Lamine Diack PROVES that I'm right, and that Bolt is golden and will NEVER test positive

I'll be thrilled when Bolt retires... Maybe in another 4 years?

In my entire life I have NEVER seen such an obvious fraud in the sport. Or any sport for that matter. It's embarrassing and infuriating.

What's worse is all the shills and apologists out there - from the IAAF to the mods of this very website.

And the proof for your accusations is what exactly? Your strong suspicions? remind me who you are and why what you think matters?

OTOH, even compared to his pre-championship form of other years, Bolt might have returned to earth for a time.

So far in 2013, he was around 10.10 at the start of May, at the end of June around 9.90, at the end of July around 9.85

His basic times this year, excluding the heats and semi's at nationals, have been around 10.10, 10.00, 9.90, and 9.85 (all rounded up or down a couple of hundredths)

10.1, 10.0, 9.9, 9.85

Is his next-best season comparison the closest one in time, 2012, which was an Olympic year, or is it the last world-championship year, 2011? I don't know. I don't even have to do the numbers, maybe somebody else can do them.

Look at last year, excluding heats and semi's at nationals and excluding performances in London--around 9.90 at the start of May, around 10.00 and 9.75 at the end of May, around 9.82 at the start of June, 9.87 in September.

Excluding September, he had

10.0, 9.75, 9.82

Was this comparable to 2013? Maybe. Even from early May, he was about .10 faster last year than this year, but that's not a huge change.

We will see what happens in Moscow. There is no doubt that he is an incredible performer. EVEN IF his trajectory holds as last year, he will go the equivalent of 9.73 (+1.5) in Moscow, conditions permitting.

That time would be roughly 9.80 or 9.81 basic, which is around where I predicted he would be in order to win (I said low 9.8's).

Judging by Gatlin's performance last year and this year, he might get to the mid/high-9.8x basic range, well behind low-9.8x of which Bolt should be capable.

So I don't think that Bolt really has anything to worry about this year, and that he might not have taken anything yet this year, and that if he does, it will only be something mild, not as a crutch, but just as a bit of insurance.

It's perfect, really perfect. That low-9.8x basic was NOT going to be enough to beat Gay, and maybe wouldn't have been enough to beat a resurgent Powell.

actuallybruh wrote:

And the proof for your accusations is what exactly? Your strong suspicions? remind me who you are and why what you think matters?

The shock value. The same shock I had that the bulky kid I had met growing up was now skinny and winning the tour 7 times in a row.

The same shock I had when MJ ran 19.32

I felt it again at 9.69 in Beijing watching his tongue wag out as he slowed down.

Berlin 9.58 I just don't believe it !

Proof, are you kidding he will never be caught. ever heard of the clear, nobody at wada had either. the drugged are ruling this sport and have been for quite a while.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Diack's statements confirm everything that I have said, as if it needed any further confirmation given recent doping revelations.

Bolt is golden.

I'm personally on the fence about Bolt. However, this article and the statements from Diack do not prove anything. If anything, it's a timely statement to leave hanging out there to avoid as much negative publicity/association for the IAAF if Bolt is caught.

I think they're learning from the Lance debacle and starting to create some cleaner lines of separation and professionalism. Yes, Bolt is vital, but if he goes down, Diack is starting to carve the IAAF from going down with him.

Think about it, two of the next biggest sprint stars just got pinched. Do you really think they're trying to argue in Bolt's favor or are they cleaning up their act a bit???

As I've said before, if there was or ever were to be a cover up, we would know about it. If the NSA can't keep secrets, I don't know how you expect a loose international coalition of washed-up track stars to do so.

And Bolt IS track and field? Give me a break. I've been following the sport for 20 years or more, long before anyone knew who Usain Bolt was. He's not that far removed from aging out anyway, and I promise there will still be track and field when that happens.

As usual more BSing from SprintGeezer. Track and Field don't have the resources or savvy to cover anything up. This is not MLB or the NFL folks. Track is a sport that has a budget that pays the annual salary of the top stars in other sporting leagues. So they couldn't stage a cover up even if they wanted to. No IAAF head would risk it either - because the truth when it emerges would be even more devastating to the sport. So Bolt I believe has thus far been testing clean. And Diack simply answered a question that was put to him by a journalist. The conspiracy theorizing is getting old.

OhReallyNow wrote:

As usual more BSing from SprintGeezer. Track and Field don't have the resources or savvy to cover anything up. This is not MLB or the NFL folks. Track is a sport that has a budget that pays the annual salary of the top stars in other sporting leagues. So they couldn't stage a cover up even if they wanted to. No IAAF head would risk it either - because the truth when it emerges would be even more devastating to the sport. So Bolt I believe has thus far been testing clean. And Diack simply answered a question that was put to him by a journalist. The conspiracy theorizing is getting old.

The "it's a conspiracy theory!" is a weak azz argument thrown out my the IAAF shills and Bolt apologists.

No "conspiracy" or "cover-up" is necessary. It takes zero effort to simply not test Bolt, ignore his test results, or tip him off to the timing of out-of-competition testing so he can time his cycles properly. No special resources or money are required for this sort of thing.

Lance Armstrong is the most tested athlete of all time and he was doping all day everyday. In fact they all were, thats admitted.

Gay Marxist: "The "it's a conspiracy theory!" is a weak azz argument thrown out my the IAAF shills and Bolt apologists.

No "conspiracy" or "cover-up" is necessary. It takes zero effort to simply not test Bolt, ignore his test results, or tip him off to the timing of out-of-competition testing so he can time his cycles properly. No special resources or money are required for this sort of thing."

Exactly. Thank-you.

BTW, I hear that gays won't be welcomed in Moscow, even if they are Marxists.

Steve Brule--

Let me say first that I appreciate the position that Diack is in, and the concerns that he has as the head of an organization that is sandwiched between other organizations, with the IOC at the top.

Let me also say that according to a particular view of institutionalized activity, that the IAAF seems to have done a not only good, but excellent job of damage control regarding doping in general, and Bolt in particular--not an absolutely good job of doping control, but an excellent job of DAMAGE CONTROL. Hats off to them, so far.

What the article does is evidence Diack's attitudes toward the sport, and toward what he thinks is good, and bad, for the sport.

He thinks that Bolt testing positive would be bad for the sport--very bad. A total disaster, in fact. That tells you all you need to know, because remember: a positive test means that he was doping and breaking the rules.

Now, catching a doper, even Bolt, can have all sorts of different effects on how the sport is viewed, DEPENDING ON THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE VIEWER.

I personally believe that it's GREAT when any doper tests positive, and that the sport is better for it. That is because of my individual perspective that t&f is about more than just numbers, it is about the values of honor, integrity, fairness, collegiality, and candor. Yes, it provides an entertainment quality to the casual viewer, but that entertainment quality doesn't have to be diminished just because those values are adhered-to. You know, there are clean forms of entertainment, without the base vulgarity that is currently viewed by morons as the only thing really enjoyable. There is a lot to be said for class, wit, dignity, good-natured competition, and respect. There is room for friendly derision and humor in all of that, too.

Diack doesn't think like that. For Diack, the negative effects of Bolt testing positive would vastly outweigh the positive effects, which is why he describes it as "a disaster". Negative effects again derive from perception: for me, there would be NONE. ZERO. Because I hold to the set of values that t&f professes to embody and uphold.

Diack, OTOH, is the servant of an entirely different set of values. His values might--might--include the core values of the sort that I have listed, and even he would probably acknowledge that there would be some positive benefit to a doped Bolt testing positive...BUT there are all sorts of other values that drive him, such as the market penetration of the entertainment property, the strength of the institution, the preservation of the existing organizational hegemony enjoyed by the IOC and its subservient member organizations like the IAAF.

Success in realizing those values is measured against the popularity of the sport, and the perceived integrity of the organizational structure running it. That popularity exists among all sorts of people, having all sorts of values of their own, all around the world--so to reflect Diack's other values, the lowest-common-denominator must be adhered to.

And that LCD is perceived integrity. Not actual integrity, but perceived integrity. The IAAF must be SEEN to be doing the right thing, by the greatest number of people possible, and only then will it achieve their buy-in and gain popularity and therefore influence (money). "The right thing" isn't necessarily the moral thing, it is WHATEVER INCREASES POPULARITY AND INFLUENCE, because remember, it is what is right for the organization and institution, NOT what is right for individual athletes all around the world.

Diack evidences how this whole thing, like many things in life that are tied to institutions, has been flipped entirely on its head. While the institution should exist to serve athletes and competitors at all levels, it has instead become primarily concerned with its own prosperity, power, and influence.

This is easily justified by institutionalists as being good for athletes and competitors under the old lie that "what is good for the institution is by extension good for all those who depend on the institution", which is clearly not generally and necessarily true, all the time. Whether the individual athlete toiling away in anonymity in nowheresville is better served by the IAAF and the IOC maintaining Bolt as the golden boy is open to debate. I would suggest that there is no evidence to support that assertion, because t&f is so incredibly top-heavy. The top few make some good money on appearance fees, and Bolt makes as much as the rest of them combined. As for the rest, the other 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of t&f athletes, how exactly are they better served? Are the organizations more responsive? More helpful? More supportive? As a result of Bolt being the golden boy? I don't see it, and I don't believe it for a second.

The power struggle comes in when you realize that the IAAF and the IOC have permitted Bolt to become an institution himself, which is maybe a less significant institution than the IOC, but which is quite possibly a more significant institution than the IAAF. While the IAAF has actual regulatory authority over Bolt, they're not eager to bite the hand that feeds them--and that hand is Bolt.

But Bolt is so big, that they are wary, and possibly even chafing just a bit. Diack tried to flex some institutional muscle when he pulled Bolt aside and tried to remind him of the IAAF, the sport, and suggested that Bolt owed them all a duty--but it was more of a plaintive bleat than a directive. It was like a plea for mercy and partnership, an appeal to Bolt's naivete and/or good nature, or good smarts. Bolt realizes, and has realized for a long time, that there is no way he would be brought down by the organization unless there was rogue action, or unless the organization became self-destructive, because both he, his agent, and his federation, know the game and play by the same unwritten rules as do Diack and the IAAF and IOC.

In an era where money, power, and influence are the be-all and end-all of social and personal endeavor, it is and was a safe bet that the institution would not become self-destructive. The only potential problem was rogue action. For the IAAF to permit it would be, in itself, a form of institutional suicide, so a few people kept things tight, and have easily made it problematic for those in the trenches to faithfully execute their duties.

Of course that can't last forever, as the gravy train continues on its journey, the initial inequities grow ever-wider. At some point control will be lost, and the institution will need to shift gears to realize a new mechanism of control.

I think the IAAF sensed that things were significantly breaking down already last year, and before, and have switched to a form of control that exercises the values that I adhere to, and that forecloses the possibility of rogue action, because there is in fact no definitive and demonstrable malfeasance: dopers are now getting outed (even if they have likely been doping for quite some time), entire federations are on the verge of sanction, and the situation has been carefully tailored to ensure that Bolt still has a more-than-reasonable prospect of victory on t&f's second-biggest stage, while either not having to dope, or having to dope very little, or for only a very brief time period.

Overall, I must say that it's an equitable situation, and strikes what is probably a good balance for the organizations and the athletes that they are supposed to serve. Bolt can be, and is being, phased out slowly and without the need for crisis management and damage control. Very efficient.

He is still being permitted to win, to remain testing negative, and thereby collect the huge appearance fees and glory that he is after. Even though he will win his star will slowly fall, as his times are not likely to approach his past greatness--and I think that he's OK with that, as long as he is still on top while it's fading and he gets the lion's share of the spoils. Being at the top like that takes its toll, it is a real hassle, especially for some people. Maybe he doesn't actually like training, maybe he wants to do other things. He likes girls, partying, and cricket--for none of which he needs to dope, to hide, to manage, to feel pain in training, to constantly be on edge. I think he's OK with how things are shaping up, which represents a tremendous success for IAAF management.

Things started to become difficult when Blake became close to Bolt, both in training and in competition. Blake was a pain in the butt, because he got too good, too fast, and was a real threat to the status quo, without having any sort of real mass appeal like Bolt. There was nothing uniquely marketable or salable about Blake--not flashy, not tall, not flamboyant--just an immature, awkward young gun who was struggling, and failing, to define himself without reference to Bolt. He couldn't, and still hasn't, even settled on a created image and moniker that work for him, and he probably never will. Blake was never going to be a good media property for the IAAF, or IOC for that matter.

It's too bad for Blake, because he is in the position of the second-born, next to the prodigal son Bolt. No matter what he does, he will never measure up to the legend. It's not his fault, but it is a fact, a fact that the IAAF, IOC, and their media consultants understand fully.

While he was sheltered in the safe harbor afforded by the huge presence of Bolt, his rise was meteoric, probably faster than anybody realized, and what's more, it happened in the inter-Olympic years. He went from around 10-flat in 2009, to around 9.9 in 2010, and then somehow dominated the scene in 2011, with his two consecutive 9.82's with no wind, which were incredibly tied with Bolt's 9.76 (+1.3) in Zurich for best basic time of the year--and Blake did it TWICE, in quick succession.

Everybody was caught off-guard, even Bolt, who may even have not been doped in 2011. It was such a mess that it resulted in the now-famous false start, which whether it was intentional or not, was the product of the problem represented by Blake. While the IAAF got some PR redemption by Bolt winning the 200m, its championship was irreparably damaged by him not having won, not even having run, the flagship 100m event--and it was a problem that the IAAF itself created, by permitting Bolt to do what he had been doing, and thereby letting Blake ride Bolt's slipstream.

That's when they first realized the problem that resulted from their ceding of some control to the larger institution that was/is Bolt...but the problem was to find a good solution, a solution that allowed them to keep Bolt golden, to continue to build their own stock, to find a way to satisfy Blake, to keep everybody critical, including the Jamaican federation and government, on board, to strike the right balance between action and inaction, and perhaps most importantly, to do it on the right schedule, considering the timing of events that had already been set inexorably in motion, like London 2012.

They were gentle. They let things go for the 2012 Games, and got the results they wanted, and the results that were somehow inevitable. The Games were, in a PR and marketing sense, an unqualified success, both for the IAAF and the IOC. The scheduling was excellent--they let the performances and the spectacle play itself out, and then cherry-picked what they were going to let stand, and what they felt they could take down.

After a reasonable amount of time, in order to let the feel-good memories of the London games solidify in people's minds and hearts, it started. First, due to IOC considerations, Alptekin goes down, and eventually other Turks and possibly the entire Turkish federation. They send out the warnings--not explicitly, but subtlely. Actions speak louder than words. People started to see the writing on the wall. Some got frightened and disappeared, some heeded the warning and injured themselves trying to do what they were no longer capable of doing, some decided to back off a bit and continue to play cat-and-mouse.

In a stroke of good fortune for the IAAF, which good fortune was enabled by good planning, all of Bolt's biggest rivals--really, his only rivals--all got filtered out by these mechanisms: Gay by doping, Blake by injury, and Powell first by injury and then by doping. It really could not have played out any better for the IAAF. Bolt was still winning, but showed a tantalizing bit of weakness that will make his eventual victory all the more sweet, and add interest to the drama--and, he was likely doing it without having to dope.

The only guy left who could be a problem is Gatlin, and I think the IAAF is leaving the decision about what to do about him to Bolt, in what is again probably a good balance.

Nice job. Not perfect, but nice, for now. We have yet to see if it all plays out well. Yes, the IAAF has had some good luck on its side, but as the old saying goes, you have to be good to get lucky (or something like that).

I am now absolutely convinced, in light of Diack's statement, that Bolt will never, ever test positive. If there is any evidence of doping, it will only be revealed after Bolt has retired from competition.

As for me, I understand organizational requirements, and in light of them, I will take what I can get--which for now, is a cleaner 100m competition in Moscow than it would have been had Blake, Gay, and Powell been competing--but I still look forward to further improvements.

But there is hope. Yes, there are some things for which there aren't any good tests at the moment, but that might always be the case. The only reasonable hope is that the IAAF and WADA are responsive, and that it doesn't take too long, and that they don't, in the future, let the tail wag the dog anymore--but the Bolt ride has been fun for everyone, and profitable, and that is why I think it will play out again at some point in the future, with a different media property, as the organization flags and t&f needs an injection of drama and heroism.

Remember, the IOC is the big dog in all of this, so to some extent the responsibility is not all on the IAAF or WADA, they are just the most visible targets. It is the IOC which ultimately calls the shots, and it is a big deal, with lots of power and political influence, and concerns that extend well beyond the values of honor, integrity, and those expressed in the Olympic spirit.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

He thinks that Bolt testing positive would be bad for the sport--very bad. A total disaster, in fact. That tells you all you need to know

This is what's happening.

Bolt is seeming to a lot of people to be a super human and unbeatable, as he has been built up to be this way in people's minds.

The corporate media built him up this way, they built up his image the same way that they build up the image of their drugs.

Now, if you think they really want people to think a person using no drugs can run faster than those hyped up on their corporate drugs than you've got a lot to learn about the drug hypocrisy. Bolt will be let go for awhile, but then he will be found guilty of taking the dreaded, super powerful drugs, that you can get at any drugstore or online and make you a super powerful human as well!

Whether this will be official or not, as it has been with Lance, who was previously the pet of big pharma, you will continue to hear a lot about Bolt being on drugs.

Hey you ignorami who violently opposed my opinion of malfeasance and cover-up by Diack et al at the IAAF:

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

This whole thread is irrelevant. Bolt already tested positive. When he false started at Worlds, he was told to do so. The writing's on the wall but we turned off the lights

Yes, this is me.

I felt the need to look in here with the recent revelations, and WC's coming up.

You may be right, maybe I should have said that the public will never be made aware of any adverse analytical finding.

apart from profane return messages, do you have anything in detail to say about the IAAF drug scandals?

reed wrote:

they confirmed nothing...

they said that if bolt were to test positive then he would test positive

that doesnt sound like some conspiracy to me

whether they're covering up his drug tests or not, this article released no additional info

Really? Former head of the federation discussing the management of the sport with a current athlete isn't just a little bit..... suspect?

if bolt were to test positive then he would test positive

Meaning, Bolt is never testing positive. Ever. Under any conditions.

Sounds like the IAAF is picking winners.

I cannot say any more than I have already said.

Nor do I need to.

Well, with the Diack/Russia situation, it looks like that windbag sprintgeezer was right, again.

I must say, it's getting rather tiresome. Either sprintgeezer was a genius, or he was an insider. Unfortunately, every point on which he has been proven correct has been a negative point.

I wonder if he's ever right about anything positive.