Out of the top 11 fastest men in history 10 of them are dirty, why should we believe Bolt was clean?

Oh Please wrote:

Whatley sounds like the Armstrong fanboys that defended him with the same logic...until he came on National TV and admitted it. No amount of logic is going to convince fanboys.

.

Are you saying that we should set him up on date with Rekrunner?

It's crazy out there wrote:

Oh Please wrote:

As I keep saying: How do you identify dopers? By the fact they are professional athletes.

That's what it's beginning to sound like with all this crazy doping going on.

And while the attention right now is on the U.S. sprinters, another top Moroccan distance runner was just popped for EPO. ?

https://www.athleticsintegrity.org/disciplinary-process/provisional-suspensions-in-force

I'm still waiting for these Moroccans to use the "tainted marshmallows from the Ifrane campfire" excuse ?

ShilohDoesntCare wrote:

Marion Jones went to court on doping charges while she was in high school. Who cares what Bolt ran as a teen, he could definitely have been doping even then. But as other posters have said 45 seconds is not an otherworldly time especially as physically gifted as he is. You'd have to go back pretty far in the record books to find someone that is not suspicious. There is no way he ran that fast clean.

I first heard this from a Rhodes Scholar, Dr in Chemistry. I'd love to hear more info on it.

LoneStarXC wrote:

Terrible idea. By legalizing PEDs, you would take away the chance for any clean athlete to be successful. And, you’re forgetting that people respond differently to drugs. Cathal Lombard, for example, was a high-responder to EPO. Most people wouldn’t get the same boost as he did. Legal doping would hardly level the playing field.

Those invincible Mercedes Formula One cars don't respond as well to the high octane gas as Cathal did with epo.

Come on its not like he ran for an Island with almost no out of comp testing when he set his records.

It's down to his unique physique giving him a natural advantage like Kiprop!

https://www.denverpost.com/2015/06/29/jamaicas-anti-doping-agency-starts-collecting-athletes-blood-samples/

What am I on? I'm on the track for 6 minutes a day training. WHAT ARE YOU ON?

I've got a cousin who was a pro outdoor track athlete and moves in Caribbean sprinter circles (he has like 5 kids on several different islands). He's convinced Bolt is clean and just a freak. Of course he might be dirty too.

back woods wrote:

I've got a cousin who was a pro outdoor track athlete and moves in Caribbean sprinter circles (he has like 5 kids on several different islands). He's convinced Bolt is clean and just a freak. Of course he might be dirty too.

Well...perhaps then Micheal Johnson is also? (he never tested positive nor caught up in a scandal).

back woods wrote:

I've got a cousin who was a pro outdoor track athlete and moves in Caribbean sprinter circles (he has like 5 kids on several different islands). He's convinced Bolt is clean and just a freak. Of course he might be dirty too.

Want to believe Bolt is clean, but 10/11 of the top 100m runners aren't. How is everyone else on the juice but he isn't? Just find it hard to believe that he's the only one. Could be a situation like NOP where he's a freak athlete that just meddles in the grey area.

It was shared a while back about the German doctor he always visited. He got injected with calf blood & who knows whatever else. Maybe he just does everything he can that was experimental and/or not banned.

In civilized societies that value justice for the innocent, the default position is to presume innocence until proven guilty. Typically this proof requires some direct evidence combined with logic. "Guilt by association" is a logical fallacy that cannot help further such a proof. USADA probably said it best: "Importantly, all athletes, coaches and others under the jurisdiction of the World Anti-Doping Code are innocent and presumed to have complied with the rules unless and until the established anti-doping process declares otherwise. It is grossly unfair and reckless to state, infer or imply differently."

Bold bolt wrote:

Everyone but Bolt comes up dirty or is caught deflecting tests and Bolt was faster than all of them and yet we are supposed to believe he was clean ??? What makes Bolt so good that all of the dirty competition wasn’t even as quick? Will he ever get busted?

rekrunner wrote:

In civilized societies that value justice for the innocent, the default position is to presume innocence until proven guilty.

Typically this proof requires some direct evidence combined with logic.

"Guilt by association" is a logical fallacy that cannot help further such a proof.

USADA probably said it best:

"Importantly, all athletes, coaches and others under the jurisdiction of the World Anti-Doping Code are innocent and presumed to have complied with the rules unless and until the established anti-doping process declares otherwise. It is grossly unfair and reckless to state, infer or imply differently."

Okay...let's get down to brass tacks. Do you think Bolt is clean or used PEDs in his career? (that is really what the issue is from the title of the thread).

So, we've seen the opinions of several regular posters here -- I think it's fair to solicit an opinion from someone like you who has spent a lot of time researching doping with athletics and has posted here for many years.

This is an interesting question that has some middle ground but mostly, it seems, opinions are divided by extreme differences at each end of the spectrum based on a person's belief system. For example, in talking with people over the years I have heard a segment say they believe Bolt is clean because "he's never tested positive for anything." One training partner of mine once told me that if an athlete doesn't test positive he always gives them the benefit of the doubt. Conversely, some people say he's doped becasue they believe all Olympic & WC medalists in the sprints are doped based on history of doping with those events.

And some of the middle grounders have said they're "suspicious" of Bolt but until they get more evidence they're withholding judgement.

So, what say you rekrunner? Is 9:58/19:19 clean or doped?

rekrunner wrote:

In civilized societies that value justice for the innocent, the default position is to presume innocence until proven guilty.

Typically this proof requires some direct evidence combined with logic.

"Guilt by association" is a logical fallacy that cannot help further such a proof.

USADA probably said it best:

"Importantly, all athletes, coaches and others under the jurisdiction of the World Anti-Doping Code are innocent and presumed to have complied with the rules unless and until the established anti-doping process declares otherwise. It is grossly unfair and reckless to state, infer or imply differently."

Bold bolt wrote:

Everyone but Bolt comes up dirty or is caught deflecting tests and Bolt was faster than all of them and yet we are supposed to believe he was clean ??? What makes Bolt so good that all of the dirty competition wasn’t even as quick? Will he ever get busted?

Your point is only relevant if Bolt faces sanction without proof. He doesn't. Nor does this website have any power to impose sanction. His legal rights are not at issue. Your argument therefore has no relevance to the question raised of whether he is or has doped, as there is no procedural consequence arising from any adverse opinion expressed here. A view can validly be arrived at on the basis of the kinds of arguments posed, including that most top sprinters in recent times have doping violations, and doubts that a single athlete can be so much better than his mostly doped competition, particularly when that athlete has come from a country with historically poor doping controls. There are of course other arguments. Any opinion arrived at is unlikely to be definitive in the absence of unequivocal proof, but Bolt's legal rights and the so-called "presumption of innocence" have no bearing on the question of whether anyone thinks he has doped.

And then, there are the covered up positive tests of (among others) unnamed Jamaican sprinters from Beijing 2008. https://sportsscientists.com/2017/04/jamaican-clenbuterol-positives-procedural-failure-credibility/?doing_wp_cron=1566728639.2876939773559570312500

rekrunner wrote:

In civilized societies that value justice for the innocent, the default position is to presume innocence until proven guilty.

Typically this proof requires some direct evidence combined with logic.

"Guilt by association" is a logical fallacy that cannot help further such a proof.

That is assuming that t&f is a gentlemanly pursuit, populated by good honest people.

You might be slugger I'm not. If you think we don't see that rare/unque athlete every once in awhile why am I not surprised?

We had never seen anyone like Jim Brown, Cassius Clay, Wilt Chamberlain before. Same can be said about Usain Bolt.

Bolt didn't need anything to do the things he did, if you think that can;t happen you re as fool.

And he would be right, the guy was simply on another level physically, and it was very obvious. What sprinter was similiar ti Usain Bolt? Yep, nobody.

What 100m sprinter ran the 200m for years before ever running a 100m? Yep, none. What 100m sprinter has a 6-5 stride (Perrin Walker way back when) yep, nobody.

I'm going to have to agree with Armstrongliv's statement that we cannot tell if a performance is clean or dirty. This includes me -- I cannot tell.

I agree with you that Bolt's legal rights have no bearing. USADA provided this statement in a context where no one was facing a sanction, so you are deluding yourself with some bogus interpretation of a context which has no bearing. My argument is not so much an argument at all, but a direct response to "why should we believe"? Besides the inherent logical fallacy, "it is grossly unfair and reckless to state, infer or imply differently."

Your argument, including the censorious response by the USADA, depends on testing being a reliable means of establishing who is doping and who is clean. It isn't - we know that many more are estimated to dope than are caught. Hence, the discussion in this board, as testing 'clean' does not resolve the argument. Your quoting the USADA as to determining what is appropriate in public discussion is thus irrelevant. Indeed, if we took the USADA line there would have been no discussion for years about Armstrong's doping, as testing failed to catch him. The USADA was finally itself compelled to act on witness evidence, but not Armstrong's testing results.