Brits don't dope?

[Briant_Gumble]

I´d say Bolt is clean. He broke junior records that still stand. So it´s absolutely possible to break 100 m WRs by 0.2 seconds that before were broken by 0.02 seconds every 20 years or so...

Are you being serious?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Are you being serious?

Which part: That he is clean? Or that it´s absolutely logical to lower the old doper record from 9.79 to 9.58?

 

[the sceptic]

I´d say Bolt is clean. He broke junior records that still stand. So it´s absolutely possible to break 100 m WRs by 0.2 seconds that before were broken by 0.02 seconds every 20 years or so...

 

[ray j willings]

Well no, there was a leap from 2007 when bolt focusing only on the 200m just broke 20 seconds in the final, to 2008 when he run the 200m in 19.34 I think it was. That's a .6 second improvement on top of what was already a top performance in a doping era. It's like going from 10 seconds in the 100m to 9.7 and like improving a marathon time from 2.05 to 2.03. Only in marathon tacrics and course and pacemakers and 100 other things matter whereas in 100m it's run as fast as you can.

I think the key word is focus. If you look at Bolts progress since a teenager I don't find anything suspicious about any of his times. He his unique among sprinter's in being so tall , we have not seen that before. He also has never shown the muscle steroid look of the American and others sprinters that you can see have been on the gear. He looks very natural. He does not show the vascularity or definition of a steroid using sprinter. I used to be a body builder and Bolts physique is just one of low body fat IMO. I could be wrong as I don't really know for sure but this time I would hedge my bets that Bolt is clean and really is something special among athletes.

 

[Bicycle]

And it's just coincidence he comes from a small island where half the top sprinters have been caught doping.

 

[red_flanders]

Maybe you should try watching the races you're talking about.


I haven't actually defended her. She's actually one of my least favourite British sports people (largely due to the BBC fawning over her excessively for years).
I personally doubt she doped. Maybe she did though. But you're trying to manufacture 'evidence' from cluelessness.

It doesn't surprise me that you link, intentionally or not, defending people with whether you like them or not.

I tend to be impressed with people who defend or question people based on what they do, not whether we like them.

 

[thehog]

Have to call you out on that one Hog. He didn't race in sandshoes (and didn't claim to) - it was Sutton and Brailsford that said that. And as we know you think they are bullsh1tters so you need to remove that bit. The rest though, well who knows.

But Walsh verified it, didn't he?

I think the fence sitters have either fallen off the fence or now come down on the side that Froome is a doper, yes?

He doesn't have a whole lot going for him now that he might be clean.

 

[wrinklyvet]

It doesn't surprise me that you link, intentionally or not, defending people with whether you like them or not.

I tend to be impressed with people who defend or question people based on what they do, not whether we like them.

So it's impressive that Parker offers a defence (or at least questions the conclusions that have been drawn) even though he does not like her? Yes, I believe so.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I think the key word is focus. If you look at Bolts progress since a teenager...

That he's broken doped WR's, with an almost non-existent anti-doping anything in Jamaica suggests it's possible he was doped from an early age.

Was he *for sure?* No way to know. But the IAAF has been shown to be ridiculously corrupt, so career-long doping is a real likelihood.

 

[DirtyWorks]

And it's just coincidence he comes from a small island where half the top sprinters have been caught doping.

And the National Anti-Doping Organization was little more than a mail box until very recently.

 

[Parker]

It doesn't surprise me that you link, intentionally or not, defending people with whether you like them or not.

I don't, it was a comment in response to a comment which I perceived to have a subtext that all defenders of someone are fans (later another person expanded this to nationalism)

I tend to be impressed with people who defend or question people based on what they do, not whether we like them.

Which is what I did.

You actually seem to be impressed by people who routinely think everyone is guilty. The reasoning of the kangaroo court.

 

[red_flanders]

You actually seem to be impressed by people who routinely think everyone is guilty. The reasoning of the kangaroo court.

There are 3-4 people here who genuinely impress me with their thinking, consistently. I'm comfortable they're nothing like what you describe.

 

[Parker]

There are 3-4 people here who genuinely impress me with their thinking, consistently. I'm comfortable they're nothing like what you describe.

Point to one that has defended someone against doping accusations from other posters.

 

[the sceptic]

There are 3-4 people here who genuinely impress me with their thinking, consistently. I'm comfortable they're nothing like what you describe.

Personally I am more impressed with people who manage to delude themselves into thinking everyone is cleans.

 

[Benotti69]

Can this thread get back on topic and off personal?

Getting personal means you have nothing left to discuss.

 

[Granville57]

I´d say Bolt is clean.

Whaaaaat?!?!?

 

[thehog]

Personally I am more impressed with people who manage to delude themselves into thinking everyone is cleans.

“There’s no evidence”

 

[Digger]

Did Radcliffe have a tailwind for her record or not so?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Whaaaaat?!?!?

Oh sorry, I thought my point was clear: I do not believe in men breaking WRs of known dopers by 0.2 seconds, while those very dopers needed circa 20 or 10 years (depending on the decade) to shove 0.02 seconds off old WRs.

No matter how young, tall, or whatever is the newest explanation of absurd doping records: I do not believe in them.

IOW: The part "Bolt is clean" was the sarcasm part of my post.

 

[thehog]

Did Radcliffe have a tailwind for her record or not so?

She turned off her stopwatch in training and did an extra four hours.

 

[coinneach]

Did Radcliffe have a tailwind for her record or not so?

As I have understood the thread, she was paced for her 2 best times, but not her third. Pacing is not the same as drafting in cycling, but it does or SHOULD made comparisons more complex.

Most of the discussion has been about how unbelievable her performances have been......anyone able to enlighten us on how wild her test result was and whether there could be other explanations for that?

But as I said, guilty or innocent, the REAL issue here is why was this test result not followed up (assuming, as has been asserted, that it wasn't?)

 

[wrinklyvet]

As I have understood the thread, she was paced for her 2 best times, but not her third. Pacing is not the same as drafting in cycling, but it does or SHOULD made comparisons more complex.

Most of the discussion has been about how unbelievable her performances have been......anyone able to enlighten us on how wild her test result was and whether there could be other explanations for that?

But as I said, guilty or innocent, the REAL issue here is why was this test result not followed up (assuming, as has been asserted, that it wasn't?)

It seems to have been the case that none of them were followed up. This is a (presumably fairly neutral) Australian report:-

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/athleti...icated-in-doping-scandal-20141212-125ms6.html

So, as you indicate, that's the big question about all of them.

 

[coinneach]

It seems to have been the case that none of them were followed up. This is a (presumably fairly neutral) Australian report:-

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/athleti...icated-in-doping-scandal-20141212-125ms6.html

So, as you indicate, that's the big question about all of them.

Interesting to see it from a different (yet similar) angle.......

Reminds of the main headline in a provincial paper:
"Local man drowned"
Sub headline
"Titanic sunk"

 

[the sceptic]

As I have understood the thread, she was paced for her 2 best times, but not her third. Pacing is not the same as drafting in cycling, but it does or SHOULD made comparisons more complex.

Most of the discussion has been about how unbelievable her performances have been......anyone able to enlighten us on how wild her test result was and whether there could be other explanations for that?

But as I said, guilty or innocent, the REAL issue here is why was this test result not followed up (assuming, as has been asserted, that it wasn't?)

How does it make it more complex? Doesn't all women have men running around them?

I think the real issue here is that a brit has been found on the red alert suspicion list.

I don't think you can explain that away with tailwinds or altitude training.

 

[53x11 in DC]

Happen to be watching the Steel Avery show on BandSports right now in Recife, Brasil.

As the announcers said... "Muito bem preparadas". Indeed.