Drugs in other sports and the media.

bobmcstuff

KingstonGraham wrote:

The shame factor needs to be played out more. It's why it's important to always refer to any ban when mentioning any dopers in any reports. As in "coached by Linford Christie, who has served a ban for doping" etc.

Pretty sure Gatlin's ban comes up every time his name does

TheBigBean

KingstonGraham wrote:

The shame factor needs to be played out more. It's why it's important to always refer to any ban when mentioning any dopers in any reports. As in "coached by Linford Christie, who has served a ban for doping" etc.

Christophe Bassons the cyclist who chose to retire rather than dope. That all sounds good, but apparently I need to follow it with "who has served a ban for doping*". It is not always that straightforward. Sometimes strict liability traps innocent riders, hence the need for reasonable sanctions rather than branding or lifetime bans.

kingstongraham

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

The shame factor needs to be played out more. It's why it's important to always refer to any ban when mentioning any dopers in any reports. As in "coached by Linford Christie, who has served a ban for doping" etc.

Christophe Bassons the cyclist who chose to retire rather than dope. That all sounds good, but apparently I need to follow it with "who has served a ban for doping*". It is not always that straightforward. Sometimes strict liability traps innocent riders, hence the need for reasonable sanctions rather than branding or lifetime bans.

Life's tough innit.

salsiccia1

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

The shame factor needs to be played out more. It's why it's important to always refer to any ban when mentioning any dopers in any reports. As in "coached by Linford Christie, who has served a ban for doping" etc.

Christophe Bassons the cyclist who chose to retire rather than dope. That all sounds good, but apparently I need to follow it with "who has served a ban for doping*". It is not always that straightforward. Sometimes strict liability traps innocent riders, hence the need for reasonable sanctions rather than branding or lifetime bans.

Life's tough innit.

It is. And it's often unfair, so why add to that?

kingstongraham

Salsiccia1 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

The shame factor needs to be played out more. It's why it's important to always refer to any ban when mentioning any dopers in any reports. As in "coached by Linford Christie, who has served a ban for doping" etc.

Christophe Bassons the cyclist who chose to retire rather than dope. That all sounds good, but apparently I need to follow it with "who has served a ban for doping*". It is not always that straightforward. Sometimes strict liability traps innocent riders, hence the need for reasonable sanctions rather than branding or lifetime bans.

Life's tough innit.

It is. And it's often unfair, so why add to that?

Why unfair? (And anyway, I wouldn't say he had served a ban for doping, as he hasn't. A doping violation yes, but no one suggests he doped.)

earthvspace4XTuUWcX

With respect to Bolt and his performances, what strikes me is that physically he is 'outside of the norm' compared with other sprinters, he is significantly taller, and presumably has a significantly longer stride but appears to be able to maintain an equivalent cadence and therefore faster overall speed. Perhaps this is why he is faster than others without the need to dope.

joelsim

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

The shame factor needs to be played out more. It's why it's important to always refer to any ban when mentioning any dopers in any reports. As in "coached by Linford Christie, who has served a ban for doping" etc.

Christophe Bassons the cyclist who chose to retire rather than dope. That all sounds good, but apparently I need to follow it with "who has served a ban for doping*". It is not always that straightforward. Sometimes strict liability traps innocent riders, hence the need for reasonable sanctions rather than branding or lifetime bans.

Life's tough innit.

Can we call these Golden Grahams?

pinno

Joelsim wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

The shame factor needs to be played out more. It's why it's important to always refer to any ban when mentioning any dopers in any reports. As in "coached by Linford Christie, who has served a ban for doping" etc.

Christophe Bassons the cyclist who chose to retire rather than dope. That all sounds good, but apparently I need to follow it with "who has served a ban for doping*". It is not always that straightforward. Sometimes strict liability traps innocent riders, hence the need for reasonable sanctions rather than branding or lifetime bans.

Life's tough innit.

Can we call these Golden Grahams?

...or Cheerios?

jawooga

Tangled Metal wrote:

Pedant hat on. 9.79 seconds is two tenths plus 1 hundredth of a second faster than 9.58 seconds not "a few hundredths". Just saying it's a factor of 10 more than you said.

If I may borrow your hat, 9.79 seconds is slower, not faster, than 9.58 seconds

Dorset_Boy

xdoc wrote:

With respect to Bolt and his performances, what strikes me is that physically he is 'outside of the norm' compared with other sprinters, he is significantly taller, and presumably has a significantly longer stride but appears to be able to maintain an equivalent cadence and therefore faster overall speed. Perhaps this is why he is faster than others without the need to dope.

I think this is (hopefully) the answer as far as Bolt is concerned. He's way taller than most sprinters and his stride length way bigger too.

awavey

Strychnine :shock: https://sports.yahoo.com/news/the-first ... 03019.html

Garry H

Dorset Boy wrote:

xdoc wrote:

With respect to Bolt and his performances, what strikes me is that physically he is 'outside of the norm' compared with other sprinters, he is significantly taller, and presumably has a significantly longer stride but appears to be able to maintain an equivalent cadence and therefore faster overall speed. Perhaps this is why he is faster than others without the need to dope.

I think this is (hopefully) the answer as far as Bolt is concerned. He's way taller than most sprinters and his stride length way bigger too.

Sounds a bit like Armstrong's higher cadence...

norvernrob

Garry H wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

xdoc wrote:

With respect to Bolt and his performances, what strikes me is that physically he is 'outside of the norm' compared with other sprinters, he is significantly taller, and presumably has a significantly longer stride but appears to be able to maintain an equivalent cadence and therefore faster overall speed. Perhaps this is why he is faster than others without the need to dope.

I think this is (hopefully) the answer as far as Bolt is concerned. He's way taller than most sprinters and his stride length way bigger too.

Sounds a bit like Armstrong's higher cadence...

....Which would have been hugely advantageous if Lance (or anybody) could turn a much bigger gear at that high cadence , which is essentially what Bolt looks to be doing.

sherer

Garry H wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

xdoc wrote:

With respect to Bolt and his performances, what strikes me is that physically he is 'outside of the norm' compared with other sprinters, he is significantly taller, and presumably has a significantly longer stride but appears to be able to maintain an equivalent cadence and therefore faster overall speed. Perhaps this is why he is faster than others without the need to dope.

I think this is (hopefully) the answer as far as Bolt is concerned. He's way taller than most sprinters and his stride length way bigger too.

Sounds a bit like Armstrong's higher cadence...

Don't forget fast twitch fibres. I doubt bolt is the first tall sprinter though at junior level so why is he the only one to break through to senior level ?

I can't ever see the Jamaican anti doping team to ever want to catch him

pinno

sherer wrote:

Garry H wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

xdoc wrote:

With respect to Bolt and his performances, what strikes me is that physically he is 'outside of the norm' compared with other sprinters, he is significantly taller, and presumably has a significantly longer stride but appears to be able to maintain an equivalent cadence and therefore faster overall speed. Perhaps this is why he is faster than others without the need to dope.

I think this is (hopefully) the answer as far as Bolt is concerned. He's way taller than most sprinters and his stride length way bigger too.

Sounds a bit like Armstrong's higher cadence...

Don't forget fast twitch fibres. I doubt bolt is the first tall sprinter though at junior level so why is he the only one to break through to senior level ?

I can't ever see the Jamaican anti doping team to ever want to catch him

They would have to use bicycles.




I'll get my coat.

tangled_metal

jawooga wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Pedant hat on. 9.79 seconds is two tenths plus 1 hundredth of a second faster than 9.58 seconds not "a few hundredths". Just saying it's a factor of 10 more than you said.

If I may borrow your hat, 9.79 seconds is slower, not faster, than 9.58 seconds

Ooops! :oops: I had originally started to phrase it the other way such that the 9.58 figure came first so faster but it didn't read well so I put it the other way and didn't spot the faster word wasn't also changed.

Not good to be a pedant then get something wrong but my meaning was understood. I'm happy with that.

dinyull

The one thing with Bolt that helps him is he was putting in world class performances at 15.

@ 16 he ran a time that would have finished 8th in the 200m last night and his season's best was better than Maurice Green's.

kingstongraham

In how many countries would someone with that much talent at that age be guaranteed to stick with athletics?

mfin

KingstonGraham wrote:

In how many countries would someone with that much talent at that age be guaranteed to stick with athletics?

World record when he was 16 was 19.32, 8th last night was 20.43... I think if you ran that at 16 (if true) you'd likely stick with it regardless of where you're from, I doubt many 16 year olds have ever ran quicker?

TheBigBean

KingstonGraham wrote:

In how many countries would someone with that much talent at that age be guaranteed to stick with athletics?

Depends on their coordination, but I would imagine most.

dinyull

He hold's the fastest times in 200m for under 18 and under 20. Under 18 time (20.13) would have been good for 5th last night and under 20 time (19.93) would have been good enough to finish 2nd.

FocusZing

They said there'll be snow at christmas
They said there'll be peace on earth
But instead it just kept on raining
A veil of tears for the virgin's birth
I remember one christmas morning
A winters light and a distant choir
And the peal of a bell and that christmas tree smell
And their eyes full of tinsel and fire

They sold me a dream of christmas
They sold me a silent night
And they told me a fairy story
'till I believed in the israelite
And I believed in father christmas
And I looked at the sky with excited eyes
'till I woke with a yawn in the first light of dawn
And I saw him and through his disguise

I wish you a hopeful christmas
I wish you a brave new year
All anguish pain and sadness
Leave your heart and let your road be clear
They said there'll be snow at christmas
They said there'll be peace on earth
Hallelujah noel be it heaven or hell
The christmas you get you deserve

kingstongraham

mfin wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

In how many countries would someone with that much talent at that age be guaranteed to stick with athletics?

World record when he was 16 was 19.32, 8th last night was 20.43... I think if you ran that at 16 (if true) you'd likely stick with it regardless of where you're from, I doubt many 16 year olds have ever ran quicker?

If you had the aptitude, that would make you a pretty tidy winger (football or rugby), or wide receiver. And you'd be doing that from before age 16.

dinyull

KingstonGraham wrote:

mfin wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

In how many countries would someone with that much talent at that age be guaranteed to stick with athletics?

World record when he was 16 was 19.32, 8th last night was 20.43... I think if you ran that at 16 (if true) you'd likely stick with it regardless of where you're from, I doubt many 16 year olds have ever ran quicker?

If you had the aptitude, that would make you a pretty tidy winger (football or rugby), or wide receiver. And you'd be doing that from before age 16.

Agree, he'd be "guided" towards football over here and NFL in america. It certainly helps him that he was brought up in Jamaica where aside from cricket sprinting is king.

TheBigBean

KingstonGraham wrote:

mfin wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

In how many countries would someone with that much talent at that age be guaranteed to stick with athletics?

World record when he was 16 was 19.32, 8th last night was 20.43... I think if you ran that at 16 (if true) you'd likely stick with it regardless of where you're from, I doubt many 16 year olds have ever ran quicker?

If you had the aptitude, that would make you a pretty tidy winger (football or rugby), or wide receiver. And you'd be doing that from before age 16.

That's simply not true for football. You've only got to look at the struggles of someone like Walcott who is nowhere near as fast as Bolt, but still faster than everyone else and does, despite what is critics say, actually have quite a lot of ball skills in comparison to your average punter.

Plus in sport it is not 100m times that matter, but 5-20m times.

dinyull

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

mfin wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

In how many countries would someone with that much talent at that age be guaranteed to stick with athletics?

World record when he was 16 was 19.32, 8th last night was 20.43... I think if you ran that at 16 (if true) you'd likely stick with it regardless of where you're from, I doubt many 16 year olds have ever ran quicker?

If you had the aptitude, that would make you a pretty tidy winger (football or rugby), or wide receiver. And you'd be doing that from before age 16.

That's simply not true for football. You've only got to look at the struggles of someone like Walcott who is nowhere near as fast as Bolt, but still faster than everyone else and does, despite what is critics say, actually have quite a lot of ball skills in comparison to your average punter.

Plus in sport it is not 100m times that matter, but 5-20m times.

The point is though, even if Bolt didn't have the skills to make it to the top the school teachers over here would have killed his hopes as a sprinter as he'd be playing as a striker with balls played over the top. He would have scored a shed load even if he wasn't any good.

Look at the amount of athletes playing football in the lower leagues to see that skill isn't always as highly regarded as physical attributes.

kingstongraham

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

mfin wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

In how many countries would someone with that much talent at that age be guaranteed to stick with athletics?

World record when he was 16 was 19.32, 8th last night was 20.43... I think if you ran that at 16 (if true) you'd likely stick with it regardless of where you're from, I doubt many 16 year olds have ever ran quicker?

If you had the aptitude, that would make you a pretty tidy winger (football or rugby), or wide receiver. And you'd be doing that from before age 16.

That's simply not true for football. You've only got to look at the struggles of someone like Walcott who is nowhere near as fast as Bolt, but still faster than everyone else and does, despite what is critics say, actually have quite a lot of ball skills in comparison to your average punter.

Plus in sport it is not 100m times that matter, but 5-20m times.

Walcott seems to have done OK for himself with just the 43 caps. Who knows, without that level of success he could have been the next Adam Gemili.

All I'm saying is that there is a decent chance that if Bolt was British, he wouldn't ever have been at the Olympics

dinyull

Adam Gemili is a good name drop in this instance seeing as he was on Chelsea's books from the age of 8 and was playing for League 2 Dag and Red in 2011 before giving it up to focus on sprinting in 2012.

lostboysaint

Willie Gault.

Renaldo Nehemiah

TheBigBean

Who is the one that was mates with Walcott and chose to pursue sprinting?