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

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.

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

You are THAT fast?

If you assume all are clean, well I think your naive

hora, you've changed. Lance really broke your heart didn't he?

Lance really broke your heart didn't he?

Won't return his calls either...

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

This is actually one of the tactics used to generate the recent British Olympic sucess. Getting people who are good at sport to try things for which they may be physically well adapted. Two obvious examples are Amy Williams and Helen Glover.

Williams was a good 400m runner but not good enough to make the British team. So she was encouraged to try Skeleton on a push start track. Her althetic prowess gave her the edge in the start and the rest she learned later.

Glover was selected to try rowing purely based on her height by the sporting giants program. She went from never having rowed to winning gold in a new olympic record (and I was on the bank of the lake to see it!). So rather than waiting for kids to get into rowing and then seeing who was good at it Team GB went and found people who looked like they would be good at rowing and turned them into world class rowers.

Obvious when you think about it!

Cynically, I would argue that its been fairly standard practice for lots of other countries to single out potential freaks since way back when.
Also much easier to find an outstanding prospect in a (very) minor participant sport.

Agreed. They didn't re-invent the wheel (that was Chris Boardmans secret squirel project!), I think the difference was that they targeted very niche sports and thew a lot of money at the problem.

We aren't going to find the next Usain Bolt by going round schools looking for tall kids!

analysis of bolts 9.58

http://sportsscientists.com/2009/08/analysis-of-bolts-9-58-wr/

i'd imagine that in reality a tiny minority of the potential greats actually ever see a track, for example.

Not necessarily. A good portion of the world's kids go to schools with structured sporting programmes, so there's a fair old chance of being noticed or discovering your own aptitude.

There's more chance however of someone with the ideal physical attributes not having the appropriate commitment and desire to achieve. The mental attributes might even be rarer than the physical ones. Lynford Christie said in an interview that he was not the fastest kid in his school, but he was the fastest one with the required dedication. And of course the problem with sprinting is that it's a pretty single-minded sport. Something like football or rugby is actually pretty enjoyable, so it's likely to appeal to more kids I reckon. Running fast is very much a purist activity.

There are of course likely to be superb sprinters running around the jungles or plains of somewhere remote, but even then people are still found. Once it was discovered that people from a certain part of East Africa were great at distance running, talent scouts went there and distance running became popular. Their distance runners are big stars so you have a lot of kids wanting to be them.

My nephew (ex road cyclist) wrote this

http://tenpercentorless.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/want-to-run-958-speak-to-bolts-chemist.html

no idea if its true or otherwise but Usain Bolts laywers contacted him and told him to take it down, which he did for a while...

I like the last comment on the link, 'if you had to bet your life savings on Bolt being clean or dirty, which way would you go?'

Sometimes it really bothers me to think that there are some clean sprinters out there pushed into 2nd, 3rd , 6th place etc by the dopers. Then I realise that there are almost certainly no clean sprinters.

Linford Christie above not being a particularly good example of positive dedication.