HRE wrote:
One of these things is legal to use. The other is not. If in your book there is no difference between the two maybe you should get a better book.
Blood doping was legal till 84 or 86. But morally we recognized that people who blood doped before the banned, we're cheating.
*were
4% = cheating wrote:
HRE wrote:
One of these things is legal to use. The other is not. If in your book there is no difference between the two maybe you should get a better book.
Blood doping was legal till 84 or 86. But morally we recognized that people who blood doped before the banned, we're cheating.
Again, you're confusing what you believe to be cheating with what is actually defined as cheating. Blood doping is cheating now because it was made illegal. Before that happened it was not cheating. It's your own business as to whether you want to consider people who blood doped at any time a cheater but that doesn't mean that they were unless they blood doped after it was made illegal.
In baseball the spitball is now illegal. Pitchers who throw it are cheating. It was once legal. Pitchers who threw it were not cheating at the time and they've never been made into "retroactive" cheaters..
HRE wrote:
One of these things is legal to use. The other is not. If in your book there is no difference between the two maybe you should get a better book.
Nothing wrong with his book son. It's called the book of personal ethics.
And it's better to have one rather than literally run about like a cheat simply because of the current lay of the land.
Personal ethics are personal. There are probably things you do that I'd have ethical issues about and the same is probably true in reverse. Each of us probably believes we're a bit superior to the other ethically and neither of us has much beyond our own opinion to support that opinion. That's why organized sports have rules which define what does and does not count as cheating.
That aside, there is definitely something wrong with the OP's book if he cannot distinguish ANY difference between EPO and the 4%. One has to be injected. The other does not. One has biochemical affects. The other does not. And here's a big one. To the naked eye it is possible to tell if a runner is using one of these things but not if s/he is using the other. If someone really thinks using these two things are NO different they are not showing much capacity for clear thinking.
LR Logic wrote:
frayed parateniae wrote:
Go and tell that to Rupp's achilles ....
+1.
We all know that Rupp and Hasay were injured by wearing those shoes.
We also know that Allie was injured by switching from them to ASCIS.
Do you really think that Rupp and Hassay were wearing the 4% s for every mile they did in training? My guess is that they did not. You can blame (probably wrongfully so) their injuries on wearing Nike's, but not on the 4%'s.
PutASockInIt wrote:
EPO is a medicine, which has been used in endurance sports to improve performance of users. Misuse of EPO can cause health issues.
VP4% are a running shoes. VP4% don't put your health in risk.
Using a bike doesn’t put your health in risk either, but for some reason I’m not allowed use them during a race
Free_the_thigh wrote:
PutASockInIt wrote:
EPO is a medicine, which has been used in endurance sports to improve performance of users. Misuse of EPO can cause health issues.
VP4% are a running shoes. VP4% don't put your health in risk.
Using a bike doesn’t put your health in risk either, but for some reason I’m not allowed use them during a race
What about roller blades? Strictly speaking they are shoes. And they have no gears in them like a bike. You will be powering yourself using your own energy and moving from one leg to another. You could argue that they are in fact just a better shoe for covering long distances fast over flat tarmac than the nike vaporfly 4% ....
Carbon plated shoes and roller blades can give you injuries if they are misused as well.
Personal ethics are indeed personal. Of that I'm sure we can all agree.
However I think you have missed the entire point with your "capacity for clear thinking" comment, which surely you must understand is not unfettered by personal consideration.
Allow us to look at an example to help you escape from the cage of your personal experience:- In the 1970s, in any office environment you may have had a couple of moustachioed gents, dressed perhaps in brown corduroy jackets, happily puffing away on high tar level cigarettes, when a young lass, possibly the boss's secretary tottered past them in her high heels. Now back then one of them may very well have given her a firm pat on the backside and said something like "Woooooof! Looking good love" and high five'd his buddy. She may well have cast a playful backward look and giggled saying something along the lines of "Behave, cheeky bigger!" and tottered on.
Well let me tell you that back then if someone shocked at that very behaviour in that the office, said "you know, in the future that may very well be considered tantamount to attempted rape", someone may well have replied with "well anyone with a capacity for clear thinking can see they are very different things". And that reply would be very wrong because what would have happened here is that someone with a very strong sense of personal ethics has managed to cut through the fog of that society's views on sex at that precise moment in time to see CLEARLY what is right and what is wrong.
And that is why you shouldn't wear Vaporfly 4%s unless you are a cheat.
The Moral Superior Has Spoken wrote:
Personal ethics are indeed personal. Of that I'm sure we can all agree.
However I think you have missed the entire point with your "capacity for clear thinking" comment, which surely you must understand is not unfettered by personal consideration.
Allow us to look at an example to help you escape from the cage of your personal experience:- In the 1970s, in any office environment you may have had a couple of moustachioed gents, dressed perhaps in brown corduroy jackets, happily puffing away on high tar level cigarettes, when a young lass, possibly the boss's secretary tottered past them in her high heels. Now back then one of them may very well have given her a firm pat on the backside and said something like "Woooooof! Looking good love" and high five'd his buddy. She may well have cast a playful backward look and giggled saying something along the lines of "Behave, cheeky bigger!" and tottered on.
Well let me tell you that back then if someone shocked at that very behaviour in that the office, said "you know, in the future that may very well be considered tantamount to attempted rape", someone may well have replied with "well anyone with a capacity for clear thinking can see they are very different things". And that reply would be very wrong because what would have happened here is that someone with a very strong sense of personal ethics has managed to cut through the fog of that society's views on sex at that precise moment in time to see CLEARLY what is right and what is wrong.
And that is why you shouldn't wear Vaporfly 4%s unless you are a cheat.
This story is ridiculous. You’ve described a scene from the 1950s, but the hi five was not invented until the late seventies. And it would have been well into the eighties before white, office dwelling squares were doing it.
4%=cheating wrote:
EPO is a innovation too.
PEDs are banned cause of the negative health consequences taken in excess. There’s no negatives to equipment advances.
innovation, my dear. wrote:
4%=cheating wrote:
EPO is a innovation too.
PEDs are banned cause of the negative health consequences taken in excess. There’s no negatives to equipment advances.
Why cant I use a bike, there are no negatives to equipment advances?
Just because the world record improved, doesn't mean the shoes made the world record. Correlation does not imply causation. It's just a shoe, that's all it is.
justashoe wrote:
Just because the world record improved, doesn't mean the shoes made the world record. Correlation does not imply causation. It's just a shoe, that's all it is.
His fastest marathon in non 4% shoes?
National record in Japan before and after 4% shoes:
Before: 2:06:16
After: 2:05:50
People have different opinions even today on the morality or amorality of doing the things you describe. What's different is that doing those things today will likely get you in trouble and in the 70s they probably wouldn't. Pity we can't all have your infallible sense of right and wrong.
Doesn't seem to be quite 4% difference...
badMath wrote:
Doesn't seem to be quite 4% difference...
For the millionth time. They don't make you 4% faster. 4% refers to nike studies showing they make you 4% more efficient. How much faster they make someone run? My educated guess is about 1-2 % faster.
... Like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target.
It's not about me or anyone else having an "infallible sense of right and wrong", it's about not presuming that YOU do.
and EPO should be legal... quite trying to shove your big government nanny state on everyone
why is it these idiot abolitionists always try to force their views on everyone? then they'll claim they love the 'free market' or that 'libs' are blah blah blah...