In suggesting that his 9.76 was "clean", I am, in fact, giving Bolt a huge benefit of the doubt, based on mostly his junior career.
In 2011 I started a thread asking the question "how long do benefits from 'roids last?":
Some suggested 6 months to a year, some suggested they were permanent. There was no real resolution on that thread, and in general I think the question is still open.
One thing is for sure, before 2008 Bolt had injury problems, and doping can help heal injuries of certain types. His 9.76 later on is dependent on his being sufficiently uninjured to be able to train and compete, and it appears that his previous dope use therefore permitted, if not actually caused, that 9.76
In either case, the performance could be said to have been "aided" by dope.
That's a tough one, though. At some point, if somebody has an actual injury such that medical intervention is indicated, society has decided that roids and other chemicals are legitimate forms of intervention to restore normal health--so any use by Bolt in this regard could be seen to have been medically legitimate, in one sense (although he should of course then have declared it and sought a TUE, etc.)
In any case, when discussing doping, I think it might be best to stick to thinking of a doped performance as one during which the metabolites of a banned substance, or the substance itself or other markers of its use, are present in the body, otherwise anybody who does receive pharmacologic therapy for a legitimate medical issue could forever be labeled as a "doper", which would suck for them.
Such a scenario doesn't apply to me, but if it ever did, I wouldn't want such a label to attach.
So, not for the benefit of Bolt but for the practical benefit of all athletes in general, I err on the side of thinking about Bolt's 9.76 as clean--although if his prior use was specifically aimed at performance enhancement and not just treatment of injury, he should have been suspended if he didn't have a TUE.
If push came to shove, I would label Bolt as having been continuously dirty since his first apparent use in late 2007 or early 2008. I suppose that by this logic and the fact that AFAIK he didn't actually have any TUE, I should consider the 9.76 dirty, and that there is therefore no real evidence that he could be one of the very fastest-ever clean 100m guys.
The BroJos are fanboys. If they wouldn't have met him/fallen in love with him, they'd be the loudest people on the planet claiming he is dirty.
How is LeBron James or Babe Ruth relevant to the question about how many PEDs Usain Bolt is taking? Athletes in Babe Ruth's time were not maximizing their performance like they do today. Can't compare what he did to what Usain Bolt is doing.
How about LeBron, he isn't even close to the best player in the league - perhaps physically bigger, but by no means the best player inthe NBA over the past 10 years?
Finally, aren't you making some of the same aguments that supporters of Lance Armstrong made a few years back.
Let's face it, anyone in today's sporting world who is that far ahead of his/her peers and shattering long established records is taking something the others aren't.
If you conclude you have to dope to beat the doped then you've also got to conclude that MJ was doped...
In my mind, MJ was doped beyond all reasonable doubt.
It is to track and field's everlasting discredit that neither he nor Greene were ever suspended for doping.
Bolt can be so confident he won't test positive because he knows the PED he is using is not detectable . Remember LA was the same way. Sorry kid his results aren't natural. I know you really want to believe it but Santa Claus doesn't exist.
totatlly and roids never got you times like
you see in sprints now ,all within afew years .
he more than likely might have done afew cyles of steroids
but it is the many cycles of various
selective A.R drugs thar are the difference for him and
the many others .
knowing that can take whenever and pass tests easily is
a big plus .
there were other tall sprinters and roided sprinters like portugese convert
but always on the skinnier side .
that is a definite recent anomally .
the number of fast taller sprinters
regardless of added selection for taller
Specially for hhxh:
The correlation between stride length and height (or more specifically leg length) HAS been shown, a long time ago actually, see:
1) International Journal of Exercise Science 4(4): 238-246, 2011
"It is clear from this study that there is a relationship between the height of the elite triathletes and their selected SL. That is, taller triathletes were able to take longer
2) Track Technique 46; 1463-69, 1971 Stature, leg length and stride frequency.
"Significant correlation between SL with height and lower limb length when sprinting (10 m/s)"
Of course it's based on averages, so yes, sometimes you will see athletes who do not seem to fall into the SL-height relationship (Bekele is one of them, he has a long SL compared to his height).
The push-off force you generate of course determines your SL, but in combination with your height. Simply put: all other things being equal, taller athletes are energetically favored to generate a greater stride length with less effort.
Whether they can do that in a high enough SR, now that's another thing alltogether