SERIOUS DISCUSSION: 2:15:25 what category are you in SKEPTICAL, PRO, or ANTI!

tara:

how about reading some biology texts? genetics, while a critical component, is just the framework with which one begins. you're so wowed by the argument that hard work will only take you so far, that you forget that it DOES take you well beyong your genetic endowment.

genetics is, and this will continue to be proven 1000 years from now when lots of testing on human subjects (clones, i'd bet) has been done, is still going to be half or slightly more of the equation.

greg

You are amazing! How did you know I'm using drugs?

I will "come clean" - since injuring my knee in December and trying to recover from it, I have been ingesting a somewhat regular dosage of ibuprofen everyday. I know, I know, you'll say that it's not on the banned list, but hey, I'm benefitting from it, right? So, you got me. If you don't tell anyone else, I'll give you some. The first batch is on me...come back and see me when you need more.

And as far as "having my cake and eating it too," I've never quite understood that line. If I had my cake, why the hell couldn't I eat it - it's my cake!

You seem to be one of those neat posters on this board who find some cute little comeback (no, YOU'RE on drugs!) and keep using it over & over & over...Do you have anything more logical to contribute? If so, please give me concrete answers to a few questions (I would be interested to see what others would answer as well - thanks):

1. The sport of T&F has an issue with athletes using performance enhancing drugs. Do you agree (yes or no)?

2. If you answered yes to #1, do you think that the athletes who have set World Records are more or less likely to have been using these performance enhancing drugs?

(if you answered no to #1, please exit the message board immediately)

3. If you answered "more likely" to #2, do you think that the athletes who crushed World Records are more or less likely to have been using these performance enhancing drugs?

4. If you answered "less likely" to #2, which athletes do you think ARE using performance enhancing drugs?

5. At what level of performance in the marathon/10K would you suspect Paula of possibly using performance enhancing drugs?

sub 2:14 / sub 29:30

sub 2:12 / sub 29:00

sub 2:10 / sub 28:30

sub 2:08 / sub 28:00

6. Do you find it acceptable to both enjoy a performance at face value, but also be skeptical of how it was achieved?

Thanks in advance,

BDG

Flagpole wrote:

6) There is a little girl here in the US who is normal by all accounts except that she can't feel physical pain. Is Paula just like that? Probably not. Could she have some sort of physical gift that allows her to endure pain better than others? Perhaps.

Flagpole, the idea that "pain" is something holding the average world-class marathoner (forgive the oxymoron) back is a myth only beginners could buy into after a few seconds of consideration. Your use of the word as if it applies equally to all unwelcome sensations is bunk. A well-prepared top-level marathoner enduring the physical taxation and discomfort of a race is not the same as him failing to feel his limbs being broken or a blowtorch applied to his genitals.

Your numbers 2) and 3) are just as outrageous but others here and elsewhere have deconstructed that reasoning ad nauseam already.

actually, flagpole's #6 does have bearing.

i wrote a longer post on this, but the f-ing "terms and conditions" button caused me to lose my post.

here's a short recap:

pressure receptor--1-2mL fluid causes knee to decrease quad contraction ~20%

pH receptor--causes muscle to decrease contractility

CO2 receptor--causes hyperventilation as CO2 increases, despite efforts to breathe slowly

blood vessel receptor--cuases vasodilation/constriction based on what metabolites are in blood

golgi tendon receptor--restrcits motion of a joint to ~90% of what is permissible without damage to muscle to ensure no damage will occur

all of the above can be affected by training, diet, genetics, or other means. (think of gymnasts' flexibility in action, clam divers holding their breath for 3+ min, etc.) i'm not saying that "pain receptors" play a huge role in distance running. but tolerance of negative feedback from your body while still maintaining pace/effort is something that elite athletes DO struggle with, and DO affect via training.

even if that comes down to 30-60 seconds in a marathon, that would be a pretty significant improvement, no?

just throwing some things out there for thought is all.

greg

greg ward wrote:

genetics is, and this will continue to be proven 1000 years from now when lots of testing on human subjects (clones, i'd bet) has been done, is still going to be half or slightly more of the equation.

greg

Greg- I respectfully disagree. Your seemingly uninformed statement that genetics are only "half or slightly more of the equation" does not get to the bottom of the issue. Don't be so quick to assume I've never read a bio text.

Training is required to exploit the genetic potential of an individual... The degree to which genetics set limits on performance is an issue of debate, it's not totally decided upon as you try to imply. It's my view that genetics are VERY important, others may think genetics play a lesser role.

Here's an article I found interesting on this topic..

From the above article:

"There is no question that genetic differences separate elite athletes from those of us who no matter how much we train, are restricted to compete against our previous personal best time."

Maybe my other post was unclear; I was over simplifying for my immediate audience, if you know what I mean... I know it takes the right genetics PLUS tons of training, but I still stand by that without the right genetics you?re doomed to joggerdom.

from your scientific article:

[Training is required to exploit the genetic potential of any individual. Elite athletes, although genetically gifted, need to be respected for the training they have completed in order to achieve their genetic potential. ]

the above is exactly what i said. i said "genetics is the framework." i also said "critical component." i know you can read...can you not put words out of context?

also:

[It remains unclear whether our current knowledge of genetic influence to exercise is limited by inadequate research. It is apparent that research has not yet been able to identify the genetic influences on specific functional capacities, or the detection of genes that foster the development of given capacities of human function. Perhaps, from a moral and philosophical perspective, this is a good thing !!!!]

the tests we won't have for 1000 years i talked about. (and you quoted out of context).

again:

[The genetic contributions to muscle tissue fiber composition and size are significant. However, physical training may play a significant role in modifying fiber size and area, and the relative area composed of Type I (slow twitch, oxidative muscle) and Type II (fast twitch, glycolitic) fibers as well as their metabolic capacities.]

as i stated, a framework.

[Since the size of the heart is an important determinant of stroke volume, which is a limiting factor to aerobic performance, it appears that genetics may play a crucial role in determining one's aerobic capacity potential.]

also determined by training added upon genetics.

[Strength or endurance training can not change these proportions(of fast to slow twitch muscle). However, strength and endurance training can alter the capacities of these fibers. ]

same thing, you getting the picture?

there are many more of these. if you've read any of my other posts on this topic, i am a FERVENT believer in the power of genetics. however, it is a-scientific and illogical and without proof that the environment (see: training) does not play a role. before you go and lecture me, make sure you have clear what i'm saying.

to make it crystal, here we go: there are significant differences between both individuals in their phenotypic characters, and between populations based on the relative allele frequencies and forms of alleles--all of this based on genetics. but environment plays a critical role as well, and cannot be ignored/underestimated; it can reduce (or heighten) differences due to genetics, but cannot "overcome" a "bad" starting point. both are, and will forever be, important parts of the "equation" of determining our maximum performance, as individuals and as a species.

greg

ps. why did you agree with me in your post after calling me uninformed? "Training is required to exploit the genetic potential of an individual... "

pps. you actuall confirmed my original post with your last one. i said it's the framework, the starting point...if you start as a jogger, you're not going to run 2:15...why did you decide to post to back me up? i NEVER said training would make you elite, i just said "[training] it DOES take you well beyond your genetic endowment." not that it was everything.

gosh, the more i read what you write, the more i realize that you don't think/read before you open your internet mouth.

Greg- are you able to have a discussion with the lowly likes of me without being condescending? (I suspect you'll only provide another condescending remark as response to this question). If I came off as lecturing, I apologize; it was only because your initial reply to me was more than a little patronizing. If I'm wrong about anything, I'm always willing to admit my wrongness, learn, and move on... I don?t think I?ve made my stance clear at all? I think we are basically in agreeance, it?s only words that are getting in the way. Let me try again:

it is a-scientific and illogical and without proof that the environment (see: training) does not play a role

I NEVER meant to insinuate this; I totally agree that such a position would be unscientific and just stupid?

Of course environment is a huge factor, the most genetically perfect human, with genetic potential to be the next KK or PR that does not put in the training will achieve little. Training is obviously essential to develop genetic potential, that was never an issue? My stance was ASSUMING A HIGH LEVEL OF TRAINING AND ALL ELSE EQUAL.

The only point I ever tried to make was this one:

""There is no question that genetic differences separate elite athletes from those of us who no matter how much we train, are restricted to compete against our previous personal best time."

I agree, of course, that genetics are a "critical component", but I see genetics as the determining factor of performance. Only because many, many more people are willing to train very hard, many more than have the body that will allow them to do so and adapt well to the work load.

I find this subject interesting, and would gladly read more that you have written on it? Please let me know if you find me to still not make sense and I will attempt yet again.

let me clarify that paragraph that makes no sense...

I agree, of course, that genetics are a "critical component", but I see genetics as the determining factor of performance. Only because many, many more people are willing to train to their limits, than have the genetic make-up that will allow them to train at the highest of levels and adapt well to it.

Greg, i clearly recognized that environment (training) is a MUST:

I wrote:

"Training is required to exploit the genetic potential of an individual... "

Where did you get the idea I was writing off environment as unimportant????

Tons of people will train as hard as they can, few have the genetics to set WRs... Paula Radcliffe is one of those few.

That's all I was saying... is that so outlandish? If so, please explain.

Thanks,

Tara

geez 4th post... i know, sorry....

greg wrote:

""[training] it DOES take you well beyond your genetic endowment."

Please expand on this... I don't see how anything save gene manipulation or therapy could "take you beyond your genetic endowment". Training can only take you to your genetic potential...

thanks...

"that you forget that it DOES take you well beyong your genetic endowment."

No, hard work fulfills your genetic endowment or helps you realize its potential - you can't get BEYOND it. What a bizarre conception of the self you have. This statement is nonsensical - how can you get beyond your self? Where would the added ingrediants come from if not from something about the way you already are pssobily combined with some external stimulus, neither of which you can be said to have intentionally brought about?

People don't create themsleves. You can never be said to have risen "above" yourself, what appears to be a rising above is merely a discovery of some hitherto unnoticed or unrealized component of your self or the introduction of some externality that made a new outcome from the basic raw material possible. The notion of "rising above" oneself merely exhibits or ignorance of what the self already contained - a failure of our psychological insight. To believe otherwise would require one to believe one has intentionally brought it about that one is the way one is - to have become a "causa sui" - a creator of oneself. Probably the greatest error humans have had in the conception of themselves (and has led to such errors as religion) - because we don't know what causes something, we think that nothing causes it.

What one does, the choices one makes are inextricably tied to the way one is. We admire people like Radcliffe because of what they are, not because of what they autonomously made themselves. She is an example of human excellence - the end product of a desperately unlikely collusion of awe-inspiring type-facts. We admire the qualities and achievements associated with that collusion. Our need to overanalyze the origin thereof (or the need to cling to comforting notions about our fundamental equality that could be brought out if only we chose to do so) just highlights the width of the gulf that seperates human excellence from human mediocrity. I'd almost guarantee Radcliffe has no delusions about about the role of talent as a facilitator of her work or her performances and a by product of being truly great at something is generally a blithe unconcern about the origins of that greatness - that is left for those of us standing in awe to bicker about. For people of that magnitude, the performances of which they are capable stand on their own without need of reductionism.

brian, very well put, may good points. thanks...

BDG,

perhaps you've not followed some of the other threads on this subject. I've taken it upon myself to smear all of the accusers with the same brush. I'm trying to make a point, and I'll be damned if I care whether I hurt anyone's feelings or lob unfounded allegations. If you throw out a claim of drug use (whether against Paula, Regina or anyone else who hasn't tested positive), I think you do so only to help rationalize your own drug use to yourself. Pathetic, really.

In your case, your accusation was sort of couched in "well maybe not" sort of language. That doesn't get you off my hook, though. As far as I'm concerned, innuendo is at least as damaging as a direct accusation.

So, I don't frankly believe you about the ibuprofen, and the more you protest, the more certain I will be. You go ahead and keep telling yourself you're clean, if it makes YOU feel better.

Get off the drugs. They're potentially harmful to your health.

guilty

Pete

Seriously, I am impressed by your steadfast belief in the subject matter which you waivered not at all from your opinion. I was wondered if:

A 10.80-100m female started training harder than ever before, gain muscle mass and explosiveness and in two years ran 10.38/21.68-200m/48.25-400m and raced less often; however, passed all her drug test-what would you think?

OR

A 1:57.00-800m/3:58.00-1500m female runner started training with faster men and increased her mileage drastically and in two years starting running 1:51.09/3:50.99/14:48.99-5000m-often negatively splitting her races and passed all her drug test what would you think?

Would you at least be skeptical or accept it at face value?

Vipam

Of to class; however, interested in all responses!!!

How about if an international triple jumper who had already picked up a bronze at a World Championships suddenly smashed the World Record, achieving a mark that no one else has got anywhere near. Yep, Jonathan Edwards is definitely a druggie.

As was Dave Moorcroft. Look at the facts. He was a top class runner who suddenly smashed his 5k PB, beating the WR by 6 seconds. In the same year he ran best ever times for 800, mile and 3K. Definitely a druggie.

And don't talk to me about Jim Peters. It may well have ben 50 years ago but lets face it when he ran 2:20 no one else had broken 2:25! The following year he ran 2:18 and then the next year he ran 2:17. Definitely a druggie.

Zatopek. Druggie

Ron Clarke. Druggie

blah, blah, blah......

tara,

many apologies. i should not post at night after a long day teaching students who really don't seem to bother--get a little cynical. i am honestly sorry about the tone...i hesitated before the first post, and my better judgment did not win out.

brian,

i believe that you are twisting my words with semantics. i'm not in a philosophical discussion. let me just clarify:

what i mean is this: you genetic endowment, as i wrote it, give you the ability to run, say 33min 10k with NO training. you have the muscle fibers, mitochondria, heart size, etc. that is your "starting point." it also limits your potential, in that you might have a "limit" of 29min for that same 10k. your training fills this in within the framework, as i stated before. sorry if this was unclear, i appreciate your thoughts.

one final thing on this: while in general you are "spot on" in your placing an upper limit on people based on genetics, it IS, in fact, possible to make minor changes ABOVE your initial genetic potential; you start with certain myosin light chain proteins--they help dictate the optimal contractility of muscle. these are then changed via differential transcription within the nuclei of your muscle fibers due to multipace and distance training, leading you to a greater "potential" race pace if you also develop the cardiovascular system to back it up. i can send you some work on this topic if you're interested, but it does lend credence to the idea that you CAN change your "potential" with training.

i realize that the above paragraph could be read as "maximizing potential not initially manifested in your genes," but the fact that without training, those genes would never be turned on, i tend to think that training takes you beyond your initial genetic endowment.

on the whole, though, brian (like that name, it's my brothers, and he's probably almost as smart as you), i genuinely enjoyed your post even more as i reread it just a second ago--well put, and very well written. i enjoy debate and learning from others, and i'll try to phrase my statements better.

cheers, and both you and tara have a good run(s) today!

greg

vipam,

you're trying to bait me, I believe.

I am probably the biggest skeptic I've ever met. I question everything, all the time, regardless of the source, until I have absorbed enough on the subject to satisfy myself one way or another. This would have been apparent on my many Iraq volleys.

There is a difference, though, between being privately skeptical and publicly launching allegations. I won't engage in that sort of trash talk. I didn't join in with the Regina drug talk, and I won't express skepticism about Paula. And those who stir it up piss me off to no end. This includes you.

The reason I've been so goddamn bullheaded on this particular issue is because this weekend, one of our own - a fellow runner - had a remarkable achievement. When I checked in with letsrun to join in the celebrations and congratulations, I instead discovered petty jealousy, loud accusations, and weaselly innuendo. What a pathetic bunch of losers we are on this board if all we can do is mumble and gripe and throw stones after such a monumental achievement.

I was surprised and disappointed to see this bullshit come from jason, who comes across as one of the bigger cheerleaders of our sport, but even more so to see it come from you. My jaw dropped when I saw you launch your accusations. I can only guess you're retaliating because the board doesn't back your position on Regina or Bekele, or something like that.

vipam, get off the drugs and seek some help. In my eyes you will always be suspect.

guilty, guilty, guilty as charged!

Pete-

In another post you state that you are a very skeptical person. If that is true, you are being very hypocritical to yourself in mentioning that simply the lack of a positive test makes a runner clean. Was Dieter Baumann clean before he got busted? With your (and many others on this board) logic, Baumann (or any other runner who flunks a drug test) only became dirty upon failing the test.

Do I know if Paula has used/is using performance enhancing drugs? No - there's a lot of things I don't know about her. Do I think that she MAY have used/may be using performance enhancing drugs? Yes - she MAY have. That's being skeptical. I realize that adds to the rumor & innuendo, but so be it - she's a big girl.

I again will state my position. I enjoyed reading about Paula's performance. I have enjoyed following the sport of track & field and all of it's great performances. But the shadow of the performance enhancing drug issue is quite long, and I will be skeptical of performances that cause my jaw to drop in amazement.

I'm Skeptical, Pro-Track&Field, and Anti-Drug.

BDG