Steve Mullings

First topic message reminder :

Does anyone else find it wierd that hes all of a sudden managed to knock over 2 tenths of a second of his PB at the age of 28? Maybe its just me and the cynical attitude ive develop because so many top sprinters have took PEDs in the past but was just wondering what other people thought.

It doesn't say that 40% of Kenyan medals were won by Kalenjin though, it says 40% of all medals at these distances were won by Kalenjin, the 60% being non-Kalenjin Africans and everyone else in the world.

"With regard to the Kalenjin tribes, they've won around 40% of medals for Kenya meaning that there is still a 60% left to be accounted for between the rest."

That's what you said earlier. The 60% is everyone else in the world, not in Kenya.

Yes, I've misinterpreted that as it seems, I'm sorry, but that doesn't change the fact that they occupy the highlands of the Great Rift Valley, the place where the centre of Kenyan distance running is established. Therefore, the ones that have been reaping the benefits of high altitude and the Kenyan distance running regime far more than the rest. Apparently a group of hunting/warrior tribes which may explain more their running prowess as well.

Perhaps we could train our runners in the lion park in whipsnade zoo

Seems I inadvertently started a very lively debate, was honestly only expecting 2 or 3 responses on the subject when I first posted it.

flashcoach wrote:Perhaps we could train our runners in the lion park in whipsnade zoo

I'm sure if we contact our friends(and yours)at UKA we could make it happen.

Mind you, your idea - you're the head coach. You show em how its done & then we let em in, deal?

Guys, let's keep to the subject; although I admit that poor Steve Mullings, after whom this thread has been named, tends to be the least dealt with herein...

ian_jamsie wrote:

You know for well what I meant

Ian

I did not know what you actually meant in your original post for 2 reasons (and I am sure I am not the only one!):

1) I don't know you from Adam.

2) This is an Internet forum so there is no tone of voice or facial expression to guide the 99% or so of people who read or contribute to this board who don't know you or me. The use of emoticons can help with this problem sometimes.

I hope we can let this lie now.

trickstat wrote:

ian_jamsie wrote:

You know for well what I meant

Ian

I did not know what you actually meant in your original post for 2 reasons (and I am sure I am not the only one!):

1) I don't know you from Adam.

2) This is an Internet forum so there is no tone of voice or facial expression to guide the 99% or so of people who read or contribute to this board who don't know you or me. The use of emoticons can help with this problem sometimes.

I hope we can let this lie now.

Trick stat please quote in full

"You were being pedantic.

You know for well what I meant and the huge difference these hormones make to muscle production.

Increased testosterone can make women run like men, fact. There is a wide difference in the production of these hormones and it is the main reason for the difference between men and women at the top level."

When you read the whole quote rather than cutting and pasting half a sentance it makes all your points null and void.

Nice Try but

Fail. :P

I do not find it weird that a sprinter at the age of 28 can knock 0.2s of his PB for 100m.

This no more unusual that Jonathon Edwards adding 50cm to his pb. or Mo Farah taking 30s off his pb for 10k.

Everyone is different, and peaks at different stages. Maybe he's been getting something fundementally wrong for these years, and now he's found a way to correct it in his training. And them BAM, its all clicked together and he's producing to his potential.

I wonder if Mark Lewis-Francis can achieve the same and knock 0.3 off his best for the last 4 years. He does think he can beat Bolt, so he'll need to improve by at least 0.2s from his PB.

The fact is that you can't just assume someone is taking drugs just because they have improved, at any stage of their athletics career.

I agree with you Ryan. It could be said (something that I persoanlly agree with in general) that Mo would have never achieved what he did if he hadn't moved to Salazar. Salazar was able to pinpoint the imperfections, eradicate them to enable Mo to meet what many people believed was his potential. It is this difference that makes a good athlete a great athlete and likewise it is the difference between a "good" coach and a great coach. You don#t get this ability from a coaching manual.

I know athletics isn't maths but the 2 levels of improvement from both athletes is about 2%. There are fine lines in performance and I always reckon that the "world class" performances are roughly those within 3% of the world record/best. So getting a coach that can find you another "2%" makes a whole world of difference.

No doubt somebody will correct me but before the season when Edwards jumped 18.29 his Pb was 17.44 from 1993. In 1995 then went from 17.58 to 18.29 in 3 months

Have all the past great times been supercede because the drugs technology has also moved on effectively with designer drugs that are avoiding modern detection methods much as they did back then?

lol.. interesting flashcoach... So can we go back now and pinpoint the real world records for each event?

100m - Jim Hines 9.95s in 1968. Everyone who has ran faster must be on drugs???

Nah, Hines shouldn't count. That time is 9.95A. Haha.

I'm not saying everyone fast is on drugs, but I have huge reservations about convicted cynical dope cheat, liar and prize money stealer Steve Mullings.

ryan oh ryan

do you even understand the concept of these boards?
surely they are about discussion and learning

despite all the points we have collectively raised you choose to simply ignore and/or abuse them. Simply stating what you want to be true over and over again doesn't automatically make it true. It just makes you sound a bit simple.

I don't know your background at all but i can only assume you know nothing about sprinting because,

1. Mullings is a convicted drugs cheat
2. Clean sprinters generally DO NOT improve into their late 20's
3. 0.2 is a HUGE improvement for a world class sprinter. Can't you just accept this?

Please don't try to confuse matters by attempting to compare athletes in different events. For all you know they might be drugged as well. Who knows?

"he'll need to improve by at least 0.2s from his PB"
As we both know MLF has absolutely NO chance of beating bolt. Where do you get '0.2s from his pb from?
Their respective pb's are 9.58 and 10.04. You do the maths.
Yet another reason that suggests you know nothing about sprinting.

See if you can actually answer any of the above without resorting to abuse.
The idea is for you to give us actual reasons or even theories as to how jamaica for example, without a male 100m olympic medal for 30 years now has 4 of the worlds fastest 6 of all time. If you could convincingly answer that one for us I for one would willing accept your arguement.
Try and give some solid reasoning. Just saying the words 'training' or 'yams' won't really cut it. What revolutionary new training are they doing? Do you know? Please let us in on the secret.

Perhaps the Jamaicans like other nations are really taking athletics seriously, they certainly have an excellent attitude to grass roots athletics, and the rewards for doing well today are eye opening.

I cannot see any logical argument or evidence to say Jamaican athletes are using PEDs anymore than any other nation is.

english_osprey wrote:ryan oh ryan

do you even understand the concept of these boards?
surely they are about discussion and learning

despite all the points we have collectively raised you choose to simply ignore and/or abuse them. Simply stating what you want to be true over and over again doesn't automatically make it true. It just makes you sound a bit simple.

I don't know your background at all but i can only assume you know nothing about sprinting because,

1. Mullings is a convicted drugs cheat
2. Clean sprinters generally DO NOT improve into their late 20's
3. 0.2 is a HUGE improvement for a world class sprinter. Can't you just accept this?

Please don't try to confuse matters by attempting to compare athletes in different events. For all you know they might be drugged as well. Who knows?

"he'll need to improve by at least 0.2s from his PB"
As we both know MLF has absolutely NO chance of beating bolt. Where do you get '0.2s from his pb from?
Their respective pb's are 9.58 and 10.04. You do the maths.
Yet another reason that suggests you know nothing about sprinting.

See if you can actually answer any of the above without resorting to abuse.
The idea is for you to give us actual reasons or even theories as to how jamaica for example, without a male 100m olympic medal for 30 years now has 4 of the worlds fastest 6 of all time. If you could convincingly answer that one for us I for one would willing accept your arguement.
Try and give some solid reasoning. Just saying the words 'training' or 'yams' won't really cut it. What revolutionary new training are they doing? Do you know? Please let us in on the secret.

Agreed. I don't know how anybody can't help but think of PEDs seeing such a sudden mass rise in standards. Of course there might be other reasons but taking all their history into account it is by far the most obvious reason. Not saying all their stars are on PEDs but the mass improvements suggest some performances are tainted. Sadly I think the guys in labs (in concert with a lax testing regime) remain one step ahead of the authorities.

english_osprey, first of all you call me simple and accuse me of not learning or just accepting what you say as being absolute gospel. Then you accuse me of knowing nothing about sprinting or athletics. Then you try to tell me not to compare athletes from different events because that might confuse matters.

You are correct you do not know anything about me. I will not resort to insults, unlike yourself.

My comments were in regard to a recent interview with MLF, him stating that he will beat MLF at either the world championships or the olympics. I dont know what you were trying to insinuate or ridicule me by trying to be little me.

I guess this makes you feel big about yourself.

You are entitled to your opinion and i am to mine. I will not resort to stating that my opinion is more correct than yours.

But i will state that it is not uncommon for athletes to improve by 2% at any stage in their career. I know i am not wrong on this, as it has been proven time and time again. Maybe Mullings is taking, but he has not been proven. So i'd suggest that you leave your wild comments to yourself.

Why would i know why or how jamaica/usa have improved so much compared to the uk? you ask this question in a manner to try and belittle me again.

Please try and debate fairly and nicely, rather than resorting to the methods you are currently using.

Has anyone here looked at graphs of average results and progressions throughout all athletics events? As well as progressions of world records throughout time periods?

When did anyone ask you how jamaica/usa have improved compared to the UK?

Why do you always (along with your friends) have to make this a Brit bashing exercise. USA has always been dominant in the sprints, Jamaica hasn't. Britain has never been dominant in the sprints either. If they started now, it would be very odd.

Jamaica has just become dominant. How? Simple question. Nothing to do with the USA.

I know a number of Jamaicans like to put Jamaica's dominance down to the fact that the naughty Americans have stopped taking drugs and now the real best athletes are at the forefront, but this doesn't make sense because the Jamaicans are running faster than the naughty Americans. Why?

I have no friends on this forum. sorry. i didnt mean to come across as a brit basher. i am incredibly pro-british. i do apologise for that.

I don't think the usa are performing or producing any less. it is just that jamaica has taken the edge finally. through circumstance.

The original article, was basically just because Mullings has improved by 2% at the age of 28, he is a drugs cheat.

Please explain that wild accusation? Without using the argument he failed a test previously. Or that its a funny jump at a late stage in his career. Anybody can improve by that much at any stage in their career. There are so many athletes that have improved by this much at this and later stages of their careers that have not been proven guilty of taking drugs.

Can someone explain to me why a nation that had never ever won a single football tournament are all of a sudden european and world champions? Guess the Spanish team must all be on PEDs just like the Jamaican sprinters are.

Don't understand why you guys can't just accept the possibility of a golden generation and instead choose to assume the worst. Also quality inspires more quality. Sure many Jamaican sprinters were inspired by Powell's 4 world records (never mind all the choking) and many more by Bolt's. Just like mediocrity inspires more mediocrity which may explain the state of British sprinting.

Sometimes the increased muscle mass can actually slow athletes down. It can have that effect with boxers. Although boxing uses differing muscle groups.

Maybe coming off these drugs has reduced his muscle mass and actually freed up his stride.

Also remember Linford Christie was Jamican as well. Maybe increased investment in Jamican sprinting has kept athletes that would have left for other shores competing for their home land.

They may also have better facilities.

ryan
i'm just trying to help you here
i've explained my point of view to you and i think i've put forward some sound reasoning to back up my ideas.
you on the other hand have given no reasons for your opinions apart from the idea that you believe them to be true
do you see the difference?

the reason i ask you about jamaican training methods is not to belittle you. But if the reason for jamaican success isn't peds then what is it? If you have no ideas why they are so good how can you argue passionately that they are not taking peds?


'Has anyone here looked at graphs of average results and progressions throughout all athletics events? As well as progressions of world records throughout time periods?' - you could do that, it's called research. Research is why I know that until bolt came along jamaica had not won a 100m olympic medal for 30 years.


'But i will state that it is not uncommon for athletes to improve by 2% at any stage in their career. I know i am not wrong on this, as it has been proven time and time again' - I know you keep on repeating this as if it is fact, and it may well be very common indeed. But now is the time to provide evidence rather than just words. So name 3 male athletes over 28 who have improved an already world class time over 100m by 0.2.




yoyo
spain has won 2 european championships and been runners up once and won one olympic title
spanish clubs have won 12 european/champions league cups and have been runners-up 7 times. By far the best of any other country

you should stick to what you know (little) about

'mediocrity inspires more mediocrity'
GB has won 3 olympic 100m titles to jamaica's 1

ryan
i'm just trying to help you here
i've explained my point of view to you and i think i've put forward some sound reasoning to back up my ideas.
you on the other hand have given no reasons for your opinions apart from the idea that you believe them to be true
do you see the difference?

the reason i ask you about jamaican training methods is not to belittle you. But if the reason for jamaican success isn't peds then what is it? If you have no ideas why they are so good how can you argue passionately that they are not taking peds?


'Has anyone here looked at graphs of average results and progressions throughout all athletics events? As well as progressions of world records throughout time periods?' - you could do that, it's called research. Research is why I know that until bolt came along jamaica had not won a 100m olympic medal for 30 years.


'But i will state that it is not uncommon for athletes to improve by 2% at any stage in their career. I know i am not wrong on this, as it has been proven time and time again' - I know you keep on repeating this as if it is fact, and it may well be very common indeed. But now is the time to provide evidence rather than just words. So name 3 male athletes over 28 who have improved an already world class time over 100m by 0.2.




yoyo
spain has won 2 european championships and been runners up once and won one olympic title
spanish clubs have won 12 european/champions league cups and have been runners-up 7 times. By far the best of any other country

you should stick to what you know (little) about

'mediocrity inspires more mediocrity'
GB has won 3 olympic 100m titles to jamaica's 1

etuoyo wrote:Can someone explain to me why a nation that had never ever won a single football tournament are all of a sudden european and world champions? Guess the Spanish team must all be on PEDs just like the Jamaican sprinters are.

Don't understand why you guys can't just accept the possibility of a golden generation and instead choose to assume the worst. Also quality inspires more quality. Sure many Jamaican sprinters were inspired by Powell's 4 world records (never mind all the choking) and many more by Bolt's. Just like mediocrity inspires more mediocrity which may explain the state of British sprinting.

Haha, it's funny that you talk about the ridiculous notion of Spanish footballers being on drugs when the whole Real Madrid and Barcelona squads were part of Dr Fuentes' little party, but that section of the scandal was hushed up, along with certain tennis players.

I suppose you also think that there was a 'golden generation' of Chinese distance runners too? Golden generation of East Germans? Golden generations are usually due to something else other than being 'inspired', particularly from nations that don't test their own athletes.

Mullings is a proven liar and fraud, why should anyone give him the benefit of the doubt now he's improved even more?

dj

what was dr fuentes little party? did it involve contador at all?

It was Operacion Puerto, from a few years back. Essentially Fuentes got busted by the cops and he threatened to expose his client list to the public, he was an expert in blood doping.

Contador was on the list due to all his team being implicated (Astana-Wurth at that time) but he was one of those who were exonerated whilst plenty of others either admitted it or were banned due to evidence found.

There were 120 or so people on the list, but only the cyclists were named, the rest (mainly tennis players and footballers apparently) could be named to due court orders. Think the legal wranglings are still rumbling on, but it's been a while now and Spain have had a few more scandals since then.

three off the top of my head bruny surin 1999 9.8 in his 30s compares, jon drummond was late 20s and started running better times and of course donovan bailey no spring chicken when he became world champ then set wr. world has gone mad though this year, who knows what to make of it all. eugene a funny result through and through. i'm not sure it is fair though to single out an individual for crucifixion.

English_osprey, thank you for the semi-pleasant response.

You seem to have ignored all of the arguments for the Jamaican's improving and then claimed that no reasons have been put forward (at least read the forum before you type):

1. Jamaica has stopped losing its best athletes to other nations.
2. They have a very intense focus on sprints for a whole nation. 2.7M peoples main sport is Sprinting - for example ours is 55M for 'mainly' football, we have no where near what Jamaica has that are so focussed on sprinting, the USA is the only nation that will have similar. (a little general, but it will do for this forum).
3. They are generally a poor nation, and it is the easiest way for people to get out of 'their poverty', and make it big. Kids grow up dreaming of becoming sprinters.
4. In recent years they have managed to hold on to their athletes due to an increase in the universities financial standing as well as their improved training equipment, grounds. Their sprint training groups are made up of up to 50 people, it is truly amazing how many sprinters they have wanting to make it.
5. Up until these development centres were built, sprinters didn't have such good facilities to train, there weren't the advisers/coaches/competition/equipment/finances. There was no incentive to carry on training after school. If you were any good or had any sense you'd get on the first plane out and make it in a richer country with better facilities. Only in the last few years the top sprinters are now staying, and this has done a mass spur for the younger generations to try and make it. Asafa started it, Bolt followed (in terms of big 2). Now we have all their training partners and we'll soon have the even younger ones. It is no wonder. We have witnessesd a change in the tide in terms of sprinting, Jamaica will continue to produce many many top sprinters, due to their new infrastructure and main focus on sprinting.
http://www.slate.com/id/2197721/

You have then gone on to give 3 reasons with very little backing as to why they are drug cheats:
1. Mullings is a convicted drugs cheat. - TRUE.
2. Clean sprinters generally DO NOT improve into their late 20's. - WRONG. People have given examples. Look for yourself, and think for yourself. People do not stop developing, 28 is great level of maturity (for some) to get the technique right.
3. 0.2 is a HUGE improvement for a world class sprinter. Can't you just accept this? - WRONG, WHY SHOULD I ACCEPT IT? IT IS BLANTANTLY WRONG, AND WITHOUT ANY BACKING. PEOPLE HAVE PROVIDED PROOF AGAINST THIS.

So your only reasoning for believing that Mullings is a drugs cheat? Is because he once was? Nice.


http://www.universalsports.com/news-blogs/blogs/blog=blockheadblog/postid=536465.html

Mullings has been training with Gay and Ashmeade, they have all made notable improvements this year. They are spurring each other on very well. Are you suggesting these 3 are on drugs?

PS. Keep it nice.

So we can take it now as fact that sprinters in their late twenties can make a .2 improvement.

I thought you gave a great response ryanbailey very comprehensive, it is very good of you to do all this work and thinking for us

english_osprey wrote:

'mediocrity inspires more mediocrity'
GB has won 3 olympic 100m titles to jamaica's 1

I live in the present not in the past. Plus a gold medal won during a US boycott is half a gold medal. The current gen of British sprinters are mediocre because those they are hanging out with are mediocre. The only one who isn't is Dwain Chambers who the others have distanced themselves from. Good thing for him because otherwise he would become mediocre like them.

But if those you are associating with or competing with are of a high level you are going to do all you can to push yourself hard. I am sure Tyson Gay would not be as fast as he is now if there was no Usain Bolt he was trying to keep up with. Likewise the Jamaican sprinters know that with the quality around you need to be able to run 9.8 just to make a major champs and so they have all had to up their game. The other alternative would be do what Dwight Thomas did and switch to a different event where the competition isn't so hot.

Frenchoprey I don't remember Spain winning any European Champs in my life time. Maybe they won something in the 60s or 70s but that is a lifetime away. Doubt if they have won it twice before but will take your word for it. Winning Olympics does not count for much. It is now an U23 tourney and used to be an amateur comp. What they have won as clubs is irrelevant as it includes foreigners. Would the current Barca be the same without Messi? Or the last Madrid to win the Champions' League the same without Zidane and Figo?

So your useless stats do not change the fact that at least since the 80s Spain have underachieved and all of a sudden are World and European champs. Reason being they are experiencing a golden generation.

Same with Jamaican sprinting. We don't know what will happen when the current gen retiires. Jamaica may go back to struggling to win medals. But I have no reason to believe that because they are doing well now it means they are cheating. Innocent until proven guilty.

Nothing wrong with floating the idea of golden generations. GB had one in the 80s with Coe, Ovet etc. and now have one with the current squad of female swimmers.

Those arguing for such an explanation are passing over the fact that some of the athletes concerned have 'previous' and the drug testing regime has been lax (certainly by comparison to our own). Winning medals in such a tough cultural and economic environment by all means possible must be a huge temptation and one that you can imagine at least some will fall for.

The balance of probabilities IMHO is that at least some are on PEDs, that right now are undetectable or masked by other chemicals, to remain competitive in their own country. The actual strength in depth is therefore not quite as strong as it seems.

In this respect the Jamaican profile is probably not a lot different to those of other countries where PEDS may be in ready supply.

etuoyo wrote:I live in the present not in the past. Plus a gold medal won during a US boycott is half a gold medal.

Good one. Living in the present then relating to an event held 31 years ago.

And when you do more than half of the research, you'll find that Wells beat everyone he came up against in Koblenz that year who would have been in Moscow(Lattany, Lewis et al). US boycott or not - he would have won Olympic Gold. Stating that he won because of the boycott is poor knowledge personnified.

iamian

good post - i don't know if they improved their pb's by 2/10 at the same time though. Bailey had definately run below 10.0 before running his 9.84 for example.
Interesting though, I'd forgotten about Surin

bygone days when we couldn't anonymously speculate, though i remember a sobering piece (times?) comparing greene's '99 acheivements with the last athlete to run 9.79. i genuinely feel a little sorry for SM, 9.8 flatters him and has served only to focus what i'm sure is an unwelcome spotlight.

SM has had the short end of the stick on this thread that's for sure!

Although to be fair to him he's certainly not alone. Just turns out that he's a handy metaphor for all that's wrong with sprinting at the moment.

Poor man, who would have thought running 9.8 would bring such grief?

casting my mind back, is there a single development in 100m history in the last 25years that wouldn't be treated today on these fora with scepticism and suspicion?

bloody message boards you have robbed me of any enjoyment....

iamian01 wrote:casting my mind back, is there a single development in 100m history in the last 25years that wouldn't be treated today on these fora with scepticism and suspicion?

Probably none from a non-British athlete.

???? i'd have thought developments on these shores would have been no less scrutinised than others. though I guess there have only been two significant developments really in the last 25yrs.

Is anyone here suspicious of Bolt's performances? Whilst his major improvements have been 'whilst he was still growing/maturing', he has achieved similar jumps in improvement?

It is true; the worst thing that could happen right now is if one of the top sprinters were to be tested positive for a serious substance. I just hope this does not happen because i hope they are not doping. For the general public this will only be another nail in the coffin of a great but struggling sport - in terms of media coverage.

Anyone read the papers yesterday? The only coverage i found in the papers, i got my hands on was about the stupid argument between Idowu and Van comonee.

I do feel one issue is that with all the supplement/stimulants/vitamins/pain killers etc... there is now a grey area of banned substances. Yes the obvious steroids are banned, and it is not easy for athletes. It is rather a minefield.

In this respect the Jamaican profile is probably not a lot different to those of other countries where PEDS may be in ready supply.

PEDS are available in any country "even ours!!"

Do you think we should put our white hoods on and have a vote for whether Steve Mullings is cheating this year?

Or do you think we should wait till he retires or the failed result comes in?

Because otherwise we can sit and argue this forever, second guessing everything. Feel free to open a vot topic for Steve and then we can leave him alone.

ian_jamsie wrote:

trickstat wrote:

ian_jamsie wrote:

You know for well what I meant

Ian

I did not know what you actually meant in your original post for 2 reasons (and I am sure I am not the only one!):

1) I don't know you from Adam.

2) This is an Internet forum so there is no tone of voice or facial expression to guide the 99% or so of people who read or contribute to this board who don't know you or me. The use of emoticons can help with this problem sometimes.

I hope we can let this lie now.

Trick stat please quote in full

"You were being pedantic.

You know for well what I meant and the huge difference these hormones make to muscle production.

Increased testosterone can make women run like men, fact. There is a wide difference in the production of these hormones and it is the main reason for the difference between men and women at the top level."

When you read the whole quote rather than cutting and pasting half a sentance it makes all your points null and void.

Nice Try but

Fail. :P

Ian

Your phrase "you know for well what I meant" surely is referring to your original post that was poorly worded. As I don't know you or your credentials I cannot be expected to know that what you really meant was the much more precise and well-worded comment regarding hormones that you have now given above. I did not give the full quote because it was not relevant to the point I was making.

I do not recall Chambers getting this treatment when he started to improve greatly once more " apparently without the use of drugs!!! It was all put down to better coaching nutrition etc ad nauseum.

Hypocrite springs to mind here!!

I think sadly, sprinting is always going to be an event that bring in a lot of suspicion, and whether that's right or wrong, I for one can't say. The suspicion of the use of drugs is always hugely contraversial and often our own viewscan be swayed by whether we actually like the athlete in question or not. It's a very difficult thing to comment on objectively as it's always something that seems to bring out strong emotions in people.

Flash - I'm not surprised that words springs to mind. People are always going to have such different views depending on the athlete/circumstances that it's bound to happen, whether it's intentional or not

flashcoach wrote:I do not recall Chambers getting this treatment when he started to improve greatly once more " apparently without the use of drugs!!! It was all put down to better coaching nutrition etc ad nauseum.

Two reasons why. DC was a lot younger & he only took off 0.1. There wasn't an outlet like this back then. I remember asking my Dad if he saw a bit of Ben Johnson in Chambers when he ran 9.87. He agreed.

I don't know if he's clean now, I hope he is. But I can't 100% trust that he is. Just like nobody can 100% trust Mullings for the same reason.

Nobody is saying he's definitely using, despite what ryanbailey's replies would have you think.

Hi Camerajuan,

I actually agree with you, was just debating for the fun of it. There is no way we can tell either way if Mullings is cheating. I just hope he is not cheating. I do doubt he is though as he's in the same training group as Gay & Ashmeade - and they've both made notable improvements this season too.

I think your dad may be referring to how muscle bound they both were/are.

Mornin mate!

Glad we agree.

I'd love it if everyone was clean. But some who are performing have priors, so I can't be sure.

When Wells beat Johnson in 82, he was a good sized sprinter. In 88, his muscle fibres were visible & his eyes looked evil. Same with DC in the run up to his ban.

trickstat wrote:

ian_jamsie wrote:

trickstat wrote:

ian_jamsie wrote:

You know for well what I meant

Ian

I did not know what you actually meant in your original post for 2 reasons (and I am sure I am not the only one!):

1) I don't know you from Adam.

2) This is an Internet forum so there is no tone of voice or facial expression to guide the 99% or so of people who read or contribute to this board who don't know you or me. The use of emoticons can help with this problem sometimes.

I hope we can let this lie now.

Trick stat please quote in full

"You were being pedantic.

You know for well what I meant and the huge difference these hormones make to muscle production.

Increased testosterone can make women run like men, fact. There is a wide difference in the production of these hormones and it is the main reason for the difference between men and women at the top level."

When you read the whole quote rather than cutting and pasting half a sentance it makes all your points null and void.

Nice Try but

Fail. :P

Ian

Your phrase "you know for well what I meant" surely is referring to your original post that was poorly worded. As I don't know you or your credentials I cannot be expected to know that what you really meant was the much more precise and well-worded comment regarding hormones that you have now given above. I did not give the full quote because it was not relevant to the point I was making.

You quoted half a sentance. That is nasty unpleasant thing to do. It makes a huge difference and is very very rude.

Despite my poorly worded initial statement you would have to be completely thick to not know what I was talking about. You were attempting to be a smart bum.

I will alter my first statement for you.

Men are faster than women on the whole due to hormone production.

Increase a womans testosterone they become stronger and faster. This is the most likely treatment given to the women's world record holders and is the reason why unless a freak appears like semenya they will never be beaten.

Bolt is freak as well. A man that tall with such leg speed is unnatural. That is why few doubt he is the real deal.