Bolt: 9:58 Now that`s fast.

[runninboy]

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?

QUOTE]

Gosh I have to say you really arent much of a track fan ever heard of Edwin Moses? His unbeaten streak lasted over 9 years! 107 unbeaten hurdles finals.
Qualifying doesnt count same as Lewiss qualifying jumps dont count. If you were a big track fan you would know this. Long jump gets multiple jumps you can make mistakes and still win. In the 400 hurdles you get one shot.

And as far as Bolt, he was a gangly 6 foot 5 inch kid who ran those times getting out of the blocks last. when you are shorter you can position the blocks alot closer to the start line etc and have faster reaction time.
If you were a big track fan you know he didnt want to run the 100 at Beijing but because his start got better his coach convinced him he could do it.
At the worlds he was in the lead out of the blocks that is a HUGE difference

And as far as your comment that Bolt runs super times EVERY time simply not true his times leading up to the worlds were slower than Tyson Gay, he peaked for the important meet

 

[runninboy]

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. QUOTE]

How do you explain Jim Ryun going from 5 38 mile to the first sub 4 high school mile in two years? is that not a crazy performance jump?

The thing about track & field records they do not drop in steady progression.
You believe it is dope but we know Jesse Owens didnt dope and he held records for decades. Not unusual.
You say Bolt improved from sub 20 to 19.19 proves drug use but any sprinter will tell you to have such a lousy start and run sub 20 is a tremndous talent.
Lewis had better technique so less potential for improvement.
and as far as Bolts 200 record he improved the record .02 the first time and .13 overalldo you realize that would have been rounded to one tenth before FAT? So his 200 progression is less than other 200 record holders
Tommie Smith brought the record down by .40 that is 3 times more than BOLTMichael Johnson also brought the record down by .40 Donald Quarrie of Jamaica would have brought the record down by .40 except he was competing just after Tommie Smith
so what is so unusual about Bolts .13 improvement of the previous record?
And here is another tidbit
Lee Evans time from 41 years ago would have won this world championship
Did he dope as well ?
Do you sense a pattern? If you have been involved in running you know this is the way records go. I went to a meet at a local high school in Los Angeles. They had an all time list with a name of a teacher in my school with a time from the 1930's that would have won the City meet 4 decades later. I asked him about it later and he didnt even win the race! he got beat by some guy who went to the Olympics. 42 years later and that time was better than anyone in the City.
There were high school runners in the US the 60s & 70s who competed with the best in the World and their times today would be fast enough to place at the NCAA Nationals.
Track & Field always has rapid progression & then periods of stagnation
it is a fact

 

[Galic Ho]

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?

Name us one aussie swimmer. Then their age. Then when they first made the national team. You'll soon realise there are no swimmers currently on the Australian team over 25. Get your facts right then your argument/point won't sound soo contrived.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Absolutely. Look at Phelps' freaking jaw SOMETIMES and tell me the HGH thing doesn't seem obvious.

It isn't just that the records are dropping, they are being SMASHED in the pool and on the track. Makes me sick to watch.

Exactly. Nobody screams doper when somebody wins 7 gold medals in one meet. 108 world records broken is too good to be true. i think swimming is in a far worse predicament than cycling with doping. I would make a statement that cycling is one of the cleanest sports (behind ping pong!) in the world! For aussies on this forum, afl players have a '3 strike policy'. It's a joke. They said that 24 players had been on a first strike. Imagine if they were cyclists. They would have a 2 year ban and be persecuted in the media. Australian media would never make any doping statements against their athletes especially the swimmers. Swimming is always bombarded at us on the TV. Swimming is a much more doped up sport than cycling.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Name us one aussie swimmer. Then their age. Then when they first made the national team. You'll soon realise there are no swimmers currently on the Australian team over 25. Get your facts right then your argument/point won't sound soo contrived.

Surely you aren't gullible enough to believe their isn't any australian dopers in swimming. The amount of world records smashed over 1 year is shocking. 108 world records to be exact.

 

[danielf]

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.

Jeez, calm down, its only an open-minded discussion, i'm not pro- or anti-Bolt, just want to know the truth, so don't starting going 'OMG!!'. I don't know where you get your info from, maybe its very credible, I was watching BBC few days ago and Colin Jackson and Michael Johnson both said that it takes a lot to go from a good sprinter to a good jumper, and that the key is the ability to transfer your speed into a jump, which makes sense.

Maybe comparing Lewis to Bailey and Greene was not a good idea, but the point I was making was about LATE DEVELOPMENT, yeah? A career pattern. Maybe Lewis was not as extreme as those too, ok, but he did suddenly emerge as a top sprinter around 19, 20.

You're right, Bolt did come down pretty suddenly. Now that I see that maybe that does raise a few questions. The reason I had believed more in Bolt than some of the other runners was that he was absolutely brilliant when young, and also that a lot of former athletes said publicly on tv that they believed in him. I respect what they say, but now that I see the times, it is a huge jump.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

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?

QUOTE]

Gosh I have to say you really arent much of a track fan ever heard of Edwin Moses? His unbeaten streak lasted over 9 years! 107 unbeaten hurdles finals.
Qualifying doesnt count same as Lewiss qualifying jumps dont count. If you were a big track fan you would know this. Long jump gets multiple jumps you can make mistakes and still win. In the 400 hurdles you get one shot.

And as far as Bolt, he was a gangly 6 foot 5 inch kid who ran those times getting out of the blocks last. when you are shorter you can position the blocks alot closer to the start line etc and have faster reaction time.
If you were a big track fan you know he didnt want to run the 100 at Beijing but because his start got better his coach convinced him he could do it.
At the worlds he was in the lead out of the blocks that is a HUGE difference

And as far as your comment that Bolt runs super times EVERY time simply not true his times leading up to the worlds were slower than Tyson Gay, he peaked for the important meet

Oh sorry, you are the godfather of track. I forgot
1.) I missed Moses because i tought he was beaten once by Harald Schmid. My mistake, so what? You won
2.) Bolt DOES run fast every single time. If you have a coffee and laugh with your friend during the race, then of course only a 10,02 comes up. That is REAL SLOW 6 Years ago that time win you a world championship. But, so what? I won

You can doubt my knowledge if you want. It dont hurt me or make me feel bad. If it makes you feel better, then be it. I go with Angel Heredia and all the positive tests. Thats enough for me.

The context he didnt run the 100 meters was to explain something else. It wasnt the issue why he wasnt running. Simple as that. Now you can think whatever you want. Blame Lewis he took growth hormone. Thats ok with me, the same i say this about other athletes. Only that the drugs are better nowadays and Lewis was "only" found with over the counter cold medicine. A very big deal. OMG, i would have been positiv every 2nd Baseball-Game. So what?

Just wait and see when all you dreamers come down to earth by Bolts positive tests or that he is just another sprinter who has to finish his career early because of massive drug abuse in a non-testing country like jamaica. I go with Winnen here: The last 10 years of track-results are worthless, like cycling. I enjoyed the show in the stadium like many others, but we have our eyes open (Poll in non-dreaming Germany: 50% believe the athletes are not clean).

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

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. QUOTE]

How do you explain Jim Ryun going from 5 38 mile to the first sub 4 high school mile in two years? is that not a crazy performance jump?

The thing about track & field records they do not drop in steady progression.
You believe it is dope but we know Jesse Owens didnt dope and he held records for decades. Not unusual.
You say Bolt improved from sub 20 to 19.19 proves drug use but any sprinter will tell you to have such a lousy start and run sub 20 is a tremndous talent.
Lewis had better technique so less potential for improvement.
and as far as Bolts 200 record he improved the record .02 the first time and .13 overalldo you realize that would have been rounded to one tenth before FAT? So his 200 progression is less than other 200 record holders
Tommie Smith brought the record down by .40 that is 3 times more than BOLTMichael Johnson also brought the record down by .40 Donald Quarrie of Jamaica would have brought the record down by .40 except he was competing just after Tommie Smith
so what is so unusual about Bolts .13 improvement of the previous record?
And here is another tidbit
Lee Evans time from 41 years ago would have won this world championship
Did he dope as well ?
Do you sense a pattern? If you have been involved in running you know this is the way records go. I went to a meet at a local high school in Los Angeles. They had an all time list with a name of a teacher in my school with a time from the 1930's that would have won the City meet 4 decades later. I asked him about it later and he didnt even win the race! he got beat by some guy who went to the Olympics. 42 years later and that time was better than anyone in the City.
There were high school runners in the US the 60s & 70s who competed with the best in the World and their times today would be fast enough to place at the NCAA Nationals.
Track & Field always has rapid progression & then periods of stagnation
it is a fact

You ever heard of high altitude?? Did Evans, Beamon, Smith come up with the same results on sea-level? Of course not.

You cant lower a drug record (Johnsons 19,30 which would be like 9,65 in 100) by 0,4 seconds. Simple as that. Who cares of Epo/BALCO records of the 90s? Not me. I saw this race live in Atlanta. He was faster then his body, so he got injured. A true sick record. By then it was said small fast strides were required to run fast, because Johnson was running like that. Now its the opposite, because Bolt is tall. When Roid-Ben was running, it was explained fast explosive muscle-guys are needed. The next time a human giraffe runs 9,40 seconds, 2 meter legs will be needed. I am laughing about all those excuses for Doping-Records.

Stagnation comes when athletes have to be careful. Just look at the watts by Epo-Lance 2003. Everybody was feared, now its back to "normal". Look at the GDR/Russian/Eastern-Europe records. All Turinabol records still standing. Why? Turinabol was powerful, but is easy to detect. Its all drug stagnation. Now we get closer to those "records" again. New drugs, new records. Easy. Again i better go with Heredia, Kelli White etc. instead of pseudo scientics.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Exactly. Nobody screams doper when somebody wins 7 gold medals in one meet. 108 world records broken is too good to be true. i think swimming is in a far worse predicament than cycling with doping. I would make a statement that cycling is one of the cleanest sports (behind ping pong!) in the world! For aussies on this forum, afl players have a '3 strike policy'. It's a joke. They said that 24 players had been on a first strike. Imagine if they were cyclists. They would have a 2 year ban and be persecuted in the media. Australian media would never make any doping statements against their athletes especially the swimmers. Swimming is always bombarded at us on the TV. Swimming is a much more doped up sport than cycling.

Absolute true. May you didnt know this: No more out-of-competition-tests in swimming and no more Blood-Tests since 2005*. So the athletes can do whatever they want. Its a big experiment there. Like the 90s when the best doc won, but not the athlete.

* I was reading that in german sports newspapers. So i cant give you a link here. May you google.

But no, all those records come because of the swim-suits.

Maybe cyclists should use them, then no more transfusions and Epo is needed.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Jeez, calm down, its only an open-minded discussion, i'm not pro- or anti-Bolt, just want to know the truth, so don't starting going 'OMG!!'. I don't know where you get your info from, maybe its very credible, I was watching BBC few days ago and Colin Jackson and Michael Johnson both said that it takes a lot to go from a good sprinter to a good jumper, and that the key is the ability to transfer your speed into a jump, which makes sense.

Maybe comparing Lewis to Bailey and Greene was not a good idea, but the point I was making was about LATE DEVELOPMENT, yeah? A career pattern. Maybe Lewis was not as extreme as those too, ok, but he did suddenly emerge as a top sprinter around 19, 20.

You're right, Bolt did come down pretty suddenly. Now that I see that maybe that does raise a few questions. The reason I had believed more in Bolt than some of the other runners was that he was absolutely brilliant when young, and also that a lot of former athletes said publicly on tv that they believed in him. I respect what they say, but now that I see the times, it is a huge jump.

Excuse me then for my "OMG"
But you really cant say Lewis was developing late. He was world class at 18 to 20. Bolt is in the same range. You can even compare their stature. No bulked up bodys, pure nature. The bad thing is both needed drugs to have the level field again. Do you think Bolt was happy to finish in the middle of the pack every time, knowing he is better then his opponents? King Carl got cheated by Yellow-Eyes-Roid-Ben. So what he did? You know it. Over the counter ephidrines.

To get me right: In a clean world guys like Ullrich, Lewis and Bolt were/are unbeatable. The problem is, bad guys are not only in the business/government world but in sports too. FloJo (dead of drugs), Montgomery (prison), Marion Jones (prison), Epo-Lance (a liar in court, a liar in life), Roid-Ben (he cheated once, twice, trice), Lyle Alzado (dead of drugs) etc. etc. etc. They are criminals, the list is endless.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I don't know where you get your info from, maybe its very credible,

That is difficult: It started with Ben Johnson when he got caught in 1988 and all the worse things came out in the Toronto-Court. Since then, i was 15, i wanted to know the dark side. Now i have read endless books, documents, articles, talked to sports-pipo... Its hard, its bad, its worse, but in the end, the truth set you free. It all starts with doping and ends real dark with the fixed and corrupted sport events. Nowadays i am very cynical. There is no way back to the days of dreaming. Only the dreamers can think of clean 7-TdF-Wins or 19,2-Sprints.

I cant even tell you how and where to start. There is sooo much overwhelming information available. It took me 21 years to get a good picture, but i am still surprised and sometimes shocked how much more bad infos are available. I think the clinic here is a good start. Pipo give good links to internet-sides and books. Alpe, cobblestones, berospenner, dr. maserati and many other posters are solid writers (its not only bout cycling, but doping overall) instead of fighting with others.

 

[elapid]

Exactly. Nobody screams doper when somebody wins 7 gold medals in one meet. 108 world records broken is too good to be true. i think swimming is in a far worse predicament than cycling with doping. I would make a statement that cycling is one of the cleanest sports (behind ping pong!) in the world! For aussies on this forum, afl players have a '3 strike policy'. It's a joke. They said that 24 players had been on a first strike. Imagine if they were cyclists. They would have a 2 year ban and be persecuted in the media. Australian media would never make any doping statements against their athletes especially the swimmers. Swimming is always bombarded at us on the TV. Swimming is a much more doped up sport than cycling.

In regards to Aussie Rules (and Rugby League), positive drug tests also include marijuana and other social non-PEDs. In fact most positives are to marijuana. I would not want to be banned for 2 years for a social drug which has absolutely no performance-enhancing abilities. I think it is ridiculous that they even test for marijuana. So please don't use the AFL as justification for the paucity of antidoping in other sports because you are comparing apples to oranges with this example.

In regards to swimming, you may scoff all you like but the vast majority of the 108 new WRs were more than likely due to the suits. Sure, some may be PEDs and their testing programs are pitiful, but the suits have largely been responsible for many different swimmers, male and female, different nationalities, and across a number of different lengths and strokes winning in new WR times. I believe the suits are largely responsible for these WRs when there is not a single swimmer, nation, or event being dominated, bar perhaps Phelps who is a freak (like Bolt ).

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

You say Bolt improved from sub 20 to 19.19 proves drug use but any sprinter will tell you to have such a lousy start and run sub 20 is a tremndous talent.
Lewis had better technique so less potential for improvement.

Thats real funny. I missed it:

Lewis had a better technique

(yet many say, which is true, he was a jumper first). I am sorry, but the OPPOSITE IS TRUE. He (Lewis) was such a LOUSY starter, that he lost his races (if he lost) at the start. He never ran below 6,60 in 60m. If he had at least a start like Bolt, he would have run at least 0,10 seconds faster (= 9,76 or less at Tokyo 1991 for example). Even tough he got better later in his career, HE NEVER HAD THE TECHNIQUE. He had a HIGHER POTENTIAL. All you new track fans out there: Just look at some Youtube Videos (and also compare statistics of 10m splits) and then judge who is right on this topic.

ALL RACES LEWIS WON, HE WAS WAY DOWN FROM THE START and overtook the race with his famous incredible finish. Thats beauty. Enjoy it !

 

[TRDean]

Is this a cycling or a track site?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Is this a cycling or a track site?

a doping site. Soon it will be back to vuelta. Its enough doping around be patient.

 

[Digger]

Too much Jack Daniels

So many of these athletes prepare so well for their sport, yet drink alcohol so close to the event. Strange.


"Caster Semenya's testosterone level is about three times higher than would normally be expected in a female sample."

 

[runninboy]

Oh sorry, you are the godfather of track. I forgot

Just wait and see when all you dreamers come down to earth by Bolts positive tests or that he is just another sprinter who has to finish his career early because of massive drug abuse in a non-testing country like jamaica. I go with Winnen here: The last 10 years of track-results are worthless, like cycling. I enjoyed the show in the stadium like many others, but we have our eyes open (Poll in non-dreaming Germany: 50% believe the athletes are not clean).

Just a point on your first comment, you take a small sample of improvement and try to infer doping when you look at a larger sample of track & field there are always leaps in performance followed by stagnation. It is a consistent pattern of inconsistency.

Right now lets look at Bolt vs Lewis since Lewis is an example u use quite often.
Running unlike cycling is just about two human bodies, no mechanics involved beyond physical anatomy.
However that plays a large part, shorter sprinters must either generate more power per stride or a higher cadence to keep up with taller sprinters.
Lewis was tall so he did not have to be as efficient as shorter sprinters in order to win.
Bolt is taller, he has a roughly 5 percent advantage in height so he does not need to be as efficient as Lewis to be faster. The closer he works to the same proportionate capacities as Lewis the faster he becomes.
If you look at his numbers from the Worlds he has one of the slowest reaction times in the field. However the race is over at 20 meters, where he is in first because he generated more speed. Proportionally from 20 meters onwards he works at roughly the same rate as everyone else. Due to the greater momentum generated at the start he is decelerating from a higher rate of speed over the course of the race.

Overall he is still not as efficient as other sprinters, including Lewis
but he doesnt have to be to set records, his results actually lag behind his anatomical advantage.
So here you go, as a sprinter Lewis did more with what he had than Bolt.
If you want to argue that Lewis is a better sprinter i wont disagree

 

[runninboy]

Oh sorry, you are the godfather of track. I forgot
1.) I missed Moses because i tought he was beaten once by Harald Schmid. My mistake, so what? You won

QUOTE]

Its not a personal competition i am not the godfather of anything
Moses streak was widely considered the greatest streak i the history of track & field.
Sort of like going on a message board talking like an expert on the history of baseball and not knowing about Joe Dimaggios 56 game hitting streak
So what i am saying is if you followed the sport closer you would see there are logical explanations for Bolts improvement
tremendous natural ability
great times with bad technique
efficiency improves times drop
still not as efficient as carl lewis so more potential for improvement

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Thats real funny. I missed it:

Lewis had a better technique

(yet many say, which is true, he was a jumper first). I am sorry, but the OPPOSITE IS TRUE. He (Lewis) was such a LOUSY starter, that he lost his races (if he lost) at the start. He never ran below 6,60 in 60m. If he had at least a start like Bolt, he would have run at least 0,10 seconds faster (= 9,76 or less at Tokyo 1991 for example). Even tough he got better later in his career, HE NEVER HAD THE TECHNIQUE. He had a HIGHER POTENTIAL. All you new track fans out there: Just look at some Youtube Videos (and also compare statistics of 10m splits) and then judge who is right on this topic.

ALL RACES LEWIS WON, HE WAS WAY DOWN FROM THE START and overtook the race with his famous incredible finish. Thats beauty. Enjoy it !

Runningboy

May i agree with you on some points or not. Me too i am not in competition. You just started with that i dont know track. So be it. Also i leave doping aside for this post.

But where i cant agree is that Lewis had the better technique thus not as much room for improvement as Bolt. Exact the opposite is true. Thats why i just quote myself above. If some people watch track now because of Bolt, they should know this. So let them decide who hit the point in technique. I think its too obvious, we dont need sience here. Lewis was REAL LOUSY at the start. Just compare the 10m-splits.

 

[workingclasshero]

foxxy, runner

can the pair of you please learn how to quote properly? i'm trying to follow your fight but my head hurts from trying to tell who's saying what

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

can the pair of you please learn how to quote properly? i'm trying to follow your fight but my head hurts from trying to tell who's saying what

I am the one who says Lewis had less technique but more talent,
while Runningboy says Bolt has more talent, but bad technique.

Hope that helps

 

[workingclasshero]

I am the one who says Lewis had less technique but more talent,
while Runningboy says Bolt has more talent, but bad technique.

Hope that helps

certainly does!


as you were, boys

 

[auscyclefan94]

In regards to Aussie Rules (and Rugby League), positive drug tests also include marijuana and other social non-PEDs. In fact most positives are to marijuana. I would not want to be banned for 2 years for a social drug which has absolutely no performance-enhancing abilities. I think it is ridiculous that they even test for marijuana. So please don't use the AFL as justification for the paucity of antidoping in other sports because you are comparing apples to oranges with this example.

In regards to swimming, you may scoff all you like but the vast majority of the 108 new WRs were more than likely due to the suits. Sure, some may be PEDs and their testing programs are pitiful, but the suits have largely been responsible for many different swimmers, male and female, different nationalities, and across a number of different lengths and strokes winning in new WR times. I believe the suits are largely responsible for these WRs when there is not a single swimmer, nation, or event being dominated, bar perhaps Phelps who is a freak (like Bolt ).

jan Ullrich was banned for recreational drugs i believe in 2003. I don't think it's fair to have a drug culture in a sport even if it isn't Perfromance enhancing Drugs. They should still get a year out of the sport. I think some of them wouldn't just be taking marijuana. Their would be some dopers.

The swimming point, the 108 WR was in 2008 without those suits. Even if you discount the suit WR's their still is a massive amount of world records being smashed too many to b all clean.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Here is the link (bout swimming)

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/sport/751/482215/text/

no more Blood-Dope-Tests since 2005,
no more out-of-competition-tests since 2007.

Its all about the swim-suits. ha ha ha.

 

[elapid]

jan Ullrich was banned for recreational drugs i believe in 2003. I don't think it's fair to have a drug culture in a sport even if it isn't Perfromance enhancing Drugs. They should still get a year out of the sport. I think some of them wouldn't just be taking marijuana. Their would be some dopers.

The swimming point, the 108 WR was in 2008 without those suits. Even if you discount the suit WR's their still is a massive amount of world records being smashed too many to b all clean.

I'll disagree with you personally on the former, but we can agree to disagree because that just comes down to personal philosophy. I don't mind someone partaking in social drugs. Most are an extension of alcohol and cigarettes and most are probably far less dangerous than either alcohol or cigarettes. Its their life and their business, as long as it does not affect their personal or work life.

In regards to the swimming, the suits were being used from at least the start of 2008. According the Science of Sports website dated 26th March 2008: "For those who've missed the story, in the last 39 days, 14 world records have been set in the pool, and 13 of them have been in the newly designed swimsuit by Speedo."

See the following link for more information: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/03/speedo-swimsuit-debate.html