Question: Imagine a 100 m race where Dwain Chambers runs in 9.87, Justin Gatlin 9.77, Tim Montgomery 9.78, and Usain Bolt 9.69, who would you most likely suspect of using performance- enhancing drugs…?
(Tip: look up the first three sprinters, and what they had to do/take in order to reach above mentioned results)
AB AB DN DN SVD SVD DB DB HD
HS LV Politiken Publico DT TT WP Time
Personal info:
- Geoffrey Goines
- Swedish, Nature conservation freak, Passionate about Africa, Loving Peace, Politically neutral
Saturday, 16 August 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
he he! :)
Because he runs faster than other people who used drugs he is on drugs?
I could use all the drugs in the world and never run faster than 12:00. So I assume all people who runs below 12:00 is on drugs. Makes perfect sense.
>anonymous
"Because he runs faster than other people who used drugs he is on drugs?"
Yes, that is the only conclusion I can draw.
Since the jamaicans are tested for drugs 5-6 times before they are allowed to compete I'd say that he's just talanted.
People have also been talking about him for years that he'd be the next great sprinter and he's not coming from nowhere. The strenght and aggressiveness(?) have the jamaicans had in their blood since the triangle trade (or what it's named in english!) when they sended the strongest and most aggressive slaves to jamaica. Bolt for president!
hmmm
lets see, did for example Marion Jones ever tested positive for doping...?
"Since the jamaicans are tested for drugs 5-6 times before they are allowed to compete I'd say that he's just talanted. "
Interesting logic.
I've only heard it dozens of times before, for instance in TdF and also before in running. Look at Donovan Bailey, Marion Jones, even Michael Johnson. All on drugs.
I'm pretty confident Bolt is as well, even if he doesn't "look that way".
Yet another pathetic person attracting people to his/her blog by authoring a controversial post and linking to it on Dagbladet.
You can safely call me a hypocrit, I just had to state the above...
>Jonas
But am I wrong about Bolt? Isn't my observation valid, that he is reaching results that not even heavy doped athletes were able to reach?
Got any proofs? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Pathetic accusing people without any proofs. Smells like jealousy to me!
>anonymous
When it comes to doping I apply reversed burden of proof.
Moreover, I am merely observing a very strange achievment by Bolt.
You really have no clue so why post? The fact that he hasn't tested positive for doping makes him all the more suspect as you indicate by your comment about Marion Jones. Hmm... When it comes to blogging I would also advocate reversed burden of proof, i.e. your a moron until proving otherwise...
>daniel a
By all means, I dont mind being seen as a moron.
But we cant escape the fact, Bolt is running faster than athletes on drugs.
The fact is that he takes longer steps in average than all other runners. Therefore he can run faster than the people with shorter steps that are on drugs.. ;)
>barbapappa
To some extent that makes sense. But it also implies that taller athlethes runs faster than shorter dito. Which is not entirely true.
Well, If you really wanna compare a short person against a tall one, with the same ratio of muscles; I'd say the taller guy wins easily... Hence, tall guys ARE faster then short ones...
Really stupid blog actually... The headline suggest some more validity then here is!
You must really be a moron.. As somone stated before...
>anonymous
I am not sure, shorter guys have won racing events before.
I see that you dont have any arguments against my observation that Bolt could be suspected of doping.
Can't anyone apply common sense to this discussion. Shorter people turn over faster hence in a short race have a greater advantage than a taller person. A taller person has a longer step, but fewer steps because they cannot turn that step as quickly. Sprints are all about leg power (strength) and turnover.
Drugs allow you to train harder, recover faster and extend your athletic career. In olden days 70's most sprinters hit their peak between 22 to 25 years. At 28 you were considered old for top class sprinting and well past your prime. Seccondly the body brakes down with age and injuries prevents the athletes reaching the top. Most top class sprinters would have only 2 to 3 years at the top if they were lucky. Typically 1 year before injury start kicking in and the training, recovery injury cycle begins. How many sprinters pull up with pullled hamstrings anymore. Very few. As for Linford running top class at 36 years of age. How many soccer players are faster at 36 than they were at 20. Most club athletes can only dream of their performances when they were in their early twenties. Power sports are a young persons game. If a sprinters career extends to their late twenties then something is wrong. Why? The body cannot recover from the intensity of the training and injury starts to kick in.
The General consensus of opinion is that Usain Bolt is using performance enhancing substances. And for good reason. Common sense tells us that he is undoubtedly doping. But it cannot be proven in a legal sense unless he fails a drugs test. When and if he does ( and we all hope he does fail a drug test to expose him for the fraud that he is ) fail a drugs test only then will those who point the finger of suspicion feel a sense of vindication.
Post a Comment