• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Bolt: 9:58 Now that`s fast.

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
For all the blahblablah from the Fanboys:

Here is the WR Progression of 100m, only legal times at low Altitude (below 1.000 meters) and only automatic timing:

1964: 10.06 Hayes - USA
1977: 10.03 Leonard - CUB
1983: 9.97 Lewis - USA
1991: 9.86 Lewis - USA
1999: 9.79 Greene - USA
2006: 9.77 Powell - JAM
2009: 9.58 Bolt - JAM

So it took 19 years to lower the record by 0,09 Seconds (Hayes to Lewis). We are still talking about drug-free college students.

Now the "light Doping" starts:
It took only 8 years to lower the record by another 0,11 Seconds (Lewis the amateur to Lewis the professional)

15 long years were needed to lower the record by another 0,09 Seconds (Lewis to Powell).

And now the record is broken by 0,19 (!!!) Seconds in only 3 (!!!) years.

Dont come up with that "oh Bolt was great when young". So it was Carl Lewis, Harvey Glance, Robert Hayes, Calvin Smith, Steve Williams, Jim Hines etc. etc. etc.! Just have a look at the youth records. And dont come up with "oh Bolt is the greatest talent ever". It was said (and true) before (Lewis, Hayes, Owens). Its just that the fanboys know nothing about the great history of track & field. Talent shows early, but it doesnt improve by 5% in 3 years.

And dont even let me get started with that "Women" improvements....

Welcome to the new world of PED-Drugs.

Doesn't the D in PED already stand for Drugs? Thank-You!
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
1
0
Visit site
4325_2163_homosexuals-are-gay.jpg
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hugh Januss said:
I work for the Department Of Reducing Unnecessary Redundancy Department.

Looked up redundant in the dictonary and it says; see Redundant
 
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
Visit site
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
For all the blahblablah from the Fanboys:

Here is the WR Progression of 100m, only legal times at low Altitude (below 1.000 meters) and only automatic timing:

1964: 10.06 Hayes - USA
1977: 10.03 Leonard - CUB
1983: 9.97 Lewis - USA
1991: 9.86 Lewis - USA
1999: 9.79 Greene - USA
2006: 9.77 Powell - JAM
2009: 9.58 Bolt - JAM

So it took 19 years to lower the record by 0,09 Seconds (Hayes to Lewis). We are still talking about drug-free college students...


Welcome to the new world of PED.

First of all the track in Japan that Hayes ran on was lousy, if i remember correctly there was standing water for some of the races, which in a short sprint will play havoc with the push off of each stride. Sprinters push off with more force, longer stride footing defintely more crucial.
It is not an offical stat but on his leg of the relay Hayes was reported to have run 8.8 seconds, sure running start but he was defintely capable of running faster than 10 seconds. But he needed to earn a living so he turned to football.So we never got to see what he was truly capable of running IMO He was probably the best sprinter until Bolt.the next Olympics@ Mexico City was at altitude and they were barely faster than Hayes. Does that mean he cheated?
So you think because there has been little progression in the 100 meter record that shows drug use. While it is true the record has come down slowly other nations were making great inroads. So we were stagnant while other nations improved greatly.
It took 30 + years for the american high school record to fall and Ryun still owns something like 7 of the top 9 times.
What does this mean?
absolutely nothing
Just as the 100 meter progression means nothing. we owned the event then we became stagnant. Gosh maybe a guy would rather make 11 million dollars playing baseball or football than fight for scraps as a track man? So you remove alot of potential champions from the pool before they ever get close to their potential.
so no one was good enough to lower the 100 meter record by anything except minute improvements. You see other countries getting into the mix as well
Like i said bad coaching in the US., preconceived notions including racism prevented the progression of the athletes in America.
Remember the Munich timetable fiasco? Where the best American sprinters somehow misread the start times?
Well one theory is it was all bs, because Valery Borzhoz was going to smoke them all. So the coach held out his best 100 meter men under this ruse so the Russian would not show up the superior American sprinters. Then they would destroy him in the 200 where he was weaker,
Unfortunately Borzhov also destroyed our best 200 men.
The next year i saw Valery up close & personal destroy the man thought to be the fastest starter in history Houston McTear. Houston got beat out of the blocks and Borzhov put an amazin amount of distance between them in the first 40 meters the race was over before it started.
Self image and confidence is very crucial to sprinting
if you notice guys pull out of races all the time with "injuries" so they were not beaten. However in all my years i think i have seen two instances of runners being injured while they were winning. No one ever gets hurt while they are in front.:confused:

Anyway it seems some of my earlier comments were misconstrued hopefully this clears them up but let me put it in a nutshell
when you have coaches who still believe certain races of people are the only ones that can run fast in certain distances you have coaches who are working from a narrow mindest and are not open to innovatitve techniques & theories that are imperative to the advancement of athletes.
Jim Ryuns high school & college coach was a swimming coach who borrowed
interval techniques from swimming that most people thought would result in injury. Instead he went from a kid who couldnt break 5:38 in the mile to 2 years later a sub 4 minute mile!

and if you think Carl Lewis was a drug free college student you never had a close look at his cortisone jaw. He came from the era when they couldnt afford the drug testing. A US official even admitted that after they collected the sample they would wait until people had left and then they would flush them down the toilet instead of taking them to the lab. Not many people got popped in the US in those days. I think Ben Johnson even tested clean in the US
 
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
Visit site
A few other points, it used to be that the starter decided false starts
In recent years they have installed pressure censors in the blocks.
What used to be a "legal" start is no longer legal. I dont know what the approved reaction time in the blocks is but that eliminates the incentive to
try & beat the gun.
In the 200 where the start is not as crucial to final time the progression in the record is relatively stagnant and Bolts improvement over Michael Johnsons record is in line with what Johnson achieved.
You single out the 100 meter record but look how stagnant the long jump record was,
7.98 0.5 Chuhei Nambu (JPN) Tokyo, Japan 27 October 1931[1]
8.13 1.5 Jesse Owens (USA) Ann Arbor, United States 25 May 1935[1]
8.21 0.0 Ralph Boston (USA) Walnut, United States 12 August 1960[1]
8.24 1.8 Ralph Boston (USA) Modesto, United States 27 May 1961[1]
8.28 1.2 Ralph Boston (USA) Moscow, Soviet Union 16 July 1961[1]
8.31 -0.1 Igor Ter-Ovanesyan (URS) Yerevan, Soviet Union 10 June 1962[1]
8.31 0.0 Ralph Boston (USA) Kingston, Jamaica 15 August 1964[1]
8.34 1.0 Ralph Boston (USA) Los Angeles, United States 12 September 1964[1]
8.35 0.0 Ralph Boston (USA) Modesto, United States 29 May 1965[1]
8.35 0.0 Igor Ter-Ovanesyan (URS) Mexico City, Mexico 19 October 1967[1]
8.90 2.0 Bob Beamon (USA) Mexico City, Mexico 18 October 1968[1]
8.95 0.3 Mike Powell (USA) Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan 30 August 1991[1]


Owens record stood 25 years then it was improved .08 of a meter?!
and even with all the PEDs the current record has stood 18 years
all this proves is there are extraordinary athletes who appear periodically in history, Owens , Boston, Powell, Bolt. actually in a recent interview Powell predicted Bolt could be the next person to break the record even though he does not compete in the event
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
Runninboy

I heard that before, that the best talents choose Baseball or Football instead of Track. Remember Willie Gault, Renaldo Nehemiah, Ron Brown, Sam Graddy etc.? Yes all elite sprinters going to the NFL as Subs, then coming back to track (except Nehemiah, Gault). Why? Because from the mid-80s you earn more money as a Track star then a NFL-Sub (Avg.-Salary around 60.000 $, i cant remember the minimum, maybe 20.000). So that argument can not count.

Also, how many of great sprinters make it to the NFL? Maybe 10 out of 10.000 a year. Thats why you still see guys like Crawford and Capel sprinting, because no good for NFL. You need to catch, Jump, Move to make it. Jerry Rice was "slow", but had the "Game-Speed". What i want to say is, the best talents in sprint were sprinters, not ball-players. No one missed out.

I agree with Hayes and Owens. Carl Lewis HGH or kind of? I dont know. Very expensive, not existing at start of 80s for amateur runners. Later he tested positive with ephidrine. Compareable to Designer Drugs, Epo etc.? No way. Its a safe bet those records at start of 80s were true records.

Bob Beamon? One jump at Altitude. Thats it, no more, no less. Just an accident.

Bolt does it every single time (like jumping 8,90). Will he last as long as Carl Lewis? No way, no sprinter nowadays make it this long. The drugs destroy/ed them before.

So No. 1 is Carl Lewis, then Jesse Owens, then..... i am sorry, but i have the feeling Bolt will end up like Ben Johnson (lowering personal bests at unbelievable accounts, breaking records which are tought impossible to break for 50 years etc.). Its history repeating. May you laugh now, but remember i called the positive Test for Astarloza. Just count one and one together.

P.S.: Yes 8,8 for Hayes is possible, i heard the same of Carl Lewis. It is because you loose one second from a "normal" start, while you are "flying" already in relays. Thats also why 200m records are exact the double of 100m, instead of being slower.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Runninboy

I heard that before, that the best talents choose Baseball or Football instead of Track. Remember Willie Gault, Renaldo Nehemiah, Ron Brown, Sam Graddy etc.? Yes all elite sprinters going to the NFL as Subs, then coming back to track (except Nehemiah, Gault). Why? Because from the mid-80s you earn more money as a Track star then a NFL-Sub (Avg.-Salary around 60.000 $, i cant remember the minimum, maybe 20.000). So that argument can not count.

Also, how many of great sprinters make it to the NFL? Maybe 10 out of 10.000 a year. Thats why you still see guys like Crawford and Capel sprinting, because no good for NFL. You need to catch, Jump, Move to make it. Jerry Rice was "slow", but had the "Game-Speed". What i want to say is, the best talents in sprint were sprinters, not ball-players. No one missed out.

I agree with Hayes and Owens. Carl Lewis HGH or kind of? I dont know. Very expensive, not existing at start of 80s for amateur runners. Later he tested positive with ephidrine. Compareable to Designer Drugs, Epo etc.? No way. Its a safe bet those records at start of 80s were true records.

Bob Beamon? One jump at Altitude. Thats it, no more, no less. Just an accident.

Bolt does it every single time (like jumping 8,90). Will he last as long as Carl Lewis? No way, no sprinter nowadays make it this long. The drugs destroy/ed them before.

So No. 1 is Carl Lewis, then Jesse Owens, then..... i am sorry, but i have the feeling Bolt will end up like Ben Johnson (lowering personal bests at unbelievable accounts, breaking records which are tought impossible to break for 50 years etc.). Its history repeating. May you laugh now, but remember i called the positive Test for Astarloza. Just count one and one together.

P.S.: Yes 8,8 for Hayes is possible, i heard the same of Carl Lewis. It is because you loose one second from a "normal" start, while you are "flying" already in relays. Thats also why 200m records are exact the double of 100m, instead of being slower.

Sorry - don't believe you regarding Carl Lewis. He was as doped to the gills as Ben Johnson, just a lot smarter (not hard really!). I am also willing to give Bolt the benefit of the doubt - there are freaks out there in every sport. Phelps and Thorpe in swimming, Bradman in cricket, etc, etc. There is sufficient evidence from a biomechanical aspect that Bolt has the physical attributes to achieve what he has done cleanly. A bit like cycling - I am happy in my self-deluded world until proven otherwise or the evidence becomes overwhelming. However, the results or the improvements are not sufficient evidence IMO to condemn the man ... yet.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
elapid said:
Sorry - don't believe you regarding Carl Lewis. He was as doped to the gills as Ben Johnson, just a lot smarter (not hard really!). I am also willing to give Bolt the benefit of the doubt - there are freaks out there in every sport. Phelps and Thorpe in swimming, Bradman in cricket, etc, etc. There is sufficient evidence from a biomechanical aspect that Bolt has the physical attributes to achieve what he has done cleanly. A bit like cycling - I am happy in my self-deluded world until proven otherwise or the evidence becomes overwhelming. However, the results or the improvements are not sufficient evidence IMO to condemn the man ... yet.

I havnt said Lewis was not doped, same as Ullrich. I just try to explain the drugs are worse then in the past.

Just compare Lewis to Johnson, i mean thats obvious nature vs. freak. Look at Allyson Felix/Evelyn Ashford vs. GDR/FloJO/Kelli White/Jamaica-"Woman". Nature vs. Freak.

Bolt, i am sorry never saw/heard/read about improvements that big. We are not in the beginning 80s, but in the age of ugly Blood, HGH -and Myostatin-Doping. Thats a hell of a difference. 9,58 is as unreal as 10,49/10,63
 
Jul 24, 2009
239
0
0
Visit site
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Just compare Lewis to Johnson, i mean thats obvious nature vs. freak. Look at Allyson Felix/Evelyn Ashford vs. GDR/FloJO/Kelli White/Jamaica-"Woman". Nature vs. Freak.
But what is obvious about it? As I asked before, what is so obviously natural about Allyson Felix or Evelyn Ashford compared to the current Jamaican sprinters?
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
Skip Madness said:
But what is obvious about it? As I asked before, what is so obviously natural about Allyson Felix or Evelyn Ashford compared to the current Jamaican sprinters?

Tough i played Baseball, Soccer and Table-Tennis, was riding a bit, i watched/read/learned/saw Cycling, Football, Track and others since the beginning of the 80s. I saw the transformation from young ladys into Bodybuilders. First i tought steroids are no good for "fast" muscles, at least my Baseball coach said. Now everybody knows the truth about McGwire, Bonds etc. I also later came to realize its used (steroids) even for sprinters (Johnson with his in-famous yellow eyes). Now look at Felix. 1st there is the talent VERY early, 2nd there is at least a little bit body-fat left, 3rd there is a taille, 4th there is competition at a very high level but no explosive jumps in performance. So from what i see (what else possibilities we have??), she is the only world-class sprinter where i could say she is clean. That of course would change if next year she jumps to like 21,5 in 200m.

About Lewis, Bolt: They look natural (compared to Greene, Montogomery, Gatlin, Johnson, FloJo, GDR-"Woman" etc.). The problem with Bolt here is: No way you improve by 5% in 3 years. NO WAY. So what he does? You are not tested in Jamaica, your the most talented, your opponents are on drugs, you are capable of running a 9,9/19,9 which dont make you money nowadays. You dope. Boom there comes times of 9,6/19,2. May he is shocked himself. Like Kelli White said: Its too easy (with the drugs).
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
P.S.: Of course you could weight lift the whole day to look like a body-builder. But when do you train sprinting?? The day has only 24 hours. ;)

Even JimmyMac had lots of body-fat. Ok, may that came from the friday-night-beers :)
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,890
0
0
Visit site
scribe said:
Remember Jimmy the Greek? lol

Also, I wonder why there aren't more blacks in cycling if they are superior athletes? Or do you think it is a matter of time with some opportunity?

Yes it is opportunity, the same guys who kick A#$ in track and field sprints would kick a#$ in track cycling, and those who kill the 10000 and marathon would be up there on the road. Same with cross country skiers with specific training.

Swimming is another matter.
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,890
0
0
Visit site
_frost said:
So you may participate the discussion in 'Clinic' only if you are crying that everyone is doping? And the valid arguments are:
- winning/better than others
- has improved performance
- breaths through nose (this is definately my favourite)
- looks like that
- looks ugly
- just don't like the guy/girl
- I just happen to think so (and repeat the mantra until in becomes the truth)

I agree with all of the above points, though winning better than the others, depending on the margin, when the next 5 or so get done and that top one is still declared clean, stretches the imagination a little.
I refuse to believe that every pro is doping, watching young athletes who have no access to doping and seeing their numbers, its possible to ride close to the front clean.
As for australian swimming or swimming in general, makes me laugh. There are a few golden cases...alex popov is amazing, but his coach had a safe stolen which when found unopened was subsequently opened and found with PED's inside...story went away with "they were planted" and hardly a ripple. Aussies becoming world beaters with ripped physique at 26 and saying I hit the gym? yeah for the last 10 years of your career it didn't occur to you?
 
Aug 20, 2009
5
0
0
Visit site
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
For all the blahblablah from the Fanboys:

Here is the WR Progression of 100m, only legal times at low Altitude (below 1.000 meters) and only automatic timing:

1964: 10.06 Hayes - USA
1977: 10.03 Leonard - CUB
1983: 9.97 Lewis - USA
1991: 9.86 Lewis - USA
1999: 9.79 Greene - USA
2006: 9.77 Powell - JAM
2009: 9.58 Bolt - JAM

So it took 19 years to lower the record by 0,09 Seconds (Hayes to Lewis). We are still talking about drug-free college students.

Now the "light Doping" starts:
It took only 8 years to lower the record by another 0,11 Seconds (Lewis the amateur to Lewis the professional)

15 long years were needed to lower the record by another 0,09 Seconds (Lewis to Powell).

And now the record is broken by 0,19 (!!!) Seconds in only 3 (!!!) years.

Dont come up with that "oh Bolt was great when young". So it was Carl Lewis, Harvey Glance, Robert Hayes, Calvin Smith, Steve Williams, Jim Hines etc. etc. etc.! Just have a look at the youth records. And dont come up with "oh Bolt is the greatest talent ever". It was said (and true) before (Lewis, Hayes, Owens). Its just that the fanboys know nothing about the great history of track & field. Talent shows early, but it doesnt improve by 5% in 3 years.

And dont even let me get started with that "Women" improvements....

Welcome to the new world of PED.

I was one of the people who mentioned about 'Bolt being great when he was young'. Hey man, i'm open-minded, I just want the truth, and if what you are satying is the case then so be it. Just I looked up Carl Lewis on Wikipedia - maybe I could have got a better source but it's all I have - and it says he was a talented athlete when he was young, at the long jump. It was only later that his sprinting talent emerged. Is that the truth?
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
danielf said:
I was one of the people who mentioned about 'Bolt being great when he was young'. Hey man, i'm open-minded, I just want the truth, and if what you are satying is the case then so be it. Just I looked up Carl Lewis on Wikipedia - maybe I could have got a better source but it's all I have - and it says he was a talented athlete when he was young, at the long jump. It was only later that his sprinting talent emerged. Is that the truth?

Yeah he was jumping 8,13 at age of 18. But he also was running a 10,00 at age 20. He was a long jumper first (unbeaten for 65 competitions over 10 years, not even Epo-Lance comes close to such a streak, only compareable to Stephen Hendrys 35 wins in a row at World-Snooker competitions), then sprinting as a by-product. As Bolt started with the 200 and later doing the 100 too as a by-product. So they are pretty much compareable. Both the greatest talents ever, but ....

Bolt was 19,93 at 18, then a lit slower with 19,99 at 19 and a lit faster with 19,88 at 20. So where can anybody see a 19,19 coming?

That would be as if Carl Lewis topped 9,65. Unbelievable back then, and of course it never happened. Its a big difference if you take ephidrine from an over-the-counter medicine, or if you take designer drugs of nowadays.

Its to be seen if Bolt will have a 16-year career or just being bolted up like Johnson, Montgomery etc.
 
Aug 20, 2009
5
0
0
Visit site
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Yeah he was jumping 8,13 at age of 18. But he also was running a 10,00 at age 20. He was a long jumper first (unbeaten for 65 competitions over 10 years, not even Epo-Lance comes close to such a streak, only compareable to Stephen Hendrys 35 wins in a row at World-Snooker competitions), then sprinting as a by-product. As Bolt started with the 200 and later doing the 100 too as a by-product. So they are pretty much compareable. Both the greatest talents ever, but ....

Bolt was 19,93 at 18, then a lit slower with 19,99 at 19 and a lit faster with 19,88 at 20. So where can anybody see a 19,19 coming?

That would be as if Carl Lewis topped 9,65. Unbelievable back then, and of course it never happened. Its a big difference if you take ephidrine from an over-the-counter medicine, or if you take designer drugs of nowadays.

Its to be seen if Bolt will have a 16-year career or just being bolted up like Johnson, Montgomery etc.

well can you compare them? surely sprinting the 200m is more similar to sprinting the 100m than doing the long jump is? I know you have to be able to run fast to do the long jump, but it also has other skills in it, and more different ones to the sprints, I would have thought.

Also about those figures and times, 19.19 did come from 19.30 last year, and probably low times before that - it didn't come straight from those high 19 times, you know? there is a 2/3 year gap there. Had he not suffered injuries in the years before he ran those high 19 times as well? His injuries did affect him because after winning the world junior at 15 in 2002 I don't think he was able to be as successful again at it after that.

About Lewis and being a sprinter at 20..as far as I know he hadn't been famous for it in his teens, so to suddenly emerge as a sprinter at 20, and then pretty soon be breaking world records, seems to be to be a bit suspicious, and not too dissimilar to the patterns of all the other drug cheats - Bailey, Greene, et al.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
danielf said:
well can you compare them? surely sprinting the 200m is more similar to sprinting the 100m than doing the long jump is? I know you have to be able to run fast to do the long jump, but it also has other skills in it, and more different ones to the sprints, I would have thought.

Also about those figures and times, 19.19 did come from 19.30 last year, and probably low times before that - it didn't come straight from those high 19 times, you know? there is a 2/3 year gap there. Had he not suffered injuries in the years before he ran those high 19 times as well? His injuries did affect him because after winning the world junior at 15 in 2002 I don't think he was able to be as successful again at it after that.

About Lewis and being a sprinter at 20..as far as I know he hadn't been famous for it in his teens, so to suddenly emerge as a sprinter at 20, and then pretty soon be breaking world records, seems to be to be a bit suspicious, and not too dissimilar to the patterns of all the other drug cheats - Bailey, Greene, et al.

OMG, he didnt sprint the 100m, as Bolt didnt. Simple as that.
Lewis 1st recorded 100m at age of 20 (10,00)
Bolt 1st recorded 100m at age of 21 (10,03)

It did: straight down from 19,75 (at age of 21) to 19,30. Lewis did 19,75 at age of 22. Not compareable? Did he come down to 19,19? No he didnt, of course.

Bailey compare to Lewis??? Are you joking? He was 10,36 at age 26 (10,42 at age of 24). Greene to Lewis??? Again joking? 10,19 at age of 21 down to 9,79, the way he looked like a bodybuilder on roids. OMG

So if we discuss, then please dont come up with the heavy users of the Epo/BALCO-90s. Lets stay with the talent discussion (and why Bolt has to take drugs).

P.S.:
Long jump is 2/3 running, 1/3 jumping.
If Bolt starts the 400m now, of course he would be fast right away. If the talent is there, you can make it everywere. But there are borders. No crazy performance jumps. So i bet Bolt would run right away a 44 in 400. But to go under 43,18 (WR), he needs the new age drugs.
 
Jul 24, 2009
239
0
0
Visit site
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Now look at Felix. 1st there is the talent VERY early, 2nd there is at least a little bit body-fat left, 3rd there is a taille, 4th there is competition at a very high level but no explosive jumps in performance. So from what i see (what else possibilities we have??), she is the only world-class sprinter where i could say she is clean. That of course would change if next year she jumps to like 21,5 in 200m.
What I'm driving at is the judgments based on physical appearances. It's fair to be suspicious of - not to write off, but to cast a wary eye over - sudden and dramatic bulking of muscles (in addition to all the usual stuff about rapidly improving performances), but saying a sprinter must be doping just because she has more muscles than another sprinter is ridiculous when that can be achieved through normal training means, and your repeated invoking of it in comparison to more traditional norms of female appearance, in addition to continually putting the word "women" in inverted commas, strikes me as misogynistic.