[Closed] Am I too cynical? Usain Bolt/Lance Armstrong content

Bolt can't help missing about.
Armstrong couldn't help being a bastard.

mainly the guy's cockiness and what seems like his effortless performance. It's like he knows he will win

Confidence. He has it.

Have you considered a career as a detecive?

Have you considered a career as a [s]detecive[/s]journalist at the express?

He's fast must be on drugs.

Performance is not an idicator of doping.

Consider their physical make up.

Armstrong was a big burley (relative to other cyclists) triathlete who suddenly was able to climb mountains faster than the skinniest lightest climbers. Alarm bells.

Bolt is perfectly adapted to sprinting. I can't remeber the exact anatomy but apprarently there is something special about the lenght of his limbs. He is a genetic freak. No alarm bells.

None of this means he isn't doping, he could be. But just because he is the fastest ever doesn't mean he is doping so it's perfectly OK to lay off the cynicism IMO.

There does seem to be a lack of cynicism in the mainstream media and an eagerness to embrace someone with the personality to extend the appeal of the sport. Given the recent history of Jamaican sprinting, and as its leading light, I'm surprised he doesn't get the same sort of questioning as Froome and Wiggins did when in yellow.

Bolt is perfectly adapted to sprinting. I can't remeber the exact anatomy but apprarently there is something special about the lenght of his limbs. He is a genetic freak. No alarm bells.

The Jamaican 4x4 team was a shoe in for gold. Unless they dropped the battern they where going to win comfortably, so hardly surprising to see Bolt looking confident. Plus it's all showmanship as we and the advertisers love it. Bolt knows he is likely to come under a lot of pressure in the 100m so he is now focusing on the 200m, he knows he is potentially fragile.

apprarently there is something special about the lenght of his limbs

He does have a very long stride length so covers more ground with each stride and and has developed the ability to shift his huge legs at a high cadence.

I don't think Armstong's brand of cockiness would extend to selfies with spectators.

The showmanship is all well and good but his celebration stank of "nah nah nah nah nah nah, I, your face infadels, I'll milk this for for 30 minutes. "
There were another 3 on his team but the camera just followed him and after a while it became boring.
I'm sure he's a nice guy but he should tone it down a bit.

There was an article about the 100m on TV on the runup to the Olympics. How the record has evolved with time, etc. One of the critical points is that no-one can sprint flat out for even 100m.

The race is in 3 distinct phases, start, middle and end.

The start is all about how good reactions are, and how fast you can get into running at full speed; I don't remember the exact details but that takes a number of strides to get fully upright and into form. It takes him longer than the 'best' exponents of this part, simply because his reactions aren't as good and also he's 6ft 5 (if you watch his 9.58, he 'fluked' a good start for once)

The middle is flat out sprinting. All the top sprinters are basically the same here, there's a pretty consistent number of strides they can manage at full tilt before they get fatigued and start to slow down. The difference is that his stride is substantially longer than his rivals, hence he can go further before hitting phase three - which is slowing down, as the fatigue sets in.

The last third, iirc, of the distance is actually more about who slows down least rather than who's running fastest, if that makes sense. If you look at Bolt, it's around the middle of the race that he just pulls away, simply because his stride length gets him that bit further while at max power, so he's further along the track before he starts to slow.

Clear enough to me, he's just the right mix of genetic freakery to overcome the downside of being too tall with the benefits of being so tall.

as that's not the right metaphor

Why not?

It is suprising to see a big beefy guy climbing mountains as fast as Armstrong did.

It is not supprising to see a guy with a freakishly long stride length sprinting very fast. Other than guilt by association with other sprinters and other Jamaicans what do we have to give us doubt? There is no evidence to suggest Bolt is a doper. His performance is plausible is it not?

So looking at sprinting with a sceptical eye does it look reasonable that Bolt would be the fastest ever? To me it does.

There is a really good TED lecture that talks about this, amongst other things. I think it's [url= http://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger ]this one[/url] but can't see on my phone.

It's like he knows he will win

Same for the Brownlee brothers in the triathalon

Given the recent history of Jamaican sprinting, and as its leading light, I'm surprised he doesn't get the same sort of questioning as Froome and Wiggins did when in yellow.

Its a reasonabl;e point and most of the fastest 100 m runners have doped

the event is at leats as dirty as cycling ever was.

Well this list:-

Marvin Anderson,
James Beckford,
Dominique Blake,
Johan Blake,
Veronica Campbell-Brown,
Julien Dunkley,
Allodin Fothergill,
Shelly-Ann Fraser,
Patrick Jarrett,
Suzette Lee,
Aston Morgan,
Steve Mullings,
Merlene Ottey,
Asafa Powell,
Donovan Powell,
Allison Randall,
Dorian Scott,
Sherone Simpson,
Traves Smikle,
Lansford Spence,
Bobby-Gaye Wilkins,
Christopher Williams

of Jamaican athletes with positive doping records in the last few years, from a nation that only recently started an effective OOC regime. That's a hell of a lot of athletes for a tiny place that didn't really test out of competition (reducing your chance of getting caught, unless a complete muppet).

Bolt can't be seen as guilty just by association but he is patently a product of a broken (ethically) system. He might just be the fastest of them all [u]and[/u] have been clean all his life too......might.

but he should tone it down a bit.

What, ignore all the children in the stands reaching out to high five him, or the older ones trying to get a selfee?
He made an awful lot of people happy doing that.

Jamaican sprinting is rife with doping scandals but for some reason (perhaps naively) i reckon Bolt to be clean

He was winning world championships as a junior so he's always been amongst the best of his peers so the career progression is there. Wish i could find footage of it but i remember Michael Johnson talking about him years ago (probably about 2005 or 2006) saying there was a young guy coming up who if he could manage to improve his start and transition would go on to dominate sprinting for the next decade.

He might just be the fastest of them all and have been clean all his life too......might.

Nail/head

Bolt is nothing like Armstrong, personality wise. That's no indicator of drug use.

Converts post is probably the closest to the mark. Although I'd like to see a list of sprinters caught doping, reckon it'd be another fair sized list.

iolo - Member
The showmanship is all well and good but his celebration stank of "nah nah nah nah nah nah, I, your face infadels, I'll milk this for for 30 minutes. "

Hes a doper and Arabic? The daily mail will probably be all over this thread by tomorrow.

jfletch - Member

as that's not the right metaphor

Why not?

It is suprising to see a big beefy guy climbing mountains as fast as Armstrong did.

I don't find his performances plausible myself, but YMMV. Two facts seem important - doping is endemic in 100m sprinting, and the Jamaican drug testing regime is soft. You can go from there and construct biomechanical theories for why Bolt is exceptional - but it's typical suspension of disbelief stuff (Nowt wrong with that, btw, it's part and parcel of watching sport and hoping for the right outcome).

biomechanical theories

Indurain had a massive lung capacity and long levers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Indurain#Physical_attributes

Indurain, hmm. Perhaps not the best example to pick! He's all but confessed to epo doping...

Bolt's really very very fast and has the perfect surname. He's funny and does silly stuff on camera. You can sell that.

PEDs - is he? Isn't he? Who knows. He can probably afford the best, if he is, and thus be a lot less likely to get caught.

There's a huge difference between being 'within the rules' and being clean.
Once a substance is classed as illegal, it has to be tested for and a limit has to be defined on the amount which is legal. Depending on how you interpret the rules, this also means that as long as you take below that amount (or are below that amount when tested) then you are within the rules
It's the same in all sports, whether it's cycling, tennis, football or whatever.

Peoples naivety when it comes to doping in sport is quite amazing.

At the top level doping is rife. Lifetime clean and clean for testing are two different things.

PED's allow athletes to exceed their natural genetic potential. Some of this gain is maintained after they have stopped the drug. What this means is that athletes can dope a number of number of times during their career (In the offseason) never get caught, and still have a slight edge on those that are lifetime clean.

The trouble is, everyone at the top level of sport knows this, and realise they may have a dope at some point to stay competitive.

Bolt is the greatest sprinting talent the world has ever seen. He is also cocky and a bit full of himself. Is this anything to do with him doping? No, the majority of them are at it.

Anybody who has had a hand in the progression of the men’s 100-metre record between Donovan Bailey and Usain Bolt – anybody who has been the fastest man in the world between Bailey’s 9.84 seconds at the 1996 Atlanta Games and Bolt’s 9.58 set in August of 2009 in Berlin – has either failed a drug test or been connected to performance-enhancing substances.

Bailey and Bolt are the only two men’s 100-metre Olympic champions since 1984 who have not tested positive for drugs at some point in their careers.

Err, not cynical enough

I cant believe that he can run faster than all the other ten fastest times and be clean - freak or not

One thing Bolt and Armstrong do (or at least did in the latter case) have in common is massive marketability and an appeal much wider than is typical for the sport. In Armstrongs case this (allegedly) led to much turning of a blind eye by the sports governing bodies.

Indurain had a massive lung capacity and long levers.

Armstrong had an [url= http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0722_050722_armstrong.html ]oversized heart and developed better "muscle efficiency" through "smart training"[/url]

🙂

At the top level doping is rife

I cant believe that he can run faster than all the other ten fastest times and be clean

Is there is evidence to support

Well, with sprinting it's not hard to find.

Anybody who has had a hand in the progression of the men’s 100-metre record between Donovan Bailey and Usain Bolt – anybody who has been the fastest man in the world between Bailey’s 9.84 seconds at the 1996 Atlanta Games and Bolt’s 9.58 set in August of 2009 in Berlin – has either failed a drug test or been connected to performance-enhancing substances.

Bailey and Bolt are the only two men’s 100-metre Olympic champions since 1984 who have not tested positive for drugs at some point in their careers.

Nice anecdote.

But that only represents 4 people. And there is another way to spin this.

Dononvan Bailey's 1996 time was very good, a freak but natural perfomance. Since then nobody has been able to break it except by cheating, until Bolt came along. With better equipment and better tallet ID at an earlier age times are bound to drop with time and doped performances are just noise getting in the way.

Fast guys who dope will rise to the top and get popped but that doesn't preclude there still being genetic freaks, outliers, who can do it naturally.

Another way of looking at this is that of the top 10 fastest men ever 7 have been associated with doping or failed a test. So a valid hypothesis is that there is a high likelyhood of getting caught if you dope and therefore if you don't get caught it's likely you are clean.

Like I said before neither can be proved and that is why performance can not be evidence of doping and nor can be performance vs known dopers.

So I don't think it is naive to belive in great performances as long as you view them secptically.

One thing people forget is that there is no smoke without fire and for Lance there was a lot of smoke. I'm not aware there is the same issues with Bolt and in this modern age of Twitter I'd suspect we'd hear about it pretty quickly. Who is Bolts David Walsh?

There are 4 in relay but what I don't understand is the media focusing on one person only. 😯

Having read this thread it smacks of the Armstrong love-in pre his admittance.
I can't see how anyone (on a diet of chicken nuggets) can run 5% faster, at a canter, than every other dedicated pro on the planet over 100m, clean.

Unfortunately in my eyes, he can't win either way.

I do however suspend disbelief when it comes to Michael Johnson, watching him at the Atlanta Games was the most incredible thing ive ever seen in athletics (and seemingly a really great person to boot, perhaps blurring my cynicism).
Jonathan Edwards in Gothenburg smashing 18m twice in a row in 95 easily my second fave moment.

I just can't put Bolt up there with them, yet.

Jamaican anti-doping control undertook out of competition tests in only 2 out of the first 7 months of 2012. Described as 'woefully inadequate' by WADA.

Asafa Powell and Sherome Simpson tested positive already.

I'd be amazed if he's not doping.

well a couple of things..
firstly bolt must be doped every 30 seconds on average and thus far his tests must have been positive .. so on that count hes clean.. hes what you call a show man.. he can run .. FAST.. faster than any man alive or dead.. end of.

Armstrong was a drug cheat at a time now widely accepeted as when every bloke on a push bike was filling himself with epo and steroids.. taken that as a given he was one heck of a bike rider, the best in the world for some time to be consistantly ahead when all around him were using just as many drugs as he was..

I'd be amazed if he wasn't doping too. And I'd be amazed if he wasn't. I'm generally amazed by his running anyway. I think this is what a lot of people feel these days about the likes of Bolt ie one is never quite sure how to feel about the whole thing.

Armstrong was a drug cheat at a time now widely accepeted as when every bloke on a push bike was filling himself with epo and steroids

I reckon anyone married to a doctor would have access to "stuff" and be able to get away with it. I mean, Andyfla has never failed a drugs test either.... 😆

And we all know how well I ride, I made the top 500 of a Strava segment the other day !

I did ask her if she knew anyone who could do a blood transfusion before the Etape but she refuse, bloody doctors with ethics.

he can run .. FAST.. faster than any man alive or dead.. end of.

No, that's not the end of.
IF he is a cheat, he doesn't deserve the accolades or multi-millionaire status - he deserves none of it.

Having read this thread it smacks of the Armstrong love-in pre his admittance.

No it doesn't.

Armstrong fan boys supported him despite mounting evidence. Payments to Ferrari, the EPO tests by l'equipe, the revaluations from Emma O'Reily and the rest. Despite logic and reason people defended him.

With Bolt you have the fact he is fast, that a lot of his peers have doped and that he is Jamaican. This isn't evidence.

To defend Armstrong was blind fanboyism. To defend Bolt is to defend the concept of keeping an open mind. To condemn him for being the fastest is to abandon the rational thinking that you think you are extolling by dismissing his performance as doping.

I did ask her if she knew anyone who could do a blood transfusion before the Etape but she refuse, bloody doctors with ethics.

I ride with 2 pharmacists and a GP. They are all faster than me. Only one explanation for that. 🙄

Yes, a lot of his peers have doped. He has run much faster than every one of them. His nugget fuelled performances go way beyond what is very likely to be physically possible without doping.

I commend your open mind concept though, truly.

IF he is a cheat, he doesn't deserve the accolades or multi-millionaire status - he deserves none of it.

Sounds like have already made your mind up tbh. As explained above, with people like Bolt, and those who are at the top of their respective fields, we have to suspend disbelief and assume they're clean and that they'll be caught if not. Anecdote and suspicion are not enough in my book and I don't have the tools at my disposal to catch him anyway.

EDIT: Ah, you [i]have[/i] already made your mind up.

My mind is cynical based on a life time of evidence to the contrary.

The rewards are too high for human nature to resist.
Its not a nice stance to take, and I truly don't know what Bolt would have to do to convince me that he isn't cheating.

Whatever my mind tells me though, I do honestly hope that he isn't a cheat. I very much respect people who achieve the very best in their chosen vocation (honestly).
I think that at the very least though, it would be more foolish to not exercise an element of doubt.

It find it completely mind-boggling anybody could think he's clean given the fact the Jamaicans effectively don't do any out-of-competition drug testing and so many of their other athletes have been caught, and like Armstrong he's the fastest of the lot. You have to be staggeringly naive to believe he's the one clean miracle that can somehow beat all the cheats, past and present. Do people honestly thing the drugs are that ineffective?

Maybe you've hit it on the head Steve77? *miracle*

perhaps the believers are in general, more religious than the sceptics (scientists?)

I think that at the very least though, it would be more foolish to not exercise an element of doubt.

Do WADA and the likes (I accept that the Jamaican authorities have been slack on this front) not exercise enough doubt on the spectators' behalf? As far as I can see, with athletics, there isn't a "too big to fail" attitude that there was, say with certain cyclists, (Armstrong not being the only one, but certainly the highest profile). I don't see keeping an open mind as naïve, I just see it as being necessary to enjoy the sport without thinking that everybody at the top is doping. I don't feel let down when a cheat is caught - and generally, most of the high profile ones who are caught are left to live a life with the shadows of ignominy, Dwayne Chambers being a prime example. Certain high profile names in athletics will never accept him back even if he's competing within the rules.

Is there is evidence to support that claim or is it what you reckon?

Plenty of evidence to suggest this is true. Do some research into doping in sport and have a look at professional bodybuilding and the drugs used by the top professionals. Bodybuilding doesn't even test at some events, so taking PED's is openly talked about over the internet.

Most people don't have a clue about how PED's work, so assume that athletes passing drug tests are clean. They might be clean at the time of testing (i.e drugs are not detected in their system) but this doesn't mean that they haven't doped previously and gained an advantage that spills over to the time they test and compete.

Hypothetically, an athlete could potentially dope once, exceed their genetic natural potential and effectively have tiny edge over another athlete who hasn't doped for their career.

Do WADA and the likes not exercise enough doubt on the spectators' behalf?

I honestly don't know. It's been suggested that perhaps not.

I'd probably suggest that any system that, in part, relies on an independent governing body (such as Jamaican authorities) to undertake 'some' of the testing themselves, isn't as robust a system as it could be.

I just see it as being necessary to enjoy the sport without thinking that everybody at the top is doping.

This is a very positive outlook, and again I commend it. But I worry that it's one step away from arguing that Bolt is actually God. Because it cant be proven that he isn't.

Also, if you think about any occupation where large amounts of money and power are at stake at the top level: Business, politics, religion etc

Do you think that these people and organisations play fair, don't cheat and tell the truth?

Sport is no different. The difference is in the perception of athletes compared to politicians and business people.

Do WADA and the likes (I accept that the Jamaican authorities have been slack on this front) not exercise enough doubt on the spectators' behalf?

Nope

I commend

Course you do, and then...

But it's also bordering a parallel on religious fantasy, IMO.

How very patronising! I'm just trying to have a sensible open discussion about it.

Me too dude.
I genuinely like that people remain positive, it gives me incentive to be more positive.
I don't like being so cynical, I've just learned that usually, it pays.

I worry about believing in miracles, Im not religious. As I said earlier, I really do hope Bolt is the fastest clean sprinter of all time.

Im getting on a bit and have a pretty comfortable life but would take the jizz of a leprous camel to beat my mates up the local hills.

Great documentary about American culture and steroid use. Focuses mainly on american sports, but also talks about sprinting (Ben Johnson and Carl Lewis)

Worth watching if you are interested in finding out a bit more about drugs in sport.

You have to be staggeringly naive to believe he's the one clean miracle that can somehow beat all the cheats

Why? Why is it so unlikely that such a freak exists? Do you know how likely a freak individual is? Are there other examples of physical freaks domninating their sport? (yes)

I don't like being so cynical, I've just learned that usually, it pays.

Having your enjoyment of sport as a spectator ruined isn't what I'd call a payout 🙂

Not sure if it's been mentioned in the posts above, but there was a great documentary on Channel 4 about 10 years ago where a group of "recreational athletes" were given very small quantities of PEDs (I think from memory, steroids). One group was a control and the other were given the drugs. They were tested at the beginning in the gym and on the track. Then for 6 weeks (?) they were trained by expert coaches and then tested at the end. All of the athletes who were given the drugs showed significant and bigger improvements than those who just received the expert coaching. From memory, the biggest improvements were in sprinting over 100 metres. The conclusion seemed to be that even a tiny amount of drugs make a significant difference and it seemed to me, that you couldn't hope to compete against people on drugs in sprinting if you were clean.

Yeh yeh yeh, but there's always freak and miracles. Gotta hope for the freaks and miracles.

Unless there's two freaks, but what are the chances of to that.

(No real idea personally, but the probability meter is leaning towards a positive)

Having your enjoyment of sport as a spectator ruined isn't what I'd call a payout

This is where the " there all at it " line of thinking comes in. When praying for a clean freak just becomes a freak show, like watching NFL or Bodybuilding. People just go, "oh well" and carry on watching. Or perhaps more pertinently to a cycling forum, "well they say it's clean now"

Actually, has anybody seen any data for the viewing figures for the Tour De France. It'd be interesting to see if the major drugs scandals Festina/Landis/Lance etc had any real impact on TV ratings?

This is where the " there all at it " line of thinking comes in.

Not for me, it doesn't.

I very much respect people who achieve the very best in their chosen vocation (honestly).

Except for when they achieve the best then you assume it's not done honestly. Make your mind up.

Long given up on the idea that pro sport is clean. So take it for what it is - global entertainment. The modern day equivalent of the Colliseum except that the rewards are greater and the downside (for those in the arena) less severe.

The baying mob wants records and sensation and the participants deliver this by whatever means are necessary. Doing it clean? The reality is few care. (other than I didn't want my children perusing a career in sport when I saw how low down the food chain the magic pills had got).

I just wish that the naive participants who get drawn in at an early age where given the proper education of the risks involved.

Its sad to say but I doubt any sport is clean, top to bottom its endemic

I know (idiots) take steroids just to work out at the gym for their own personal bodybuilding meatheaded pleasure

It only takes a tiny amount of certain substances to have a big effect
(Hormones will have an effect in your body at concentrations that seem almost homeopathic!)

The pressures are huge, for career athletes the temptation must be incredibly strong, especially when recovering from injury or illness

And the money at stake at the top of sport can be ludicrous, you'd be a fool to think that integrity would get in the way of securing a multi million dollar contract

So a valid hypothesis is that there is a high likelyhood of getting caught if you dope and therefore if you don't get caught it's likely you are clean.

I think that cycling has proven that statement to be false.

here's my take on it. I don't know if Bolt is doping, but, in athletics, cycling whatever, the way sports science is these days,and the tests undertaken to get the best performance out of athletes, team principles (whether that be national athletic associations, of cycling team managers) will undoubtedly know that their athletes are doping. blood profiles are tracked weekly, and anomalies would be obvious.

so, lets look past the athletes, and look at their coaches, doctors and teams, they are the ones that should be banned.

as an analogy, you can arrest as many drug addicts as you want, until the supply is stopped, you'll never stop drug addiction.

Walton - part of my cynicism comes from the fact that I was aware of a county-level coach "pumping-up" to keep up with the kids he was coaching plus ex-GF's brother's experience in US college sport back in the 80s!!! The coaches and the managers share equal responsibility IMO (and a duty of care). If a coach is pumping up, will he look after your kids?

Seems to me we have the very opposite of an Armstrong fanboy lovein. We have a post Armstrong witch hunt for anyone who excels in a sporting context, in the same way that there was a thread questioning Nibali due to the team and management he was with.

As far as I am aware there have been no journalists or informed internet chatter suggesting Bolt has doped, it is conjecture and gossip based on guilt by association. Until there is any evidence to suggest he broke the rules, I'll assume that he has not done so. And I'll avoid making any potentially libellous statements on a public forum.

I spent 20 years around bodybuilding and power sports, so have seen a fair bit of the effects of PEDs. At least some of the bodybuilding federations are openly anti drugs and some of them openly aren't. I hate what it does to people, but at least they are honest about it.

The main problem with Bolt is the pathetic level of out of competition testing in Jamaica. But that's not under his control (He could hardly be seen to be donating money to fund Jamaican dope control even if he wanted to.)

I can't really be bothered worrying about a sport that is over in less time than it takes to read this sentence.

🙂

His nugget fuelled performances go way beyond what is very likely to be physically possible without doping[citation needed]

Fixed that for you. As far as I am aware there is no compelling evidence of a limit to human sprinting speed or any understanding of what any limiting factors may be.

So a valid hypothesis is that there is a high likelyhood of getting caught if you dope and therefore if you don't get caught it's likely you are clean.

I think that cycling has proven that statement to be false.

In the most limited interpretation of "caught" you are correct. Not that many top cyclists have failed a drugs test.

But in a wider sense where "being caught" can mean we have something concrete to base our sceptisism on then almost everybody has been implicated. Payments to doctors, covered up tests, hematocrit bans, athlete testomony, retrospective testing, unachivable VO2Maxes etc have done for almost everybody.

Maybe some of this will emerge for Bolt. In which case I will change my view of him but until then, for me, being the best is not evidence of cheating.

To sugest this assesment is some sort of pseudo religious beleif is false (and fairly patronising). Its a rational assesment of the facts in the face of a post Armstrong swing to condenm everyone one who wins.

Out of interest, would you extend the same attitude to Kratochvílová or Flo-Jo? As far as I remember neither ever failed a drugs test nor have direct evidence against them and yet I find it extremely hard to believe in either's performances.

To sugest this assesment is some sort of pseudo religious beleif is false (and fairly patronising). Its a rational assesment of the facts in the face of a post Armstrong swing to condenm everyone one who wins.

Out of interest, would you extend the same attitude to Kratochvílová or Flo-Jo

I'd also like to add the my Bolt suspicions aren't based on a port-Armstrong era of witch hunting.
I suspected Bolt (and athletics/sprinting) waaaay before Armstrong came clean, so to speak.

For me, it's increasingly difficult to believe in heroes in most sports when so many previous ones end up cheats - and you have a basic understanding of the difficulties the tester's face in uncovering the fairly inevitable truth.

I would summarise that if Bolt is clean, then he truly is a marvel - capable of defying what on the face of it are virtually insurmountable odds to beat, no, destroy decades of cheats with the hugest advantage of PED's.

apologies again for being a negative so-and-so, i'm just voicing [u]an[/u] opinion

Out of interest, would you extend the same attitude to Kratochvílová or Flo-Jo? As far as I remember neither ever failed a drugs test nor have direct evidence against them and yet I find it extremely hard to believe in either's performances.

Fair challenge and one that does make me think about my position re. Bolt. To be honest I'm not that familiar with either athlete but if I apply some consistent logic then...

Kratochvílová was an athlete from behind the iron curtain a long time ago. We know there were state sponsored doping programs in place at the time so there is fairly compelling hard evidence that she was part of this. There is also her physical appearance which was very consistent with testosterone abuse. Therefore an honest assesment says its safe to assume she was doped.

Flo-Jo is less clear, again it was a while ago when information was less available. Also her 100m WR was incorrectly allowed due to a faulty anemometer. So the only indicators for doping apear to be rapid improvement coupled with a phyical change. So I don't know is the answer and I'd give her the benefit of the doubt. You may find it hard to belive in her but I'm not sure there is widespread agreement that she doped.

To counter, though, I would say that my belief in the non-existence of God is not (solely) based on the evidence of his non-existence, but an implicit belief in science - and a modicum of common sense.

At first I thought this analogy between god and doping was spurious but maybe there is something in it.

As the famous shit stirrer Richard Dawkins says, if we are to truely assess our certainty that god doesn't exist in a rational way we would call ourselves agnostics, since in applying the scientific method we have no evidence that god doesn't exist (you can't prove a negative) and therefore we must retain an open mind. However the likelyhood that god does exist, given what we do know about science is so vanishinly small that we can confidently use the term athiest.

So to Bolt. Lets compare the drugs to God. Do the drugs exist, does god exist. This is valid as the lack of god and the lack of drugs are both a negative and therefore cannot be 100% proved.

So in proclaiming Bolt must be drugged despite any evidence you are a doping theist. You belive they are there.

I am doping agnostic. I'm not sure if they are there or not and have know way of finding out.

Let's imagine a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is theist, belief without evidence and 10 is atheist, certainty it doesn't exist. With God I am a 9.999999, I can't prove a negative but I'm very confident I'm right. With Bolt I'm a 6 or 7 right now.

Fair comment. On the Boltheist scale i'm probably an 8. (would probably be a 9 but he is a charming fellow).

EDIT: hang on, have I got my scale the right way round?

If you assume all are clean, well I think your naive. Apart from mutation/birth defects humans aren't '1 in a million'- pretty standard things. In the world of Athletics doping isn't a one off is it? We've had our own 'oops forgot about the tests' and someone who retired quickly when finally caught.

Plus before the lax Jamaican doping controls Yanks were being caught and famous ones too...

I just don't buy the genetic freak stuff. I buy hardwork, good technic, good build and also a little help in the right place.

EDIT: hang on, have I got my scale the right way round?

No*. You are a 2 or but a 3 on the belief in drugs scale. You are going to the church of ungrounded cynicism because it semms like the safest thing to do, you know just in case the drugs do exist. And hey, the kids like the sunday school.

*(Remember drugs = God since you can't prove either don't exist)

I just don't buy the genetic freak stuff.

You can't just "not buy" something if it's a proven fact. Bolt is a genetic freak whether he is on drugs or not.

Watch this

http://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger

One piece of food for thought is Jesse Owens. He was another genetic freak. His fastest time was 0.7 of a second slower than Bolt, but on a cinder track with soft soled shoes and no blocks. Analysis of his physical attributes shows he would be about even with Bolt if he had the same equipment. So suddenly from Bolt being this miracle freak never to be repeated he is just a 1 in 80 year phenomenon.

1 in 80 year things happen all the time. Its really not that uncommon.

Does this change you view on whether Bolt is a cheat or a freak?

I do like the idea that he is a freak, I can accept that. Like Ian Thorpedo being so darn tall and powerful with shovel hands and flipper-like feet.

Stands to reason that out of however many billion on the planet, a tiny minority could have freakish attributes that lend themselves to sporting accomplishment. It excites me to consider a sporting world where the possibility of testing EVERYONE on the planet and hand picking the obvious freaks for future sporting training programmes (China?..) - i'd imagine that in reality a tiny minority of the potential greats actually ever see a track, for example.

I secretly hold on to that vein of thought whilst sitting in the EPD church of cynicism. At the end of the day, I still watch athletics, i'm still a fan on some levels - and I still have hope.
Jesse Owens was a very good analogy.