• 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. Thanks!

Doping In Athletics

Page 21 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

sniper said:
armchairclimber said:
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.

It's ok, I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone else). I'm fairly comfortable with my position.
 
Jul 5, 2014
99
0
0
Visit site
Believing that it's possible for Bolt to beat known dopers means you have to believe that doping doesn't give you that much of an advantage.

The effects of doping are huge. A clean athlete simply cannot beat a doped one - they can't even come close. If a "clean" athlete (someone who hasn't been caught yet) is destroying known dopers - dopers who are training just as hard as the "clean" athlete - that "clean" athlete is also doping. It's that simple.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

armchairclimber said:
sniper said:
armchairclimber said:
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.

It's ok, I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone else).
for a minute there it seemed you were trying to convince me Bolt was a talented 100m runner as a youngster.
good to know your posts had no such intentions.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Re: Re:

sniper said:
armchairclimber said:
sniper said:
armchairclimber said:
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.

It's ok, I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone else).
for a minute there it seemed you were trying to convince me Bolt was a talented 100m runner as a youngster.
good to know your posts had no such intentions.

For someone who is involved in athletics I found that exchange incredibly telling as to the lying by omission that seems quite acceptable.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
I think the biggest piece of 'evidence' is that the idea that Jamaica can produce a clutch of world quality sprinters at the same time is telling.

Then add the lack of testing, then add the 'coaches' and Doc Muller and well where does natural come into it...........
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Visit site
Re:

naviman said:
Believing that it's possible for Bolt to beat known dopers means you have to believe that doping doesn't give you that much of an advantage.

The effects of doping are huge. A clean athlete simply cannot beat a doped one - they can't even come close. If a "clean" athlete (someone who hasn't been caught yet) is destroying known dopers - dopers who are training just as hard as the "clean" athlete - that "clean" athlete is also doping. It's that simple.


I would agree with you , if we are talking about endurance drugs. We are not though, not used for the same context if they are used " for recovery not benefits of long endurance"

I have no doubt that the Drugs /roids taken by sprinters will give them a advantage,,,,,

but we are talking about a athlete who has smashed records since a youngster and there is no evidence or links of Bolt doping as a youngster.
He was incredible then and is incredible now.
Obvioulsy a big question mark looms but I would not bet my house on it that he has doped.
 
Re: Re:

sniper said:
armchairclimber said:
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?
But it doesn't take away any of the other legion of arguments that suggest Bolt is more likely dirty than clean.

We've seen your singular, perennial knot of suspicion. Much appreciated. Now, how's about summa them [logical] arguments from the legion.Thanks, in advance.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

ray j willings said:
naviman said:
Believing that it's possible for Bolt to beat known dopers means you have to believe that doping doesn't give you that much of an advantage.

The effects of doping are huge. A clean athlete simply cannot beat a doped one - they can't even come close. If a "clean" athlete (someone who hasn't been caught yet) is destroying known dopers - dopers who are training just as hard as the "clean" athlete - that "clean" athlete is also doping. It's that simple.


I would agree with you , if we are talking about endurance drugs. We are not though, not used for the same context if they are used " for recovery not benefits of long endurance"

I have no doubt that the Drugs /roids taken by sprinters will give them a advantage,,,,,

but we are talking about a athlete who has smashed records since a youngster and there is no evidence or links of Bolt doping as a youngster.
He was incredible then and is incredible now.
Obvioulsy a big question mark looms but I would not bet my house on it that he has doped.

No way bolt is clean. Look who he works with, ex BALCO and Doc Muller. I wouldn't put it past him to have doped as a teenager on Jamaica.

Lance Armstrong doped as a teenager.
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
ray j willings said:
naviman said:
Believing that it's possible for Bolt to beat known dopers means you have to believe that doping doesn't give you that much of an advantage.

The effects of doping are huge. A clean athlete simply cannot beat a doped one - they can't even come close. If a "clean" athlete (someone who hasn't been caught yet) is destroying known dopers - dopers who are training just as hard as the "clean" athlete - that "clean" athlete is also doping. It's that simple.


I would agree with you , if we are talking about endurance drugs. We are not though, not used for the same context if they are used " for recovery not benefits of long endurance"

I have no doubt that the Drugs /roids taken by sprinters will give them a advantage,,,,,

but we are talking about a athlete who has smashed records since a youngster and there is no evidence or links of Bolt doping as a youngster.
He was incredible then and is incredible now.
Obvioulsy a big question mark looms but I would not bet my house on it that he has doped.

No way bolt is clean. Look who he works with, ex BALCO and Doc Muller. I wouldn't put it past him to have doped as a teenager on Jamaica.

Lance Armstrong doped as a teenager.

But there is no evidence or hints/ links, contacts that he doped as a youngster.

Bringing Armstrong into the debate does nothing to enhance your view.
 
Apr 7, 2015
656
0
0
Visit site
Let's disregard Bolt for a minute and look at the overall picture. How many of the all-time fastest times have been run since 2005-2006? 80-90 percent? How large a percentage of all sub10s have been run in the same period? Rodgers (who?) has run 13-14 sub-10 this year alone.

Remember back when it was quite an achievement to run a sub-10? Remember back when Lewis and Christie would sometimes do it? I guess the human race has evolved a lot in the last twenty years. Only in Cycling and Athletics though. New Clean Area and all that.

Bringing Bolt back into our discussion again, how can we not view him as an Armstrong figure at the top of a hierarchy of drug users?
 
Re: Re:

ray j willings said:
Benotti69 said:
ray j willings said:
naviman said:
Believing that it's possible for Bolt to beat known dopers means you have to believe that doping doesn't give you that much of an advantage.

The effects of doping are huge. A clean athlete simply cannot beat a doped one - they can't even come close. If a "clean" athlete (someone who hasn't been caught yet) is destroying known dopers - dopers who are training just as hard as the "clean" athlete - that "clean" athlete is also doping. It's that simple.


I would agree with you , if we are talking about endurance drugs. We are not though, not used for the same context if they are used " for recovery not benefits of long endurance"

I have no doubt that the Drugs /roids taken by sprinters will give them a advantage,,,,,

but we are talking about a athlete who has smashed records since a youngster and there is no evidence or links of Bolt doping as a youngster.
He was incredible then and is incredible now.
Obvioulsy a big question mark looms but I would not bet my house on it that he has doped.

No way bolt is clean. Look who he works with, ex BALCO and Doc Muller. I wouldn't put it past him to have doped as a teenager on Jamaica.

Lance Armstrong doped as a teenager.

But there is no evidence or hints/ links, contacts that he doped as a youngster.
Do you have any evidence that drugs don't work in sprinting as much as endurance?

From what I can see you just made that up, somehow convinced yourself of it, and are now selling this factually incorrect delusion on forums as some sort of a fact.
 
Re:

Lyon said:
Let's disregard Bolt for a minute and look at the overall picture. How many of the all-time fastest times have been run since 2005-2006? 80-90 percent? How large a percentage of all sub10s have been run in the same period? Rodgers (who?) has run 13-14 sub-10 this year alone.

Remember back when it was quite an achievement to run a sub-10? Remember back when Lewis and Christie would sometimes do it? I guess the human race has evolved a lot in the last twenty years. Only in Cycling and Athletics though. New Clean Area and all that.

Bringing Bolt back into our discussion again, how can we not view him as an Armstrong figure at the top of a hierarchy of drug users?

Way more ridiculous than Armstrong. Armstrong never went as fast as Pantani, Riis Indurain. Bolt is like someone in 2009 doing a 34 minute Alpe.

As Hamilton was told, cyclists take a lot of drugs, but not as much as other sports. The biggest selling event in athletics is no doubt one of them.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

ray j willings said:
Benotti69 said:
ray j willings said:
naviman said:
Believing that it's possible for Bolt to beat known dopers means you have to believe that doping doesn't give you that much of an advantage.

The effects of doping are huge. A clean athlete simply cannot beat a doped one - they can't even come close. If a "clean" athlete (someone who hasn't been caught yet) is destroying known dopers - dopers who are training just as hard as the "clean" athlete - that "clean" athlete is also doping. It's that simple.

I would agree with you , if we are talking about endurance drugs. We are not though, not used for the same context if they are used " for recovery not benefits of long endurance"

I have no doubt that the Drugs /roids taken by sprinters will give them a advantage,,,,,

but we are talking about a athlete who has smashed records since a youngster and there is no evidence or links of Bolt doping as a youngster.
He was incredible then and is incredible now.
Obvioulsy a big question mark looms but I would not bet my house on it that he has doped.

No way bolt is clean. Look who he works with, ex BALCO and Doc Muller. I wouldn't put it past him to have doped as a teenager on Jamaica.

Lance Armstrong doped as a teenager.

But there is no evidence or hints/ links, contacts that he doped as a youngster.

Bringing Armstrong into the debate does nothing to enhance your view.

I dont care much for athletics. Whether Bolt was naturally gifted is neither here nor there as he works or worked with people deeply involved in doping.

Sorry but i will not be suspending my belief that a guy can run faster than dopers on fried chicken. Nope.

Lucky you have your unicorns.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

armchairclimber said:
SeriousSam said:
armchairclimber said:
sniper said:
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.

There are lots of statistical basis for that.
How about Bolt beating officially documented doper times by 0.2 seconds in 100 meters :eek:
How about Bolt having been one of the fastest starters even his height would speak against this (please go back some pages when I compared Carl Lewis, Bolt and others 10m splits).

Gatlin otoh had his ban. Another failed dope test and he is gone in a more embarassing way than Ben Johnson ever was.

On yet another hand, Bolt seems to be protected...

So while the chance of Bolt still doping is 100.0% (btw, how did he manage to drop his best time of the year from 10.2something to 9.8 in a hurry?), the chance of Gatlin still doping is less than 100.0%.

Bolt the doper, and the brainwashed masses still buy this BS that he might be clean and having beat the evil.

Truly hope Gatlin beats the hell out of Bolt in the 200m, and wins the Olympics next year. Thats what dirty dirty T&F deserves.
 
Re:

Lyon said:
Let's disregard Bolt for a minute and look at the overall picture. How many of the all-time fastest times have been run since 2005-2006? 80-90 percent? How large a percentage of all sub10s have been run in the same period? Rodgers (who?) has run 13-14 sub-10 this year alone.

Remember back when it was quite an achievement to run a sub-10? Remember back when Lewis and Christie would sometimes do it? I guess the human race has evolved a lot in the last twenty years. Only in Cycling and Athletics though. New Clean Area and all that.

Bringing Bolt back into our discussion again, how can we not view him as an Armstrong figure at the top of a hierarchy of drug users?

You ... and the others of your "we" can view him any way you like; I, as well as others with dissenting opinions accept that. So fill your boots ...comrade.
 
Bolt 9.58 (+0.9), Gay and Blake 9.69 (+2.0, -0.1), Powell 9.72 (+0.2), Gatlin 9.74 (+0.9), Carter 9.78 (+0.9), Greene 9.79 (+0.1), Mullings 9.80 (+1.3), Thompson 9.82 (+1.7), Donovan Bailey, Bruny Surin and Trayvon Bromell 9.84 (+0.7, +0.2, +1.3).


The 10 fastest times ever. You have to go to 5th on the list to find someone who hasn't been caught, 7th on the list is banned for life.

5 of that list are Jamaicans. 3 have been sanctioned.

Bolt is 0.2 seconds faster than the first unsanctioned athlete. Tyson Gay with an extra 1.1m/s tailwind is still 0.11 seconds behind him. The chances of any of those guys being clean is tiny, but we're meant to believe the guy who destroys them all is clean?