Doping In Athletics

[Archibald]

Re: Re:

where in my post does it say anything about the BBC being pro Jamaican?

You said, and I quote "The BBC's agenda is to preserve the interests of the sport, and the interest of the sport is to pretend Bolt is clean. "

Quite clearly talking Bolt and Jamaica as opposed to the UK.

Beeb is extremely pro-Bolt though. Also, given that Bolt is probably the biggest household name in atheltics, it's in the IAAF's interest to maintain his squeaky clean image

and the Beeb print this:
"Usain Bolt produced perhaps his greatest performance of all as he put a troubled build-up behind him to beat two-time doper and clear favourite Justin Gatlin to retain his world 100m title."
tongue-in-cheek jibe?
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/34032366

or does no one else read that as 'even with a troubled build up he still beats known dopers'?

 

[The Carrot]

Re:

I have a long term acquaintance - known her about 10 years. Retired, professional job all her life, got a good degree in the 60's when only a few made it from a working class background. Never ever showed any spark of interest in sport in all her gazzilion posts on facebook since she retired. Today she "shared" that Bolt winning was the best ever sporting event she had ever seen and wasn't it great.

The overwhelming totality of the message from the Beeb causes rational thought to be suspended; it is so pervasive.

It's frightening.

Sir Brad, the dawg and Paula will sleep more easily in their beds tonight.

'It was the result we all wanted' according to the BBC. Really? It wasn't the result I wanted. The brainwashing attempts are a little frightening in as much as, what else are we being lied to about? Does anyone else notice that when a subject comes up in the media that you know something about, from say work or your interests, you can see through the misinformation rather quickly?

 

[armchairclimber]

Whilst I like Cram (we used to compete together....he won), I found the his, and the BBC's commentary/narrative quite nauseating. Probably for different reasons than some zealots on here mind. It was just way way over the top. Super hero indeed. I could have eaten my own fingers.

I did want Bolt to win (didn't think he would mind you). I did want Bolt to win mainly because I don't like Gatlin. The view that Bolt is likely to be clean draws childish abuse in the clinic from adults who should know better, but hey, that's how I see it at the moment.

One thing that the hyping of the good v evil/clean vs doper narrative did do was to heap a lot of pressure on Bolt. Not for the race necessarily, but for the future. If indeed he has doped/does dope, it will weigh very very heavily on him indeed. He will know that the adoration will turn to utter revulsion in a flash if he is busted. The consequences for him would be way more painful than those that Gatlin faces.

 

[sniper]

you still think bolt is likely clean?
you think he knows what's on the banned list in the first place?

 

[armchairclimber]

Re:

you still think bolt is likely clean?
you think he knows what's on the banned list in the first place?

On balance, I do think Bolt is likely clean. Can't be certain, of course, but have followed his career since he first made waves as a junior and it's the view I hold at the moment. Been through all this on here before though.

There are some athletes/cyclists I'm pretty sure dope, some I am suspicious of and some that, on balance, I don't see enough damning evidence against. They won't necessarily coincide with prevailing wisdom in the clinic. If it happens to be a clinic bogeyman/woman (Bolt/Radcliffe) thein it usually brings out the worst in some posters who seem to regard a failure to agree with their view as confirmation of my stupidity/nationalism (a particularly crass one)/naivety/ ignorance etc.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

BBC (and so called journalists) commentary team going ecstatic over Bolt's win. So much for impartiality!

https://twitter.com/5liveSport/status/635456370976927745

Brendan Forster dancing in the stands!!! These people are not interested in clean sport!

I see many excited people ... journalists, athletes, spectators ... having a good time. How do you know that 'these people' have no interest in clean sport?

Because they work for the BBC

 

[SeriousSam]

Re: Re:

you still think bolt is likely clean?
you think he knows what's on the banned list in the first place?

On balance, I do think Bolt is likely clean. Can't be certain, of course, but have followed his career since he first made waves as a junior and it's the view I hold at the moment. Been through all this on here before though.

There are some athletes/cyclists I'm pretty sure dope, some I am suspicious of and some that, on balance, I don't see enough damning evidence against. They won't necessarily coincide with prevailing wisdom in the clinic. If it happens to be a clinic bogeyman/woman (Bolt/Radcliffe) thein it usually brings out the worst in some posters who seem to regard a failure to agree with their view as confirmation of my stupidity/nationalism (a particularly crass one)/naivety/ ignorance etc.

Whatever you think the chance is that Bolt is clean, it's less than the chance Gatlin is clean.

 

[armchairclimber]

Re: Re:

you still think bolt is likely clean?
you think he knows what's on the banned list in the first place?

On balance, I do think Bolt is likely clean. Can't be certain, of course, but have followed his career since he first made waves as a junior and it's the view I hold at the moment. Been through all this on here before though.

There are some athletes/cyclists I'm pretty sure dope, some I am suspicious of and some that, on balance, I don't see enough damning evidence against. They won't necessarily coincide with prevailing wisdom in the clinic. If it happens to be a clinic bogeyman/woman (Bolt/Radcliffe) thein it usually brings out the worst in some posters who seem to regard a failure to agree with their view as confirmation of my stupidity/nationalism (a particularly crass one)/naivety/ ignorance etc.

Whatever you think the chance is that Bolt is clean, it's less than the chance Gatlin is clean.

In your head, fine. There is no factual or statistical basis for that comment.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

you still think bolt is likely clean?
you think he knows what's on the banned list in the first place?

On balance, I do think Bolt is likely clean. Can't be certain, of course, but have followed his career since he first made waves as a junior and it's the view I hold at the moment. Been through all this on here before though.

There are some athletes/cyclists I'm pretty sure dope, some I am suspicious of and some that, on balance, I don't see enough damning evidence against. They won't necessarily coincide with prevailing wisdom in the clinic. If it happens to be a clinic bogeyman/woman (Bolt/Radcliffe) thein it usually brings out the worst in some posters who seem to regard a failure to agree with their view as confirmation of my stupidity/nationalism (a particularly crass one)/naivety/ ignorance etc.

I just don't seen any logical arguments in favor of Bolt being clean.
Regardless of whether he has the athletic capabilities to beat dopers, the question still is: why would he be clean?
You'd have to assume (a) Usain knows what's on the banned list, which I doubt (b) that he has some fair-play gene that very few others have and (c) that his coaches, trainers, advisors share that fair-play morale, for some reason.

Yes, he was/is a natural talent, but unfortunately that has zero bearing on (a), (b) and (c).

 

[armchairclimber]

Re: Re:

you still think bolt is likely clean?
you think he knows what's on the banned list in the first place?

On balance, I do think Bolt is likely clean. Can't be certain, of course, but have followed his career since he first made waves as a junior and it's the view I hold at the moment. Been through all this on here before though.

There are some athletes/cyclists I'm pretty sure dope, some I am suspicious of and some that, on balance, I don't see enough damning evidence against. They won't necessarily coincide with prevailing wisdom in the clinic. If it happens to be a clinic bogeyman/woman (Bolt/Radcliffe) thein it usually brings out the worst in some posters who seem to regard a failure to agree with their view as confirmation of my stupidity/nationalism (a particularly crass one)/naivety/ ignorance etc.

I just don't seen any logical arguments in favor of Bolt being clean.
Regardless of whether he has the athletic capabilities to beat dopers, the question still is: why would he be clean?
You're assuming (a) he knows what's on the banned list, which I doubt, (b) that he has some fair-play gene that very few others have, (c) that his coaches, trainers, advisors share that fair-play morale, for some reason.

Yes, he was/is a natural talent, but unfortunately that has zero bearing on (a), (b) and (c).

We all have our criteria for making the assessment of someone's potential cleanliness or otherwise. For me, I need to see more than 1) the undoubted ignorance and gullibility of some athletes (I don't know how stupid or otherwise Bolt is tbh) 2) the existence and availability of PEDs in the sport 3) the existence of coaches and advisors who will bypass morality in search of profit.
I will also look at someone's long term development. Bolt was producing times as a junior that don't so much predict his senior performances as provide a context which makes them possible/believable.

Turning your question on its head, if you have gone through you athletic career able to beat your rivals without doping, why would you dope?

 

[Texeng]

Re: Re:

I have a long term acquaintance - known her about 10 years. Retired, professional job all her life, got a good degree in the 60's when only a few made it from a working class background. Never ever showed any spark of interest in sport in all her gazzilion posts on facebook since she retired. Today she "shared" that Bolt winning was the best ever sporting event she had ever seen and wasn't it great.

The overwhelming totality of the message from the Beeb causes rational thought to be suspended; it is so pervasive.

It's frightening.

Sir Brad, the dawg and Paula will sleep more easily in their beds tonight.

'It was the result we all wanted' according to the BBC. Really? It wasn't the result I wanted. The brainwashing attempts are a little frightening in as much as, what else are we being lied to about? Does anyone else notice that when a subject comes up in the media that you know something about, from say work or your interests, you can see through the misinformation rather quickly?

And if it doesn't conflict with your own knowledge, is it still misinformation? Brainwashing - really? Considering how many choices people have to get their information from these days you believe the Beeb has that much clout?

 

[Texeng]

Re: Re:

BBC (and so called journalists) commentary team going ecstatic over Bolt's win. So much for impartiality!

https://twitter.com/5liveSport/status/635456370976927745

Brendan Forster dancing in the stands!!! These people are not interested in clean sport!

I see many excited people ... journalists, athletes, spectators ... having a good time. How do you know that 'these people' have no interest in clean sport?

Because they work for the BBC

Well I knew the Beeb had a big budget but didn't think they could pay for a whole stadium of spectators

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Turning your question on its head, if you have gone through you athletic career able to beat your rivals without doping, why would you dope?

the only thing his early potential is good for is that it takes away the "transformation" argument that we have for a guy like Froome and Wiggins and several other late bloomers.
But it doesn't take away any of the other legion of arguments that suggest Bolt is more likely dirty than clean.

To answer your question: becoming world #1 sprinter is not about beating your rivals in local races.
Who cares if he was winning every local race he took part in. What matters is: was he running anywhere close to 10 secs?
Plenty of incentives to dope if you want to break through internationally.

 

[Lyon]

To people who say Bolt is a natural talent - was he a natural talent in the 100 meter dash as well? No, he was not. Fast, yes. World class talent, no.

The excuse used is that he barely competed in the 100 meter dash, so his talent there was difficult to judge, conveniently overlooking the fact that the reason he didn't compete more in the 100 meter dash was precisely because he wasn't such a talent there in the first place. Bolt, like most other athletes, competes where he knows he can win.

Bolt's transformation into a contender in the 100 meter dash was staggering, and surprising even to his most nationalistic followers. They couldn't believe what they saw, "Bolt in the 100 meter dash?", but quickly jumped on the bandwagon. The truth is that at that point in Bolt's career, everybody had given up on him even becoming a contender in the 200 and 400 meter races. He was just one in a long line of talented junior athletes that never lived up to their potential.

 

[armchairclimber]

Re: Re:

Turning your question on its head, if you have gone through you athletic career able to beat your rivals without doping, why would you dope?

the only thing his early potential is good for is that it takes away the "transformation" argument that we have for a guy like Froome and Wiggins and several other late bloomers.
But it doesn't take away any of the other legion of arguments that suggest Bolt is more likely dirty than clean.

To answer your question: becoming world #1 sprinter is not about beating your rivals in local races.
Who cares if he was winning every local race he took part in. What matters is: was he running anywhere close to 10 secs?
Plenty of incentives to dope if you want to break through internationally.

I have no problem with you, or anyone else in here, believing that Bolt dopes. That's up to you and I'm not here to defend him.

 

[armchairclimber]

Re:

To people who say Bolt is a natural talent - was he a natural talent in the 100 meter dash as well? No, he was not. Fast, yes. World class talent, no.

The excuse used is that he barely competed in the 100 meter dash, so his talent there was difficult to judge, conveniently overlooking the fact that the reason he didn't compete more in the 100 meter dash was precisely because he wasn't such a talent there in the first place. Bolt, like most other athletes, competes where he knows he can win.

Bolt's transformation into a contender in the 100 meter dash was staggering, and surprising even to his most nationalistic followers. They couldn't believe what they saw, "Bolt in the 100 meter dash?", but quickly jumped on the bandwagon. The truth is that at that point in Bolt's career, everybody had given up on him even becoming a contender in the 200 and 400 meter races. He was just one in a long line of talented junior athletes that never lived up to their potential.

1. Of course he is a natural talent. To suggest otherwise is plain daft, even if you think he dopes.
2. Why was his transformation staggering? Who were his most nationalistic followers and where's the evidence that they were surprised?
3. Clearly, despite him being a bit of a joker, it's obvious that everybody had not given up on him. He progressed to world junior record holder from posting a time a little over 20 seconds for the 200 as an unfurnished 15 year old. There were plenty of people who believed in his talent....they had an issue with his application.

Go and look again at his full record.

 

[The Hitch]

Alejandro Valverde was also a supreme talent from a young age. He's passed what may actually by now be around 400 tests, never failed one, and never posted records anywhere near as impressive as Bolt's. Those blood bags discovered in 06 must truly have been a mistake, not his. Because afterall he passes the - "was a talent as a junior so therefore must be clean now no matter how ridiculous his performances are and how little his country tests" test.

 

[Lyon]

Re: Re:

To people who say Bolt is a natural talent - was he a natural talent in the 100 meter dash as well? No, he was not. Fast, yes. World class talent, no.

The excuse used is that he barely competed in the 100 meter dash, so his talent there was difficult to judge, conveniently overlooking the fact that the reason he didn't compete more in the 100 meter dash was precisely because he wasn't such a talent there in the first place. Bolt, like most other athletes, competes where he knows he can win.

Bolt's transformation into a contender in the 100 meter dash was staggering, and surprising even to his most nationalistic followers. They couldn't believe what they saw, "Bolt in the 100 meter dash?", but quickly jumped on the bandwagon. The truth is that at that point in Bolt's career, everybody had given up on him even becoming a contender in the 200 and 400 meter races. He was just one in a long line of talented junior athletes that never lived up to their potential.

1. Of course he is a natural talent. To suggest otherwise is plain daft, even if you think he dopes.
2. Why was his transformation staggering? Who were his most nationalistic followers and where's the evidence that they were surprised?
3. Clearly, despite him being a bit of a joker, it's obvious that everybody had not given up on him. He progressed to world junior record holder from posting a time a little over 20 seconds for the 200 as an unfurnished 15 year old. There were plenty of people who believed in his talent....they had an issue with his application.

Go and look again at his full record.

Was he a world class talent in the 100 meters? Please, post the times he ran as a junior in that event.

About his full record. Remember those grainy videos of Bolt circulating on the Internet back when he won the boys Champs? I was the one that put them online. I know his record as well as anyone.

 

[armchairclimber]

Re: Re:

To people who say Bolt is a natural talent - was he a natural talent in the 100 meter dash as well? No, he was not. Fast, yes. World class talent, no.

The excuse used is that he barely competed in the 100 meter dash, so his talent there was difficult to judge, conveniently overlooking the fact that the reason he didn't compete more in the 100 meter dash was precisely because he wasn't such a talent there in the first place. Bolt, like most other athletes, competes where he knows he can win.

Bolt's transformation into a contender in the 100 meter dash was staggering, and surprising even to his most nationalistic followers. They couldn't believe what they saw, "Bolt in the 100 meter dash?", but quickly jumped on the bandwagon. The truth is that at that point in Bolt's career, everybody had given up on him even becoming a contender in the 200 and 400 meter races. He was just one in a long line of talented junior athletes that never lived up to their potential.

1. Of course he is a natural talent. To suggest otherwise is plain daft, even if you think he dopes.
2. Why was his transformation staggering? Who were his most nationalistic followers and where's the evidence that they were surprised?
3. Clearly, despite him being a bit of a joker, it's obvious that everybody had not given up on him. He progressed to world junior record holder from posting a time a little over 20 seconds for the 200 as an unfurnished 15 year old. There were plenty of people who believed in his talent....they had an issue with his application.

Go and look again at his full record.

Was he a world class talent in the 100 meters? Please, post the times he ran as a junior in that event.

About his full record. Remember those grainy videos of Bolt circulating on the Internet back when he won the boys Champs? I was the one that put them online. I know his record as well as anyone.

Then you should know better than to suggest that he wasn't a natural talent. You think that a junior who runs 20 seconds for the 200 isn't a natural talent, whether they are running 200 or 100? Fair enough. Up to you.

 

[armchairclimber]

Re:

Alejandro Valverde was also a supreme talent from a young age. He's passed what may actually by now be around 400 tests, never failed one, and never posted records anywhere near as impressive as Bolt's. Those blood bags discovered in 06 must truly have been a mistake, not his. Because afterall he passes the - "was a talent as a junior so therefore must be clean now no matter how ridiculous his performances are and how little his country tests" test.

Junior ability is context. Blood bags are evidence. Come on Hitch, up your game man.

 

[Lyon]

Re: Re:

To people who say Bolt is a natural talent - was he a natural talent in the 100 meter dash as well? No, he was not. Fast, yes. World class talent, no.

The excuse used is that he barely competed in the 100 meter dash, so his talent there was difficult to judge, conveniently overlooking the fact that the reason he didn't compete more in the 100 meter dash was precisely because he wasn't such a talent there in the first place. Bolt, like most other athletes, competes where he knows he can win.

Bolt's transformation into a contender in the 100 meter dash was staggering, and surprising even to his most nationalistic followers. They couldn't believe what they saw, "Bolt in the 100 meter dash?", but quickly jumped on the bandwagon. The truth is that at that point in Bolt's career, everybody had given up on him even becoming a contender in the 200 and 400 meter races. He was just one in a long line of talented junior athletes that never lived up to their potential.

1. Of course he is a natural talent. To suggest otherwise is plain daft, even if you think he dopes.
2. Why was his transformation staggering? Who were his most nationalistic followers and where's the evidence that they were surprised?
3. Clearly, despite him being a bit of a joker, it's obvious that everybody had not given up on him. He progressed to world junior record holder from posting a time a little over 20 seconds for the 200 as an unfurnished 15 year old. There were plenty of people who believed in his talent....they had an issue with his application.

Go and look again at his full record.

Was he a world class talent in the 100 meters? Please, post the times he ran as a junior in that event.

About his full record. Remember those grainy videos of Bolt circulating on the Internet back when he won the boys Champs? I was the one that put them online. I know his record as well as anyone.

Then you should know better than to suggest that he wasn't a natural talent. You think that a junior who runs 20 seconds for the 200 isn't a natural talent, whether they are running 200 or 100? Fair enough. Up to you.

Was he a world class talent in the 100 meter dash? Stop deflecting and answer the question.

 

[armchairclimber]

Re: Re:

To people who say Bolt is a natural talent - was he a natural talent in the 100 meter dash as well? No, he was not. Fast, yes. World class talent, no.

The excuse used is that he barely competed in the 100 meter dash, so his talent there was difficult to judge, conveniently overlooking the fact that the reason he didn't compete more in the 100 meter dash was precisely because he wasn't such a talent there in the first place. Bolt, like most other athletes, competes where he knows he can win.

Bolt's transformation into a contender in the 100 meter dash was staggering, and surprising even to his most nationalistic followers. They couldn't believe what they saw, "Bolt in the 100 meter dash?", but quickly jumped on the bandwagon. The truth is that at that point in Bolt's career, everybody had given up on him even becoming a contender in the 200 and 400 meter races. He was just one in a long line of talented junior athletes that never lived up to their potential.

1. Of course he is a natural talent. To suggest otherwise is plain daft, even if you think he dopes.
2. Why was his transformation staggering? Who were his most nationalistic followers and where's the evidence that they were surprised?
3. Clearly, despite him being a bit of a joker, it's obvious that everybody had not given up on him. He progressed to world junior record holder from posting a time a little over 20 seconds for the 200 as an unfurnished 15 year old. There were plenty of people who believed in his talent....they had an issue with his application.

Go and look again at his full record.

Was he a world class talent in the 100 meters? Please, post the times he ran as a junior in that event.

About his full record. Remember those grainy videos of Bolt circulating on the Internet back when he won the boys Champs? I was the one that put them online. I know his record as well as anyone.

Then you should know better than to suggest that he wasn't a natural talent. You think that a junior who runs 20 seconds for the 200 isn't a natural talent, whether they are running 200 or 100? Fair enough. Up to you.

Was he a world class talent in the 100 meter dash? Stop deflecting and answer the question.

1. You brought the notion of world class up.
2. As he wasn't running 100 until later, who knows.
3. He had natural talent...as a sprinter. To become world class involves training for an event.

Pop goes the weasel.
No problem with your belief that he didn't have natural talent by the way. That's up to you. Similarly, no problem with your conviction that he dopes. Why do you have such an issue with my personal viewpoint? Am I that important?

 

[The Carrot]

Maybe this article will help some people in this debate?

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/08/12/bernstein-usain-bolt-is-probably-doping-and-you-know-it/#.Vdre8j6Dig0.twitter

 

[Lyon]

Re: Re:

Where did I state that Bolt had no natural talent? Go back and read what I actually said.I asked whether he was a natural 100 meter dash runner.
Natural talent as a sprinter? What kind of sprinter? Long? Short? There is a great difference, so stop simplifying.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

1. You brought the notion of world class up.
2. As he wasn't running 100 until later, who knows.
3. He had natural talent...as a sprinter. To become world class involves training for an event.

lol.
so, fair to say you've been exaggerating it a bit...

and regardless, it has no bearing on him being clean/dirty now.
so, several pages down the road and you still haven't come up with a single plausible argument as to why Bolt is likely clean.