Doping in other sports?

[Tonton]

Re:

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

It's a great contribution indeed, exposing the dirty countries in swimming, and it confirms what I have been saying all along: doping is widespread west of the channel, south of the Pyrenees, and east of the Rhine and Alps. What a shame.

How was that Dave?

 

[D-Queued]

Re: Re:

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

It's a great contribution indeed, exposing the dirty countries in swimming, and it confirms what I have been saying all along: doping is widespread west of the channel, south of the Pyrenees, and east of the Rhine and Alps. What a shame.

How was that Dave?

Masterful!

Dave.

 

[Lyon]

second only to compatriot Asafa Powell's 9.74 s record set the previous year in Rieti, Italy

What happens in Rieti, stays in Rieti...

 

[armchairclimber]

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.

Apology accepted Hitch

I don't have much time at the moment but...
Of course there are many physiological components that make up a runner... skeletal, muscular, neurological, cardiovascular right down to the proportion of FT/ST fibres on the frame and the body's various energy systems.
At 6' 5" Bolt is pretty much unlike any sprinter seen before (Carl Lewis being the closest I can think of...3 inches shorter)....and was that size from his mid-teens. With an immature physique, he ran sub 20s for 200 metres as a junior. Most coaches would have looked at his size and range and thought (as most on here have) that the 400 metres was the way to go with him. Too tall for 100m. He could run mid-40s at 17 if I recall correctly. Thing is, the 400m is painful and requires a significant component of unpleasant lactate threshold training which Bolt wasn't prepared to do. He was into other sports and.... by all accounts at the time, not the most applied trainer in the world. He was running those times largely on the back of natural talent.

Whilst I can't categorically say "He ain't doping", my position is that it is not a huge stretch for me that, with a more mature/developed physique (a maturation that we all undergo in our late teens into our twenties) he would be breaking records, given that he chose to specialise in the 100m, work on his starts etc etc. He's clearly blessed with FT muscle in the right places (something also evident from his junior sprint times).

Why aren't more tall athletes that quick? I don't know.... certainly at 400 metres it is common, and that requires the ability to run 100m at around 10.5 seconds. Most coaches will look at a young athlete who is tall and speedy and think immediately of 400metres, maybe 800. The youngsters I can think of are often tall but without the kind of muscular strength that Bolt had at 16/18 (he looked strong even then).

Rudisha is another athlete I can think of at the moment who, despite being a Kenyan athlete (like Jamaica, a nation which has plenty of doping baggage at the moment) I suspect is clean. He is a similar height, was quick enough to run mid-40s for 400m as a junior. He went the other way. He wasn't quite as muscular and was training in a place where distance running is the "norm". Perhaps, had he been born in Jamaica, he might have been encouraged to run 400m and 200m and train accordingly....who knows.

Anyway, got to go. Just a few thoughts.

 

[Benotti69]

John Greene @johnjgreene

Tomorrows (Sunday Independent) Sport page 1. includes story on Monaghan GAA player who has failed drugs test, first since 2008. He is not an inter-county player

http://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/shock-as-monaghan-footballer-in-failed-drugs-test-31209889.html

The player, who is from Co Monaghan, is believed to have tested positive for a steroid during a recent test and is currently under investigation by the Irish Sports Council's Anti-Doping unit.
The player, understood to be in his 20s, is not currently a member of the Monaghan senior inter-county panel but has been on the fringes of the squad. The Sunday Independent understands the Gaelic Players' Association is now providing advice and counselling to the player.

GAA is an amateur sport.

 

[Singer01]

powell runs his fastest 100m for 5 years, 9.84.

 

[Tonton]

@armchairclimber
Bolt is a super gifted athlete to begin with, and The Hitch made that very point. We're talking about the top of the top of the crop here. Doping is what gives the edge. And looking at his bio on Wikipedia to get his times over the years offers more than meets the eye: especially when it describes his "early professional career '04-'07" with Coleman, then Mills as his coaches. The article mentioned that Mills found Bolt "better suited for middle distances". So that's what his coach thought, the guy who knew his abilities better than anyone, who trained many champions. What changed in '08? Bolt's times had improved from '04 to '07, but not by very much. Then: boom!!! Improving one's PR from 10"03 to 9"76 I already posted excerpts from this Wiki piece. I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia, but can't find early info about Bolt's record on the web. The story we are told, the explanation we must believe is that Bolt was lazy and ran 20", then hard work paid off. No one has pulled the tropical illness twist yet, cancer, shingles, or a Danish strain of The Chicken pox. It doesn't mean it is less ridiculous.

 

[armchairclimber]

Just a quick link ... off the Bolt topic. An interesting point of view (not one that I subscribe to but....) http://bigthink.com/videos/why-we-love-cheating-in-sports

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Re Bolt's strides:, he took 41, compared to 44-45 for others in the field.

re: 100m sprinter height. Armchairclimber, Even 400m runners at 6'5" are uncommon. I just want to summarize the arguments (not necessarily yours) to make sure I understand them.
> Bolt's performance is believable because he is a physical outlier.
> He is an outlier because most tall athletes would be vetted into the 400m, and don't run the 100m.

Let's look at 400m runners:

Kirani James, 5' 11" (1.80 m) 146 lbs (66 kg)
LaShawn Merritt 6' 2" (1.88m) 185 lbs (84 kg)
Luguelín Santos: 5' 8" (1.73 m) 134 lbs (61 kg)
Lalonde Gordon 5' 10" (1.79 m) 183 lbs (83 kg)
Chris Brown 1.78 m (5 ft 10 in) 75 kg (165 lb)

Big athletes just don't exist in sprint events. Flat jumpers aren't big. High jumpers are all over, but the taller, the skinnier in general. Even pole falters have the physique of 400m runners; Walker is 6'2", Lavillenie is 5'10"

So are there big athletes in TnF? Yes, decathletes. Heres London's results:

100m is the first event. top 10:

1 1 3 3214 Ashton EATON USAUSA 10.35 OB +0.4 1011 6' 1" (1.85 m) 185 lbs (84 kg)
2 2 3 3220 Trey HARDEE USAUSA 10.42 SB +0.4 994 6' 5" (1.96 m) 212 lbs (96 kg)
3 3 3 1301 Damian WARNER CANCAN 10.48 SB +0.4 980 6' 0" (1.84 m) 183 lbs (83 kg)
4 4 3 3132 Oleksiy KASYANOV UKRUKR 10.56 SB +0.4 961 Height, 191 cm, Weight, 82 kg.
5 5 3 1898 Rico FREIMUTH GERGER 10.65 +0.4 940 6' 5" (1.96 m) 203 lbs (92 kg)
6 6 3 1223 Luiz Alberto DE ARAÚJO BRABRA 10.70 SB +0.4 929 6' 2" (1.88 m) 194 lbs (88 kg)
7 1 4 1799 Daniel AWDE GBRGBR 10.71 PB -0.7 926 6' 0" (1.82 m) 181 lbs (82 kg)
8 7 3 1164 Eduard MIKHAN BLRBLR 10.74 +0.4 919 196 cm (6' 5"); Weight: 86 kg (190 lbs)
9 2 4 2834 Sergey SVIRIDOV RUSRUS 10.78 PB -0.7 910 6' 4" (1.92 m) 187 lbs (85 kg)
10 3 4 1469 Yordani GARCÍA CUBCUB 10.80 SB -0.7 9066' 5" 180 lb.

Can't compare Bolt to these guys on time, (but just to make it obvious, he is .5-1.21 seconds ahead; ~5-21% better...) but...

Each of these athletes scored more in another event, except Damien Warner (shortest in the top 10). Most scored more points in the Long jump. Only Damien Warner and Sviridov were worse in the 110m hurdles.

400m results (just to compare):
1 1223 Luiz Alberto DE ARAÚJO BRABRA 48.25 PB 897

1 3220 Trey HARDEE USAUSA 48.11 SB 904
2 1164 Eduard MIKHAN BLRBLR 48.42 SB 889
3 1469 Yordani GARCÍA CUBCUB 48.76 SB 873

1 3214 Ashton EATON USAUSA 46.90 963
2 1898 Rico FREIMUTH GERGER 48.06 906
3 1301 Damian WARNER CANCAN 48.20 PB 899
4 3132 Oleksiy KASYANOV UKRUKR 48.44 888
6 2834 Sergey SVIRIDOV RUSRUS 48.91 866
1799 Daniel AWDE GBRGBR DNS 0

full summary http://www.iaaf.org/results/olympic-games/2012/the-xxx-olympic-games-4871/men/decathlon/1500-metres/points

So what do we learn?

In Bolt's event, he is an extreme outlier with regards to his build.
Among Bolt's build, almost all were better at something else.

There is no pattern to explain Bolt's performance at 100m.Bolt is the outlier, not his size. The defense that the best 100m runner believable because of exceptional size doesn't hold up. Big sprinters just don't happen.

So, if his build is not the advantage, what is it? What Bolt doing to augment the natural limits of bigger athletes? What is Bolt doing to bring his big body beyond it's natural?

Gold medals happen at the edge of the bell curve, but there is no explanation for how Bolt got there, except doping.

 

[sniper]

good post, MSTR.

Instinctively I'd say that Bolt's length would be a disadvantage in a hypothetical PED-free field of 100 meter runners. Shorter legs would normally be an advantage in reaching top speed on such a short distance.
For comparison, have a look at tennis. The smaller guys are traditionally much faster around the court. In the 80s and 90s tall guys were typically the slower guys (e.g. Richard Krajicek, Ivanizevic, etc.), whilst short guys like Michael Chang were all about speed, getting to the balls quickly.
Sampras was tall, but in fact he had a long upper body with rather short legs, which made him one of the fastest guys around the court. Comparable to Michael Johnson.

Only with the advent of massive PED-abuse in the 2000s, comparatively tall guys like Nadal, Federer and Murray are now among the faster guys on the court. These guys benefit maximally from the new range of PEDs that rock the world of prosport since, say, the late 90s/early 00s.
Similarly, with Bolt, it's not hard to imagine that with his physique, he benefits more from doping than guys with short legs. Just imagine that you can get those long legs to spin as quickly and as fast as short legs. Then the added leg length suddenly becomes an advantage in terms of the distance you can cover per step.

 

[The Hitch]

In cycling there was the theory that bigger guys are better responders which is why big guys who were built for tts became all rounders holding or even dropping the smaller guys in the mountains.

 

[armchairclimber]

Re:

Re Bolt's strides:, he took 41, compared to 44-45 for others in the field.

re: 100m sprinter height. Armchairclimber, Even 400m runners at 6'5" are uncommon. I just want to summarize the arguments (not necessarily yours) to make sure I understand them.
> Bolt's performance is believable because he is a physical outlier.
> He is an outlier because most tall athletes would be vetted into the 400m, and don't run the 100m.

Let's look at 400m runners:

Kirani James, 5' 11" (1.80 m) 146 lbs (66 kg)
LaShawn Merritt 6' 2" (1.88m) 185 lbs (84 kg)
Luguelín Santos: 5' 8" (1.73 m) 134 lbs (61 kg)
Lalonde Gordon 5' 10" (1.79 m) 183 lbs (83 kg)
Chris Brown 1.78 m (5 ft 10 in) 75 kg (165 lb)

Big athletes just don't exist in sprint events. Flat jumpers aren't big. High jumpers are all over, but the taller, the skinnier in general. Even pole falters have the physique of 400m runners; Walker is 6'2", Lavillenie is 5'10"

So are there big athletes in TnF? Yes, decathletes. Heres London's results:

100m is the first event. top 10:

1 1 3 3214 Ashton EATON USAUSA 10.35 OB +0.4 1011 6' 1" (1.85 m) 185 lbs (84 kg)
2 2 3 3220 Trey HARDEE USAUSA 10.42 SB +0.4 994 6' 5" (1.96 m) 212 lbs (96 kg)
3 3 3 1301 Damian WARNER CANCAN 10.48 SB +0.4 980 6' 0" (1.84 m) 183 lbs (83 kg)
4 4 3 3132 Oleksiy KASYANOV UKRUKR 10.56 SB +0.4 961 Height, 191 cm, Weight, 82 kg.
5 5 3 1898 Rico FREIMUTH GERGER 10.65 +0.4 940 6' 5" (1.96 m) 203 lbs (92 kg)
6 6 3 1223 Luiz Alberto DE ARAÚJO BRABRA 10.70 SB +0.4 929 6' 2" (1.88 m) 194 lbs (88 kg)
7 1 4 1799 Daniel AWDE GBRGBR 10.71 PB -0.7 926 6' 0" (1.82 m) 181 lbs (82 kg)
8 7 3 1164 Eduard MIKHAN BLRBLR 10.74 +0.4 919 196 cm (6' 5"); Weight: 86 kg (190 lbs)
9 2 4 2834 Sergey SVIRIDOV RUSRUS 10.78 PB -0.7 910 6' 4" (1.92 m) 187 lbs (85 kg)
10 3 4 1469 Yordani GARCÍA CUBCUB 10.80 SB -0.7 9066' 5" 180 lb.

Can't compare Bolt to these guys on time, (but just to make it obvious, he is .5-1.21 seconds ahead; ~5-21% better...) but...

Each of these athletes scored more in another event, except Damien Warner (shortest in the top 10). Most scored more points in the Long jump. Only Damien Warner and Sviridov were worse in the 110m hurdles.

400m results (just to compare):
1 1223 Luiz Alberto DE ARAÚJO BRABRA 48.25 PB 897

1 3220 Trey HARDEE USAUSA 48.11 SB 904
2 1164 Eduard MIKHAN BLRBLR 48.42 SB 889
3 1469 Yordani GARCÍA CUBCUB 48.76 SB 873

1 3214 Ashton EATON USAUSA 46.90 963
2 1898 Rico FREIMUTH GERGER 48.06 906
3 1301 Damian WARNER CANCAN 48.20 PB 899
4 3132 Oleksiy KASYANOV UKRUKR 48.44 888
6 2834 Sergey SVIRIDOV RUSRUS 48.91 866
1799 Daniel AWDE GBRGBR DNS 0

full summary http://www.iaaf.org/results/olympic-games/2012/the-xxx-olympic-games-4871/men/decathlon/1500-metres/points

So what do we learn?

In Bolt's event, he is an extreme outlier with regards to his build.
Among Bolt's build, almost all were better at something else.

There is no pattern to explain Bolt's performance at 100m.Bolt is the outlier, not his size. The defense that the best 100m runner believable because of exceptional size doesn't hold up. Big sprinters just don't happen.

So, if his build is not the advantage, what is it? What Bolt doing to augment the natural limits of bigger athletes? What is Bolt doing to bring his big body beyond it's natural?

Gold medals happen at the edge of the bell curve, but there is no explanation for how Bolt got there, except doping.

Very good, but it doesn't explain him running sub 20 as a junior, unless you believe that he was doping then. It's not just about height, it's about having the athleticism to move that height quickly. He had that at 16 years old. At 18 he was running faster than most of the top senior sprinters. If you think he was doing then, fine.

 

[The Hitch]

imo, its a far bigger leap of faith to believe someone can do 9.59 clean, than it is to believe that a junior would dope (not like that hasn't happened before)

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Very good, but it doesn't explain him running sub 20 as a junior, unless you believe that he was doping then. It's not just about height, it's about having the athleticism to move that height quickly. He had that at 16 years old. At 18 he was running faster than most of the top senior sprinters. If you think he was doing then, fine.

do you think he's clean?
if not, when do you think he started doping?

personally i think it makes sense to assume that if he's a doper he started doping early on.
What barrier does a guy like Bolt have when he gets offered doping at the age of 15, 16?
I don't see many barriers, certainly no practical barriers (we've learned a thing or two about the Jamaican scene in the past few years), and no real ethical barriers either, as he doesn't strike me as someone who grew up in a very protected or wealthy environment.

Don't get me wrong. Generally, there are many barriers for teenagers to start doping at the age of 15, 16, both practical and ethical barriers. And I therefore think the majority of teenage sporting talents does not dope. But I also think those usually aren't the ones that reach the absolute top of their discipline.

All this is not to deny that Bolt is an exceptional athlete, nota bene.
Lionel Messi too is a natural talent, exceptionally skilled, but we know for a fact that he got drugged with growth hormones from a very young age onwards.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Re: Re:

Re Bolt's strides:, he took 41, compared to 44-45 for others in the field.

re: 100m sprinter height. Armchairclimber, Even 400m runners at 6'5" are uncommon. I just want to summarize the arguments (not necessarily yours) to make sure I understand them.
> Bolt's performance is believable because he is a physical outlier.
> He is an outlier because most tall athletes would be vetted into the 400m, and don't run the 100m.

Let's look at 400m runners:

Kirani James, 5' 11" (1.80 m) 146 lbs (66 kg)
LaShawn Merritt 6' 2" (1.88m) 185 lbs (84 kg)
Luguelín Santos: 5' 8" (1.73 m) 134 lbs (61 kg)
Lalonde Gordon 5' 10" (1.79 m) 183 lbs (83 kg)
Chris Brown 1.78 m (5 ft 10 in) 75 kg (165 lb)

Big athletes just don't exist in sprint events. Flat jumpers aren't big. High jumpers are all over, but the taller, the skinnier in general. Even pole falters have the physique of 400m runners; Walker is 6'2", Lavillenie is 5'10"

So are there big athletes in TnF? Yes, decathletes. Heres London's results:

100m is the first event. top 10:

1 1 3 3214 Ashton EATON USAUSA 10.35 OB +0.4 1011 6' 1" (1.85 m) 185 lbs (84 kg)
2 2 3 3220 Trey HARDEE USAUSA 10.42 SB +0.4 994 6' 5" (1.96 m) 212 lbs (96 kg)
3 3 3 1301 Damian WARNER CANCAN 10.48 SB +0.4 980 6' 0" (1.84 m) 183 lbs (83 kg)
4 4 3 3132 Oleksiy KASYANOV UKRUKR 10.56 SB +0.4 961 Height, 191 cm, Weight, 82 kg.
5 5 3 1898 Rico FREIMUTH GERGER 10.65 +0.4 940 6' 5" (1.96 m) 203 lbs (92 kg)
6 6 3 1223 Luiz Alberto DE ARAÚJO BRABRA 10.70 SB +0.4 929 6' 2" (1.88 m) 194 lbs (88 kg)
7 1 4 1799 Daniel AWDE GBRGBR 10.71 PB -0.7 926 6' 0" (1.82 m) 181 lbs (82 kg)
8 7 3 1164 Eduard MIKHAN BLRBLR 10.74 +0.4 919 196 cm (6' 5"); Weight: 86 kg (190 lbs)
9 2 4 2834 Sergey SVIRIDOV RUSRUS 10.78 PB -0.7 910 6' 4" (1.92 m) 187 lbs (85 kg)
10 3 4 1469 Yordani GARCÍA CUBCUB 10.80 SB -0.7 9066' 5" 180 lb.

Can't compare Bolt to these guys on time, (but just to make it obvious, he is .5-1.21 seconds ahead; ~5-21% better...) but...

Each of these athletes scored more in another event, except Damien Warner (shortest in the top 10). Most scored more points in the Long jump. Only Damien Warner and Sviridov were worse in the 110m hurdles.

400m results (just to compare):
1 1223 Luiz Alberto DE ARAÚJO BRABRA 48.25 PB 897

1 3220 Trey HARDEE USAUSA 48.11 SB 904
2 1164 Eduard MIKHAN BLRBLR 48.42 SB 889
3 1469 Yordani GARCÍA CUBCUB 48.76 SB 873

1 3214 Ashton EATON USAUSA 46.90 963
2 1898 Rico FREIMUTH GERGER 48.06 906
3 1301 Damian WARNER CANCAN 48.20 PB 899
4 3132 Oleksiy KASYANOV UKRUKR 48.44 888
6 2834 Sergey SVIRIDOV RUSRUS 48.91 866
1799 Daniel AWDE GBRGBR DNS 0

full summary http://www.iaaf.org/results/olympic-games/2012/the-xxx-olympic-games-4871/men/decathlon/1500-metres/points

So what do we learn?

In Bolt's event, he is an extreme outlier with regards to his build.
Among Bolt's build, almost all were better at something else.

There is no pattern to explain Bolt's performance at 100m.Bolt is the outlier, not his size. The defense that the best 100m runner believable because of exceptional size doesn't hold up. Big sprinters just don't happen.

So, if his build is not the advantage, what is it? What Bolt doing to augment the natural limits of bigger athletes? What is Bolt doing to bring his big body beyond it's natural?

Gold medals happen at the edge of the bell curve, but there is no explanation for how Bolt got there, except doping.

Very good, but it doesn't explain him running sub 20 as a junior, unless you believe that he was doping then. It's not just about height, it's about having the athleticism to move that height quickly. He had that at 16 years old. At 18 he was running faster than most of the top senior sprinters. If you think he was doing then, fine.

Does that matter? His big absurd improvements came when he was 22. From 19.75 to 19.30 and from 10.03 to 9.69. Ouch!
Take Carl Lewis as comparison: He always ran his 10.00s to 9.97s & 19.8s, jumped his usual 8.75 when around age 22. Later he started to wear braces and downed his time from 9.93 to 9.86, & jumping close to 9 meters.

Just take the truth: Bolt is a big time doper, which does not mean he did it at age 18. The same that CL was big on drugs, which doesn´t mean he was on it at age 18.

 

[armchairclimber]

Re: Re:

Re Bolt's strides:, he took 41, compared to 44-45 for others in the field.

re: 100m sprinter height. Armchairclimber, Even 400m runners at 6'5" are uncommon. I just want to summarize the arguments (not necessarily yours) to make sure I understand them.
> Bolt's performance is believable because he is a physical outlier.
> He is an outlier because most tall athletes would be vetted into the 400m, and don't run the 100m.

Let's look at 400m runners:

Kirani James, 5' 11" (1.80 m) 146 lbs (66 kg)
LaShawn Merritt 6' 2" (1.88m) 185 lbs (84 kg)
Luguelín Santos: 5' 8" (1.73 m) 134 lbs (61 kg)
Lalonde Gordon 5' 10" (1.79 m) 183 lbs (83 kg)
Chris Brown 1.78 m (5 ft 10 in) 75 kg (165 lb)

Big athletes just don't exist in sprint events. Flat jumpers aren't big. High jumpers are all over, but the taller, the skinnier in general. Even pole falters have the physique of 400m runners; Walker is 6'2", Lavillenie is 5'10"

So are there big athletes in TnF? Yes, decathletes. Heres London's results:

100m is the first event. top 10:

1 1 3 3214 Ashton EATON USAUSA 10.35 OB +0.4 1011 6' 1" (1.85 m) 185 lbs (84 kg)
2 2 3 3220 Trey HARDEE USAUSA 10.42 SB +0.4 994 6' 5" (1.96 m) 212 lbs (96 kg)
3 3 3 1301 Damian WARNER CANCAN 10.48 SB +0.4 980 6' 0" (1.84 m) 183 lbs (83 kg)
4 4 3 3132 Oleksiy KASYANOV UKRUKR 10.56 SB +0.4 961 Height, 191 cm, Weight, 82 kg.
5 5 3 1898 Rico FREIMUTH GERGER 10.65 +0.4 940 6' 5" (1.96 m) 203 lbs (92 kg)
6 6 3 1223 Luiz Alberto DE ARAÚJO BRABRA 10.70 SB +0.4 929 6' 2" (1.88 m) 194 lbs (88 kg)
7 1 4 1799 Daniel AWDE GBRGBR 10.71 PB -0.7 926 6' 0" (1.82 m) 181 lbs (82 kg)
8 7 3 1164 Eduard MIKHAN BLRBLR 10.74 +0.4 919 196 cm (6' 5"); Weight: 86 kg (190 lbs)
9 2 4 2834 Sergey SVIRIDOV RUSRUS 10.78 PB -0.7 910 6' 4" (1.92 m) 187 lbs (85 kg)
10 3 4 1469 Yordani GARCÍA CUBCUB 10.80 SB -0.7 9066' 5" 180 lb.

Can't compare Bolt to these guys on time, (but just to make it obvious, he is .5-1.21 seconds ahead; ~5-21% better...) but...

Each of these athletes scored more in another event, except Damien Warner (shortest in the top 10). Most scored more points in the Long jump. Only Damien Warner and Sviridov were worse in the 110m hurdles.

400m results (just to compare):
1 1223 Luiz Alberto DE ARAÚJO BRABRA 48.25 PB 897

1 3220 Trey HARDEE USAUSA 48.11 SB 904
2 1164 Eduard MIKHAN BLRBLR 48.42 SB 889
3 1469 Yordani GARCÍA CUBCUB 48.76 SB 873

1 3214 Ashton EATON USAUSA 46.90 963
2 1898 Rico FREIMUTH GERGER 48.06 906
3 1301 Damian WARNER CANCAN 48.20 PB 899
4 3132 Oleksiy KASYANOV UKRUKR 48.44 888
6 2834 Sergey SVIRIDOV RUSRUS 48.91 866
1799 Daniel AWDE GBRGBR DNS 0

full summary http://www.iaaf.org/results/olympic-games/2012/the-xxx-olympic-games-4871/men/decathlon/1500-metres/points

So what do we learn?

In Bolt's event, he is an extreme outlier with regards to his build.
Among Bolt's build, almost all were better at something else.

There is no pattern to explain Bolt's performance at 100m.Bolt is the outlier, not his size. The defense that the best 100m runner believable because of exceptional size doesn't hold up. Big sprinters just don't happen.

So, if his build is not the advantage, what is it? What Bolt doing to augment the natural limits of bigger athletes? What is Bolt doing to bring his big body beyond it's natural?

Gold medals happen at the edge of the bell curve, but there is no explanation for how Bolt got there, except doping.

Very good, but it doesn't explain him running sub 20 as a junior, unless you believe that he was doping then. It's not just about height, it's about having the athleticism to move that height quickly. He had that at 16 years old. At 18 he was running faster than most of the top senior sprinters. If you think he was doing then, fine.

Does that matter? His big absurd improvements came when he was 22. From 19.75 to 19.30 and from 10.03 to 9.69. Ouch!
Take Carl Lewis as comparison: He always ran his 10.00s to 9.97s & 19.8s, jumped his usual 8.75 when around age 22. Later he started to wear braces and downed his time from 9.93 to 9.86, & jumping close to 9 meters.

Just take the truth: Bolt is a big time doper, which does not mean he did it at age 18. The same that CL was big on drugs, which doesn´t mean he was on it at age 18.

Look, don't patronise me. You want to learn about another sport, go and friggin learn and don't be so lazy. Why, and explain fully, is 19.75 to 19.30 a huge leap? I see proportionally better improvements year in year out from growing athletes and it has naff all to do with drugs. Even in the clinic "Just take the truth, Bolt is a big time doper" is an idiotic thing to say.

How does "Just face the truth Foxy, you're talking about a sport which you clearly know jack about" sound to you?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Then take Hitch´s post if you like it better. I thought he enlightened you...
Anyway, show me one, just one sprinter who improved his world class (include the dopers who got caught if you want) time by 0.5 secs... WTF 0.5 secs (!!!)... in 200 meters, and/or 100 meters by 0.34 respectively 0.45 seconds... yes, 0.45, not 0.045 like Lewis or Calvin Smith did for example.

How does "Just face the truth Foxy, you're talking about a sport which you clearly know jack about" sound to you? May I don´t know much about the science of running 100 meters (is there any than to run as fast as possible?), so you may have a point. But, but... I am not fooled by a big time doper. That´s what counts for me.

Edit: Dont wanna waste your time. Ofc I mean sprinters who improved that much when already fully grown. Not teenagers that surely can improve from 10.6 to 10.2.

And if you are the expert in T&F (which you imply with your last post), it makes it even sadder that one can be fooled still. After all the dirt that was uncovered about top sprinters since Ben Johnsons 9.79... I don´t get, really, I don´t get it. It`s far beyond me.

 

[Lyon]

As the old saying goes: Sprinters comes in all shapes and sizes. Before Bolt there was Obikwelu. Some short sprinters have long strides, some have short. Even some tall sprinters have short strides and rely more on frequency.

Bolt is a natural 200-400 man, perhaps the greatest talent ever at those distances, but his 100 meter dominance is a matter of responding to certain drugs - he got lucky.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Does that matter? His big absurd improvements came when he was 22. From 19.75 to 19.30 and from 10.03 to 9.69. Ouch!
Take Carl Lewis as comparison: He always ran his 10.00s to 9.97s & 19.8s, jumped his usual 8.75 when around age 22. Later he started to wear braces and downed his time from 9.93 to 9.86, & jumping close to 9 meters.

Just take the truth: Bolt is a big time doper, which does not mean he did it at age 18. The same that CL was big on drugs, which doesn´t mean he was on it at age 18.

sucking alot of c0cks is likely to give you lockjaw and displace your mandible. the muscles in turn give you an overbight, and that aint conducive to fellatio. Its an organic handicap.

 

[blackcat]

dont patronise the climber

 

[Tonton]

Re:

Then take Hitch´s post if you like it better. I thought he enlightened you...
Anyway, show me one, just one sprinter who improved his world class (include the dopers who got caught if you want) time by 0.5 secs... WTF 0.5 secs (!!!)... in 200 meters, and/or 100 meters by 0.34 respectively 0.45 seconds... yes, 0.45, not 0.045 like Lewis or Calvin Smith did for example.

How does "Just face the truth Foxy, you're talking about a sport which you clearly know jack about" sound to you? May I don´t know much about the science of running 100 meters (is there any than to run as fast as possible?), so you may have a point. But, but... I am not fooled by a big time doper. That´s what counts for me.

Edit: Dont wanna waste your time. Ofc I mean sprinters who improved that much when already fully grown. Not teenagers that surely can improve from 10.6 to 10.2.

And if you are the expert in T&F (which you imply with your last post), it makes it even sadder that one can be fooled still. After all the dirt that was uncovered about top sprinters since Ben Johnsons 9.79... I don´t get, really, I don´t get it. It`s far beyond me.

+1. Before he turned 20, King Carl jumped 8m62, 2nd best ever at the time, ran 10 seconds flat, 3rd best ever at the time. His improvement after that was marginal, except for the 9"86 maybe. Bolt is an entirely different story. Give Carl Lewis Bolt's magic potion and...the Sky (hehehehe) is the limit.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Do people think High School Football in the US is clean ?

How about South African Schools rugby ?

 

[blackcat]

Re:

good post, MSTR.

Instinctively I'd say that Bolt's length would be a disadvantage in a hypothetical PED-free field of 100 meter runners. Shorter legs would normally be an advantage in reaching top speed on such a short distance.
For comparison, have a look at tennis. The smaller guys are traditionally much faster around the court. In the 80s and 90s tall guys were typically the slower guys (e.g. Richard Krajicek, Ivanizevic, etc.), whilst short guys like Michael Chang were all about speed, getting to the balls quickly.
Sampras was tall, but in fact he had a long upper body with rather short legs, which made him one of the fastest guys around the court. Comparable to Michael Johnson.

Only with the advent of massive PED-abuse in the 2000s, comparatively tall guys like Nadal, Federer and Murray are now among the faster guys on the court. These guys benefit maximally from the new range of PEDs that rock the world of prosport since, say, the late 90s/early 00s.
Similarly, with Bolt, it's not hard to imagine that with his physique, he benefits more from doping than guys with short legs. Just imagine that you can get those long legs to spin as quickly and as fast as short legs. Then the added leg length suddenly becomes an advantage in terms of the distance you can cover per step.

the tennis players are still about 6foot, murrary has about 3 inches, the only taller retriever that is brilliant getting to balls is Gael Monfils. But I reckon he takes more cortisone than Armstrong ever did, and I dont think he will be able to walking in retirement because of his ballistic inspector gadget running at the back of the court. his joints and tendons and ligaments take a beating. you forget djokavic, but he has a couple of inches more than 6 foot too.

but murray, federer, djokavic, nadal, rely on good defensive movement and technique, not OUTRIGHT stupid athleticism like Monfils. they also have good position and can be anticipating. Monfils defense is defense defence, the others have their points in discrepancy and the balance, so even when they are on the back foot they can change to offense in one swift movement.

Monfils is more a hail mary, an atheist hail mary, like the Allen Lim Landis hail mary frozen thermal regulation bidons from heaven in s16 2006

 

[motty89]

Re:

Do people think High School Football in the US is clean ?

How about South African Schools rugby ?

http://www.timeslive.co.za/sport/rugby/2011/05/29/steroid-scourge-rages-in-school-rugby

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Re: Re:

Then take Hitch´s post if you like it better. I thought he enlightened you...
Anyway, show me one, just one sprinter who improved his world class (include the dopers who got caught if you want) time by 0.5 secs... WTF 0.5 secs (!!!)... in 200 meters, and/or 100 meters by 0.34 respectively 0.45 seconds... yes, 0.45, not 0.045 like Lewis or Calvin Smith did for example.

How does "Just face the truth Foxy, you're talking about a sport which you clearly know jack about" sound to you? May I don´t know much about the science of running 100 meters (is there any than to run as fast as possible?), so you may have a point. But, but... I am not fooled by a big time doper. That´s what counts for me.

Edit: Dont wanna waste your time. Ofc I mean sprinters who improved that much when already fully grown. Not teenagers that surely can improve from 10.6 to 10.2.

And if you are the expert in T&F (which you imply with your last post), it makes it even sadder that one can be fooled still. After all the dirt that was uncovered about top sprinters since Ben Johnsons 9.79... I don´t get, really, I don´t get it. It`s far beyond me.

+1. Before he turned 20, King Carl jumped 8m62, 2nd best ever at the time, ran 10 seconds flat, 3rd best ever at the time. His improvement after that was marginal, except for the 9"86 maybe. Bolt is an entirely different story. Give Carl Lewis Bolt's magic potion and...the Sky (hehehehe) is the limit.

One year (AFAIR the 84 olympic games year) he ran 9.99 four times. Next year the same, then a "down" year going 10.05. Between 10.00 and 9.97 was his natural barrier it seems. As 8.7something in the long jump was...
Then the brace/dope-arms-race with nobody Ben Johnson started. All of a sudden he improved to 9.93, then 9.92, later 9.86, and jumping 8.80+ four or five times in a single event.

And now the T&F "expert" comes around and seriously asks me "Why, and explain fully, is 19.75 to 19.30 a huge leap?". Geez.
I would LOL if such guys wouldn´t spoil the brains of the youth and lie to them that 19.30 is naturally possible. Just like that, out of the blue. A "nice" side effect, those kids buy the shit that the big cheater advertises, and thus make him mega rich. I could vomit.