Why do you keep calling this a WADA assessment, rather than your own?
According to WADA's 2019 reports, the chance of a Bodybuilding sample testing positive was 30x greater than the chance of an Athletics sample. Despite Athletics having 26x more tests, Bodybuilding still produced 25% more ADRVs, absolutely.
Which "risk" do you allege WADA assessed is at the "same level"?
It isn't my assessment. I have read it as a statement from WADA that it sees T and F as equal risk for doping as bodybuilding, weightlifting and cycling.
You don't have a reliable track record of reading things and repeating them accurately. Unless you can point to such a statement expressed by WADA, it must be deemed your own personal assessment distorted by your own imagination.
Note that last October, 2022, WADA declared the Bodybuilding federation (IFBB) non-compliant. It doesn't seem likely that WADA views these sports as having the same level of risk.
That you write "I have nothing to counter" clearly shows that often you just interpret things, mostly wrongly. You think I want to "counter" this, but can't. You are wrong Dumbstrong, as so often. Kiptum, Hassan, Ingebrigtsen and Kipyegon are not "doped in your view" (they are or they are not). You BELIEVE they are doped. You are free to do so. Are they doped? You don't know this. I also don't know it.
The point about Coe is extremely important in regard to your "argumentation". Before you clearly stated that you can't come close to a current WR without doping. This was clearly wrong and you accepted this now, and this is OK. You just BELIEVE almost any current top athlete is doping, that's OK. But completely useless for any serious discussion.
I haven't accepted anything you argue. But you just keep going around the mulberry bush.
But put your cards on the table. Is doping common at the top of the sport or not?
What a childish question. Anybody who follows top level sports knows that doping is involved at the very top but also behind. Which percentage is doping? Who exactly? Which benefits did the dopers actually get? Impossible to answer questions.
You have accepted what I have written.
Just for clarification: is it possible to come close to a current WR without doping? Yes or no? If I would ask, is it possible to run 100m in 5 seconds without some sort of support, we would agree the answer is no (without an exact proof). So, is it possible to come close to a current WR?
I haven't accepted anything you argue. But you just keep going around the mulberry bush.
But put your cards on the table. Is doping common at the top of the sport or not?
What a childish question. Anybody who follows top level sports knows that doping is involved at the very top but also behind. Which percentage is doping? Who exactly? Which benefits did the dopers actually get? Impossible to answer questions.
You have accepted what I have written.
Just for clarification: is it possible to come close to a current WR without doping? Yes or no? If I would ask, is it possible to run 100m in 5 seconds without some sort of support, we would agree the answer is no (without an exact proof). So, is it possible to come close to a current WR?
That "childish question" is the kernel of the matter: is track a dirty sport or not? If you accept the former the rest is merely details. Yes, dopers benefit from their doping and, yes, the best are likely doped. To argue otherwise is to disappear down the rekrunner rabbit-hole, that performance-enhancement from doping is a myth.
And, no, I haven't accepted what you have written. You are in a circular dialogue with yourself.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
It isn't my assessment. I have read it as a statement from WADA that it sees T and F as equal risk for doping as bodybuilding, weightlifting and cycling.
You don't have a reliable track record of reading things and repeating them accurately. Unless you can point to such a statement expressed by WADA, it must be deemed your own personal assessment distorted by your own imagination.
Note that last October, 2022, WADA declared the Bodybuilding federation (IFBB) non-compliant. It doesn't seem likely that WADA views these sports as having the same level of risk.
I would say the record for unreliability is yours. You distort, cherry-pick and plain lie on anything to do with this subject. I know what I have read from WADA but I don't choose to make a record of it just so that I can convince you of anything. Furthermore, deeming bodybuilding noncompliant is not saying that track is not at the same risk of doping, it is saying the risk of doping may be just as high but the sport makes a better attempt at applying the rules. Which isn't saying much.
What a childish question. Anybody who follows top level sports knows that doping is involved at the very top but also behind. Which percentage is doping? Who exactly? Which benefits did the dopers actually get? Impossible to answer questions.
You have accepted what I have written.
Just for clarification: is it possible to come close to a current WR without doping? Yes or no? If I would ask, is it possible to run 100m in 5 seconds without some sort of support, we would agree the answer is no (without an exact proof). So, is it possible to come close to a current WR?
That "childish question" is the kernel of the matter: is track a dirty sport or not? If you accept the former the rest is merely details. Yes, dopers benefit from their doping and, yes, the best are likely doped. To argue otherwise is to disappear down the rekrunner rabbit-hole, that performance-enhancement from doping is a myth.
And, no, I haven't accepted what you have written. You are in a circular dialogue with yourself.
You have.
Your answer was yes, it is possible to come close to a current WR without being doped.
You don't have a reliable track record of reading things and repeating them accurately. Unless you can point to such a statement expressed by WADA, it must be deemed your own personal assessment distorted by your own imagination.
Note that last October, 2022, WADA declared the Bodybuilding federation (IFBB) non-compliant. It doesn't seem likely that WADA views these sports as having the same level of risk.
I would say the record for unreliability is yours. You distort, cherry-pick and plain lie on anything to do with this subject. I know what I have read from WADA but I don't choose to make a record of it just so that I can convince you of anything. Furthermore, deeming bodybuilding noncompliant is not saying that track is not at the same risk of doping, it is saying the risk of doping may be just as high but the sport makes a better attempt at applying the rules. Which isn't saying much.
Of course you would. Case in point.
Whatever you want to claim now, the question still remains unanswered what WADA really said, if they even said anything at all.
WADA made public what they say in the respective WADA Testing and ADRV reports, and these don't show anywhere near the same level of risk.
That "childish question" is the kernel of the matter: is track a dirty sport or not? If you accept the former the rest is merely details. Yes, dopers benefit from their doping and, yes, the best are likely doped. To argue otherwise is to disappear down the rekrunner rabbit-hole, that performance-enhancement from doping is a myth.
And, no, I haven't accepted what you have written. You are in a circular dialogue with yourself.
You have.
Your answer was yes, it is possible to come close to a current WR without being doped.
No, that isn't my answer - it is yours. But you remain in conversation with yourself.
Your answer was yes, it is possible to come close to a current WR without being doped.
No, that isn't my answer - it is yours. But you remain in conversation with yourself.
It was your answer.
But since you have forgotten about it:
Is it - in your deluded world - possible to come close to a current WR without being doped?
For other readers: he won't answer this easy question (an clear answer - regardless of "yes" or "no" - would destroy some of his nonsense he has quoted before: it's not possible to come close to a current WR without being doped ; for white English speaking people it's possible to come close t o current WR without being doped).
Absolutely no interest in a serious discussion from people like dumbstrong.
No, that isn't my answer - it is yours. But you remain in conversation with yourself.
It was your answer.
But since you have forgotten about it:
Is it - in your deluded world - possible to come close to a current WR without being doped?
For other readers: he won't answer this easy question (an clear answer - regardless of "yes" or "no" - would destroy some of his nonsense he has quoted before: it's not possible to come close to a current WR without being doped ; for white English speaking people it's possible to come close t o current WR without being doped).
Absolutely no interest in a serious discussion from people like dumbstrong.
You are fixated on thinking you have proven I am wrong about something when you haven't understood what I am saying. It is all about your ridiculous ego. You protest that you can't have a serious discussion but the inability is all yours.
Is it - in your deluded world - possible to come close to a current WR without being doped?
For other readers: he won't answer this easy question (an clear answer - regardless of "yes" or "no" - would destroy some of his nonsense he has quoted before: it's not possible to come close to a current WR without being doped ; for white English speaking people it's possible to come close t o current WR without being doped).
Absolutely no interest in a serious discussion from people like dumbstrong.
You are fixated on thinking you have proven I am wrong about something when you haven't understood what I am saying. It is all about your ridiculous ego. You protest that you can't have a serious discussion but the inability is all yours.
I have understood what you were saying - not too complicated.
If you actually wanted to say something different to what I quoted several times nor, you long would have clarified the mistake.
Is it possible to come close to a current WR without doping - yes or no?
Again, no answer will come. Like always when Dumby was proved to be wrong on something.
You are fixated on thinking you have proven I am wrong about something when you haven't understood what I am saying. It is all about your ridiculous ego. You protest that you can't have a serious discussion but the inability is all yours.
I have understood what you were saying - not too complicated.
If you actually wanted to say something different to what I quoted several times nor, you long would have clarified the mistake.
Is it possible to come close to a current WR without doping - yes or no?
Again, no answer will come. Like always when Dumby was proved to be wrong on something.
I asked you is doping throughout the top of the sport. You acknowledged it is. In that case your question is redundant.
But, Dumby, we both completely agree in the view that it's possible to come close to a current WR without doping and also to break current WRs without doping.
But, Dumby, we both completely agree in the view that it's possible to come close to a current WR without doping and also to break current WRs without doping.
No we aren't in agreement. You have acknowledged doping is through the sport, including the top, yet you are holding dogmatically to a position that running close to a present world record does not suggest doping. The contradiction is all yours. But I quite see you aren't smart enough to recognise it.
This post was edited 50 seconds after it was posted.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.