The readings for the 100m, 200m and LJ were all about .5 meters per second or 1.1 mph. 85ish degrees and moderate humidity shouldn’t have been a factor.
This post was edited 11 minutes after it was posted.
The Great Pretender himself speaks. The shoes have been around for years. The records - at all levels - are now going in a matter of weeks. It ain't the shoes.
The Great Pretender himself speaks. Drugs have been around for decades. The records - at all levels - are now going in a matter of weeks. It ain't doping.
Shoes haven't changed in years. Drugs have. They are being developed on a continuous basis and especially to avoid detection. It's clearly working.
You are naive about the extent of doping in the sport, as well as being racially fixated. There isn't only one race or group of competitors who dope. Your favorites do also.
The Great Pretender himself speaks. Drugs have been around for decades. The records - at all levels - are now going in a matter of weeks. It ain't doping.
The Great Pretender himself speaks. Drugs have been around for decades. The records - at all levels - are now going in a matter of weeks. It ain't doping.
Shoes haven't changed in years. Drugs have. They are being developed on a continuous basis and especially to avoid detection. It's clearly working.
The fact is that the shoes have developed on a continuous basis, with significant links to improved performance. These changes have been well documented and studied.
Your suggestion that drugs have allegedly changed, and furthermore, that it is these changes that have allegedly "worked" to produce elite performance improvements not possible a decade ago, remains completely baseless, rather than fact.
You are naive about the extent of doping in the sport, as well as being racially fixated. There isn't only one race or group of competitors who dope. Your favorites do also.
You are no less naive about the extent of doping in the sport (which sport exactly?).
While we can be reasonably sure the extent of doping is more than 1-2% of positive tests, how much more is still anybody's guess. Over the years, you yourself have conceded the estimated extent ranges from 10% to 80%.
We can also be reasonably sure that the extent of intentional doping for performance is less than the combined extent of unintentional plus intentional doping.
One logical step you fail to take is that if we assume, like you say, that all races and groups of competitors are doping, and some races or groups are consistently outperforming the others, the observed performance differences between different races and groups cannot be explained by doping. To insist doping is still a good explanation for performances which are to date far beyond the achievements of some races and groups, we must introduce a load of other assumptions, e.g. that some races and groups are not doping; or that some races and groups dope more frequently with higher doses; or that some races and groups have found new drugs; etc. These are all new hypotheses formed post-hoc without any basis, which must next be confirmed or denied with data, evidence, and controlled observations.
Shoes haven't changed in years. Drugs have. They are being developed on a continuous basis and especially to avoid detection. It's clearly working.
The fact is that the shoes have developed on a continuous basis, with significant links to improved performance. These changes have been well documented and studied.
Your suggestion that drugs have allegedly changed, and furthermore, that it is these changes that have allegedly "worked" to produce elite performance improvements not possible a decade ago, remains completely baseless, rather than fact.
How are the shoes being worn by Fisher, Ingebrigtsen and Kiplimo different from the so-called supershoes introduced some years ago?
Drugs are constantly being innovated which is why WADA cannot keep pace with the dopers. Many peds are medicines or medicine based and the practice of medicine is always seeking to progress.
This post was edited 13 minutes after it was posted.
You are naive about the extent of doping in the sport, as well as being racially fixated. There isn't only one race or group of competitors who dope. Your favorites do also.
You are no less naive about the extent of doping in the sport (which sport exactly?).
While we can be reasonably sure the extent of doping is more than 1-2% of positive tests, how much more is still anybody's guess. Over the years, you yourself have conceded the estimated extent ranges from 10% to 80%.
We can also be reasonably sure that the extent of intentional doping for performance is less than the combined extent of unintentional plus intentional doping.
One logical step you fail to take is that if we assume, like you say, that all races and groups of competitors are doping, and some races or groups are consistently outperforming the others, the observed performance differences between different races and groups cannot be explained by doping. To insist doping is still a good explanation for performances which are to date far beyond the achievements of some races and groups, we must introduce a load of other assumptions, e.g. that some races and groups are not doping; or that some races and groups dope more frequently with higher doses; or that some races and groups have found new drugs; etc. These are all new hypotheses formed post-hoc without any basis, which must next be confirmed or denied with data, evidence, and controlled observations.
"Over the years, you yourself have conceded the estimated extent ranges from 10% to 80%."
You are wrong, as you always are. I have said that WADA has said the absolute lowest limit for doping at professional level will be 10% but could be as high as 40%. The 80% estimate came from others involved in antidoping who were referring to Olympic level competition. Some - like Victor Conte - say everybody at the top level of Olympic sport dopes. 1-2% is clearly far from the actual levels of doping. We also know this from confidential athlete surveys.
There is also no way that you can minimise doping in running, since WADA has grouped t and f with cycling, bodybuilding and weightlifting for risk of doping - and these sports are amongst the worst offenders. Any highly physical sport will benefit from doping - and distance running is above all a physical sport. It is why so many Kenyans have doped, as we see from their numbers of violations. But their doping is relatively amateurish since they aren't very good at getting away with it. Most others are.
Shoes haven't changed in years. Drugs have. They are being developed on a continuous basis and especially to avoid detection. It's clearly working.
The fact is that the shoes have developed on a continuous basis, with significant links to improved performance. These changes have been well documented and studied.
Your suggestion that drugs have allegedly changed, and furthermore, that it is these changes that have allegedly "worked" to produce elite performance improvements not possible a decade ago, remains completely baseless, rather than fact.
'In Uganda's case, WADA also identified contradictions between its national legislation and the World Anti-Doping Code. After a period of monitoring, the irregularities were not corrected, so on 13 January, WADA issued formal notices of non-compliance to the three entities'
The fact is that the shoes have developed on a continuous basis, with significant links to improved performance. These changes have been well documented and studied.
Your suggestion that drugs have allegedly changed, and furthermore, that it is these changes that have allegedly "worked" to produce elite performance improvements not possible a decade ago, remains completely baseless, rather than fact.
'In Uganda's case, WADA also identified contradictions between its national legislation and the World Anti-Doping Code. After a period of monitoring, the irregularities were not corrected, so on 13 January, WADA issued formal notices of non-compliance to the three entities'
The fact is that the shoes have developed on a continuous basis, with significant links to improved performance. These changes have been well documented and studied.
Your suggestion that drugs have allegedly changed, and furthermore, that it is these changes that have allegedly "worked" to produce elite performance improvements not possible a decade ago, remains completely baseless, rather than fact.
How are the shoes being worn by Fisher, Ingebrigtsen and Kiplimo different from the so-called supershoes introduced some years ago?
Drugs are constantly being innovated which is why WADA cannot keep pace with the dopers. Many peds are medicines or medicine based and the practice of medicine is always seeking to progress.
For one, Fisher and Ingebrigtsen run on the track with superspikes, while Kiplimo runs on the road with supershoes.
Nike first introduced the Vaporfly, and then the Next %, and then the Alphafly, both of which get updated each year. Both the Vaporfly 3 and Alphafly 3 are available now. Following their initial lead of combining advanced resilient lightweight foam with a stiff carbon fiber plate, Adidas, Asics, Brooks, Hoka, NewBalance, Puma, Saucony and even Under Armour now have their own versions. There are many parameters to play with starting with choosing and updating the advanced material for the foam, foam cell shape, the stack height, the shape and form of the carbon fiber, half-carbon versus full-carbon versus split carbon versus carbon rods, the uppers, the overall shoe weight, etc.
This doesn't begin to explain the selection of superspikes for the track which have become available a few years after the first supershoes, with its own combination of carbon fiber, and foam and smaller stack height.
Once the game changed with this new combination of resilient lightweight foam and carbon fiber, it is just a matter of time before there are enough opportunities for today's and tomorrow's athletes to shatter the previous records.
This is not only idle speculation, as there are several dozens of studies that have measured the increased efficiency provided by the new shoes.
But I would ask you the same question -- please explain what are the newest known drugs and drug innovations, and how the drugs available today are different from just a few years ago, say before the supershoe era? What were the latest drug innovations, and moreover, where is the supporting research demonstrating the impact on elite middle and distance running performance? And why is it that many of the drugs athletes are getting busted for today are not new and innovative, but rather developed decades ago.
The fact is that the shoes have developed on a continuous basis, with significant links to improved performance. These changes have been well documented and studied.
Your suggestion that drugs have allegedly changed, and furthermore, that it is these changes that have allegedly "worked" to produce elite performance improvements not possible a decade ago, remains completely baseless, rather than fact.
'In Uganda's case, WADA also identified contradictions between its national legislation and the World Anti-Doping Code. After a period of monitoring, the irregularities were not corrected, so on 13 January, WADA issued formal notices of non-compliance to the three entities'
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.