Drugs in UK sports....

[Teo Lurley]

Flimsy? Are you ok? Improving times by nearly half a second at the top level in a year doesn't add up. That's the key indicator when detecting cheats, a huge spike in performance. Half a second in sprint races at elite level is outlandish.

He may not have ran many 100m races competitively but do you actually believe that his coach never seen or timed him over that distance or that this 'special training' he had for a year turned him into a 9.69 100m runner? Do you still believe in santa aswell?

He also improved by nearly half a second in the 200m, did he just start running 200m also? Maybe the 'special training' he got for the 100m helped him out here also.

By the way I'm not sure when exactly the 'special training' started, it could have been 06 or 07. The thing I do know is that the people who believe he's clean are the most gullible people going. It's more obvious than Armstrong even!

You think the coach was cheating, but you want to rely on times the coach 'might' have kept for a distance he 'must' have run.

As for the 200m, he was sub 20 seconds as a 16 year old. Whether or not he was on drugs, would you not think he would have been considered likely to go into the low 19.00s with that time at 16? He was probably the most likely 200m runner in history to go into the low 19.00s.

Or was he destined never to improve?

I am disputing your claim that Bolt's times don't add up. Your argument to date on that issue is....well..... flimsy is being kind.

I'm not relying on the things the coach did for anything. You're trying to claim that the coach had the fastest man ever to grace this planet but somehow he didn't realise it or somehow Bolt never ran a 100m ever before 2007. :D:D:D:D:D:D

Of course he was fast when he was young, no one can deny that but there's a huge difference between below 20 seconds, even 19.75 and 19.19. There's improving your time and then there's 19.19.

The times don't add up, he's in a country where the testing is virtually non existent, he's hired dodgy people, the majority of runners under 9.90 have been doped up and yet you believe 9.58?? It's laughable.

[yellowcard]

At least now with Lord Coe heading up world athletics we can be sure of zero tolerance on drugs cheats.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Coe

The worms will be sealed back firmly into the can when it comes to UK athletes now. Nothing to see here, lets move on and to hell with the so called experts.

[Teo Lurley]

At least now with Lord Coe heading up world athletics we can be sure of zero tolerance on drugs cheats.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Coe

Radcliffs pal. Have a look at some of his times from the 80's, the Africans are barely past them well over 30 years later.

[gallsman]

Flimsy? Are you ok? Improving times by nearly half a second at the top level in a year doesn't add up. That's the key indicator when detecting cheats, a huge spike in performance. Half a second in sprint races at elite level is outlandish.

He may not have ran many 100m races competitively but do you actually believe that his coach never seen or timed him over that distance or that this 'special training' he had for a year turned him into a 9.69 100m runner? Do you still believe in santa aswell?

He also improved by nearly half a second in the 200m, did he just start running 200m also? Maybe the 'special training' he got for the 100m helped him out here also.

By the way I'm not sure when exactly the 'special training' started, it could have been 06 or 07. The thing I do know is that the people who believe he's clean are the most gullible people going. It's more obvious than Armstrong even!

You think the coach was cheating, but you want to rely on times the coach 'might' have kept for a distance he 'must' have run.

As for the 200m, he was sub 20 seconds as a 16 year old. Whether or not he was on drugs, would you not think he would have been considered likely to go into the low 19.00s with that time at 16? He was probably the most likely 200m runner in history to go into the low 19.00s.

Or was he destined never to improve?

I am disputing your claim that Bolt's times don't add up. Your argument to date on that issue is....well..... flimsy is being kind.

I'm not relying on the things the coach did for anything. You're trying to claim that the coach had the fastest man ever to grace this planet but somehow he didn't realise it or somehow Bolt never ran a 100m ever before 2007. :D:D:D:D:D:D

Of course he was fast when he was young, no one can deny that but there's a huge difference between below 20 seconds, even 19.75 and 19.19. There's improving your time and then there's 19.19.

The times don't add up, he's in a country where the testing is virtually non existent, he's hired dodgy people, the majority of runners under 9.90 have been doped up and yet you believe 9.58?? It's laughable.

Nobody's saying they believe or disbelieve anything or anyone - just pointing out that all you've done is speculate and backed it with nothing other than an observation of "he ran really fast".

[Teo Lurley]

Flimsy? Are you ok? Improving times by nearly half a second at the top level in a year doesn't add up. That's the key indicator when detecting cheats, a huge spike in performance. Half a second in sprint races at elite level is outlandish.

He may not have ran many 100m races competitively but do you actually believe that his coach never seen or timed him over that distance or that this 'special training' he had for a year turned him into a 9.69 100m runner? Do you still believe in santa aswell?

He also improved by nearly half a second in the 200m, did he just start running 200m also? Maybe the 'special training' he got for the 100m helped him out here also.

By the way I'm not sure when exactly the 'special training' started, it could have been 06 or 07. The thing I do know is that the people who believe he's clean are the most gullible people going. It's more obvious than Armstrong even!

You think the coach was cheating, but you want to rely on times the coach 'might' have kept for a distance he 'must' have run.

As for the 200m, he was sub 20 seconds as a 16 year old. Whether or not he was on drugs, would you not think he would have been considered likely to go into the low 19.00s with that time at 16? He was probably the most likely 200m runner in history to go into the low 19.00s.

Or was he destined never to improve?

I am disputing your claim that Bolt's times don't add up. Your argument to date on that issue is....well..... flimsy is being kind.

I'm not relying on the things the coach did for anything. You're trying to claim that the coach had the fastest man ever to grace this planet but somehow he didn't realise it or somehow Bolt never ran a 100m ever before 2007. :D:D:D:D:D:D

Of course he was fast when he was young, no one can deny that but there's a huge difference between below 20 seconds, even 19.75 and 19.19. There's improving your time and then there's 19.19.

The times don't add up, he's in a country where the testing is virtually non existent, he's hired dodgy people, the majority of runners under 9.90 have been doped up and yet you believe 9.58?? It's laughable.

Nobody's saying they believe or disbelieve anything or anyone - just pointing out that all you've done is speculate and backed it with nothing other than an observation of "he ran really fast".

Yes they are, they think he's clean. I'm showing how his times don't add up and how he had opportunity to cheat, he hired the staff to assist his cheating. People really want him to be a clean athlete, looking at it with common sense would tell everyone that it's not possible.

[muppet]

I'm not relying on the things the coach did for anything. You're trying to claim that the coach had the fastest man ever to grace this planet but somehow he didn't realise it or somehow Bolt never ran a 100m ever before 2007. :D:D:D:D:D:D

Of course he was fast when he was young, no one can deny that but there's a huge difference between below 20 seconds, even 19.75 and 19.19. There's improving your time and then there's 19.19.

The times don't add up, he's in a country where the testing is virtually non existent, he's hired dodgy people, the majority of runners under 9.90 have been doped up and yet you believe 9.58?? It's laughable.

This is your argument? 

The coach famously wanted him to run the 400m. Bolt wanted to run the 100m. His debut time at 100m was 10.03. But at 17 years of age he was clocked at 45 seconds for the 400m in a relay. That time would put him half a second off the medals in London 2012, at 17!

http://www.news.com.au/sport/video-teenage-usain-bolts-frightening-400m-speed/story-fndpu6dv-1226450207957

The rest of your argument is you putting words in my mouth, because you have nothing else.

I don't know if Bolt is doping or not. You have to pretend I am claiming that he is not doping, to justify yourself.

Your claim that his times don't add up are idiotic. He was a sprinting phenomenon as a scrawny teenager. As I have shown.

[ludermor]

At least now with Lord Coe heading up world athletics we can be sure of zero tolerance on drugs cheats.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Coe

Radcliffs pal. Have a look at some of his times from the 80's, the Africans are barely past them well over 30 years later.

You're on a roll now , so are you saying that every elite record that has stood for a long time was the result of being juiced up? Would you say the same about Eamon Coughlan, Ray Flynn, Marcus O'Sullivan, John Tracey were on drugs?

[JimStynes]

He hasn't failed a test and he probably won't or it will be covered up. I can't see him being caught at this stage. Armstrong nearly got away with it only he came back into the sport after four years out.

Everyone has their own opinions on it. I personally don't believe in athletics at all now. Marion Jones and numerous others never failed a test, the bio passport is a joke, the testers are two or three steps behind the dopers, so not failing a test means nothing.

Bolt is destroying records set by dopers, he has been associated with well known doping coaches, all of his main Jamaican training partners have been caught, Jamaican testing is farcical at best, he didn't specialise in 100m and then destroys the record and so on.

Everyone will have their own opinion. My opinion is he a fraud and a doper.

Interesting podcast from Victor Conte if you have a an hour or two. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azzhD2QJ8B0

[INDIANA]

Again, what does anyone "know" here? Very strong word to use. I'm all for transparency and pursuit of dopers but claiming to "know" something, for the majority of people on this board, is utter bullshit.

People like to see doping as black and white, when in reality it's not. Gatlin (who I despise) never gets mentioned now add anything other than "twice convicted doper Justin Gatlin", while never acknowledging that he was reinstated early from the first ban by the IAAF after they accepted the positive had come from medication he'd been taking since he was a kid. Contador's positive test was by the absolute tiniest of margins.

Now that's bullshit. Go onto Instagram and look at professional athletes- pre season posting huge muscle gain with no corresponding entry in body fat. I don't need to know their diet or training programmes to know they are on PED's.

Not physiologically possible.

[INDIANA]

He hasn't failed a test and he probably won't or it will be covered up. I can't see him being caught at this stage. Armstrong nearly got away with it only he came back into the sport after four years out.

Everyone has their own opinions on it. I personally don't believe in athletics at all now. Marion Jones and numerous others never failed a test, the bio passport is a joke, the testers are two or three steps behind the dopers, so not failing a test means nothing.

Bolt is destroying records set by dopers, he has been associated with well known doping coaches, all of his main Jamaican training partners have been caught, Jamaican testing is farcical at best, he didn't specialise in 100m and then destroys the record and so on.

Everyone will have their own opinion. My opinion is he a fraud and a doper.

Interesting podcast from Victor Conte if you have a an hour or two. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azzhD2QJ8B0

You can't fool the blood biological passport Jim. Not a hope the likes of Michael Ashenden won't be able to tell a doper from it.

If he's not clean people are covering it up. And the world will find out.

A lab technician who gets fired, an IAAF offiicial gets pissed off etc. It will come out. Rest assured . Armstrong would not have gotten away with it either. He was a dead man walking the day Tyler Hamilton wrote his book because he was the one guy Armstrong couldn't say wasn't good enough or was a liar like he discredited all the others.

[gallsman]

Again, what does anyone "know" here? Very strong word to use. I'm all for transparency and pursuit of dopers but claiming to "know" something, for the majority of people on this board, is utter bullshit.

People like to see doping as black and white, when in reality it's not. Gatlin (who I despise) never gets mentioned now add anything other than "twice convicted doper Justin Gatlin", while never acknowledging that he was reinstated early from the first ban by the IAAF after they accepted the positive had come from medication he'd been taking since he was a kid. Contador's positive test was by the absolute tiniest of margins.

Now that's bullshit. Go onto Instagram and look at professional athletes- pre season posting huge muscle gain with no corresponding entry in body fat. I don't need to know their diet or training programmes to know they are on PED's.

Not physiologically possible.

OK, so tell me what you "know" about Usain Bolt from his Instagram pictures

[Teo Lurley]

I'm not relying on the things the coach did for anything. You're trying to claim that the coach had the fastest man ever to grace this planet but somehow he didn't realise it or somehow Bolt never ran a 100m ever before 2007. :D:D:D:D:D:D

Of course he was fast when he was young, no one can deny that but there's a huge difference between below 20 seconds, even 19.75 and 19.19. There's improving your time and then there's 19.19.

The times don't add up, he's in a country where the testing is virtually non existent, he's hired dodgy people, the majority of runners under 9.90 have been doped up and yet you believe 9.58?? It's laughable.

This is your argument? 

The coach famously wanted him to run the 400m. Bolt wanted to run the 100m. His debut time at 100m was 10.03. But at 17 years of age he was clocked at 45 seconds for the 400m in a relay. That time would put him half a second off the medals in London 2012, at 17!

http://www.news.com.au/sport/video-teenage-usain-bolts-frightening-400m-speed/story-fndpu6dv-1226450207957

The rest of your argument is you putting words in my mouth, because you have nothing else.

I don't know if Bolt is doping or not. You have to pretend I am claiming that he is not doping, to justify yourself.

Your claim that his times don't add up are idiotic. He was a sprinting phenomenon as a scrawny teenager. As I have shown.

No, my argument is his times improved on an impossible scale. You're ignoring that and just saying he was fast as a junior so he'd be fast as a senior. He was always fast but he had illegal help to make him out of this world fast.

Well do you think he's doping? Clear the issue up.

A fast junior doesn't equal a 19.19 or 9.58 senior.

[Teo Lurley]

At least now with Lord Coe heading up world athletics we can be sure of zero tolerance on drugs cheats.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Coe

Radcliffs pal. Have a look at some of his times from the 80's, the Africans are barely past them well over 30 years later.

You're on a roll now , so are you saying that every elite record that has stood for a long time was the result of being juiced up? Would you say the same about Eamon Coughlan, Ray Flynn, Marcus O'Sullivan, John Tracey were on drugs?

I never said that. It's just common sense. Look at Coe's times.
I'm not sure about Coughlan but I think the others were clean. I'm not just saying these people are dopers because they're not Irish, look at our cyclists in the 80's!!! Imagine trying to claim they were clean.

[muppet]

I'm not relying on the things the coach did for anything. You're trying to claim that the coach had the fastest man ever to grace this planet but somehow he didn't realise it or somehow Bolt never ran a 100m ever before 2007. :D:D:D:D:D:D

Of course he was fast when he was young, no one can deny that but there's a huge difference between below 20 seconds, even 19.75 and 19.19. There's improving your time and then there's 19.19.

The times don't add up, he's in a country where the testing is virtually non existent, he's hired dodgy people, the majority of runners under 9.90 have been doped up and yet you believe 9.58?? It's laughable.

This is your argument? 

The coach famously wanted him to run the 400m. Bolt wanted to run the 100m. His debut time at 100m was 10.03. But at 17 years of age he was clocked at 45 seconds for the 400m in a relay. That time would put him half a second off the medals in London 2012, at 17!

http://www.news.com.au/sport/video-teenage-usain-bolts-frightening-400m-speed/story-fndpu6dv-1226450207957

The rest of your argument is you putting words in my mouth, because you have nothing else.

I don't know if Bolt is doping or not. You have to pretend I am claiming that he is not doping, to justify yourself.

Your claim that his times don't add up are idiotic. He was a sprinting phenomenon as a scrawny teenager. As I have shown.

No, my argument is his times improved on an impossible scale. You're ignoring that and just saying he was fast as a junior so he'd be fast as a senior. He was always fast but he had illegal help to make him out of this world fast.

Well do you think he's doping? Clear the issue up.

A fast junior doesn't equal a 19.19 or 9.58 senior.

Do you have proof of this?

[Teo Lurley]

I'm not relying on the things the coach did for anything. You're trying to claim that the coach had the fastest man ever to grace this planet but somehow he didn't realise it or somehow Bolt never ran a 100m ever before 2007. :D:D:D:D:D:D

Of course he was fast when he was young, no one can deny that but there's a huge difference between below 20 seconds, even 19.75 and 19.19. There's improving your time and then there's 19.19.

The times don't add up, he's in a country where the testing is virtually non existent, he's hired dodgy people, the majority of runners under 9.90 have been doped up and yet you believe 9.58?? It's laughable.

This is your argument? 

The coach famously wanted him to run the 400m. Bolt wanted to run the 100m. His debut time at 100m was 10.03. But at 17 years of age he was clocked at 45 seconds for the 400m in a relay. That time would put him half a second off the medals in London 2012, at 17!

http://www.news.com.au/sport/video-teenage-usain-bolts-frightening-400m-speed/story-fndpu6dv-1226450207957

The rest of your argument is you putting words in my mouth, because you have nothing else.

I don't know if Bolt is doping or not. You have to pretend I am claiming that he is not doping, to justify yourself.

Your claim that his times don't add up are idiotic. He was a sprinting phenomenon as a scrawny teenager. As I have shown.

No, my argument is his times improved on an impossible scale. You're ignoring that and just saying he was fast as a junior so he'd be fast as a senior. He was always fast but he had illegal help to make him out of this world fast.

Well do you think he's doping? Clear the issue up.

A fast junior doesn't equal a 19.19 or 9.58 senior.

Do you have proof of this?

Yeah, I'm his doctor.