Well, the short answer to the question posed in the title of the thread is "Yes"... :icon_wink:
I know many sprinters who never got caught but were obviously on peds most of their careers. It's called the eyeball test. Some athletes get away with it and never get caught.
White Lightning -
The problem with the eyeball test is that eyeballs are only as useful as the brains which process the information they impart. What You, our members and I see and what the average beer-gutted, arse-and-bollock-scratching slob
thinks he is seeing is something completely different and figuratively about as divergent as Michelangelo's
Pieta and a primitive Congolese carving of a bug-eyed fat geezer sucking his own grotesquely oversized ****.
Decades of relentless indoctrination have ensured that the massive majority of Whites believe that blacks have superhuman physiques which permit them to achieve proportionately superhuman sporting feats.
If it wasn't so abominably infuriating and damaging to the White race, listening to people's opinions about the "axioms" of Negro physical superiority would be almost comically surreal. If brainwashed Whites see a hulked-up White athlete / bodybuilder who displays all the signs of PED use they won't hesitate to instantly point a sauce-stained finger and scream that the said bloke is "on roids". Yet if a Negro sports an identical, obviously steroided physique those same stupid White pricks will jack off in admiration and won't even entertain the
possibility that the black is using PEDs - for after all, he's black and as everyone knows blacks have "bigger, stronger muscles". The human mind is a wonderful thing...
One of the most salient failures of the "modern eyeball test" is evidenced by the general lack of negative comments about Serena Williams' cantaloupe-sized deltoids, huge arms, et cetera. If Williams was White, the phrase "suspicion of performance enhancing drugs" would accompany every mention of her name and she would have been busted post-haste before she could amass a sackful of Grand Slam titles.
Even many "White Nationalists" buy into the idea of black physical superiority as an obverse to black intellectual inferiority. I know fellows who are "racists" yet are still convinced that blacks "are better at sports - but they aren't worth **** for anything else". Prior to the emergence of eastern European boxers, Stormfront-type simpletons would unquestioningly accept the Jewish-propagated thesis that blacks are "better suited" to boxing (and other sports, particularly track) by conveniently justifying it with pseudo-scientific drivel about Negroes' longer arms, thicker skulls, super-abundance of fast twitch muscles and "animalistic" nature.
Everything in this thread raises another question, namely:
what is the lowest possible time in which a non-PED using human can run 100 metres? Bolt's "world -
cough -record" stands at an improbably fast 9.58 seconds. Anyone who thinks that such a time is "legitimate" must be some sort of ultra-gullible imbecile who's a snake oil salesman's pop-in-the-pants dream. Oops, hang on - that describes most of "modern" White society... :lightbulb: :icon_wink:
As I've said before, I know nothing of the technicalities of sprinting beyond what I've read in the Caste Football Track & Field forum. I do, however, possess a basic knowledge of kinematics and hence am of the opinion that it's unfeasibly far-fetched for a non-juiced human to cover 100 metres from an inert start in less than 9.9 seconds.
