Andre DeGrasse: most likely clean guy under 10/20 ever

Evidently you have no idea what skinnyfat is

People need to look at photos when sprinters were "cleaner" and you will see much higher body fat levels. It's much harder to get your body fat to crazy levels when clean as your energy levels won't be the same as drugged up athletes.

This was Armin Hary--the Bolt of his generation--in 1960. He's was actually skinnier than de Grasse and built more like Bob Kennedy was than Gay or Gatlin, and far lighter for his height than Bolt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m7e8oTUo0A

And the whole story about de Grasse's 10.9 was that he ran it from a standing start...in basketball shorts...without sprint spikes. They almost didn't let him compete because he didn't look like he belonged there. A couple of months later, he ran 10.5. When you have talent like that, you don't need drugs. The same thing goes from Bromell, who ran 9.99w in high school.

coach d wrote:

When you have talent like that, you don't need drugs. The same thing goes from Bromell, who ran 9.99w in high school.

Marion Jones ran 11.17/22.76 with 15 years old. So, what's the point?

He will be on the dope sooner or later if not now.

I'm starting feel like I'm the only person on earth who understands that you can't determine if someone is not on PED's simply because they don't look ripped.

In distance for sure, in sprints, much more unlikely. When was the last time a skinny sprinter got popped?

Bacon, lettuce, testosterone wrote:

I'm starting feel like I'm the only person on earth who understands that you can't determine if someone is not on PED's simply because they don't look ripped.

Show me a photo of recent male PED positive 100 meter runner who looked like sprinters from the 60's or earlier. It doesn't matter what race they are they all look like something out of the Terminator. Why would you want to look like Armin Hary when you can be fitter and achieve faster times looking the various sprinters that have been popped over the years.

The problem is that at some point the sprinter and/or coach and manager think "if I can run 9.90 clean, just imagine what I can do when I level the playing field with the roiders." There have been some fantastic skinny talents before going to the dark side such as Tim Montgomery and Tyson Gay.

Calvin Smith might be the world record holder if all after him were clean, but that is just my opinion.

I agree with this. If he is as talented as his coach (and running form) indicates, maybe he can run fast enough without drugs to top the roiders, and maybe even have a mental edge in the process.

Opinionated guy wrote:

The problem is that at some point the sprinter and/or coach and manager think "if I can run 9.90 clean, just imagine what I can do when I level the playing field with the roiders." There have been some fantastic skinny talents before going to the dark side such as Tim Montgomery and Tyson Gay.

Calvin Smith might be the world record holder if all after him were clean, but that is just my opinion.

Yes I knew something was up when Gay started looking huge(for him). He was SKINNNNY in college for Arkansas.

A dirty little secret here: There is research showing that 20% improvement in squat strength translates into a 2% improvement in 40m sprint. It does transfer if you're a distance runner, but it doesn't transfer if you're a sprinter, and that's the opposite of what many coaches think. To what extent are American and Jamaican sprinters testing positive so they can add something that they believe works but actually doesn't do jack unless you're a beginner?

Evidence:

--Usain Bolt. In 2008-2009 he was more like 195 pounds. Everybody said that when he lifts more weights and grows into his body, he will get faster. He's now a more muscular 207. He's also slower.

--Kim Collins. The Lagat of sprinting. He does do weights now (didn't until the last few years), but still VERY skinny by modern standards.

--Jimmy Vicaut. He's about the same build are Armin Hary.

--Francis Obikwelu. Something like 6'5"/165, built like Johnny Gray. He finished with the silver in 2004 (9.85, as I recall), AHEAD or Maurice Greene.

--Marion Jones. Not skinny, but what's interesting is that her PRs were set in 1998, BEFORE she married CJ Hunter and BEFORE she trained with Trevor Graham. It is believed that she started doping in the buildup for the 2000 Olympics, and she kept both her PRs and her 1997 and 1999 world championships. It appears that she took steroids and GOT SLOWER.

I'm not saying to do zero weights, but the correlation is questionable, to say the least. There is very little scientific evidence of weight training doing much for sprinters. And the reason you don't see many skinny sprinters is because they believe they need to get big, not because it actually makes you faster.

One more:

This was Tyson Gay in 2008 running what was before 2009 the fastest all conditions time ever run:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9Da1Womuk0

He is bigger post doping. Is he faster? No he isn't.

B-Sample wrote:

In distance for sure, in sprints, much more unlikely. When was the last time a skinny sprinter got popped?

Bacon, lettuce, testosterone wrote:

I'm starting feel like I'm the only person on earth who understands that you can't determine if someone is not on PED's simply because they don't look ripped.

Not getting popped does not equal clean. Also, last I checked being a sprinter for any real length of time usually takes guy from being skinny to being jacked. Wonder why that is?

If that 2% increase in 40m time also translates to 100m time, take 9.9 and subtract 2% and see if you think guys would be willing to cheat for that.

You're right. Since it does nothing, they should just allow it...

Bacon, lettuce, testosterone wrote:

If that 2% increase in 40m time also translates to 100m time, take 9.9 and subtract 2% and see if you think guys would be willing to cheat for that.

That's on the order of what I think Gatlin got with the help of the Nike Lab since he signed with them, but it's not that simple.

Here's a review of literature that shows that power development in the gym essentially does not transfer:

Improvements in acceleration do not translate into higher max velocity, so a 2% faster 20-40m does not imply a 2% faster overall sprint. Gaining weight impacts speed endurance, and that's just as much true for Bolt as it is for Salazar's guys. Also, that 2% in 40m speed came from a 20% increase in squat strength, and it appears that a "meager" 10% gain improves nothing. For somebody starting out with, say, a 7 second 40m time and a 300 pound squat, getting up to 360 gets you a couple of tenths and maybe 400-450 gets you 0.3. But you might ask Ben Johnson how easy it is to up a 600 pound squat by 120 pounds, even on steroids.

All of this makes me wonder if the people like Powell, Gay, Rodgers, Blake...are doing all these drugs, getting busted, and not getting anything practical.

Bacon, lettuce, testosterone wrote:

I'm starting feel like I'm the only person on earth who understands that you can't determine if someone is not on PED's simply because they don't look ripped.

One can determine that an athlete is on--or was very recently on--PEDs by looking at the athlete's physique. For example, there is no way this athlete was "clean":

However, one cannot determine that an athlete is "clean" by looking at the athlete's physique.

You have obviously not seen Vicaut for a long time.

As for Hary, his strength was in his start. Forgive me if I'm wrong but weren't amphetamines widely available back in the 50s.