Others have dealt with the falsity of this argument before, but I though it might be worthwhile to dedicate a thread to it.
The "height apology" for Bolt goes something like this, if I may be so bold:
"He's incredibly better than any other sprinter ever has been, doped or not, because his height of 6'5" enables him to have a longer stride and therefore cover 100m faster."
What a steaming pile of crap.
Why isn't every 6'5" person taller than every 5'10" person?
Why aren't all elite sprinters super tall?
If 6'5" is good, why is the WR-holder not 6'10"?
There are PLENTY of 6'5" guys around the world, but only one 6'5" sprint WR-holder. Selection effect? Bull. Sure lots of guys get diverted into basketball, football, soccer, cricket, etc.--but how many of them actually play those things meaningfully after, say, age 20, or after US college age? (Remember the world is a very big place, much bigger than NCAA basketball).
Hardly any. Only a tiny handful. What happens to the rest of the guys who wash out, and can't be one of the couple of 100 in the majors? Why don't they sprint?
Because they suck at it, because just because you are tall does not mean you are a good sprinter--in fact, it does mean that you have certain weaknesses that tend to make you a worse sprinter, especially in the 100m.
Saying that Bolt is great because he is uniquely tall is to assume what is trying to be proved. That quality of height, which can contribute to long stride length, also can contribute to deleterious effects like lower stride frequency. He is not great *because* he is tall.
Consider a tall guy like Lewis. Relatively sucked on the start, had a great finish, and would reel in his competitors--sometimes. It was a balance, there was a tradeoff for that great top-end.
Bolt exhibits no trade-off, and that is the giveaway. He is the best, not only at 100m, but at every single major segment of the 100m: 0-30m, 30-70m, 70-100m.
No trade-off's. No chance.
The argument amounts to this: he is the best because he is different, and any possible adverse effects of that difference should be ignored.
What crap.
He is no anomaly due to his height alone, there are plenty of guys 6'5".
They are not elite sprinters, or sprinters at all, for a variety of reasons--the big one being because they tend to not be as fast as shorter guys over 100m.
Bolt has no excuse. Lots of guys are 6'5". Lots of those 6'5" guys are black. Lots of those black 6'5" guys are athletic and involved in sports. Lots of those black 6'5" athletes compete in power-speed type events like football and basketball.
Only one runs 9.58, or anywhere near it. Now, to be sure, there is more than one black 6'5" power-speed athlete who is doping. I'm sure that some of them could be credible in the 100m if they dedicated their lives to it--but it wouldn't be a result of their height.
Bolt is NOT the only black 6'5" power-speed athlete who has tried, and even trained, sprints. He IS, however, one of the only 2 who have gone sub-10 in the 100m, and the only one to be a 9.58 WR-holder.
Why don't we see all the 6'5" NCAA footballers in the NCAA 100m final, and see guys like Demps and Holliday instead?
Oh, that's right--it's not because they're not selected or trained, it's because they're not as fast.
My 2 cents.