• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Usain Bolt sets new 100m world record

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #41
    The first three in the race are tested for drugs at every meet. Others are tested at random. Bolt may be under the Jamaican system, which needs improvement, but he gets tested at every international meet simply because he always wins. He also gets called up for random testing. Just how much testing has to be done to convince people?

    Another thing. We know that during the 70s, 80s and 90s there was loads of drug use and that the testing systems were crap. Now the testing systems have been improved but we still see athletes beating world records. Has nobody asked whether the illegal drugs actually gave as much improvement as was claimed? 100 metre running is about coordination and a good nervous system as it is about strength, possibly even more. It's also about having a large proportion of the right type of muscle fibres (type 2b). One thing we know about stimulants is that they can damage coordination. Steroids cause muscle growth to occur faster than the nervous system can adapt. Is it not possible then that all those years the drug cheats and their coaches were actually missing the point. Coaches selected the wrong athletes, namely people who were too short to reach a very high speed, and then assumed that quickly piling on muscle would make them faster. That's perhaps just not how it works with sprinting.
    And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

    Comment


      #42
      I wouldn't worry Mich, CyberTory rarely lets the facts get in the way of his argument
      ǝןqqıʍ

      Comment


        #43
        Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
        The first three in the race are tested for drugs at every meet. Others are tested at random. Bolt may be under the Jamaican system, which needs improvement, but he gets tested at every international meet simply because he always wins. He also gets called up for random testing. Just how much testing has to be done to convince people?

        Another thing. We know that during the 70s, 80s and 90s there was loads of drug use and that the testing systems were crap. Now the testing systems have been improved but we still see athletes beating world records. Has nobody asked whether the illegal drugs actually gave as much improvement as was claimed? 100 metre running is about coordination and a good nervous system as it is about strength, possibly even more. It's also about having a large proportion of the right type of muscle fibres (type 2b). One thing we know about stimulants is that they can damage coordination. Steroids cause muscle growth to occur faster than the nervous system can adapt. Is it not possible then that all those years the drug cheats and their coaches were actually missing the point. Coaches selected the wrong athletes, namely people who were too short to reach a very high speed, and then assumed that quickly piling on muscle would make them faster. That's perhaps just not how it works with sprinting.
        Some really good points, but to reposte.....

        Even if an athlete is testing 5 times per day and is proved to be clean that doesn't mean that the athlete is clean. In the case of BALCO the drugs that were being used didn't have an in-use testing method therefore no positive drugs taking was recorded. It took a dis-gruntled coach to send a syringe on the drug to WADA to enable an effective drug methodolgy to be developed.

        That is what is currently happening in Jamaica. Please see....

        http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/250720...rug-tests.html

        Sprinters take drugs because it makes them go 30% faster.

        Something to ponder the world record has come down .3 of a second since Carl Lewis' world record in 1991. That is a unbelievalbe about bearing in mind that Lewis was one of the greatest athletes of all time.

        Like Bolt he is rangey, tall and able to stride out to very fast times.

        Why the improvement, better nutrition, better equipment, better coaching?????

        Sure they will have had an effect but .3 of a second.

        Oh BTW Lewis took performance enhancing drugs (he admitted it)

        Bolt clean - almost certainly not
        Faster, faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death.

        Patience is something you admire in the driver behind you and scorn in the one ahead.

        Comment


          #44
          Originally posted by BlackenedBiker View Post
          Some really good points, but to reposte.....

          Even if an athlete is testing 5 times per day and is proved to be clean that doesn't mean that the athlete is clean. In the case of BALCO the drugs that were being used didn't have an in-use testing method therefore no positive drugs taking was recorded. It took a dis-gruntled coach to send a syringe on the drug to WADA to enable an effective drug methodolgy to be developed.

          That is what is currently happening in Jamaica. Please see....

          http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/250720...rug-tests.html

          Sprinters take drugs because it makes them go 30% faster.

          Something to ponder the world record has come down .3 of a second since Carl Lewis' world record in 1991. That is a unbelievalbe about bearing in mind that Lewis was one of the greatest athletes of all time.

          Like Bolt he is rangey, tall and able to stride out to very fast times.

          Why the improvement, better nutrition, better equipment, better coaching?????

          Sure they will have had an effect but .3 of a second.

          Oh BTW Lewis took performance enhancing drugs (he admitted it)

          Bolt clean - almost certainly not
          0.3 seconds over +/- 10 seconds is not 30% faster. It's about 3%.
          And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

          Comment


            #45
            Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
            0.3 seconds over +/- 10 seconds is not 30% faster. It's about 3%.
            Indeed and kudos to you on the maths.

            The model is slightly more complex than 1 in 1 out. Simply put the drugs allow the athlete to

            Train harder
            Train longer
            Recover quicker
            Retain training benefits for longer

            This equates to a 30% more beneficial training strategy for the dirty athlete when compared to the maximum which would be achievable by the Clean version of the same athlete.

            This translates to .3 of a second on the track, which at the ragged edge of human endeavour is huge.

            Consider a car that can go 200 MPH, a Lambo for instance, that will have a fairly normal engine and mechanical setup in relation to say my car. Now consider a car that can for 220+, for instance a Veyron, well that needs 1000+ BHP and 10 radiators. Catch my drift???
            Faster, faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death.

            Patience is something you admire in the driver behind you and scorn in the one ahead.

            Comment


              #46
              Originally posted by BlackenedBiker View Post
              Indeed and kudos to you on the maths.

              The model is slightly more complex than 1 in 1 out. Simply put the drugs allow the athlete to

              Train harder
              Train longer
              Recover quicker
              Retain training benefits for longer

              This equates to a 30% more beneficial training strategy for the dirty athlete when compared to the maximum which would be achievable by the Clean version of the same athlete.

              This translates to .3 of a second on the track, which at the ragged edge of human endeavour is huge.

              Consider a car that can go 200 MPH, a Lambo for instance, that will have a fairly normal engine and mechanical setup in relation to say my car. Now consider a car that can for 220+, for instance a Veyron, well that needs 1000+ BHP and 10 radiators. Catch my drift???
              It all sounds like the wet dream of a diehard, adenoidal car bore.

              Comment


                #47
                Originally posted by Churchill View Post
                It all sounds like the wet dream of a diehard, adenoidal car bore.
                Do we need to nudge the turntable Churchie, you seem to be sticking there old boy.

                I like the re-use though
                Faster, faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death.

                Patience is something you admire in the driver behind you and scorn in the one ahead.

                Comment


                  #48
                  Originally posted by BlackenedBiker View Post
                  Do we need to nudge the turntable Churchie, you seem to be sticking there old boy.

                  I like the re-use though


                  It's my "Phrase of the day!"

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X