Doping in other sports?

[D-Queued]

Re:

last 10 Olympic champions ranked for likelihood of being clean
not clean
Gatlin, Christie, Lewis

most likely to least likely
Crawford
Hines
Wells
Bolt
Borzov
Green
Bailey

Perhaps we could take a poll to rank them.

On that long list of sprinters under 9.9, Donovan Bailey and Bruny Surin are interesting for a couple of reasons.

First, setting aside any possible biases from natives, they are Canadian track stars. That is significant because they inherited the mantle from Ben Johnson. After Werner Franke's exposure of the East German doping apparatus, there have been few investigations of doping as impactfull and far-reaching as the Dubin Enquiry.

The Dubin Enquiry clearly doesn't bless subsequent Canadians or provide them with automatic passes, but its impact shouldn't be dismissed.

Before we reject Canadian sprinting legacy completely, Canada actually does have an admirable sprinting legacy with figures such as Robert Kerr (1908 Bronze), Percy Williams (Double Gold 1928) and Harry Jerome (World Record Holder, Bronze 1964).

Since the Dubin Enquiry, there has been notable success in track and field. The 1996 Atlanta Games were of particular note with the 100m and 4x100 both seeing Canada take Gold. And Bailey's WR of 9.84 was slower than the disqualified WR time of 9.79 set by Ben Johnson. Thus, he did not best a doper in a known-doped performance.

Second, Bailey's and Surin's best times are approximately 53 and 54 on that long list of sprint performances.

That is remarkable, not only for how the subsequent performances have made the previous 9.8s barrier seem like a complete joke, but also for the shear number of superior performances since then.

If one holds out the possibility of whether Bailey or Surin could have been doping, then we must consider each successive step they move down the list of top performances.

It is always useful to pose the academic argument about whether a performance might have been doped.

But, 50+ sub 9.84 times?

If it were cycling, wouldn't we be speculating on whether or not we were witnessing the impact of EPO?

Dave.

 

[Catwhoorg]

That 1980 final probably could give the 1988 final a run for its money in the dirtiest race in history.


I mean its not like the Eastern bloc countries were shy about the propaganda value of sport and many many athletes were on a state provided program.
But unlike 1988, there hasn't been mass exposure of the dopers, they did their job for their country and faded away. None of the 1980 finalists ever raced again in an Olympic final. (The 1984 revenge boycott obviously a factor for many)

Part of me likes to think of Wells as clean, but there is plenty of evidence that there was doping going on around him, and it is a reach to believe he was as untainted as people like to think of him.

 

[Netserk]

@Hitch
That reminds me, I simply have got to watch The Wire at some point.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Re: Re:

Bailey worked with doping coach. And Surin.

But, 50+ sub 9.84 times?

Worth looking at. I think its worth looking at wind aided times, to give context into where natural performances peak:

All-time men's best 100m wind-assisted, adjustments made for sanctioned, doping-coach, and generally accepted dopers, and finally Bolt (who is not generally accepted as a doper, somehow)


2 9.69A +5.7 Obadele Thompson BAR 30.03.76 1 El Paso 13.04.1996
4 9.74 Richard Thompson TTO 07.06.85 1r1 Clermont 31.05.2014
5 9.75 +4.3 Darvis Patton USA 04.12.77 1r2 Austin 30.03.2013
8 9.76A +6.1 Churandy Martina AHO 03.07.84 1 El Paso 13.05.2006
11 9.77 +4.2 Trayvon Bromell USA 10.07.95 1 Lubbock 18.05.2014
20 9.80 +4.1 Walter Dix USA 31.01.86 2 Eugene 29.06.2008
27 9.83 +7.1 Leonard Scott USA 19.01.80 1r1 Knoxville 09.04.1999
27 9.83 +2.2 Derrick Atkins BAH 05.01.84 2 New York City 02.06.2007
30 9.84 +5.4 Francis Obikwelu POR 22.11.78 1 Zaragoza 03.06.2006
30 9.84 +4.1 Darvis Patton USA 04.12.77 3 Eugene 29.06.2008
36 9.85 +5.3 Leroy Burrell USA 21.02.67 2h4 Eugene 16.06.1993
36 9.85 +4.8 Andre Cason USA 20.01.69 1 Eugene 17.06.1993
36 9.85A +3.0 Frank Fredericks NAM 02.10.67 1 Nairobi 18.05.2002
36 9.85 +4.1 Travis Padgett USA 13.12.86 4 Eugene 29.06.2008
36 9.85 +2.4 Walter Dix USA 31.01.86 1rA Walnut 21.04.2012
46 9.86 +2.5 Leroy Burrell USA 21.02.67 1 Austin 09.04.1994
46 9.86 +2.5 Derrick Atkins BAH 05.01.84 2 Carson 20.05.2007
46 9.86 +3.6 Michael Frater JAM 06.10.82 2h4 Kingston 23.06.2011

I'm just bringing this up as an example of the role of assistance, in helpnig determine wehre a natural limit occurs. 9.95? 10.05?

FWIW, a list of top 100m times of minus any formally banned, generally agreed upon (except that people won't agree on Bolt) sprinters. Debateable, but we're not here to debate each person. (I had thought Nesta Carter was banned, but it was only rumor that he was popped in the Asafa Powell, et al bust:

Burrell 9.85
Carter 9.85
Thompson 9.85
Fredericks 9.86
Obikwelu 9.86
Bledman 9.86
Dix 9.88
Frater 9.88
Padgett 9.89
Patton 9.89
Makusha 9.89
Scott 9.91
Atkins 9.91
Martina 9.91
Dasaolu 9.91
Cason 9.92
Harden 9.92
Lemaitre 9.92
Marsh 9.93
P. Johnson 9.93
Fasuba 9.93
Williams 9.93
Ashmeade 9.93
Ezinwa 9.94
Ogunkoya 9.94
Henderson 9.95
Aliu 9.95
J. Johnson 9.95
Martin 9.95
Kimmons 9.95
Forsythe 9.95
Hyman 9.95
Vicaut 9.95
Lattany 9.96

 

[armchairclimber]

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.

 

[SeriousSam]

Bolt goes there. Cadence!

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Re:

I'm still waiting for RobbieCanuck to explain why he thinks Donovan Bailey (1996) "was the last 'clean' Olympic champion at a sprint distance for this question assume I mean, 100M or 200M." and not Bolt. Obviously he, for some reason, doesn't think Bolt is clean, but why?

It is clear you have not read my posts, or if you have you have trouble with plain language.

I do not have to explain why Bailey is clean because there is no evidence been presented by anyone that he is dirty. I cannot prove a positive and the normal conduct of reasonable people in society is that he who alleges dirt must prove the dirt and not one person in this forum has presented one iota, scintilla, meagre grain of fact/evidence of dirt. Just the usual Clinic mantra of guilt by some inane association with the year 1996 (The Hitch Theory of Guilt). The only thing presented so far is inane, speculative and vacuous rhetoric with zilch logic or credibility.

I have never said Bolt is clean. I have never said Bolt is dirty. I don't know. I assume he is clean because I have no knowledge of any facts or evidence that would suggest he is dirty other than the typically absurd Clinic hysterical conspiracy theories that he is dirty. Why does what I think is germane anyways? Why don't you ask Bolt or you can present on these pages some credible evidence from someone who is in the know. You can reach Bolt at usainbolt.com

 

[Netserk]

Okay, so what is the difference between the two? Why are you (seemingly) less sure of Bolt's cleanliness than that of Bailey? Isn't the case the exact same for both? No 'real' evidence whatsoever. Why did you not pick Bolt 2012 as your answer?

 

[Tonton]

Re:

Okay, so what is the difference between the two? Why are you (seemingly) less sure of Bolt's cleanliness than that of Bailey? Isn't the case the exact same for both? No 'real' evidence whatsoever. Why did you not pick Bolt 2012 as your answer?

Who picked Bolt when Zabel is still available? Wrong thread
https://youtu.be/3nbjhpcZ9_g
When watching the 9"58 video, Bolt doesn't suffer the perennial handicap that tall guys have historically experienced: a slow start. How much squatting power does that equate to? He has the lead pretty much from the get go. The leg turnover argument is refuted if you look at lane 2, Burns, who exactly matches Bolt's cadence throughout the race and finished second to last in 10 seconds flat. So what remains is the stride length, and I'd be curious to see science explaining what it means. It's like Ullrich matching Armstrong revolutions with a much bigger gear.
In any case, 9"58 is unreal. What is it going to take for some to wake up? 8"97?

 

[armchairclimber]

Re: Re:

Okay, so what is the difference between the two? Why are you (seemingly) less sure of Bolt's cleanliness than that of Bailey? Isn't the case the exact same for both? No 'real' evidence whatsoever. Why did you not pick Bolt 2012 as your answer?

Who picked Bolt when Zabel is still available? Wrong thread
https://youtu.be/3nbjhpcZ9_g
When watching the 9"58 video, Bolt doesn't suffer the perennial handicap that tall guys have historically experienced: a slow start. How much squatting power does that equate to? He has the lead pretty much from the get go. The leg turnover argument is refuted if you look at lane 2, Burns, who exactly matches Bolt's cadence throughout the race and finished second to last in 10 seconds flat. So what remains is the stride length, and I'd be curious to see science explaining what it means. It's like Ullrich matching Armstrong revolutions with a much bigger gear.
In any case, 9"58 is unreal. What is it going to take for some to wake up? 8"97?

Blimey. Not sure where to start.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Though in his defence, it could be that he just didn't realize the implication his answer has regarding Bolt

I would say that is the reason beyond a shadow of doubt.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Don't usually look into T&F but interesting what D-Qd was saying about Dubin inquiry and Canadian runners.

In Nov 2013 Alicia Brown was honored by the GG: http://news.utoronto.ca/governor-general-honours-u-ts-alicia-brown
and was done for doping the same month (specified substance): http://cces.ca/en/news-297-athletics-athlete-suspended-for-the-presence-?utm_source=cces&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ADRV.05.07.2015

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Alicia had no problems generating support for her uni games and world champs attendance via indiegogo campaign: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/dream-chasing-literally

The campaign ended 2 months before she was pinged in 2013.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

If one holds out the possibility of whether Bailey or Surin could have been doping, then we must consider each successive step they move down the list of top performances.

It is always useful to pose the academic argument about whether a performance might have been doped.

But, 50+ sub 9.84 times?

If it were cycling, wouldn't we be speculating on whether or not we were witnessing the impact of EPO?

Dave.

the new stuff is the peptides that have advanced on IGF-II , SARMs, CJC1695, the biggest tell is that Yohan Blake was flirting with Bolt's time. #NOTNORMAL

 

[BullsFan22]

Re:

That 1980 final probably could give the 1988 final a run for its money in the dirtiest race in history.


I mean its not like the Eastern bloc countries were shy about the propaganda value of sport and many many athletes were on a state provided program.
But unlike 1988, there hasn't been mass exposure of the dopers, they did their job for their country and faded away. None of the 1980 finalists ever raced again in an Olympic final. (The 1984 revenge boycott obviously a factor for many)

Part of me likes to think of Wells as clean, but there is plenty of evidence that there was doping going on around him, and it is a reach to believe he was as untainted as people like to think of him.

LOL. Only Eastern bloc countries were doping. None of the Westerners doped.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Don't usually look into T&F but interesting what D-Qd was saying about Dubin inquiry and Canadian runners.

In Nov 2013 Alicia Brown was honored by the GG: http://news.utoronto.ca/governor-general-honours-u-ts-alicia-brown
and was done for doping the same month (specified substance): http://cces.ca/en/news-297-athletics-athlete-suspended-for-the-presence-?utm_source=cces&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ADRV.05.07.2015

lovely bit of irony.

 

[armchairclimber]

Re: Re:

If one holds out the possibility of whether Bailey or Surin could have been doping, then we must consider each successive step they move down the list of top performances.

It is always useful to pose the academic argument about whether a performance might have been doped.

But, 50+ sub 9.84 times?

If it were cycling, wouldn't we be speculating on whether or not we were witnessing the impact of EPO?

Dave.

the new stuff is the peptides that have advanced on IGF-II , SARMs, CJC1695, the biggest tell is that Yohan Blake was flirting with Bolt's time. #NOTNORMAL

Blake would be near the top of my "suspicious" list.

 

[Lyon]

Around 2006 there was a big shift in the sprinting world. Suddenly athletes that where considered specialists at the 200 started running the 100 faster than those who specialized at that distance. Bolt was part of that whole shift. This happened in the US and Jamaica at the same time. There was even some older sprinters that had gradually shifted from focusing on the 100 to focusing on the 200 that started focusing on the 100 again.

Also, Blackcat is right, it's a camp thing - like it always was in sprinting.

 

[blackcat]

Re:

Around 2006 there was a big shift in the sprinting world. Suddenly athletes that where considered specialists at the 200 started running the 100 faster than those who specialized at that distance. Bolt was part of that whole shift. This happened in the US and Jamaica at the same time. There was even some older sprinters that had gradually shifted from focusing on the 100 to focusing on the 200 that started focusing on the 100 again.

Also, Blackcat is right, it's a camp thing - like it always was in sprinting.

the problem was that the 200specialists would usually have a longer stride length. This asset in the 200, was a hindrance in the 100, because it hindered their start out of the blocks, and accelerating to terminal velocity, which the 100 athlete hits just after 30m, and the 200, probably the same distance. cos they are "au bloc"[sic]in the cycling vernacular.

now, something strange happened when Bolt went down from 400 and 200 as a jnr, to 100.

And there IS INDEED research literature on HGH when used as a chaser with testo, can supercharge explosiveness. Otherwise, I have not seen any literature on the effectiveness of HGH. (literature conveniently ignores its asset as a recovery drug, or... its impossible to measure the neutral "effectivness" or counter-factual, of a recovery drug. (ok ok, double blind or control, now here is the opportunity or invitation to usher in that controversy on terminology scientific))

so I reckon, a layperson theory, that the SARMs, the new peptides, IGF-II, some new advances on insulin, the CJC and other peptides, have managed to supercharge explosiveness.

See: there are quite a few Australians who are competing as white fella's in jumping events, where the white man has never been that successful.

there are some long-jump World podiums, a flirtation with the pole-vault WR of bubka, even tho the new pole-bar-rest was altered to make it more fragile, when Bubka changed the rules when he was on the IOC, or World T&F board. ok, the aus guys have had longjumpers in past. It is NOT NORMAL. track and field is more dirty than cycling. like weightlifting T&F.

anyway, I would like to see Carl Lewis to go on an equivalent full-*** program of Bolt, and see who is the best. I think they would be neck and neck. No doubt in my mind Lewis used roids, but Lewis never could get out of the blocks. I am sure as 18 yo's Lewis would have been the better starter even if they had the same training. And Lewis is the only one who could threaten Usain Bolt and his ridiculous stride length, what is it, about 30 strides in the 100? Well, no one else can threaten Bolt. P'raps, Lewis could get some of the sh!t Chris Horner is on, and come back as the Curious Case of Benjamin Button

 

[ray j willings]

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.

It's really no surprise that the people who claim bolt is clean are the same ones who say things like -athlete x seems like a nice guy so I doubt he dopes.

What proof do you have that Bolt is doping?
Bolt has been smashing records since he was young. Nothing to do with him being a nice guy as I don't know him.
Athletics is rife with doping and you can see the steroid effect quite easily in the case of the sprinters.
But Bolt's physique does not look steroid induced at all.
He his a giant of a man and in my view is a one off.
If you have some proof that Bolt is doping and I will accept witness testimony and good Circumstantial Evidence
Then I am happy to admit that I was wrong.
cheers Ray

You should ask Valverde or Pantani if being dominant as a kid means you are clean.

And you should ask Bernhard kohl if having a style that fans think looks clean, means you ar clean.
And actually Bolt went from 9.9 for the 200m in 2007 to 19.3 in 2008.

But the Jamaican anti doping agency deliberately protecting their athletes from doping tests, together with the fact that half his training partners ended up failing doping tests should be evidence enough for anyone who is not already convinced by the fact that 100m times have plummeted all round since the year bolt emerged and the fact that 100m in general is like cycling in the 90's.

Hi Hitch. I don't disagree about Pantani and Valverde , we know the history of euro cycling and early age doping.

And we know about the Jamaican busts but I don't think that's enough to say Bolts doping.
He was fast as a youngster smashing records and looking how fast he went I don't think there is anything suspicious about his progress.

We Know of the extensive doping in athletics and your right we have seen the times come down but that does not mean that Bolt is doping, the others yes and the busts back that up.
I just don't see it with bolt. Take a look at the steroid induced physiques that have some of the fastest times.
Bolt does not have a physique like that at all.
I don't make my judgment from someone's personality I think Bolts a one off "I hate those cheesy Virgin ads"
I think he his a big man and runs to his size potential, quote from the post above "Usain Bolt and his ridiculous stride length"
cheers

 

[SeriousSam]

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.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Re: Re:

That 1980 final probably could give the 1988 final a run for its money in the dirtiest race in history.


I mean its not like the Eastern bloc countries were shy about the propaganda value of sport and many many athletes were on a state provided program.
But unlike 1988, there hasn't been mass exposure of the dopers, they did their job for their country and faded away. None of the 1980 finalists ever raced again in an Olympic final. (The 1984 revenge boycott obviously a factor for many)

Part of me likes to think of Wells as clean, but there is plenty of evidence that there was doping going on around him, and it is a reach to believe he was as untainted as people like to think of him.

LOL. Only Eastern bloc countries were doping. None of the Westerners doped.

If that's your take away from my comment, then you ought to read it again with an open mind.

The only difference between 1980 and 1988 is the number of people exposed.

 

[ray j willings]

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

 

[The Hitch]

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.

 

[blackcat]

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.

I think Jan's sums were two and two together. One and one was a little bit easier, say for example, if you have not your GED like Prance, you can add one and one on your hands together. Now, if you have not got your GED, any sums greater and Armstrong fails.

Having a long stride length, no athlete taller than 6'1" besides Lewis could manage to get out of the blocks quick enough to then use that speed. The new drugs, they helped the explosivity for Bolt's start, so it never was a disadvantage.