Respected commentator Tim Hutchings calls out times from past drug era, says more natural levels now.

Which part of the quote did you not understand?

"Those times seem a thing of the past...a bygone era, I never thought I'd hear myself say that, but sub 12.50 times now seem like science fiction almost. With the drug testing that goes on has nailed down so much of the activity in the sport of track and field, athletic standards have dropped dramatically to perhaps more natural levels over this past two or three years."

He's clearly talking about so called Performance Enhancing Drugs, is he not? He's clearly implying that it is not realistic to expect so called 'clean' runners to run those times without so called PEDs.

And which is the most talked about so called PED in distance running of the last 20 something years?

its 2018 not 1998 wrote:

Casual observer, you are too involved in the politics to get it. You can't see the wood for the trees.

I've explained it in a way that even you can understand. Now show me you really care and get off that 'anti drugs' bandwagon, it's not an honest way to go about things it just makes the problem worse.

Hey Jon, isn't suppose to be can't see the forest through the trees? ?

Stop it, Jon. People are slower off the sauce and the times prove it. You think people suddenly got less efficient when testing was increased?

How's your book coming along, Jon? Still a bit thin for a Masters in Bioenergetics.

You still don't get that fast athletes flame through that energy at higher rate, eh? What a 20 minute guy burns through in 5k an elite can run that amount through his bigger engine in almost half the time.

I guess that IS kind of rocket scientry for your little brain.

it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:

The 'drug problem' in sport is a social construct, a mixture of pseudoscientific dogma and ages old superstition about drugs alowing people to go beyond whatever is perceived as humanly possible without them.

Google "body building images".

Or look at the female runners of the 80s.

At least you are funnier than rekrunner.

Records were set up forGebreselassie, El Gerrouj, Komen, Bekele. That is not the case now.

Farah is a different kind of runner than Bekele, he has more speed and some might say he was not capable of beating Bekele's times?

Eliud Kipchoge is still around. Do you think he must be doping? I know you're trolling, but you don't seriously think he is do you?

Anyway address the issue of bioenergetics. It's not difficult to understand or for me to explain to you.

Trying to get exercise physiologists and journalists/bloggers on board though? The mythology has to be de-constructed and that means people have to get off the PED bandwagon and self righteous moralising. That's going to be difficult. The PED construct is a like a religious dogma and such things are culturally inherited and rigidly imposed.

casual obsever wrote:

it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:

The 'drug problem' in sport is a social construct, a mixture of pseudoscientific dogma and ages old superstition about drugs alowing people to go beyond whatever is perceived as humanly possible without them.

Google "body building images".

Or look at the female runners of the 80s.

At least you are funnier than rekrunner.

Body building is a freak show, not a sport. You know that.

The women from the 80s? With all those steroids around, how come they were still 10% slower than the men.

I have made these points before and you know it. Stop the disingenous arguments and address the real problem.; the PED construct is pseudoscience.

correct, but there is nothing that indicates they would be able to run sub 12:50. Kamworor who probably is the best

track runner has not broken 13.

The 'drug problem' in sport is a social construct...

this is, I'm afraid, more meaningless drivel. the robbery problem in banks is also a social construct but that doesn't stop it being something we want to do something about. we don't just let folks rob banks because, you know, man, robbery is just a social construct.

cheers.

it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Google "body building images".

Or look at the female runners of the 80s.

At least you are funnier than rekrunner.

Body building is a freak show, not a sport. You know that.

The women from the 80s? With all those steroids around, how come they were still 10% slower than the men.

I have made these points before and you know it. Stop the disingenous arguments and address the real problem.; the PED construct is pseudoscience.

1990s track was a freak show too. Doped women were 10% slower because women are slower. Was that supposed to be a scientific argument?

it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:

Body building is a freak show, not a sport.

Some people are starting to feel this way about track and field...

it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:

The women from the 80s? With all those steroids around, how come they were still 10% slower than the men.

I dunno, maybe the men were taking steroids too?

Cottonshirt, address the issue of bioenergetics, otherwise we are going round in circles arguing about moral judgements rather than how the human body produces and uses energy.

Bioenergetics and Biomechanical efficiency. Discuss.

You will undestand my points eventually and the scales will drop from your eyes. The human race has an ages old belief in magic potions that give superhuman strength. That is what the PED concept/consctruct is built upon.

Get away from the dogma and address the fact that we don't have a correct bioenergetic model. It is not a Strawman argument to say that exercise physiologists don't understand this. The reality is that many do, but their voice is crowded out by those with a vested interest in the PED construct.

Just so I understand, do you seriously not believe that the human body can be changed by taking steroids? Or HGH?

feel jaded wrote:

it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:

Body building is a freak show, not a sport.

Some people are starting to feel this way about track and field...

it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:

The women from the 80s? With all those steroids around, how come they were still 10% slower than the men.

I dunno, maybe the men were taking steroids too?

Yes doping was rife etc etc and still is to whatever degree.

Do you think that no woman can beat the current world records without drugs?

If you do then consider my point, which is actually a point of basic physiology that is almost universally ignored, that we don't have a well know model for showing biomechanical efficiency incorporating a model showing energy use and production. We are constantly bombarded with the idea that with so called PEDs, we can utilize more energy. That is a biological impossiblity that very few exercise physiologists understand. If they are not properly educated, then the doping construct goes on and on. It always will because it's based on superstitious beliefs which are hard to shake off. But at least a significant proportion of athletes and maybe society in general could see how illusory it is?

Yes. No one’s come within a full second of Koch’s 400 in 25 years.

ex-runner wrote:

Just so I understand, do you seriously not believe that the human body can be changed by taking steroids? Or HGH?

I've seen the pictures. I know how morphology can be changed with drugs.

In sprinting you have to understand that increased muscle mass beyond a certain level (from good training and nutrition) will slow a sprinter down by reducing mass specific force. So you can produce more force with more muscle mass, but actually go slower.

Break a sprint down into components. There is no component that can be improved with drugs, no matter what coach d says. If he had a point worth considering he would be able to discuss it but he doesn't. Likewise Luv2Run has been posting here even longer than me and I've been here 15 years, but Luv2Run will never discuss anything, just make statements. This is how most sports scientists operate. They won't get involved in any discussion that goes against the current dogma. So my ad hominem to them is that they are part of the doping culture despite their moralizing.

47.60 wrote:

Yes. No one’s come within a full second of Koch’s 400 in 25 years.

Sad, but true. A supposedly impossible barrier has been put in place in the minds of those who are supposed to 'coach' women in the 100, 200, 400, 800 and 1500 meter races. The barrier is mental not physical.

Yes 47.6 is super fast, and yes I believe she used steroids. If we use the simplistic 10% rule it's the equivalent of 43.27 for a man, super fast but not superhuman.

I'm really not sure why you think 'producing more energy' would be performance enhancing. I'm not following why you think you need 'more energy' to run faster.

it's 2018 not 1998 wrote:

47.60 wrote:

Yes. No one’s come within a full second of Koch’s 400 in 25 years.

Sad, but true. A supposedly impossible barrier has been put in place in the minds of those who are supposed to 'coach' women in the 100, 200, 400, 800 and 1500 meter races. The barrier is mental not physical.

Yes 47.6 is super fast, and yes I believe she used steroids. If we use the simplistic 10% rule it's the equivalent of 43.27 for a man, super fast but not superhuman.

If she used steroids like you have said, that's why she is faster than the women of today.

One of the major factors that makes women and men have different levels of physical strength and therefore speed is differing testosterone levels. Testosterone is an anabolic steroid. Synthetic steroids mimic testosterone. Women that take them produce facial hair, increased strength, voices get deeper, have shrinking breasts, enlarged clitorises - essentially they start to turn into men.

How do you not understand this?