Bolt's not on drugs, he's always been great (with videos when he was young)

yes , the roids

but is on the sarms as often as possible , 24 /7 if could .

there are changes in physic from season to season,

which suggest roids ,like a certain blake

tell me where weir came from .as skinny as a rake .

sarms = speed endurance .

"Things like performance progression are absolutely relevant evidence on the issue of possible doping",certainly when considering the likes of Ben Johnson, Tim Montgomery etc.These were 10.2 guys dropping down to 9.7x's.The likes of Gatlin has shown that he is able to replicate similar times without PED's ,perhaps this could be put down to muscle memory, but surely it renders void his spike in progression.

Bolt ran 10.03, in his first competitive outing in a few years and obviously this leaves massive room for improvement through developing familiarity with the various phases and additional experience. Blake was the youngest man to break 10 seconds,surely precocious talent warrants these later improvements in performance.There is no physical evidence to suggest usage,it's not like the Lewis, Johnson era where suspicions are being voiced, apart from one particular German sprinter at Beijing. We can't just make baseless accusations purely on suspicion of performance either,The men obviously had successful tapers before major championships. We have seen this before with Obadele Thompsons' 200m PR,before which he had an entrapped nerve in his foot, I think psychology can have a big effect on performances as well.

I don't think we can assume guilt through association either, The likes of Fredericks and Gay had never been considered suspect despite training with the likes of Christie and Mullings respectively

Rezo wrote:

Sprint geezer

Didn't Bolt ran 9"76 (-0.1) in june this year. So he went from 9"76 (basic) to 9"70 (basic) in London

Yes, he did run that 9.76, but he did not go "from 9"76 (basic) to 9"70 (basic) in London", as you suggest.

Directly, he went from 9.91 (basic) at trials, to 9.70 (basic) in London.

Indirectly, he went (basic) from 10.00 (05/25) to 9.75 (05/31) to 9.82 (06/07) 9.91 (06/29) to 9.70 (08/05).

This performance history at first seems puzzling, because he showed a 0.25 improvement in one week, early in his season, which is even greater than the 0.21 from trials to Games, in about one month, which at first suggests that he is just subject to large swings in performance.

What you are asking be done is that his 10.00 be ruled anomalously slow, and his intervening 9.82 and 9.91 be disregarded.

Throwing out the 10.00 is, IMHO, fair game. It was super early-season, freezing cold, headwind, and it just sucked.

Disregarding the 9.82 and 9.91, however, is harder to swallow. He was going hard in both of those races, trying for the win. I do believe that the 9.75 was clean, and one of the very best ever. Why then the fall-off to 9.82, then to 9.91? It might have been injury, fatigue, over- or under-training, illness, whatever. But whatever it was, it is clear not only that the reason for the fall-off was erased in the month prior to the Games, but also that Bolt gained another .05 benefit over his previous SB.

In the abstract, I do believe that Bolt could have been possible of the 0.21 performance improvement, cleanly--after all, he has previously shown large swings in short periods of time.

But when the fact that during that month he sought confidential "medical" treatment is added to that 0.21, for me, juicing is the conclusion. When the further fact is added that he seemed to get all of his technique back, including his start (and remember, in sprinting at speed, an enabling factor for technique is juice), for me it is a done deal.

His progression last year was 9.94 (05/26) to 9.90 (05/31) to 9.93 (07/22) to 9.85 (09/13) to 9.82 (09/16). In August, he went 9.99 in a semi in Daegu before false-starting the final.

Last year was basically a .20 improvement in 2 months, based on what we know. However, he would have ended the season in the low 9.8's, not at 9.70 as he did in 2012, and the improvement took twice as long as it did in 2012. And Bolt was in good shape last year, with the Worlds in Daegu. His 200m attests to that, and the suggestion commonly made by Bolt supporters that he peaks well for major championships also supports the suggestion that he was in great shape. Remember, his 9.58 was done at a WC, not at the Olympics.

Last year, Bolt was clean, and was in great shape--but nonetheless, he felt that he would get beaten by Blake in the 100 and therefore false-started. If Blake's subsequent 19.26 is believable, then Bolt did get beaten by Blake on the season in the 200.

IMO it was apparent to Bolt in 2011 that he couldn't count on beating Blake cleanly, even if he was in great clean shape. This was reinforced at the 2012 trials, where he he in fact did not beat Blake in either the 100 or the 200, during a period where I believe Bolt remained clean, and which belief I wrote about at that time on this board.

Sure, Bolt could always get lucky, as he did in Rome 2012--but luck is nothing to count on in an Olympic final, especially when going up against someone as consistent as Blake.

The motive is obvious--win. This post attempts to demonstrate the reasonableness of the belief that doping was needed, and the reasonableness of the belief that it could actually deliver the win, because doping could turn a clean 9.82 (a time of which Blake had demonstrated himself capable) into a juiced time lower than 9.82, and hopefully around his mid-high 9.6x peak.

So, not only is the motive possible, but also objectively reasonable.

As for the means, they were well within the grasp of Dr. Wohlfahrt.

And as for opportunity, it occurred during the confidential visit to Dr. Wohlfahrt in Germany, a month before the Games.

Sorry, it just all fits. I admit that I have ASSUMED that Bolt was clean in both 2011 and the first half of 2012, and have used that assumption to contrast his 2012 Olympic performance--but I think that the assumption is legitimate, as I have articulated before on this board, with regard to historical 100m times and known or very likely doping history, with regard to Bolt's seasonal progressions, with regard to Bolt's own 100m history, and so on.

Thoughts?

"The likes of Gatlin has shown that he is able to replicate similar times without PED's ,perhaps this could be put down to muscle memory, but surely it renders void his spike in progression"

Wrong. He has already used PED's, so it says nothing about his possible performance without PED's. Even if it is only "muscle memory", as you suggest, that memory is of a PED-fueled run, which memory would not be possible to have without the PED use.

The spike in Gatlin's progression is therefore most certainly not rendered void.

No physical evidence to suggest usage? Apparently you have missed the radical change in Blake's musculature, and the current quality of that musculature. It is not determinative of usage, but it most certainly is suggestive of usage, to use your own wording.

My opinions, or "accusations" to use the pejorative, are not "baseless", as you suggest. I go to great pains to describe the evidence and its relevance, and to concisely define what it is that I am attempting to prove.

And clearly, nobody has reduced this to "guilt by association", although association IS most certainly relevant to an inquiry such as this.

Oh, and the broader point is that performance progression is relevant evidence on the issue of possible doping for anybody, not just known users. Again it is not determinative, but it definitely is relevant. It may indeed be outweighed by countervailing evidence, but an increase in performance has been proven capable of enablement by PED use.

again where did weir,s progresion come from

no longer can say that suspect changes in physical appearance as sign of peds,

it is sign of steroid use ,yes .

and sarms are'nt going to nessarily change look much ,but

definitely performance .

"In the abstract, I do believe that Bolt could have been possible of the 0.21 performance improvement, cleanly--after all, he has previously shown large swings in short periods of time.

But when the fact that during that month he sought confidential "medical" treatment is added to that 0.21, for me, juicing is the conclusion. When the further fact is added that he seemed to get all of his technique back, including his start (and remember, in sprinting at speed, an enabling factor for technique is juice), for me it is a done deal."

And, when you add to all of that how much Bolt's .21 improvement is a statistical outlier compared to the rest of the field and compared to the realistic medal contenders, and how much of a statistical outlier his actual performance is compared to the rest of the field and compared to the realistic medal contenders, it's more than a done deal, and begins to become somewhat convincing.

Opposing all of this, of course, would be the results of any tests he had to undergo before, during, and after his month-long Olympic preparation. For me, there is every reason to suspect the accuracy of the reported results--remember, they are verified by only the testimony of those in the chain of custody, those responsible for policy implementation, those responsible for the maintenance and calibration of the supplies and measuring tools used, and those who are expert in the actual procedures used. People and organizations can and do both fail, and misrepresent. The crime lab in St. Paul, MN, was just faulted for systemic flaws, which could possibly result in the overturning of hundreds of convictions:

http://www.startribune.com/local/south/164635746.html?refer=y

The bottom line is that any institution is only as good as the people running it, and most are full of flaws. The absence of a positive test is also not by itself determinative of the issue of possible doping.

"no longer can say that suspect changes in physical appearance as sign of peds,

it is sign of steroid use ,yes ."

This is contradictory and confusing.

Increase in the quality and quantity of skeletal musculature is most definitely suggestive of PED use, including steroid use, even though it may not occur with SARM usage.

He ran 9.76 close to the beginning of the season into a headwind I believe. If he backed off training and ran 9.86 at the trials in Jamaica, 5 weeks of intense training is more than enough time for him to peak again. There was nothing confidential about him going to the German doctor. I recall reading that his publicist confirmed it and added that it was just part of a regularly scheduled check up.

And I though the argument being made is that Bolt and co hide out in Jamaica from the testers. So him going to Europe would put him in the path of the testers. Your arguments are not well reasoned.

On the contrary, Sprintgeezer's points are well reasoned.

Let me say something about drug testing, its not as clean cut as everyone thinks. Yes there is more testing in Europe and the United States, yes there is less in Jamaica and Africa, and yes athletes can use havens to escape too and not be tested.

However Bolt being in Europe and not competing does not mean he isn't avoiding drug testers, he still is. Most drug testing takes place during the season and most of it near the big meets in Asia, Europe, and the U.S. So WADA is not going to send a drug tester to hunt down Bolt when that drug tester and his resources could be testing 20 other athletes.

In essence, Bolt avoiding competition during the season was his way of avoiding testing, likely taking a short clen/test/sarms cycle in addition to using stimulants before workouts and HGH postworkout to be ready for the games, knowing full well that he wasn't going to be tested that month, and if someone tried to test him he'd just avoid the test.

However if this was the case I'd like to see his performances post London for the next 6-8 weeks. Likely his performance ability just fell off a cliff after such a hard cycle so he won't be competing much if at all the rest of this year.

Another obviously doped athlete in this games was the Algerian, and a few of the Shot Putters. All of this is so clearly obvious.

Obviously clean: Rudisha, James, Kiprotich.

He ran 9.76 close to the beginning of the season into a headwind I believe. If he backed off training and ran 9.86 at the trials in Jamaica, 5 weeks of intense training is more than enough time for him to peak again. There was nothing confidential about him going to the German doctor. I recall reading that his publicist confirmed it and added that it was just part of a regularly scheduled check up.

And I though the argument being made is that Bolt and co hide out in Jamaica from the testers. So him going to Europe would put him in the path of the testers. Your arguments are not well reasoned.

--------------------------------------------------------------

That guy makes no sense, Bolt is seeing the same doctor that numerous to sportsman have visited including the supposedly clean sprinter Tyson Gay. There is nothing there to hide.

Bolt left Jamaica in early July to go to Europe, where he was seen by all, he then went to Jamaica's Pre-Olympic Camp in Birmingham July 13. He was tested when he went to his doctor and tested in camp numerous times.

The haters can't fathom that he wasn't in Jamaica doping it up so they come up with numerous stories like the ones above.

Emil C wrote:

Holy Christ we're still dragging up the "he was good when he young!" bullshit. EVERY elite athlete was good as a youngster, juiced or not. Hell, even Rashid Ramzi got a medal at the African Junior championships.

Bolt is a joke, dude is doped to the dorsals.

You're gonna have to prove it to me.

You morons obviously missed the point that Bolt has scoliosis and his spine is curved.

The visits are required and it is no mystery meeting as you idiots purport. You all just want more info on Jamaican athletes. I have no time to discuss progression because you believe a sprinter runs his fastest time each time and is basically a robot.

Nothing else affects him like a poor start, cold conditions, quality of field which necessitates the effort etc.

Bolt ran to qualify at the trials. He didn't adopt the moronic approach of killing himself in the heats like the Americans did. Just face, you all are idiots trying to feel relevant.

Again, Blake and Bolt don't have to answer to you. When the most hateful nation on earth says these things we don't care. The US thinks that they are the world...the World Series kmt...

This Sprintgeezer dude had this all planned saying Bolt was lean and then when he destroyed his Gatlin and Gay he is on here talking nonsense. The US can complain about other countries all they want. It won't change the facts. I am not here to argue but you need to get over it. None of your 'reasoning' matters because it all rest on a flawed assessment of how smart sprinters plan a season.

The doctor argument will make you sleep for years but if Bolt doesn't go his career is over. He was running in pain at trials so I know if he was fit it was over since he already showed a 9.76 and of course he is Bolt not Gay who cries like a little baby. Tears can't make you good. Talk about PEDs all you want..that doesn't make it true. Your comments don't hold any water and they can only be accepted on a forum where nobody knows about sprinting, including you.

"Your arguments are not well reasoned."

Yes, they are--you just don't know it because you are unaware that some of your assumptions are completely incorrect.

For example, there is absolutely something confidential about him going to the German doctor. Article 203 of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) makes it a crime for a health professional to reveal information without authorization from the patient.

Try reading entire posts, and thinking about them, before you try to respond substantively.

You need to get checked out

Ilemy--

Nobody suggested that it was any sort of "mystery meeting". Some moron poster advanced that idea because they had no idea what confidentiality meant.

Ilemy, I don't know how many times I have to tell you that G&G are NOT "my guys". "My guys", if I had any, would be Kim Collins, Justyn Warner, Richard Thompson, etc.

I'm not complaining about any country, I'm laying out a case for Bolt having doped prior to the Games.

Your suggestion that Bolt's performances reflect his planning are ill-founded. Even Bolt was shocked by the apparent catastrophe that was Ostrava.

Bolt WAS trying at trials, he didn't run merely to qualify. You can see it in his race, and he said as much himself.

Ilemy, "truth" is a judgment. Test results are one form of evidence used to aid that judgment. Self-serving statements from athletes like Bolt are of limited value, and need to be corroborated by other evidence or testimony from a disinterested witness to have any real value.

You see, I could say to you "Deny PED's all you want...that doesn't make it true.", but that does not advance the discussion, it does not illuminate the issue in any meaningful way.

You tip your hand when you say that you are not here to argue. What are you here to do? Pontificate? We've had plenty of that, and it is not convincing in the least.

Why don't you try rebutting in a meaningful way some of the arguments advanced? Only then will you convince anybody.

And to say that I had all this planned in advance, by writing my opinion that Bolt was clean, is hilarious. OK, I take it back--he was dirty all along! Better?

Come on, Ilemy, credit where credit is due. I do believe that Bolt was essentially clean until he went to Germany, at least as clean as Gatlin is now, and I was the first to congratulate him on his brilliant adjusted 9.75, which I opined was one of the very-best-ever clean sprints.

I call 'em like I see 'em, good or bad.

"You need to get checked out"

Why? Because I know what I'm talking about?

COME ON, Ilemy. Forget about your national hero, and think for yourself.

SHOW US that you are thinking for yourself, not just engaging in childish hero-worship.

No doubt Bolt is one of the very best ever, and that he was great as a youth, but why do you refuse to even discuss the other side of the coin? Surely your self-construct isn't that weak.