Reply to: Usain Bolt sets new 100m world record

[Churchill]

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!"

[BlackenedBiker]

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

[Churchill]

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.

[BlackenedBiker]

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???

[Mich the Tester]

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%.

[BlackenedBiker]

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

[DiscoStu]

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

[Mich the Tester]

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.

[Cyberman]

Unfortunately, the sport has a long track record ('scuse the pun) of drug taking, so when someone comes along who is so far ahead of everyone else it is only natural that people raise an eyebrow.

Personally I'll stick with the "innocent till proven guilty" thing....but it is interesting to note that these conversations are exactly the same as they were for Marion Jones, and look what happened to her.

On the other hand, Michael Johnson was a "freak" in the same way that Bolt appears to be though, and he was clean.

Don't forget that Joyner woman also, who won masses of medals until guilt was proven. We all suspected her and were sadly proven right. Unfortunately Bolt will be tainted until he comes into a stricter testing regime, or unless his form deteriorates and he falls off of the radar.

[BlackenedBiker]

Unfortunately, the sport has a long track record ('scuse the pun) of drug taking, so when someone comes along who is so far ahead of everyone else it is only natural that people raise an eyebrow.

Personally I'll stick with the "innocent till proven guilty" thing....but it is interesting to note that these conversations are exactly the same as they were for Marion Jones, and look what happened to her.

On the other hand, Michael Johnson was a "freak" in the same way that Bolt appears to be though, and he was clean.

Not caught: HTH

[PM-Junkie]

Unfortunately, the sport has a long track record ('scuse the pun) of drug taking, so when someone comes along who is so far ahead of everyone else it is only natural that people raise an eyebrow.

Personally I'll stick with the "innocent till proven guilty" thing....but it is interesting to note that these conversations are exactly the same as they were for Marion Jones, and look what happened to her.

On the other hand, Michael Johnson was a "freak" in the same way that Bolt appears to be though, and he was clean.

[BlackenedBiker]

Is 'no smoke without fire' sufficient grounds to accuse a guy of one of the most serious offences a sportsman can commit, which would end his career and possibly land him in jail if he were to commit that offence?

No Bolt is innocent until proven guilty but the fact is that technology gives an advantage. That is a truism. Therefore the likelihood of cheating is very high. It is understandable considering the potential rewards and the ease with which drugs can be taken and capture avoided in athletics.

Personally I prefer to be innocent before proven guilty.

So do the International athletics community and that is why a once great summer sport (track and field) is now relegated to minor TV slots and very little interest by a sceptical audience. Athletics needs to act in the way that Cycling has begun to:ie. name and shame and ban FOR LIFE with seizure of all past winnings of the culprits, no exceptions

And what's this '30% improvement' all about? 30% of what?

Of maximum potential without drugs (think Ben Johnson in Olympic final and that was 2 decades ago - think how much better drugs are now)

please see in line

[fckvwls]

Amazing. I've just been told why our gold medal winner is not worth even mentioning on BBC Radio news. You miserable tiny-minded pusillanimous gits, some of you deserve what you have made of this once great country.

Disgusted.......

Give her an MBE as consolation and yourself one as well for that pathetic whine.

[expat]

Yes

Perhaps your vision is clouded.

[Mich the Tester]

Yes

Is 'no smoke without fire' sufficient grounds to accuse a guy of one of the most serious offences a sportsman can commit, which would end his career and possibly land him in jail if he were to commit that offence?

Personally I prefer to be innocent before proven guilty.

And what's this '30% improvement' all about? 30% of what?