Athletics World Championships

Bolt's time yesterday was 1.14% faster than his Olympic time... there aren't many things in life where people get so excited about such a small improvement.

Is the excitement due to the fact that 1.14% is the largest improvement we've seen in a while? Wikipedia says since 1968 the record has never been broken by more than 0.05 sec whereas Bolt just broke it by 0.11 sec. However - we all saw how he eased up at the end of the 100m in China last year, so perhaps this larger margin is a bit of an illusion?
 
There was a rumour going on about gene doping a while back - which would make it nigh on impossible to detect - anybody else hear of this? I hope it's not true, as it would be such a shame.

I don't know about Bolt being on drugs but can you imagine the thoughts going through the others, especially Tyson Gay on whether they should dabble in substance abuse themselves to try and close the gap? There is clearly no point trying to compete with Bolt as is, its just a race for second place. Tyson Gay looked absolutely lost after that race when they interviewed him on the BBC.
 
Yeah he did seem completely bewildered. His time was absolutely incredible in itself! I remember when the average speed was in the 10s, now it seems that sub 10s is the "norm". Phenomenal.
 
Wow :) absolutely incredible! I winder if there are some stats on how many strides all the runners took :p I'm sure Bolt would come out with having the least


IIRC a normal sized sprinter aims for 49 step.
I once heard it in an interview with the American Sprinters

There is clearly no point trying to compete with Bolt as is, its just a race for second place. Tyson Gay looked absolutely lost after that race when they interviewed him on the BBC.

You never know if they will break down though, It could happen in an instant.
 
There was a rumour going on about gene doping a while back - which would make it nigh on impossible to detect - anybody else hear of this? I hope it's not true, as it would be such a shame.

It wouldn't be a total surprise unfortunately, I reckon Usain Bolt would be a once in a lifetime athlete anyway but for Jamaica to produce the top male and female sprinters who are XX percent ahead of the competition and all at the same time does raise questions. I hope for the sake of the sport they are all completely clean but it isn't something that we can take completely for granted.
 
Awsome - Ha, 9.71 for Gay and distant 2nd.

You gotta feel sorry for the man, if he'd run that time April last year it would have been a world record - and he's been recovering from an injury - now, it's not even close to race winning pace.

And am I the only one who thought Bolt eased up before the end?
 
And am I the only one who thought Bolt eased up before the end?

nah 999 otherpeople ahve said he did before you:p He was looking around at the cameras and such.

Who knows what may happen by the next olympics though, With the right tech and training some now yuoung kid could come from no where and be just as good.

Afterall records are ment to be broken
 
It wouldn't be a total surprise unfortunately, I reckon Usain Bolt would be a once in a lifetime athlete anyway but for Jamaica to produce the top male and female sprinters who are XX percent ahead of the competition and all at the same time does raise questions. I hope for the sake of the sport they are all completely clean but it isn't something that we can take completely for granted.

It happens all the time doesn't it. A nationality having a group of top athletes in the 100/200m. They just need to keep the samples for long enough so when they can detect what has happened with Bolt they can retest. By then he will have long quit and they won't chase it up. Like Linford and Lewis.

There isn't a way in hell this guy is natural and they just need to catch him. I said the same on here for the last american world record holder at 100m. People then defended his record. These sort of gains have not come naturally.
 
He's a lot taller than most sprinters and also has a far longer stride pattern and he's been breaking records at every level he's competed at for years. To say there's no way in hell he's natural is ignorant beyond belief.
 
He's a lot taller than most sprinters and also has a far longer stride pattern and he's been breaking records at every level he's competed at for years. To say there's no way in hell he's natural is ignorant beyond belief.

Although the very fact that he is much taller than most raises questions - if it is such an advantage to be tall and a sprinter then why are most sprinters not tall? If being 6'+ is majorly beneficial then why do most of the field seem to be 6' or under?

Logically being tall should give an advantage if you can get your limbs moving fast enough but it doesn't seem to be particularly in evidence over the previous record holders (Asafa Powell & Carl Lewis are 6'3", Justin Gatlin is 6'1") or indeed just looking at the field. I don't know if being tall is an advantage for running, I certainly didn't find it so at school, but it seems odd that if it is such a definitive advantage that more of the top sprinters aren't equally as tall.
 
You say that but Flo-Jo's record in the womens 100m of 10.49 has stood since 1988 and the closest anyone has got in the past 10 or so years seems to be a 10.75 which in a World record scale is half a lifetime away.

I don't know whether Flo-Jo's record can be relied on unfortunately. I've just checked out the wiki article and not only is there a strong suggestion that it was heavily wind-assisted (the animometer was borked apparently) and she was probably on drugs as well. Her best time in 1988 was 0.47s ahead of her best time before that. She also retired soon afterwards and, crucially, this was just before mandatory drugs testing came in - that and the fact that nobody has ever come within 0.2 of her time makes it too suspicious for me.

Bolt, on the other hand, is subject to random testing etc so hopefully is clean. I know it seems ridiculous the times he is pulling out but I really do think he's just an utter freak. Maybe it's just wishful thinking as well but only time will tell.
 
It's pretty damn annoying when people automatically say people are on drugs, just because of how good they are. If there is no proof that they haven't taken drugs, they haven't. There shouldn't be any doubt.

Now, if he takes a drugs test and fails, THEN crucify him. Until then he is completely innocent, exactly the same as Flo-Jo. She hasn't been proven to taking drugs, she she hasn't, end of.
 
I don't know whether Flo-Jo's record can be relied on unfortunately. I've just checked out the wiki article and not only is there a strong suggestion that it was heavily wind-assisted (the animometer was borked apparently) and she was probably on drugs as well. Her best time in 1988 was 0.47s ahead of her best time before that. She also retired soon afterwards and, crucially, this was just before mandatory drugs testing came in - that and the fact that nobody has ever come within 0.2 of her time makes it too suspicious for me.

That was sort of my point about Flo-Jo and a lead in to the following posts, her time was so ridiculously ahead of anything before or since that it raised (and raises) huge doubts. However she was never caught and her subsequent death means that we'll probably never find out for certain.

I really do hope that Usain Bolt is clean, I hope that every athlete is clean because I want to admire what they have done without resorting to "cheating" but realistically speaking it's likely that some are cheating and they're usually the winners.

[Cas];14698792 said:
It's pretty damn annoying when people automatically say people are on drugs, just because of how good they are. If there is no proof that they haven't taken drugs, they haven't. There shouldn't be any doubt.

Now, if he takes a drugs test and fails, THEN crucify him. Until then he is completely innocent, exactly the same as Flo-Jo. She hasn't been proven to taking drugs, she she hasn't, end of.

I don't automatically say that people are on drugs, I really hope they haven't but to not acknowledge the possibility isn't doing anyone any favours. We need it to be seen as completely unacceptable to take drugs in sport, not merely something that is paid lip service to.

What's your view on missing drug tests? If you do that then you've never actually failed the test.
 
200m heats first event tomorrow morning!

First 3 of each heat (Q) plus the 5 fastest times (q) qualified.


Crawford is in heat 1
Steve Mullings is in heat 3
(Devonish is in heat 4)
Bolt is in heat 5
Spearman is in heat 9


Crawford and Mullings have both been running very well this year (not on par with Gay and Bolt though) expect them both to go through easily in there heats.


Devonish is going to have to battle hard to finish in top 3 with people in his heat, hopefully he will go through as a fastest time.


Bolt, (Gay) and Spearman are the only people to run sub 20sec this year so they will be very comfortable out there.

Tomorrow is going to be very interesting because a lot of people have been running fast this year and are closely matched. I can't wait. :D
 
Last edited:
BBC Radio 5 reported that 1 person had failed a drug test from the mens 100m final, but no name would known for 24 hours!
 
People said after the Olympics Bolt was going to NFL because of drugs but seeing that he is still their and performing and has not being done for drugs seems its a load of rubbish, amazing feat but drugs do not make you hit 9.58 nobody has come close to that time EVER, I would look at swimming and the ridiculous amount of WR being broken because of a swimming suit. Some bloke said it costs £300 for a suit and the kids comming through have to have them and parents are folking out this money to make sure their kids have them and are at the top level, crazy. They last about 12 races before they lose their edge and new one has to be used.
 
Back
Top Bottom