What would the IAAF do if Usian Bolt returned a positive drugs test?

Usain - apologies, poor show.

nothing they would do nothing most do drugs

Wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even test him

They would have to catch him first.

Don't watch athletics much nowadays..you can't be sure what you see is real.
Who's to say Bolt is clean?(Armstrong never failed a drug test}
As for Mo Farah....

I've seen a few comments about not watching athletics now becuase it's not clean. Exactly when did anyone watch athletics and think it was all clean ? I started following athletics in 1968 and there was dodgy stuff going on even then, certainly in the power events.

First I'd heard about Wells.  What a shame if it's true.

The source of some of the allegations against Wells is Drew McMaster. There may be other issues there.

Anybody who shows significant improvement at a time when most mortals are deteriorating must be the subject of quizzical looks. That applied for Wells but especially Christie. Sprinters don't get better and better to their mid thirties with the exception of Justin Gatlin.

Sleeping in an altitude tent is seen as normal for endurance athletes. Don't see how thats any different to injecting something that does exactly the same thing

Always be massive grey areas

I have no idea if Wells doped or not, but he had a PB of 10.11 and won the OG with 10.25. It's not exactly earth shattering stuff.

He would almost certainly have got quicker in the Olympics anyway, just as a consequence of being made to use blocks by the IOC, when he had not used them before.

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32883944

Arguments Bolt is on drugs
Jamaica's drug testing regime lets athletes get away with anything they like.
Many athletes associated with Bolt's coach have tested positive.
His improvement from 2007 to 2008 was insane. Watch him get absolutely smoked by Tyson Gay off the bend in WC 200m and compare with a year later.
No improvement at all since aged 22. Sprinters don't tend to set PBs till later in career.
All his major rivals over last years have tested positive, only Bolt has not?
If he tested positive athletics would be destroyed as a sport.


Arguments Bolt is not on drugs
He hasn't tested positive (aka the Lance Armstrong defence)
The Beeb love him
He is a cool dude

Simple matter of physiology and stride length.

Usain Bolt takes 36 strides to run 100m, his rivals take on average 41.

The man is a phenomenon, an outlier. We know for a fact that his main rival at this championship, and several in the past, have taken drugs - he is better than them, and has been for years. Whether he is on drugs or not, he is still quicker than them.

And your argument about age does not stand up either. He ran 20.58 for the 200m as a 15-year-old, which is simply ridiculous, and made him the youngest ever winner of a World Junior Championship title. He has always been an outlier.

Ben Johnson's Seoul 1988 test results were leaked to the media giving the IOC no choice but to go public. Many believe they would have covered it up given the chance. Linford Christie tested positive in the same race but the IOC accepted his explanation with a majority of 11:10. He had just enough friends...

I'm of the opinion that nearly all the world's top sportsmen are doping: football, boxing, rugby, cycling, athletics, tennis, swimming - they're all at it 1.01. And with the amount of money at stake why wouldn't they?

If he tested positive, could the IAAF stop all whistleblowers, the media, the rumours?  I havent heard any rumours tbf.

I have no idea if Wells doped or not, but he had a PB of 10.11 and won the OG with 10.25. It's not exactly earth shattering stuff.

I think the PB was set on the same day in the semi . It's not so relevant though as the allegations against him are more about his having been journeyman level until he was 25/26 and then in a year or so was posting world class times.

Steroids or not, Allan Wells won the Gold medal because the American-led boycott allowed him to win in a time not even good enough for bronze at any subsequent Olympics, and only once since 1960.

http://www.databaseolympics.com/sport/sportevent.htm?sp=ATH&enum=110
(not updated for 2012 but ...)

There would be an attempted cover up on the scale not seen since the days of jack and Bobby charlton's hairstylist was in business.

Brits and the commonwealth breathing a sigh of relief now that the silver spoon Lord is in charge. 

"Dont worry chaps , Ive got your back"

Bubka would have been amusing if he had started to dig around the last 10 years.  Kenyan javelin throwers ? do me a favour.

Brits and the commonwealth breathing a sigh of relief now that the silver spoon Lord is in charge. 

"Dont worry chaps , Ive got your back"

Bubka would have been amusing if he had started to dig around the last 10 years.  Kenyan javelin throwers ? do me a favour.

That would be Nike Ambassador (on a six-figure salary) Lord Coe, would it?

Like he's really going to dig around into Nike-sponsored Justin Gatlin and the Nike-funded Oregon distance- running operation headed by Alberto Salazar.

Ramruma, a couple of weeks after the 1980 Olympics, a race was organised in which Wells took on the Yanks who had been denied entry into the Olympics by the boycott. Wells won it.

And while his winning time may not have been all that quick by today's standards, it wasn't common in those days for people to run under 10s - the world record which stood at the time had been set 2200m above sea-level in Mexico in 1968, the 1972 and 1976 champions both ran 10s+ to win, and even in 1984 Carl Lewis ran 9.9, and won by a couple of yards.

In the 200m, he was only denied by Pietro Mennea, who had the year before set a world record at the distance which lasted until 1996.

Drugs or no drugs, quick times or no quick times, in 1980 Allan Wells was the fastest human being on the planet and he has the Gold Medal to prove it.

Going on that logic...Drugs or no drugs quick times or no quick times Ben Johnson was the fastest human being on the planet and he HAD the Gold Medal to prove it.

fastest human being on the planet

always struggle with that one, it needs an asterix after it when they say it.

*can't in anyway be proven

that sort of thing

So do you know of someone who's faster?

No doubt there are also better tennis players, footballers etc out there also undiscovered.

do I personally?
not that Im aware of but then Im not the one making the statement as fact.

its certainly a great deal about training, but its mostly about genes.
it's quite conceivable that a person has run quicker at some point somewhere who couldnt careless about sports day events

I think Bolt really is the fastest man on the planet.

yeah sure

^ that was to dusty of course

Im not saying there IS a faster person, but its more about evolution than it is about trainers.
The statement is just an assertion

the statement if and when made about professional sportsmen is also an assumption but slightly different.
Not everyone is a footballer, and of those that play football well could quantifiably be assessed to be better than others to some degree.
But everyone at some time or other is a 'runner' and if you got a dog chasing you or life is in danger then chances are you put a surprising amount of effort in

Good afternoon, Wesdag, I hope you are well.

Don't discount the thought of undiscovered talent completely, sir.  You might well be correct regarding athletics or tennis, but the chances of some superman or woman lurking in obscurity is not totally beyond the realms of possibility.  I am brought to mind of a national competition in America many years ago: a global sporting giant (I think Nike but cannot be sure) organised a basketball challenge offering a huge prize to any player who could sink the most free throw shots in a row.  They arranged this event confident in the knowledge one of their sponsored professionals would take home the big cheque.  Not only did a garbage man from Poughkeepsie win, he did so with a score way in advance of the leading players of the day.

Before the rise of the internet I believe that the greatest exponents of many acts of human endeavour were largely unknown, probably not the case today admittedly.

I once got chased by the coppers when i was 15,yeah i probably was the fastest boy on the planet for for about 10 seconds.

All good here Pokermonster, ta.

Reduced to maths, speed = distance covered over time taken and clearly Bolt is, measurably, the worlds fastest over 100m.

But 100m is an arbitrary distance in the above equation when it comes to measuring the quickest man alive.

Some fast starter like Aleksandr Kornelyuk (who would have been in the lead at the 40 metre mark in Borzov's Olympic win in 1972) or today, Richard Kielty might have an absolute top speed greater than Bolts - it's just Bolt can sustain his speed better over the classic sprint distance of 100m.

They are just fast starters. They don't have a quicker top speed than Bolt.

"The fastest human footspeed on record is 44.7 km/h (12.4 m/s or 27.78 mph), seen during a 100 meters sprint (average speed between the 60th and the 80th meter) by Usain Bolt."

I thought 200m runners got up to a quicker pace????

Aug 28, 2015 -- 12:41PM, rogerthebutler wrote:

Reduced to maths, speed = distance covered over time taken and clearly Bolt is, measurably, the worlds fastest over 100m.But 100m is an arbitrary distance in the above equation when it comes to measuring the quickest man alive.Some fast starter like Aleksandr Kornelyuk (who would have been in the lead at the 40 metre mark in Borzov's Olympic win in 1972) or today, Richard Kielty might have an absolute top speed greater than Bolts - it's just Bolt can sustain his speed better over the classic sprint distance of 100m.

Correct. I believe the 200m is theoretically faster than the 100m because of the time taken to get to top speed.

I wonder how fast Bolt could run 200m in a straight liine?

Damned fast.

Bolt's top speed is equivalent to 100m in 8s then.

Wow. That really puts it into context.

Tyson Gay recorded the fastest speed run by a human in his PB Time of 9.69 (10m split)

Back to the question "What would the IAAF do"

1/2 Lose the test results
2/1 Ignore the test results
10/1 Suspend the athlete
20/1 Ask the UCI for advice

Lose the results.....

....would be Lance Armstrong multiplied by.......well lots......

...though Bolt does come across as a good egg......so hopefully will be theoretical.

...but never underestimate the human ego and its need for world domination in any discipline.

Aug 28, 2015 -- 2:31PM, kincsem wrote:

Back to the question "What would the IAAF do"1/2 Lose the test results2/1 Ignore the test results10/1 Suspend the athlete20/1 Ask the UCI for advice

I'll have that 20/1.

They'll just hide their heads in the sand exactly like the UCI did with Armstrong and his failed test for years and years.

Totally agree. Question is largely rhetorical since it ain't ever going to happen.

Yes...long legs....freakishly fast turnover of legs.....

....unbeatable....until someone with a more freakish combination comes along.

Athletics is more about entertainment than worrying about catching the dopers.You get very few big names dragged through the mud. It's more likely to be some obscure Kenyan athletes who noone has ever heard of, yet the evidence seems to suggest that the sport is as rife with drugs as it ever has been.

Take the womens 200 meters today, the winner has a very muscular upper build and also seems acne-ridden (a tell-tale sign of testosterone use) and runs the fourth fastest 200 in history (only famous dopers are ahead of her) and the second placed runner also did a fabulous time, having improved her personal best by a second and a half in the space of a year.

Of course if they did get a positive test for Bolt and had a choice about it, they'd likely turn a blind eye. Bolt is a great cash cow for them and a positive result would be a massive blow to a sport already very short on credibility. So it's easier to let the media run this ridiculous sub-plot where Usain is the "savior of the sport" against the bad-guy Gatlin, when the likelihood is they are both drugged up to the eyeballs.

My guess is if they kicked all the dopers out the best time would be something like 10.2 for 100 meters and the spectators would be leaving in droves.

That's why I'd have an international independent drugs agency which carries out all testing, all penalties, everything. The relevant bodies have too much of a vested interest not to be totally above board or totally transparent about drugs (or other for that matter) problems.