For all of you who definitely think Usain Bolt is on drugs, this is for you (amazing video)

Sorry. You've got nothing so far, even with Clerk's additions.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Yeah -- larkimm's right -- these are not cogent arguments.

Just a moment. Larkimm wrote: "Just tossing out a name and then some negative phrases doesn't make for a cogent argument."

The facts described here about Healing Hans' work are quite a bit more than "tossing out a name and then some negative phrases".

And thanks to Clerk, we can now add Powell and Chambers to Hans' list of convicted drug cheats. + Gay.

(I don't really care about the soccer players and cyclists, but those who do and think Germany's soccer is clean, start for example here:

http://www.dw.com/en/doping-in-football-a-taboo-subject/a-17026060

. Likewise Spain's soccer is heavily involved with Fuentes' to be destroyed blood bags.)

larkimm wrote:

I just don't accept that, no matter how sophisticated doping has got, that the likes of Bolt (or Healing Hans) have access to completely future proof doping strategies which are / will last the test of time in terms of future testing of old samples; it does come down to "faith" to a degree, and that isn't testable either way. But I do believe Bolt to be clean. I do believe Radcliffe to be clean. I even believe that Gatlin (today) is clean.

I'm one of the 'glass half empty' crew. As an ex-sprinter, I have some insight into maximising potential by legal means, and knowing what one's best is.

My shock is the half-second improvement in Bolt's sprinting over the course of a year. Ditto, the improvements of Johan Blake. Compare that to runners like Kim Collins, whose sprint improvements over the years have come in increments of 1/100ths of a second. Or 2nd tier sprinters like Jason Gardener and Darren Campbell. That is something I recognise.

It doesn't mean or prove that those guys are or were drug-free, but the pattern of Collins' times is something that I'm familiar with.

What I dislike about Bolt is that, if he is 100% cleans, why doesn't he push this fact every day to the world and help win back some of the skeptical fans? He's not obliged to, of course, but what an advert for the sport it would be.

It is not nothing. Having worked with all 3 out of 3 dopers from the 2009 field should be grounds for suspicion. Larkim is explaining why that is not a red flag below. Can you explain your perspective, why this is not suspicious for you?

It sounds like the only evidence you accept as an indicator of doping is a positive test. If I'm starting out on the wrong foot, let me know...

Given how often analytical decisions are made, from the passport sanctions, or reasoned decisions based on circumstantial evidence and witness testimony, why do you choose to only focus on whether an athlete has tested positive or not?

And given what we know about the reliability of testing, reliability of backdated testing and the sophistication of doping (such as never-tested-positive Marion Jones or Lance Armstrong), why do you rely so much on negative tests to indicate someone being clean?

Further, why do you choose to minimize the available evidence from the Angel Heredia interview with Der Spiegel about the sophistication and pervasiveness of doping? Why do you ignore the Dwain Chamber's evidence (book and interview)about the sophistication of doping? Why do you ignore the report about how many suspicious blood values there were? Why do you ignore evidence from BALCO that showed athletes are using designer drugs that don't even have a brand name, referred to as "The clear" or "the cream" (and that Chambers, for example only tested positive for one of the several drugs he was on).

And regarding corruption, while the breadth of corruption has limited evidence, the fact that two key IAAF figures, the head of IAAF and the head of anti doping were the ones accepting bribes is what is important when we are discussing the sport's superstars. Further, the head of an anti-doping lab is on record as having shown Lance Armstrong and Johan Bruynel how to beat the EPO test. To say that it is a side show ignores that there is a very real possibility the reality we think we are witnessing is being manipulated behind the scenes: we cannot know that any of the top athletes haven't actually tested positive, or that they haven't actually received doping advice to not get caught. This mistrust is a huge factor in why we must look at other evidence besides test results.

Once again, we are stuck arguing over what you consider evidence. So just to reiterate my questions above, why do you choose to only focus on whether an athlete has tested positive or not? Why do you rely so much on negative tests to indicate someone being clean? Why do you choose to minimize the available evidence (about sophistication and undetectability) of doping?

I rely on positive tests because that is the only conclusive thing we can stand behind, other than witness testimony and direct evidence.

The world is a very political place. People fall in and out of love with people they are working with. People have greed and revenge motivations. Secret groups have leaks.

I simply find it unimaginable that a high profile doper (and, if Bolt, the highest profile doper in the world) hasn't made someone, somewhere work out that there is a very easy way to make quite a lot of cash by getting a factual story into the press about covert doping. Across all of the people that this board obsesses about in terms of drugs (Bolt, Farah, Rupp, Radcliffe, Dibaba, etc etc etc), not a single one of them appears ever to have put a foot wrong and punctured their waterproof story of being a clean athlete.

I have absolutely no doubt that there are lots of athletes on PEDs, probably most of them are athletes for whom natural talent wasn't taking them all the way (Chambers being a good example). People for whom that extra fraction of a percent would make the difference between hero and nobody. People who we are less interested in.

But Bolt, as an example, has been a global superstar for nearly three olympic cycles now. And not a single hint of doping. No hints of failed, but covered up, tests. No tittle tattle about TUEs. No missed drugs tests (oops, Mo F!). He is squeaky clean.

Now, some here will say that is all part of the global conspiracy to cover up doping from the worlds most valuable athletics asset. Nothing I can say will convince those people to think differently. I don't have that paranoid mindset, so I can't get into their way of thinking. There's no point in debating that sort of perspective.

For me, I see athletics as a sport where there is individuality perfectly expressed. Not everyone is the same. Not everyone progresses at the same pace. Not everyone is born to run, jump and throw to the same level of ability. Bolt is a freak of nature. And its something I love to watch. Farah is a demonstration of how natural talent needs to find the right coaching to bring it to life. Radcliffe is an example of someone who can put method, guts and determination to achieve things others can't. It's why I love the sport.

I got up in the middle of the night in 1988 to watch the showdown between Johnson and Lewis. I willed Johnson to win, I delighted in it. And I came crashing down when his doping was proved. I've seen the highs and lows of supporting athletics.

I know and understand the evidence that is out there about drug abuse in athletics. We can debate all day about differing interpretations of the actions of Saugy (he's someone else who I have the view of as being tossed into an argument as a doping indicator without the whole story stacking up properly, but that's another debate for another time).

But when accusations are made about individuals, there is only one thing that I trust, and that is the evidence of a failed test (or categoric witness testimony about specific PED use). Nothing else will convince me. And I'm happy with that.

Cleans wrote:

What I dislike about Bolt is that, if he is 100% cleans, why doesn't he push this fact every day to the world and help win back some of the skeptical fans? He's not obliged to, of course, but what an advert for the sport it would be.

This:

Thank you for spelling it out. You can guess what I think of your standard, that only a positive test matters, but I'm not going to convince you, obviously. Always good discussions. Hopefully someone else reading on is learning something.

Clerk wrote:

Thank you for spelling it out. You can guess what I think of your standard, that only a positive test matters, but I'm not going to convince you, obviously. Always good discussions. Hopefully someone else reading on is learning something.

Indeed. Happy to agree to disagree, it wouldn't be much fun reading this forum if everyone agreed with each other!

I'd clarify, "only a positive test matters" on the proviso that there is a robust and fair testing process taking place. In the main, I also think this is happening, but I know that that is a subject which remains under debate!

42 of the top 60 100m times were 'achieved' by convicted dopers.

Of the remaining 18 'clean' times, 16 of those were run by Usain Bolt.

Even if Bolt is clean, his chosen discipline, the 100M, is filthy by anyone's standards, and for that reason I can't enjoy watching it.

Again Tyson was not working with Hans when he had his series of multiple positive tests. He was working with a doc out of Atlanta. And I'm inclined to say that the other 2 named sprinters were not working with Hans at the time either.

He got an insane lead...for sure the most i have ever seen in a 200.

Bolt has been on the 'yams' since ~2005. Hell they were practically trying everything to beat his scoliosis. He needed more muscle, more neural control, you name it. With form work and core exercises and 'yams' he made it work.

JADCO lets it happen, and then some years later we see Yohan run 19.26, an utterly yammed-up race. Watch the race, and look at how Bolt is on the side laughing, like "isn't it amazing??"

they're talking about the 'yams,' it was the first time Bolt and Blake were using the same stuff and Blake couldn't believe how effective it was. Trust me, by that point Bolt knew damn well how effective it was. Moneymakers like Bolt, Farah, Kiprop, are always allowed the pass. They get the pass and occasionally the Puppeteers allow a country a second-coming (Blake, Gatlin, Powell, etc.) What do you think happened to Lagat? Noticed how quickly he dropped off... he could still be going strong and contending in the mile if he was allowed to stay sauced on the good peptides. Not anymore. Puppeteers said "you gotta stop, we can't make it too obvious." on that note, watch Kim Collins. Just watch him and see what happens ;)

larkimm wrote:

Clerk wrote:

Thank you for spelling it out. You can guess what I think of your standard, that only a positive test matters, but I'm not going to convince you, obviously. Always good discussions. Hopefully someone else reading on is learning something.

Indeed. Happy to agree to disagree, it wouldn't be much fun reading this forum if everyone agreed with each other!

I'd clarify, "only a positive test matters" on the proviso that there is a robust and fair testing process taking place. In the main, I also think this is happening, but I know that that is a subject which remains under debate!

I was WRONG on Hans and East Germany. I saw Berlin in the article, thought of the wall, and then even jumped over the wall to EAST GERMANY in the post. Sorry about that. I hope that it is irrelevant and not an important mistake like spelling (rojo).

It is also true that Hans has gone a really long time with people knowing about him... without ever being busted.

Perhaps you missed reading this article about drug testing in Jamaica:

Yea. Sure. A robust and fair testing process is taking place.

Ha Ha Ha

He knows because he's not a stupid f u c k like you are. He understands that nothing (NOTHING) can ever be "known" with a 100% degree of certainty, and he's not some stupid hero-worshipping butterhead who can't deal with the real world.

Y o u f u c k i n g m o r o n.

Bolt was a child prodigy. His fantastic times go back to when he was 15.

His progression has been hoped for but never guaranteed. Injuries tend to catch up with sprinters who are fast from an early age. Like McTear etc.

I don't know whether he's doping. But with the natural tools he has, I would not be surrpised if he was clean as a whislte. There are few athletes built for the sport like Bolt. And add his competitive ability to that.

I'm pretty much with you on this. I don't give a lot of credence to innuendo. As a non-American, I have never understood the hatred thrown at Rupp and Farah on these boards. As far as I know, Farah has been busted for nothing. He is apparently guilty by his association with Salazar. Farah is guilty because Rupp takes thyroid medication and Salazar test cream on his kid.

Farah has a lot to lose by getting caught doping. I also believe that a change in training, over time, can make a significant difference. And on NOP, the best anyone has is the possible (and only possible) taking advantage of TUEs, or microdosing testosterone. Where is the steroid or EPO use? You have an obsessive coach overlooking everything, and by his own admission doing what he can within the rules. With nothing concrete near Farah, I am inclined to give him the guilty until proven innocent presumption.

Agreed - but I am wary of what Gebre and Bekele managed, two massive names. No one has got near the 5km times, save one race in Paris a couple of years ago when a bunch of Ethiopians ran in the 12.40s.

On the other hand, they were supremely gifted runners - they had better speed and form than those 12.40 runners. So it is conceivable that they are the only ones in the mid-12.30s because they were the result of top end speed, natural endurance and quality training being married together.

I would accept more than positive tests. When Armstrong was going faster than the guys in his team who were doping, that was good enough without a positive test. When Balco was busted, that was good enough without a positive test. A positive test isn't what I need, but I need more concrete evidence than the innuendo or petty jealousy or dislike that seems to be what most people are relying on.

So Karma Police, what's your perspective on Bolt? He's faster than known dopers, and the next fastest non-doped athlete is .2 seconds behind.

Also, the "naturally gifted" attribute is a bad argument to use. A naturally talented athlete looks just the same as a doped athlete, except that a doped athlete goes faster.

Personally I think it is pretty difficult to pick someone out as a doper, especially in the men's sport, without any evidence against them. Amazing times, fantastic performances, rapid rise to fame, world records, Olympic golds; all are circumstantial.

Coaches with a bad history, missed tests, lack of testing and witness testimonies are much more reliable.

Clerk wrote:

So Karma Police, what's your perspective on Bolt? He's faster than known dopers, and the next fastest non-doped athlete is .2 seconds behind.

Also, the "naturally gifted" attribute is a bad argument to use. A naturally talented athlete looks just the same as a doped athlete, except that a doped athlete goes faster.

If the training and other variables are the same, a more naturally gifted athlete will go faster. How is that a bad argument? If for example Bekele was more naturally gifted (ie faster) than other guys and they were equally fit, surely the faster guy wins? He wins because he can give you a faster last lap, but also because if they run at x% of max over 5km, then his x% of max is necessarily higher. The speed reserve argument.

and they don't look the same. The dope makes someone better. It doesn't change their running style. It might make them faster or fitter.

My perspective on Bolt? I struggle to believe that he was doping at 16, like some have suggested. I've got an elite 16yo kid - who would let someone that age dope? It's possible of course, but your logic isn't as strong as you think. You're assuming everyone is equal. You're saying if person A dopes and person B beats person A, then person B must also be doping. That doesn't allow for the fact that some people are better than others. Doesn't matter how much I dope, I'll never be a 9.99 100 runner, so if I dope and someone beats me, it doesn't mean they are doping. All the dope does is make you better than you otherwise would be.

If he wasn't doping at 16, then the improvement from 16 to adult makes sense.

I don't know either way. He's never been busted or really implicated, other than the "He's Jamaican so he must be" argument. Bring me a smoking gun rather than innuendo.

Karma Police says:

"With nothing concrete near Farah, I am inclined to give him the guilty until proven innocent presumption."

I totally agree with you Karma Police. That is the meaning you intended with that sentence, right?

Mobot can't even hear his doorbell ring when the doping test person is ringing it for an hour. Oh well.

You know that testosterone is an anabolic steroid that is banned, right?

You know that Alberto Salazar rubbing testosterone gel on his son and then doing lab tests to see if it would cause a positive doping test is administering a controlled drug to another person when that person does not have a prescription for that controlled drug from a doctor…which would be a violation of various federal drug laws in the United States…right?

You know that Alberto Salazar is not a doctor and does not have a license to practice medicine. He just likes to play doctor.

You know that Alberto Salazar was the coach of Mary Decker Slaney when she tested positive for elevated levels of testosterone that were above the maximum 6:1 testosterone/epitestosterone ratio at the time (which was later lowered to the present 4:1 ratio) in 1996, and then she received a doping ban... right?

OK then.

No worries then when the Karma Police comes for Alberto Salazar.

Mo will probably be in Ethiopia or somewhere fun.