Was Usain Bolt protected by going after his competition?

[blackcat]

Gatlin, Gay, Powell, Blake.


all got popped in the last three years.


a priori, they go after all of Bolt's closest competition for two reasons, i) to instill a perception of credibility and ant-doping "enforcement"(which is anything but)...

and ii) so he breaks records of repeat(ing) his achievement(wins)...


I mean, check out Gatlin's times over the last 24 months, he had to be a massive favourite 12 months out with the times he was running versus Bolt's performances since London.

So why did they invert their form curve?

and I would dispel the notion that, one's coach had his ducks in a row, and one stuffed up with something so simple like a taper.

No, something else was up. Like the NBA orchestrating big-market teams make the Championship play-off, like the championships go down to the wire with 7 games.

And dont be a sm@rt@r$e and tell me I was just contradicting myself taking about big-market games, wrt Gay/Gatlin starsnstripes v Boltbananarepublic. Well, Bolt is the peoples champion for the 7 billion v 320 million nike consuming americans.

Nah, something was up. IAAF, WADA, IOC have orchestrated the win for the legitimacy of sport, blackcat has ordained it in The Clinic with his/her Clinic Twelve Disciples of JV

/thirdperson

how did they do it? rigorous OOC testing and harassment of these competitors^
+ wide berth on the stirrups for Usain

 

[PremierAndrew]

Apparently one of the Jamaicans in the 4x100m relay final from 2008 tested positive. Let's see if the IAAF take away Bolt's gold or if they're too busy protecting the 'hero of the sport'

 

[BullsFan22]

Re:

Apparently one of the Jamaicans in the 4x100m relay final from 2008 tested positive. Let's see if the IAAF take away Bolt's gold or if they're too busy protecting the 'hero of the sport'

Nesta Carter was the one they popped. This was made public a few weeks ago. What happened? Did they change their mind? Will Bolt lose that gold? Or will they hope that it quietly slips away and nobody notices?

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

Apparently one of the Jamaicans in the 4x100m relay final from 2008 tested positive. Let's see if the IAAF take away Bolt's gold or if they're too busy protecting the 'hero of the sport'

Nesta Carter was the one they popped. This was made public a few weeks ago. What happened? Did they change their mind? Will Bolt lose that gold? Or will they hope that it quietly slips away and nobody notices?

Carter was also in the relay team in London 2012

 

[BullsFan22]

Re: Re:

Apparently one of the Jamaicans in the 4x100m relay final from 2008 tested positive. Let's see if the IAAF take away Bolt's gold or if they're too busy protecting the 'hero of the sport'

Nesta Carter was the one they popped. This was made public a few weeks ago. What happened? Did they change their mind? Will Bolt lose that gold? Or will they hope that it quietly slips away and nobody notices?

Carter was also in the relay team in London 2012

Oh boy. Will Bolt lose both of those golds? That would be something.

 

[doperhopper]

Re: Re:

Apparently one of the Jamaicans in the 4x100m relay final from 2008 tested positive. Let's see if the IAAF take away Bolt's gold or if they're too busy protecting the 'hero of the sport'

Nesta Carter was the one they popped. This was made public a few weeks ago. What happened? Did they change their mind? Will Bolt lose that gold? Or will they hope that it quietly slips away and nobody notices?

Carter was also in the relay team in London 2012

Oh boy. Will Bolt lose both of those golds? That would be something.

looking forward to "UB Confidential"

 

[Zypherov]

One thing about Bolt is, he never lambasted his doping rivals, as far as I know.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

Apparently one of the Jamaicans in the 4x100m relay final from 2008 tested positive. Let's see if the IAAF take away Bolt's gold or if they're too busy protecting the 'hero of the sport'

Nesta Carter was the one they popped. This was made public a few weeks ago. What happened? Did they change their mind? Will Bolt lose that gold? Or will they hope that it quietly slips away and nobody notices?

Carter was also in the relay team in London 2012

Oh boy. Will Bolt lose both of those golds? That would be something.

I'm sure new evidence will surface that Carter's positive samples had been tampered with, making those tests redundant

 

[El Pistolero]

Re:

One thing about Bolt is, he never lambasted his doping rivals, as far as I know.

http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/usain-bolt/

He has though. Search for Tyson Gay in that article.

 

[The Hegelian]

I actually can't believe that people actually believe the (saviour of the clean) rhetoric around Bolt.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re:

I actually can't believe that people actually believe the (saviour of the clean) rhetoric around Bolt.

Who does? The general public who only care about sports during the Olympics? Because why would that be surprising? Ignorant people aren't well informed, so they would have no clue.

Nobody here believes Usain Bolt to be clean.

 

[The Hegelian]

Re: Re:

I actually can't believe that people actually believe the (saviour of the clean) rhetoric around Bolt.

Who does? The general public who only care about sports during the Olympics? Because why would that be surprising? Ignorant people aren't well informed, so they would have no clue.

Nobody here believes Usain Bolt to be clean.

Well I just happened to be watching at the time of the 100m final - and the commentator who has been around for decades had a kind of hearty 'thank god Bolt won, a victory for sport' sentiment about him. It was very overt, I was absolutely astonished. It was there in all the broadsheets too. And it's been there in the build up.

I have clearly overestimated the general public. You, wisely, haven't.

 

[Blakeslee]

Considering the long list of sprinters Bolt has competed against who have been caught doping, there is no way Bolt is clean.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

One thing about Bolt is, he never lambasted his doping rivals, as far as I know.

He has claimed the sport needs him to win, implication being strong that its because he's clean while Gatlin is not.

 

[eleven]

Re:

I actually can't believe that people actually believe the (saviour of the clean) rhetoric around Bolt.

They still believe it about Carl Lewis!

Once a mythological hero is created it's difficult to pierce public perception.

 

[Bwlch y Groes]

Re:

Considering the long list of sprinters Bolt has competed against who have been caught doping, there is no way Bolt is clean.

This is the long and short of it for me too. Even if you push the Heredia stuff to one side, it's basically the same situation as it was with Armstrong after Puerto came out. The problem is people believe all this nonsense of how he's a genetic freak which somehow explains him being at least 3 tenths of a second faster over 100m than any other clean runner (and more likely about half a second)

 

[buckle]

Re:

Considering the long list of sprinters Bolt has competed against who have been caught doping, there is no way Bolt is clean.

Yup that is my mantra. This is WWE or a pantomime as we say in the UK. Bolt is not saving track and field. In reality, he is destroying it.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Well I just happened to be watching at the time of the 100m final - and the commentator who has been around for decades had a kind of hearty 'thank god Bolt won, a victory for sport' sentiment about him. It was very overt, I was absolutely astonished. It was there in all the broadsheets too. And it's been there in the build up.

I have clearly overestimated the general public. You, wisely, haven't.

this has been the popular refrain, from the commentators. The Lord Coe types, the Sean Kelly[sic] types.

Everyone has been saying it. These are gatekeepers. They are lying thru their teeth.

But dont you teach philosophy tH? (none of my business, no need to reply to that). So, as a layperson idjit, there are multiple theories on truth innit? So, even if Bolt is doping(OFCOURSE HE IS), and even if we dont adopt Ferrari Schumi's schema "if it does not show up it is not doping" even if we dont adopt this for the purpose of this incoherent analogy[sic, implicit here is the double negative = positive, even tho I have lost the second negative element]

... my point. in what "truth interpretative lens" is it actually correct, that Bolt is indeed clean, that this is actually "a truth".

Lets leave aside Nike(actually Puma, but lets run with the swoosh shall we), lets leave aside Nike, lets leave aside IAAF, lets leave aside VISA, lets leave aside IOC, lets leave aside WADA... thru one lens, if everyone wishes him to be clean(ergo, not tested positive) and he has not tested positive... then he is clean, and not doping.



ok. so this incoherent garrulous ToT extemporisation... is somewhat meta with the hijinks and mental gymnastics that they play to present him as the clean winner and the saviour for integrity in sport.

its panem et circenses innit, but latin to pidgin thru a google translator algorithm
#baba-jinks[sic] #Poe's_law

 

[blackcat]

Re:

I actually can't believe that people actually believe the (saviour of the clean) rhetoric around Bolt.

i) they want to believe (transference)
ii) they have no autonomy (Milgram)


see: LAnce

 

[blackcat]

folks... to dispel the argument about long levers alliterationz


long levers and stride length, have always been a disadvantage in the 100metre dash.

Ask any year 9 or middle school senior studying physics, a 13 or 14 yo, to do the sums, about the work required to get those long levers to unfurl from the block and explode to terminal velocity. The 13yo student will do the numbers, the 6'4" 6'5"athlete was prohibitive... they could not accelerate within the distance to pull back those 5'11" and 6 foot even and 5'10"sprinters who would fly out of the blocks. They could unfold their levers with greater alacrity than those taller sprinters.

Carl Lewis, Donovan Bailey, Linford Christie
6'3"ish or 6'4".... 6'1"ish... 6'2" ish....

they then needed their longer stride length to aid them with their speed endurance and go to work for them to haul back Ben Johnson and Kim Collins and Mo Greene and Tim Montgomery.... those faster and more explosive smaller guys...

hence, the sprinters height would lead them to the 200 metres and 400 metres when it would be in their favour... somewhere from 150-200 metres, the stride length harnessing the speed endurance would reconcile the disadvantage of the start/acceleration to terminal velocity.


Also, on the applied physics sums... Bolt was never gonna be faster than in Beijing and German Worlds the year after... he was running at about 88kg... today he runs at 94kg. So he needs to overcome that extra 6kg, in explositivity to terminal velocity from the blocks, and speed endurance... and the CdA (his aero profile) those 6kgs add, even if the 6kgs is only very marginal on the frontal profile. This is the one hundred metre dash and we are talking in the one of ten-thousandths of a second do matter. So, every addition however marginal, to a CdA will also matter, even when running at speeds merely 25miles an hour.

my caveat

even if the 6kgs add pro-rata speed endurance, or exceed ceteris paribus speedendurance, or, explosivity out of blocks... but. in 2008 and 2009, his first 30metres was about the fastest ever. close enough too. especially when he was 6'4". And his final 60 metres, when they are all decelerating, it was the fastest ever... So, the premise is, adding muscle and power, adding red tissue, = gonna add it on the asphalt or rubber track of an athletic lane? But, you dont bring that gym power/endurance efforts, onto the running track. They only have imperfect positive correlation. not 1:1 correlation.... ok. That seems soooo incoherent when one cannot speak to me and get inside my head....

 

[The Hegelian]

Re: Re:

Well I just happened to be watching at the time of the 100m final - and the commentator who has been around for decades had a kind of hearty 'thank god Bolt won, a victory for sport' sentiment about him. It was very overt, I was absolutely astonished. It was there in all the broadsheets too. And it's been there in the build up.

I have clearly overestimated the general public. You, wisely, haven't.

this has been the popular refrain, from the commentators. The Lord Coe types, the Sean Kelly[sic] types.

Everyone has been saying it. These are gatekeepers. They are lying thru their teeth.

But dont you teach philosophy tH? (none of my business, no need to reply to that). So, as a layperson idjit, there are multiple theories on truth innit? So, even if Bolt is doping(OFCOURSE HE IS), and even if we dont adopt Ferrari Schumi's schema "if it does not show up it is not doping" even if we dont adopt this for the purpose of this incoherent anology[sic, implicit here is the double negative = positive, even tho I have lost the second negative element]

... my point. in what "truth interpretative lens" is it actually correct, that Bolt is indeed clean, that this is actually "a truth".

Lets leave aside Nike(actually Puma, but lets run with the swoosh shall we), lets leave aside Nike, lets leave aside IAAF, lets leave aside VISA, lets leave aside IOC, lets leave aside WADA... thru one lens, if everyone wishes him to be clean(ergo, not tested positive) and he has not tested positive... then he is clean, and not doping.



ok. so this incoherent garrulous ToT extemporisation... is somewhat meta with the hijinks and mental gymnastics that they play to present him as the clean winner and the saviour for integrity in sport.

its panem et circenses innit, but latin to pidgin thru a google translator algorithm
#baba-jinks[sic] #Poe's_law

We can also get there with George Costanza: "It's not a lie if you believe it."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn_PSJsl0LQ

 

[The Hegelian]

Re: Re:

I actually can't believe that people actually believe the (saviour of the clean) rhetoric around Bolt.

i) they want to believe (transference)
ii) they have no autonomy (Milgram)


see: LAnce

Agree. Without psychoanalysis, none of this makes any sense. With it, it makes perfect sense.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

We can also get there with George Costanza: "It's not a lie if you believe it."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn_PSJsl0LQ

i was meant to put the george costanza hashtag however heavyhanded in the incoherent inimitable style of schwarze katze [/deutschethirdperson]

 

[Poursuivant]

Re: Re:

Considering the long list of sprinters Bolt has competed against who have been caught doping, there is no way Bolt is clean.

This is the long and short of it for me too. Even if you push the Heredia stuff to one side, it's basically the same situation as it was with Armstrong after Puerto came out. The problem is people believe all this nonsense of how he's a genetic freak which somehow explains him being at least 3 tenths of a second faster over 100m than any other clean runner (and more likely about half a second)

Has the Heredia link ever been confirmed? I can't find anything on Google. I can vouch for the post about the media love in, Steve Cram last year described Bolt v Gatlin as Good v Evil. Wtf

 

[Lyon]

All you ever needed to know about sprinting was spelled out during the 2003 worlds - a drug bust happens and suddenly nobody is able to run a sub-10 anymore.

Then in 2006 some american college kid starts running world class times in the 100, 200 and 400, the cat is out of the bag and soon everybody and his mother is improving their times, the Jamaicans capitalize on their improved facilities and non existent drug testing and sprinting never looked back. Wroooom!