pocketmoon66
Newcomer
9.58
- Thread starter pocketmoon66
- Start date
DuckThor Evil
Legend
God damn it, you beat me by mere milliseconds!
pocketmoon66
Newcomer
the look on Tyson Gay's face was priceless. 9.71, an stunning time, a US record and still not enough.
It's been suggested by Bolt that he could run 9.4.
It's been suggested by Bolt that he could run 9.4.
Mintmaster
Veteran
Incredible achievement.
Haha, really?
The guy is a genetic freak who has been smashing records since he was 15, and has been through countless doping tests. I really doubt it, and even read about him giving voluntary samples.
I thought Tyson ran an amazing race. Thing is, he was stride for stride with Bolt the whole race. Except Bolt gains about a foot to a foot and a half EVERY stride, which was the margin of victory.
Bolt is a BEAST.
They have the video on You Tube.
Yeah by Bolt who is very modest, expect 9.2 to be possible or even quicker
He wasn't his legs are moving quicker than Bolts throughout the entire race and I still suspect Bolt wasn't running at his maximum pace for the entire race, he was looking around again way before the finish line.
chavvdarrr
Veteran
I'm a cynic:
He finally got few boxes of those quality things people like Carl Lewis, Sergei Bubka and Michael Phelps regularly drink.
Its not a question IF he drinks, but what. My guess: the stuff that will be prohibited starting january 2010.
Drugs should be allowed for free. Right now there is no fair competition but a competition who can buy or develop best new "thing"
He finally got few boxes of those quality things people like Carl Lewis, Sergei Bubka and Michael Phelps regularly drink.
Its not a question IF he drinks, but what. My guess: the stuff that will be prohibited starting january 2010.
Drugs should be allowed for free. Right now there is no fair competition but a competition who can buy or develop best new "thing"
Drugs is always a problem. Old generation drugs are prohibited mainly because they are "bad" for your health. Many brilliant athletes died young in 80s because they took too much of these "performance enhancing drugs." I mean, the purpose of sports is supposed to be promoting competition and good health, not killing yourself.
I don't think it's reasonable to ban something just because it "enhances performance." If it has no bad effects on one's health, why should it be banned? Should we ban eating too much calories because it's what Phelps need to compete well?
Of course, another issue is that some people may try to conceal their "performance enhancing" things even if it's not banned, because they want to retain their competitiveness. This is, IMHO, not a good sportsmanship, because sport competition should be about one's training, mind, and health, not about what nice things one's taking. However, similar arguments are already there although not about drugs. For example, should a certain swimming suit be allowed or banned if it can increase one's performance significantly? There are many different opinions on this question.
I don't think it's reasonable to ban something just because it "enhances performance." If it has no bad effects on one's health, why should it be banned? Should we ban eating too much calories because it's what Phelps need to compete well?
Of course, another issue is that some people may try to conceal their "performance enhancing" things even if it's not banned, because they want to retain their competitiveness. This is, IMHO, not a good sportsmanship, because sport competition should be about one's training, mind, and health, not about what nice things one's taking. However, similar arguments are already there although not about drugs. For example, should a certain swimming suit be allowed or banned if it can increase one's performance significantly? There are many different opinions on this question.
...
I don't think it's reasonable to ban something just because it "enhances performance." If it has no bad effects on one's health, why should it be banned? Should we ban eating too much calories because it's what Phelps need to compete well?
I think the problem is that a lot of stuff has unknown side effects because it is never properly studied. Athletes take these designer enhancers with unknown risk. The big issue is preventing that behaviour from being common place, where large numbers of athlete's would be risking their health.
I guess they'd rather ban something just in case rather than knowingly let athlete's continue to experiment and have them become sick or unhealthy down the road.
Technically, steroids are not "aritifical substances," they exist in human body naturally, just not as much.
My point is, it sometimes very dfficult to differentiate between "performance enhancing drugs" with "nutritional suppliments."
I think the rest of the field can doped as much as they want and they won't come close to Bolt.
The thing about Bolt is, he got no rival, so at the end of the stretch he doesn't try to hit the tape. So I think he can run faster if he had a rival. But then again running at 90% probably good for avoiding injury and such. I reckon he got another two Olympics in him.
The thing about Bolt is, he got no rival, so at the end of the stretch he doesn't try to hit the tape. So I think he can run faster if he had a rival. But then again running at 90% probably good for avoiding injury and such. I reckon he got another two Olympics in him.
Can you name a few? I think those ideals went out of the window a long time ago.
Sadly even competitive rowing (my personal favorite) which had a reputation to be a clean and fair sport has had some minor doping scandals in recent years.
Similar threads
- Locked
