That's what a buddy of mine thinks:
What say you?
That's what a buddy of mine thinks:
What say you?
That's may be the dumbest thing I've EVER read on this site, ever. WOW, it doesn't even make any sense.
Even dumber than "That's may be..."
That 19.19 200m is pretty ridiculous if you ask me and professional sports at the top level are notoriously dirty. Maybe he really is a once in a generation type of athlete, but if it turns out he doped I would not be shocked at all.
Wha? Proves he is clean 'now', and he wasn't 'then'?
That an aging doper lost to another aging doper and a new doper proves only how dirty the sport is, nothing else.
Also, the loss wasn't exactly "stunning".
The fact that sprint times are much slower this year tells me that it's quite possible that whatever drug they were all on to get into 9.5* to 9.7* is now detectable and they haven't worked out a replacement yet.
Bolt's loss was a good thing because it spared us his deification.
He's a great athlete and superb for the sport but it had got too much.
PUREHATEUSA wrote:
That's may be the dumbest thing I've EVER read on this site, ever. WOW, it doesn't even make any sense.
So you think I should I have put a disclaimer on the post by saying that the guy who started the text chain is the same guy who once when I asked him how he was academically doing responsded , "D stands for diploma, right coach?"
I think he was joking.
say no to drugs wrote:
That an aging doper lost to another aging doper and a new doper proves only how dirty the sport is, nothing else.
Also, the loss wasn't exactly "stunning".
When they run fast it´s a proof of doping. When they run slower it´s also a proff of doping...
alaba wrote:
The fact that sprint times are much slower this year tells me that it's quite possible that whatever drug they were all on to get into 9.5* to 9.7* is now detectable and they haven't worked out a replacement yet.
Agree
Learn from thy history, starting here:
http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_100ok.htm
This is one of the dirtiest events ever. The American male 100 m sprinters might be the dirtiest group ever; every star from Lewis to Gay was a doper.
At which place do you find the first sprinter not connected to doping?
rojo wrote:
That's what a buddy of mine thinks:
http://www.letsrun.com/news/2017/08/usain-bolts-stunning-loss-last-night-actually-great-development-track-proves-bolt-clean/What say you?
I don't understand the premise of the argument.
How does losing, in a comparatively slow time to previous years, prove he is clean?
If Bolt was doping, he would've doped himself to a 9.6 last night.
His progression (peaking in his early-20's and slowing down year after year) is what you'd expect from a normal athlete through aging and physical wear and tear.
It's been documented over and over again how and why he's a physical anomaly. When you have a 6'5'' stride with a 5'11'' turnover and take 41 steps to finish the race to everyone else's 44-45, you're gonna be the best.
It's the fast times that put people at doubt, but Bolt ran his first WL (the 19.93 WJR) when he was 17, and finished that season #2 in the world. Who does that, unless he was doping as a teen?
Texas HS Coach wrote:
alaba wrote:The fact that sprint times are much slower this year tells me that it's quite possible that whatever drug they were all on to get into 9.5* to 9.7* is now detectable and they haven't worked out a replacement yet.
Agree
All it says to me is that the 35 year old has connections to some undetectable drugs that the younger generation may not.
DeGrasse is clean and would have won that one.
Reconsideror wrote:
If Bolt was doping, he would've doped himself to a 9.6 last night.
His progression (peaking in his early-20's and slowing down year after year) is what you'd expect from a normal athlete through aging and physical wear and tear.
It's been documented over and over again how and why he's a physical anomaly. When you have a 6'5'' stride with a 5'11'' turnover and take 41 steps to finish the race to everyone else's 44-45, you're gonna be the best.
It's the fast times that put people at doubt, but Bolt ran his first WL (the 19.93 WJR) when he was 17, and finished that season #2 in the world. Who does that, unless he was doping as a teen?
This
Reconsideror wrote:
If Bolt was doping, he would've doped himself to a 9.6 last night.
His progression (peaking in his early-20's and slowing down year after year) is what you'd expect from a normal athlete through aging and physical wear and tear.
It's been documented over and over again how and why he's a physical anomaly. When you have a 6'5'' stride with a 5'11'' turnover and take 41 steps to finish the race to everyone else's 44-45, you're gonna be the best.
It's the fast times that put people at doubt, but Bolt ran his first WL (the 19.93 WJR) when he was 17, and finished that season #2 in the world. Who does that, unless he was doping as a teen?
Here we are again - the same BS was said about Lance and his magical training.
The guy runs 9.58 and virtually everyone else within hailing distance is dirty? C'mon, open your eyes. Every time in history there has been a downturn in times like this it has coincided with a new doping regimen.
Did you ever consider that there is a reason why 6'5" guys do not do well in sprints and are normally injury-prone? Why is he so resilient? Yams and turtle soup? Don't be so stubbornly naive. This is China, Lance, Regina & Eddy all wrapped in one.
http://i.imgur.com/5wc4b45.pngllort_vbo wrote:
Reconsideror wrote:If Bolt was doping, he would've doped himself to a 9.6 last night.
His progression (peaking in his early-20's and slowing down year after year) is what you'd expect from a normal athlete through aging and physical wear and tear.
It's been documented over and over again how and why he's a physical anomaly. When you have a 6'5'' stride with a 5'11'' turnover and take 41 steps to finish the race to everyone else's 44-45, you're gonna be the best.
It's the fast times that put people at doubt, but Bolt ran his first WL (the 19.93 WJR) when he was 17, and finished that season #2 in the world. Who does that, unless he was doping as a teen?
Here we are again - the same BS was said about Lance and his magical training.
The guy runs 9.58 and virtually everyone else within hailing distance is dirty? C'mon, open your eyes. Every time in history there has been a downturn in times like this it has coincided with a new doping regimen.
Did you ever consider that there is a reason why 6'5" guys do not do well in sprints and are normally injury-prone? Why is he so resilient? Yams and turtle soup? Don't be so stubbornly naive. This is China, Lance, Regina & Eddy all wrapped in one.
http://i.imgur.com/5wc4b45.png
There is at least one error on that chart. The world record was 10 sec flat on June 21, 1960. It was set by Armin Hary.
Bolt has been injury prone his entire career. Where have you been?
Reconsideror wrote:
If Bolt was doping, he would've doped himself to a 9.6 last night.
His progression (peaking in his early-20's and slowing down year after year) is what you'd expect from a normal athlete through aging and physical wear and tear.
It's been documented over and over again how and why he's a physical anomaly. When you have a 6'5'' stride with a 5'11'' turnover and take 41 steps to finish the race to everyone else's 44-45, you're gonna be the best.
It's the fast times that put people at doubt, but Bolt ran his first WL (the 19.93 WJR) when he was 17, and finished that season #2 in the world. Who does that, unless he was doping as a teen?
I'd be more convinced his height/stride length was the factor if his 5"11 training partner Yohan Blake hadn't got so close to his 200m wr.
Obviously that's not proof Bolt has doped but I remain suspicious.
Also Francis Obikwelu was 6"5 and never as fast although Bolt could just a more gifted/talented 6"5.
