Thoughts on the 100m in view of Blake's 9.69

Gallagher--

Show me a post from any time where you contributed anything substantive to a discussion in which I was involved. If you cannot, then admit you are full of it.

Only then will I consider reciprocating. I've done it so many times already with you now that it's not worth it anymore.

I think you're getting your posts mixed up. You replied to T&F who more or less, supports your position. Anyway, I understood and yes, I agree with the humans & morals statement. Unfortunately, it's the prevalence of doping which has traumatized fans (especially North Americans) to to the point where they mistrust anyone who performs at a very high level. Yes, it would be absolutely devastating for T&F if Bolt was to be caught doping but I don't think WADA would hesitate. I can tell you this... if Bolt is doping, he'd be risking his life in doing so. He and Glen Mills would have to flee Jamaica quick in a hurry if that ever came to light.

I'll say it again. I believe Bolt is clean and does not want or more importantly, need dope. He's stated many times that he won't even take supplements for fear of their ingredients. How can you look at him running down the track and not see something special? A six-five sprinter with amazing turnover. A naturally gifted guy who can smoke even the best dopers?

Again, what agencies covered for Carl? I'm not calling you out, I simply never heard of it and would like you to elaborate.

With Bolt, you can explain his success away by taking into account his stride and strength. But what's so special about Blake? And why are all these amazing sprinters coming out of the same camp? (Nesta Carter 9.78? Come on.)

Right... so what about the tons of other people that year that were caught and subsequently exonerated after using the same and/or contaminated supplements?

The drug was not on the list in the first place.

You're missing the analogy regardless.

Xanax is your friend wrote:

With Bolt, you can explain his success away by taking into account his stride and strength. But what's so special about Blake? And why are all these amazing sprinters coming out of the same camp? (Nesta Carter 9.78? Come on.)

Nesta Carter isn't one of them.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Gallagher--

Show me a post from any time where you contributed anything substantive to a discussion in which I was involved. If you cannot, then admit you are full of it.

Only then will I consider reciprocating. I've done it so many times already with you now that it's not worth it anymore.

Your claims of earlier made predictions have time and time again been exposed as baseless. The scary part is I think you still believe you in fact did make them, despite any evidence whatsoever to support this belief

Jeff Wigand wrote:

body master wrote:

If they cover up Carl

They didn't. Anything at that time would have been overseen by the USOC and/or TAC. WADA didn't come around until 1999.

Did i say WADA? Nowhere near that sentence did i imply WADA, i did include "other drug agencies" to say i'm not speaking just about that organization.

You can't just pick and choose what i mean. How about you actually read it instead of skimming over and getting no clue of what the post is about.

Xanax is your friend wrote:

With Bolt, you can explain his success away by taking into account his stride and strength. But what's so special about Blake? And why are all these amazing sprinters coming out of the same camp? (Nesta Carter 9.78? Come on.)

There are two major sprint clubs in Jamaica. Blake left his high school coach and went to train with Racer's Track Club after seeing Bolt's success there.

Here is an interesting article.

Haha are you dull in the head? Does body master look like Querfeldein? Once again instead of skimming valuable contributions to the conversation (like WHOSE NAME is writing what) maybe you should go back and revisit this whole thread so you can make sense of who wrote what instead of throwing out refutations and smiling like you proved anyone wrong.

Did you forget to underline the part where i said "the agencies covered it up" which DOES NOT mean WADA. I am not a Letsrun addict so i won't take that time to figure out which agency held Carl's positive as its irrelevant to understanding the central theme of my argument.

If you act so smart why are you nitpicking on such trivial details when you CLEARLY get the gist of my argument? Actually... perhaps you don't given your inability to differentiate who posted what.

Gallagher--

The only thing that has been exposed is that you are a merely vexatious tard with nothing of substance to contribute.

I have, many times now, written posts with links to other relevant posts where the predictions have been made, and have always made them while referring to your moniker, in particular, whether or not they were occasioned by one of your moronic posts or whether I posted them unsolicited.

Regular posters will know this, and will appreciate why I don't care to play your game any longer, like I just said in my previous post. Scroll up your screen for the evidence.

Tons of other people that were exonerated for using the same drug? Factually incorrect. If that's the case, why wasn't Blake exonerated? The drug wasn't on the banned list because it was designed that way.....very similar to a banned substance that was on the list. That what chemists are constantly doing, coming up with new drugs on a monthly basis, trying to stay one step ahead of the banned drugs. Drugs that are not on WADA's list today, will be down the road. It's a cat and mouse game. Bottom line is that some athletes are looking for a way th cheat.

You call coffee compared to drugs an analogy? Poor one at best. People don't get suspended for drinking coffee.

T&F Nut wrote:

Tons of other people that were exonerated for using the same drug? Factually incorrect. If that's the case, why wasn't Blake exonerated? The drug wasn't on the banned list because it was designed that way.....very similar to a banned substance that was on the list. That what chemists are constantly doing, coming up with new drugs on a monthly basis, trying to stay one step ahead of the banned drugs. Drugs that are not on WADA's list today, will be down the road. It's a cat and mouse game. Bottom line is that some athletes are looking for a way th cheat.

You call coffee compared to drugs an analogy? Poor one at best. People don't get suspended for drinking coffee.

The drug they were supposedly busted for ....Read here

They weren't breaking the rules at the time.

Thanks for the article. I acknowledge that at the time they were not breaking any of the rules. But like the article insinuates, the drug more than likely wasn't taken by mistake. I just believe that all three took the drug as a shortcut to enhance their performance, as opposed to ingesting a tainted supplement. The fact that three sprinters, all from the same camp also raises my suspicions. That being said, my position was that Blake was "banned" as opposed to have benn given a "precaution." Whether he and his teammates took the drug to gain an unfair advantage or it was an honest mistake will never be known. I simply believe it was the former. My comclusion is probably tainted because of the amount of cheating that has paralleled exceptional performances in the past. Thanks for the discussion.

Methylhexanamine is an old drug. It has been used as a nasal decongestant. However, it has recently been very aggressively marketed as a bodybuilding supplement. A pre-workout booster and a stimulant. You can by that stuff from an ordinary natural product store. Recently it has been banned in many places though, but it has been very popular.

I think it was probably take to boost performance, since it wasn't banned, whether it was in some other supplement or whatever

the fact that they were all from the same camp imo means that 1 person found a good product and recommended it to others, which kinda makes sense