all we do is track is also dumb. The top sports are football (soccer), cricket and track. All get their fair share.

I would say the chances of all 3 of those athletes showing up is less than 20%, I would say less than 50% that 2 of them show up.

SkyArt--

OMG, I'm not going to go through it AGAIN.

You can disagree, but you can't say that it's based on nothing, because it isn't. It's all here on this board, in excruciating detail.

Ilemux--

You know, I don't think you're a bad guy, just a bit delusional in your protection of your cherished national heroes.

I never once ignored Bolt's natural talent, and in fact I have explicitly stated my belief that he has been clean this year, and that his adjusted 9.75 this year was quite possibly the fastest adjusted clean time, ever. What more do you want? Whether or not the Americans are the most blatant dopers has no bearing on whether or not Bolt's 9.69 and 9.58 were run cleanly, unless you want to believe that the Americans would cleanly run slower than they do now, making Bolt relatively even better than he is--which would only STRENGTHEN the argument that his 9.58 and 9.69 were doped!

You understand that, right? That the more of an outlier his 9.69 and 9.58 are relative to other performances, the greater the possibility that they were juiced?

10.26 at 15 with a horrible start? No way.

Bulging skeletal musculature based on diet? No way.

In London, if Blake wins, a Jamaican WILL win BECAUSE he is doped. If Bolt wins, he might or might not be doped, it will depend on how he wins, and what his time is.

Again, I state categorically that Bolt is likely one of the very best ever, clean. I do not deny the natural talent.