Doping in other sports?

[Catwhoorg]

How many strides does Bolt take to run 100M ?

How many does someone else take ?


I think you will find there isn't a huge difference. +/- 2 strides is my guess would cover every racer in a major final.

All sprinters, heck all elite runners, spend so much time in the air that the stride length has little to do with height.

Kimetto ran Berlin in 2:02:57

42195 m in 7377 seconds, or 5.7 m/s
using the 180 cadence 'rule' (more soft guideline) thats ~1.9 m between left foot and right foot landing.

Kimetto is 1.7m tall.

You can argue about the exact precision, but the message is clear. Power/weight to get 'air time; is more a factor in stride length that height.

 

[D-Queued]

Re: Re:

Unfortunately, the eye test is the same as the drug test in that the probability of false positives is tiny but the probabiltiy of false negatives isn't.

If someone looks like a steroid freak, the chance he is doping is high. If someone tests positive, the chance he is doping is very high (but not 1, could be contaminated steaks or whatever).

But if someone does not look like a steroid freak, it does not mean the chance of doping is not low. Not looking like a steroid freak is not strong evidence of cleanliness. Not testing positive is not strong evidence of cleanliness.

Forget Bolt. What's the chance the reigning dominant 100m world record holder is doping, taking into account just the history of the sport, the chance you can dope and get away with it, the incentives faced by athletes? Some number X not far from 1.
Then you look at him. Doesn't look like a steroid freak, but this isn't strong evidence of cleanliness, so you only subtract a tiny number from the the initial belief he's doping. Updated chance he's doping: X-ɛ
Hasn't tested positive? Also very weak evidence of cleanliness. X-ɛ-ɛ. Still close to X. Still close to 1.

And that's not even taking into account the Bolt specific information that actually makes it more likely he's doping, like training partner and colleagues going down, and Jaimaca not being a bastion of rigorous testing.

To believe in Bolt is to believe that whoever the reining dominant 100m champ happens to be, his chance of doping is low OR to believe that testing negative/not looking like a steroid freak is strong evidence of cleanliness. Not very reasonable.

I don't think Jamaica has a history of doping athletes at a young age or am I wrong? [Genuine question]
A lot of Jamaican athletes have all been busted recently and maybe that ties in with the pressure of trying to compete with Bolt.
I agree Bolts physique is not total proof of not using PEDS but it is significant proof of not using known steroids which sprinters have a liking for.
So Still need a bit more to believe he his doping. He has a his ridiculous stride length because of his height and we have not seen a sprinter of his kind before.
I'm on the clinic and its all about the dope but Bolt to me his something special Physique ,talent and has a youngster smashing records and I just don't see any magical improvements that I would not expect from a athlete with those exceptional credentials....
cheers Ray

Not looking like a steroid freak is a combination of dosage, timing, and type of training employed.

You can look like Floyd, or you can look like Ahnold. Arguably a lot more depends on the type training than on the amount or frequency.

Dave.

 

[armchairclimber]

Re:

If height and stride length alone explain why a guy can run twice as fast clean as the entire rest of the world doped, then why is bolt the only tall person to ever do this. I mean it's not like he is the only person in the world of that height and build is it? But to my knowledge there is no other record ever of tall people having this advantage.

But anyway the real question for any bolt fan which they can't answer is, why did the Jamaican anti doping agency deliberately not test their athletes in the run up to the Olympics, If they thought their biggest star was clean?

Anyone who buys the - bolt wakes up, eats 20 mcnuggets, breaks the world record, narrative needs to take some advice from ullrich and put 1 and 1 together.

Ok, do us all a favour and go and read some literature on running and physiology FFS. I read it daily...but I am not about to waste my time schooling you.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Re: Re:

This is the same old brain addled, illogical, tired, worn out, poverty stricken and nonsensical argument that gives you zilch credibility with your comment. You bait and troll with vacuous rhetoric like "Baily was maxed jacked up ..." with absolutely no evidence, fact or logical argument to back it up. None, Zip. Zero. You are so out of touch with reality you have to resort to the use of cynicism, mockery and sarcasm in a futile attempt to puff up your baseless and uninformed opinions.

I invited you to produce some facts or evidence that Bailey was doped. Your non response was as effective as the captain of the Titanic. Are you so fundamentally bereft of a single scintilla of acumen you cannot muster even one rational argument?

You are not worthy of having an opinion, even in the Clinic, because no one is entitled to be so ignorant. You must therefore come by it naturally. When I read trash like your comment I am reminded that nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. And you my friend are very dangerous.

Your intellectual dishonesty in a hopeless attempt to make a point is so obvious it runs right off the gag-meter. You should be sued for intellectual neglect and being a bloviating bully!

Nice little... err... big rant. Hope you didn´t got a heart attack.
The best of your post: "I invited you to produce some facts or evidence that Bailey was doped... you cannot muster even one rational argument?" LMAO. Really. Did you gave one that Bailey did not dope? Rhetorical. So basically your whole post turns on you, while I am better off, by using common sense (Bailey did, without a tiny doubt, dope coz coming out of nowhere, at an old age, improving stark in a small time frame, beating old doper records of a dope ridden sport, etc) as argument. Sorry I was busy the time Bailey injected the needles. Plus I was in another country the time he did it. So I only can come up with circumstantial evidence.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

IMO, the answer is Hines in '68. On the "Cleanish" side, Lewis whose progression was linear from his teenage years to his glory years, and Wells, whose winning times were mediocre.

For the other ones, maybe there's no solid evidence: I refer you to our favorite Wonderboy. It's not because you don't get caught that you don't dope. And the likelihood of being caught in track and fields is minuscule: no retroactive testing, et caetera...

I always chuckle when athletes get busted: usually from emerging or poor countries using twenty year-old substances.

1+ ... Always love your well thought posts. Spot on.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Re: Re:

is that assessment based on anything other than fanish instinct of "I hope he's clean so I'll say he is"?

What you are saying btw is that drugs don't work because if in 30 years of sprinters doping to within an inch or their life they can't get under 9.74 yet bolt wakes up and does 9.59 and 9.69 while celebrating, then doping is absolutely worthless.

But let me ask you this. Have you paid attention to the bolt threads on here for the last few years or at least know about all the little news that never makes the highlight reels, puma adverts and sports personality of the year awards? about bolt, about jamaican anti doping, about doping in sprinting, about doping in general.

Are you familiar with how doping works in athletics. Do you know what programmes sprinters who used balco were under what drugs they took and how they beat the system. And how the east Germans did it? The ways in which different drugs work and the performance enhancement they provide?

If yes then your opinion that bolt might have some merit, though I'd be interested in what the argument is.

But your laughable earlier defense of brownlee in this thread that he must be clean because you think he's a nice guy, strongly suggests you haven't a clue as to how doping works and make emotion based judgments based on who you like.

Firstly Hitch, at least do me the courtesy of reading my earlier reply re. Brownlees before offering up the pathetic "fanboi" stuff.

Secondly, Yes to pretty much everything re. Balco, Bolt, Jamaican athletics and doping. I suspect I'm a fair bit closer to T&F than you. Frankly, I'm not a huge fan of the bloke but he has always been (since juniors) quick and has always been physiologically freakish. I use that term advisedly. He isn't freakishly muscled as many (doping) sprinters are. He's actually sparely furnished for a 100m man. Speed over any distance is (put simply) a function of stride x cadence. Shorter sprinters need to increase power in order to increase stride length (they also do tend to have higher cadence). He, however, has such a long stride, coupled with decent cadence that he doesn't need the same power that say Gatlin and shorter fellas require.

He may dope, but he is, physically, the most outstanding candidate I have ever seen for breaking sprint records, so his 100m record doesn't come as a huge surprise.

If this was a post from 1984, you could exchange Bolt with Carl Lewis... and Carl Lewis doped. Only difference, he bettered his records by 0.03s, not 0.20s in juuust 100 meters running.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

If height and stride length alone explain why a guy can run twice as fast clean as the entire rest of the world doped, then why is bolt the only tall person to ever do this. I mean it's not like he is the only person in the world of that height and build is it? But to my knowledge there is no other record ever of tall people having this advantage.

But anyway the real question for any bolt fan which they can't answer is, why did the Jamaican anti doping agency deliberately not test their athletes in the run up to the Olympics, If they thought their biggest star was clean?

Anyone who buys the - bolt wakes up, eats 20 mcnuggets, breaks the world record, narrative needs to take some advice from ullrich and put 1 and 1 together.

Ok, do us all a favour and go and read some literature on running and physiology FFS. I read it daily...but I am not about to waste my time schooling you.

lol ok.

I'll ignore the attitude because A) I do like you as a poster for a lot of reasons, and b) I know it was probably a result of the demeaning way I talked to you earlier.

So back to actual arguments, what exactly is the physiological case you are trying to present? I'm well aware of what you are saying because I have seen that argument made dozens of times in Bolts favour since 2008 (never before of course, funny that). No one is denying that having longer strides can help. No one is denying that a million different variables can help, in 100m in any sport.

But there is a massive stretch from saying longer strides help, to saying that longer strides >>>> every drug ever created.

How can a guy do 9.59 seconds just because he has longer strides, at a time when only 3 other athletes in history have gone under 9.79 and they were all doped?

The maths just doesn't add up.

If he is doping, it makes sense. Its a continuation of the trend 100m has had for decades while the sport has been doped.
Bolt is continuing the 100m world record trend of doped athletes. He is building on what all the previous also doped sprinters did. But because he is able to add another variable - longer strides, he is able to accelerate the progression. Push the graph a little bit higher than the trend. But that is normal. The line isn't perfect symmetry, becuase there are other variables besides just doping.

It also makes sense considering the non Bolt doped world record has ALSO fallen over his reign. Gay and Blake (2 dopers) have both gone under what the pre Bolt world record was, there was a olympic final where everyone went under 10.
In fact the non Bolt line has been an almost perfect continuation of the pre Bolt line. Powel went down to 9.74. Then Gay to 9.72. Then Blake to 9.7. Guys behind them are breaking 9.9 more frequently.

Bolt is in a league of his own because he has longer strides. But that only works if he's starting on a level playing field to them with regards to drugs.



But if Bolt is clean, everything gets turned on its head. Suddenly Bolt isn't improving on 9.77 or 9.74 because those guys were heavily aided by drugs but on something far far slower.

We don't know exactly what the clean record is or has been, but we do know it was significantly lower than 9.79 which is a time that was only ever acheived by doping (Powel, Johnson, Montgommery, Gatlin). Its probably much lower than 9.85 which was also only ever acheived by doping. Even the guys who were doing 9.9 were all doping.

Its not a massive jump its an astronomical one. 1 variable cannot explain a jump like that. Are the physiology books going to tell me different? They gonna tell me that a man who has longer strides can go 0.25 seconds faster than Maurice Greene on a Balco programme and maybe a full half a second faster than the next best clean time? Because of 1 variable? I seriously doubt that.

All this of course, before we even consider all the information that has trickled out about Bolts training partners and friends failing tests, about Jamaica deliberately not testing their athletes.

 

[blackcat]

Hitch, dont forget, the "longer strides", were previously a weakness, not an advantage in the 100.

armchairclimber, I stress, the longer limbs and the levers need to bend and unlock from the crouch of the start. someone can do the applied physics equation for me.

A taller person, could never accelerate his cadence to terminal velocity in competition with the runners like Mo Greene who were 5'10", 5'11".

So, the taller the person, the strides did offer some benefit on the back end, when they could manage speed endurance, and get the 200m in contention.

And before one counters, "oh, but Usain Bolt, is a unique athlete".

They all are.
And the 5'11" 100 metre runners like Greene who explode from the blocks, are extraordinary athletes.

Bolt did not explode from the blocks like a 6'4"-6'5" athlete, he exploded from the blocks like a 5'11" athlete like Mo Greene. If Bolt was 5 inches smaller, he would be a yard faster out of the blocks, which would be a yard faster than Mo Green over the first 20 yards.

All these athletes are one in a million athletes. They are all off the bell curve.

Thing about Bolt, he is off the bell curve, when his competitive field itself, is off the bell curve, off the spectrum,

And that bell curve we are placing him in, the Olympic one, well abra cadabra, they are all popped for doping!

Jan Ullrich epigram, two plus two equal five and Lance needs to get his GED.

 

[Tonton]

Watching the 9"58 video, clicking repeatedly to achieve a frame by frame picture of the race, there is an exact match: Bolt and Burns (lane 2), as far as reaction time, and timing of every step after that. That is until Bolt crosses the line. Burns ran 10 seconds flat. Bolt is listed at 6'5" for 94 kg and Burns as 6'1" for 85 kg. Let's agree that Burns (whose PR is 9"96) is a phenom, as flexible as a cat: he's no Joe Shmo, flexible as a crossbow, short, bald, and overweight (and a banker like robertmoore).
Bolt had the lead after only a couple of yards: how much power does that mean? It's a superfast squatt, with a longer range of motion (think about 650 vs. 700 wheels) due to his size. Then according to the video, he spins his legs as fast as Burns but gains ground: longer stride. How much more power did Bolt generate to increase flight, which is what happened: indeed, both put their feet on the ground at the same time. There had to be a considerable difference in power between the two, and as I stated before, it feels like Armstrong's leg turnover with Ullrich's gear. That's how Bolt ran 9"58. Not Normal.

 

[blackcat]

Watching the 9"58 video, clicking repeatedly to achieve a frame by frame picture of the race, there is an exact match: Bolt and Burns (lane 2), as far as reaction time, and timing of every step after that. That is until Bolt crosses the line. Burns ran 10 seconds flat. Bolt is listed at 6'5" for 94 kg and Burns as 6'1" for 85 kg. Let's agree that Burns (whose PR is 9"96) is a phenom, as flexible as a cat: he's no Joe Shmo, flexible as a crossbow, short, bald, and overweight (and a banker like robertmoore).
Bolt had the lead after only a couple of yards: how much power does that mean? It's a superfast squatt, with a longer range of motion (think about 650 vs. 700 wheels) due to his size. Then according to the video, he spins his legs as fast as Burns but gains ground: longer stride. How much more power did Bolt generate to increase flight, which is what happened: indeed, both put their feet on the ground at the same time. There had to be a considerable difference in power between the two, and as I stated before, it feels like Armstrong's leg turnover with Ullrich's gear. That's how Bolt ran 9"58. Not Normal.

but Burns is gunna be doping too.

It is like a Greipel or Kittell wattage versus Robbie Mcewen wattage, they prolly hit 2000, and Mcewen would do 1500. But Mcewen could still outjump anyone in the peloton I reckon, apart from Youhani or whatever his name is. Cavendish never could match Mcewen in the jump, just like MCewen could never match terminal velocity of Cav, and I dont think he ever beat Cav in a proper mano a mano kick. Cav is imperious, dont believe than he is on a decline. He will be there this year.

 

[ray j willings]

Re: Re:

Unfortunately, the eye test is the same as the drug test in that the probability of false positives is tiny but the probabiltiy of false negatives isn't.

If someone looks like a steroid freak, the chance he is doping is high. If someone tests positive, the chance he is doping is very high (but not 1, could be contaminated steaks or whatever).

But if someone does not look like a steroid freak, it does not mean the chance of doping is not low. Not looking like a steroid freak is not strong evidence of cleanliness. Not testing positive is not strong evidence of cleanliness.

Forget Bolt. What's the chance the reigning dominant 100m world record holder is doping, taking into account just the history of the sport, the chance you can dope and get away with it, the incentives faced by athletes? Some number X not far from 1.
Then you look at him. Doesn't look like a steroid freak, but this isn't strong evidence of cleanliness, so you only subtract a tiny number from the the initial belief he's doping. Updated chance he's doping: X-ɛ
Hasn't tested positive? Also very weak evidence of cleanliness. X-ɛ-ɛ. Still close to X. Still close to 1.

And that's not even taking into account the Bolt specific information that actually makes it more likely he's doping, like training partner and colleagues going down, and Jaimaca not being a bastion of rigorous testing.

To believe in Bolt is to believe that whoever the reining dominant 100m champ happens to be, his chance of doping is low OR to believe that testing negative/not looking like a steroid freak is strong evidence of cleanliness. Not very reasonable.

I don't think Jamaica has a history of doping athletes at a young age or am I wrong? [Genuine question]
A lot of Jamaican athletes have all been busted recently and maybe that ties in with the pressure of trying to compete with Bolt.
I agree Bolts physique is not total proof of not using PEDS but it is significant proof of not using known steroids which sprinters have a liking for.
So Still need a bit more to believe he his doping. He has a his ridiculous stride length because of his height and we have not seen a sprinter of his kind before.
I'm on the clinic and its all about the dope but Bolt to me his something special Physique ,talent and has a youngster smashing records and I just don't see any magical improvements that I would not expect from a athlete with those exceptional credentials....
cheers Ray

Not looking like a steroid freak is a combination of dosage, timing, and type of training employed.

You can look like Floyd, or you can look like Ahnold. Arguably a lot more depends on the type training than on the amount or frequency.

Dave.

Sprinters tend to use a lot of drugs body builders use. You cannot stop the effects of the drugs.
You can and athletes /body builders take more than one drug "stacking" sometimes to counter some of the effects that can occur. But Bolt IMO physique although ripped does not have that "hard look" that you get from size increase steroids.

I did a google for this as I am not an expert on strides etc worth a look and does back up my view. I know we won't agree but its interesting anyway. Evolution before our eyes.

http://www.livescience.com/7819-taller-athletes-faster-study-finds.html


http://breakingmuscle.com/strength-conditioning/longer-strides-faster-steps-key-to-sprinting

 

[ray j willings]

Tallest sprinter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingo_Schultz

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Cyclists use steroids too - esp for recovery. What you look like physically depends more on your genetic make up and training / eating than the drugs you take, IMO.

 

[blackcat]

Re:

Cyclists use steroids too - esp for recovery. What you look like physically depends more on your genetic make up and training / eating than the drugs you take, IMO.

esp the training. can pretty easy tell a sport when you look at the physique.

bodybuilders could not look like bodybuilders by doing cross-training

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Sprinters tend to use a lot of drugs body builders use. You cannot stop the effects of the drugs.
You can and athletes /body builders take more than one drug "stacking" sometimes to counter some of the effects that can occur. But Bolt IMO physique although ripped does not have that "hard look" that you get from size increase steroids.

I did a google for this as I am not an expert on strides etc worth a look and does back up my view. I know we won't agree but its interesting anyway. Evolution before our eyes.

http://www.livescience.com/7819-taller-athletes-faster-study-finds.html


http://breakingmuscle.com/strength-conditioning/longer-strides-faster-steps-key-to-sprinting

already said it, but I think Bolt had his apogee at Beijing, because that was his weight sweet spot.

I think he is around 94kg at 6'5" now, but at Beijing, he was only about 88kg, he was carrying far less muscle.

And even if you put on some typeII fast-twitch fibres, or, all typeII fibers, on your glutes, hammies, quads, and calves, and none on the upper body, and you get stronger in the gym, even if your power-weight improves in the gym, but ALL that 6kg extra, do the applied physics, and see the sum on the work you need to expend accelerating that weight from stasis to terminal velocity.

When I said p/w in the free-weights gym, or machines weights gym, that is not the static explosion from the blocks, and getting that weight to terminal velocity.

Thats what I mean.

And how could Bolt maintain the 88kg, low weight?

Well, not easily, full-time training, androgen supplementation, you are always gonna put on muscle weight, like putting on fat on a full-time mcdonalds diet. Hence, my working theory, Bolts weight and performance sweet-spot was was 2008-2010.

 

[proffate]

Re: Re:

Cyclists use steroids too - esp for recovery. What you look like physically depends more on your genetic make up and training / eating than the drugs you take, IMO.

esp the training. can pretty easy tell a sport when you look at the physique.

bodybuilders could not look like bodybuilders by doing cross-training

From what I recall reading, steroids alone is better than working out alone in terms of hypertrophy. But there is a huge genetic component as well --- some people are non-responders to weight training in that their muscles don't get any bigger, even when they do get stronger.

Great apes are pretty jacked, and they do nothing but sit around and throw their poop at zoo visitors. Clearly their hormonal environment naturally inclines them towards muscular hypertrophy. It doesn't seem unreasonable that a human taking anabolic steroids would experience a similar effect.

In my local amateur peloton, there are a few who look like body builders. I'm pretty sure that's anabolic steroids + cycling + eating. The difference in Tyler Hamilton/Lance is that they subtracted the eating part.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Pretty sure Lance was heavy. 75kg from memory. Compare that to Chris Froome who's 8cm taller and 7 kg lighter :-/ And dominating TTs in a similar fashion (excluding 2012 Wiggo).

 

[blackcat]

Re:

Pretty sure Lance was heavy. 75kg from memory. Compare that to Chris Froome who's 11 cm taller and 7 kg lighter :-/ And dominating TTs in a similar fashion (excluding 2012 Wiggo).

Lance got up to about 79kg at 5'11".

basicaly, he was a cycling tightend equivalent*


yes, I know the average tightend is 6'3" 240lbs

 

[Netserk]

Didn't Lance admit some years later that he never got down to/under 75kg as he said in the original SCA case, or is my memory totally fücked up? Blackcat can you help me?

 

[Tonton]

I know Wikipedia is not the most scholarly tool in the world, but I found the following excerpt quite interesting:

On 3 May 2008, Bolt ran a time of 9.76 s, aided by a tail wind of 1.8 m/s, considerably improving upon his previous personal best of 10.03 s. This was the second-fastest legal performance in the history of the event, second only to compatriot Asafa Powell's 9.74 s record set the previous year in Rieti, Italy. Rival Tyson Gay lauded the performance, praising Bolt's form and technique especially. Michael Johnson, who was observing the race, said that he was shocked at how quickly he had improved over the 100 m distance. The Jamaican surprised even himself with the time, but coach Glen Mills remained confident that there was more to come.

I brings memories of the '92 ITT in Luxembourg, the Jaja, Wonderboy, or Dawg transformations, and the sherry on that cow pie is the confident coach: more to come

 

[blackcat]

Re:

Didn't Lance admit some years later that he never got down to/under 75kg as he said in the original SCA case, or is my memory totally fücked up? Blackcat can you help me?

I was probably referring not to USPS generalclassification years... I was referring to when he got the nickname "cortico neck" or "cortisone neck" on Motarola when he came back from the off-season at a home training camp in Feb when he was at a gym in Austin on his Ferrari program, circa 94ish, and his teammates nicknamed him cortisone neck.

yes, the corticone/corticos/cortico-steroids/anti-inflammatories is C A T A B O L I C. I always knew this, but anless I provide the caveat, someone will pull me up on this.

is it Motorola or Motarola, before they were bought out for their patents by google, like R.I.M.

anyway...

I am pretty sure I remember this on the deposition too Netserk, so we are both correct. We are just referring to the different stages in his career.

 

[ray j willings]

Re:

Cyclists use steroids too - esp for recovery. What you look like physically depends more on your genetic make up and training / eating than the drugs you take, IMO.

I used to be into body building and I can tell you from experience that if you hit the weights and take the right gear you will gain size and stay lean. I have seen the skinny guys make solid gains on steroids. You can completely change your physical "body" appearance. Some guys do get more benefit than others " bigger increase in muscle mass" but you will increase size if your taking steroids the right way.
It's easy to get addicted. That's a big issue.

 

[tantocomo]

Re: Re:

http://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/has-fina-looked-the-other-way-when-it-comes-to-doping/[/quote]

Link removed...[/quote]
that's one hell of a first post!
[/quote]

Thanks! I've been following the clinic for a few months but I'm never sure what to write, so I thought at least I can be helpful

 

[D-Queued]

Re: Re:

http://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/has-fina-looked-the-other-way-when-it-comes-to-doping/

Link removed...

that's one hell of a first post!

Thanks! I've been following the clinic for a few months but I'm never sure what to write, so I thought at least I can be helpful

It really isn't all that hard.

Lance doped.

No he didn't.

Yes, he did.

Otherwise, nobody from your country dopes. Everyone from all the other countries dope. Anyone in any other sport dopes.

See?

Dave.

 

[tantocomo]

Thanks, but I meant more in terms of something that hasn't already been written many times already! Something that might move the debate along a bit...
Also my cycling knowledge isn't that great. I just have a nagging curiosity about drugs in sport