Why are “EPO era” records falling?

Most of my life is based on trust.I got in a car today without a clue about hydraulics but it did indeed stop but the trust I placed in the automotive engineers seemed well placed.

And I don’t think I have seen any Green Flash about in the last few decades.

I don't suggest "just from the shoes".

In this thread, my answer to the subject was "shoes and wavelights". In the very post that Armstronglivs responded to, I said "Like training, and track surfaces, and running clothes, running shoes have dramatically change in the last half-century."

In another thread, I wrote "changes and advancements in training, tracks, opportunities, incentives, event specialization, professionalization, and most recently shoes and wavelights, have all benefitted performances since the 1970s."

So no, I'm not seriously suggesting "just from the shoes".

Another factor specific to Zola Budd is that she competed in an era where the women's longer distance events were still maturing (the shorter events were tainted by steroids for women in the '70s).

So the strong thinking is that supershoes today are not super today because - Zola Budd didn't wear shoes 37 years ago?

In her own era, her best 5000m was 11 seconds slower than the 5000m record. Her previous competition was Mary Tabb's 15:08, and then Ingrid Kristiansen, who eventually ran 11 seconds faster, with shoes.

Who knows -- with today's shoes, maybe both women could have run 14:25, and Zola could have run 3:57 in the 1500m.

90 samples taken inc the use of a new method.

Trust isn't the same as knowledge. The latter you clearly lack.

No, that isn't the thinking. It simply shows you have no convincing argument for how the shoes make runners faster because you have no data comparing the use of different shoes in the same runners.

None of that shows how the factors you refer to, like shoes, wave-light etc, have improved running times.

Funny, you never asked me "how", and I did not argue "how", although the Impact Magazine article touched on some of the "how". Instead, you speculated that the benefits from all these technological advancements were marginal, compared to doping. I said that this is your own personal belief, based on no facts, data, or evidence, and that a "less than" operator requires two numbers while you have provided none.

Lance did test positive, but it was waived because he was the Chosen One.
He infamously bragged to team mates about having the UCI president in his pocket. Hima dn his team manager were invited to "inspect" a Swiss doping lab, and learn aaaaalll about methods and thresholds.

For all we know, Usain may well have tested positive several times, but it "handled" in a way to not disturb followers of the sport, or whatever reasons. We only know what's come out. How did he NOT test positive, having all those same trainers, suppliers and dear dear friends as the all disgraced teammates? Why did those trainers and suppliers not give Usain "the good stuff", or why would Usain deal with those dirty cheats, not rat any of them out, and conitinue to beat them all, clean as a whistle?

On shoes,
I do wonder about modern tracks and shoes. I want my old school road flats, but can hardly find anything like it on sale. Adizero Rockets, albeit a bit wear prone where top meets sole, were so epic for track practice and doing road miles. Any other shoes, I'd feel unsafe in doing real accelerations/sprints. Should I just accept the silly tall training shoes, and use them to log more mileage "safely"?

I've competed against dopers around the turn of the century and there was just no comparison. Several categories better, Olympic finalist versus club hobbiest. When they were clean, they were mortals, and very beatable. When "on" it, just no chance to even stay close.

Barefoot races would perhaps not be the worst idea. Tracks are still different, but whether that's good or bad for barefoot runners, I honestly wouldn't know.

2 years off from drug testing because of covid. Not shoes or light. Steroids and cheating. This generation doesnt even question if they should cheat, they just do it. Low integrity, microwave society. Side note: track has the dumbest fans on the planet. Nothing athletes can do for us to collectively say we are in a steroid era. High schoolers are beating pros regularly, records are being broken and re broken then broken again. 40 year records broken 3 times in a month

"The Greats" in the main EPO era justified their own use with the imaginary notion that the competition was doing "way more".

Who are "The Greats" today? Who baptised them to be above cheating? Surely we can't pretend that testing is soooo good now that cheating just can't exist. We SEE people get popped, and that's BY DEFINITION only a portion of dopers, even of dopers that are just as dumb/risky at it. There are ALWAYS ones more careful with lower pop rate.

Can we come up with ANY world record holder from the 21st century (called post doping by some, I'm sure) that's even plausibly set clean? Looking at entourage, trainers caught, team mates caught, etc, etc?
The mental gymnastics to declare any WR holder "likely really clean" would be...olympic level mental gymnastics. I doubt any came from clean team with a clean trainer, a fysio that's never been implicated, a normal PB progression, never a whereabouts miss, etc, etc.

True story. Just look at the two heroes Bolt and Kipchoge with their doped teammates.

because we're in a new era. the hoka era.

There was not two years off from testing

So how can they risk doping with all the new tightened up methods and second generation metabolites.

Has anyone bothered to read this or are they worried they may have to change their mind.

Well the science kept improving during the last decades too, and so did the detection methods, yet according to the often cited 2020 paper from Faiss et al., doping prevalence was still around 50% not too long ago.

Why risk it? Because clean runners neither win nor set records nor get rich. Look at those who finally got caught (including Armstrong and Jeptoo and Kiprop and Houlihan) - they all kept most of their money.

This is pure conjecture. It makes a good story, but there is no proof. If someone could provide performance drug sales information showing a significant increase during/after covid, this would be the beginning of proof, but we saw supply shortages of everything (insulin, tylenol, baby formula, car parts, etc.). These supply chain issues are still a problem.

It is very unlikely that a large percentage of HS and college athletes are doping. It is too expensive and not readily available. The race time shift goes too deep into the lists for this to be a serious factor. When prize money is involved, that makes it more prevalent. So for the pros, this may be true, but again we have no proof.

The data makes it obvious. At all levels of competition (HS, college, club, national, international), there was a distinct drop in race times deep into the lists with the introduction of the shoes. People have accepted this for road shoes, why not track shoes? Tracks did not change, coaches did not drastically turn over or suddenly change their training philosophies. The shoes changed. All other things in the past 5 years are minimal contributors with the possible exception of PEDs at the pro level.

2023 and with the knowledge of what caught the above.