Did they say how much doping has contributed per lap? Or is that not part of the equation?
Recall you said: "That is mere guesswork in your part because you cannot show ...". Now we can plainly see that you are once again wrong, because you are ignorant about the history of track and field you grew up watching.
Any contribution from doping is your mythology. You claim doping is the reason times have improved. That is mere guesswork on your part because you cannot show how it will have done so. You might just as well argue that it was brought about by "the rain in Spain falling mainly on the plain".
The opinions you quoted aren't scientific data - which you have always insisted you only rely on - they are mere unsupported anecdote - which you routinely dismiss.
Those who say doping doesn't enhance performance are lunatics like yourself. As it in fact enhances performances - and on that many athletes, coaches, trainers, and physicians agree - then it will have contributed to faster times in the sport. Deniers like yourself refuse to see that. Hence, it is impossible to determine what effect shoes and tracks will have had on improving performances, because the effect of doping cannot be removed from that equation.
Marvellous; fell for a grammatical wind up with some reference but anything to do with science or medical matters you just runaway and contribute zilch .
Now ; why is that ?
Because you are scientifically illiterate. Actually, that isn't quite right. You are just generally illiterate, as you showed with your confusing "plane" with "plain".
Says the ignorant man who doesn't know how to write times.
Because you are scientifically illiterate. Actually, that isn't quite right. You are just generally illiterate, as you showed with your confusing "plane" with "plain".
Says the ignorant man who doesn't know how to write times.
Counting beyond three is also very difficult for Armstrong.
The opinions you quoted aren't scientific data - which you have always insisted you only rely on - they are mere unsupported anecdote - which you routinely dismiss.
Those who say doping doesn't enhance performance are lunatics like yourself. As it in fact enhances performances - and on that many athletes, coaches, trainers, and physicians agree - then it will have contributed to faster times in the sport. Deniers like yourself refuse to see that. Hence, it is impossible to determine what effect shoes and tracks will have had on improving performances, because the effect of doping cannot be removed from that equation.
Recall again, you said it was "my guesswork". I know you are really slow on the uptake, and you really hate it when you are proven wrong, again, but by now you should know that none of it is "my guesswork". If you have problems with these statements, your problem is not with me.
You always say that elite athletes are the ones who know better than me, and that scientists know nothing compared to the actual experience and knowledge of elite athletes, coaches, and trainers with real boots on the ground (or spikes on the track). While athletes never actually share their experience with doping, leaving it wide open for mythological speculation from fans of ancient druid potions, here are real athletes talking about shoes and tracks, and for some inexplicable reason, now you don't like what elite athletes have to say.
Whether "doping enhances performance" or not, you claimed all these other non-doping factors were marginal, compared to the performance benefit of doping. Once again, first grade math teaches us that the "less than" is a binary operator requiring two numbers, and you have still provided none. I have provided some numbers for my side of the equation.
If now you say it is impossible to determine what effect shoes and tracks (and improvements in training and event specialization and incentives and pacing and drafting, etc.) will have had on improving performances, because of the effect of doping, how can you possibly say shoes and tracks and the rest are all marginal and that doping is not marginal? It cannot both be impossible to determine and then possible to say you are right, while I am wrong.
Recall you said: "That is mere guesswork in your part because you cannot show ...". Now we can plainly see that you are once again wrong, because you are ignorant about the history of track and field you grew up watching.
Any contribution from doping is your mythology. You claim doping is the reason times have improved. That is mere guesswork on your part because you cannot show how it will have done so. You might just as well argue that it was brought about by "the rain in Spain falling mainly on the plain".
The opinions you quoted aren't scientific data - which you have always insisted you only rely on - they are mere unsupported anecdote - which you routinely dismiss.
Those who say doping doesn't enhance performance are lunatics like yourself. As it in fact enhances performances - and on that many athletes, coaches, trainers, and physicians agree - then it will have contributed to faster times in the sport. Deniers like yourself refuse to see that. Hence, it is impossible to determine what effect shoes and tracks will have had on improving performances, because the effect of doping cannot be removed from that equation.
What is a denier ; you have been asked scores of times.
The opinions you quoted aren't scientific data - which you have always insisted you only rely on - they are mere unsupported anecdote - which you routinely dismiss.
Those who say doping doesn't enhance performance are lunatics like yourself. As it in fact enhances performances - and on that many athletes, coaches, trainers, and physicians agree - then it will have contributed to faster times in the sport. Deniers like yourself refuse to see that. Hence, it is impossible to determine what effect shoes and tracks will have had on improving performances, because the effect of doping cannot be removed from that equation.
Recall again, you said it was "my guesswork". I know you are really slow on the uptake, and you really hate it when you are proven wrong, again, but by now you should know that none of it is "my guesswork". If you have problems with these statements, your problem is not with me.
You always say that elite athletes are the ones who know better than me, and that scientists know nothing compared to the actual experience and knowledge of elite athletes, coaches, and trainers with real boots on the ground (or spikes on the track). While athletes never actually share their experience with doping, leaving it wide open for mythological speculation from fans of ancient druid potions, here are real athletes talking about shoes and tracks, and for some inexplicable reason, now you don't like what elite athletes have to say.
Whether "doping enhances performance" or not, you claimed all these other non-doping factors were marginal, compared to the performance benefit of doping. Once again, first grade math teaches us that the "less than" is a binary operator requiring two numbers, and you have still provided none. I have provided some numbers for my side of the equation.
If now you say it is impossible to determine what effect shoes and tracks (and improvements in training and event specialization and incentives and pacing and drafting, etc.) will have had on improving performances, because of the effect of doping, how can you possibly say shoes and tracks and the rest are all marginal and that doping is not marginal? It cannot both be impossible to determine and then possible to say you are right, while I am wrong.
Sorry, you're still a moron. You can't measure or even estimate the effect shoes and tracks have had on times when doping is a factor and you don't know the extent of its effect on performances. But the athletes do. That's why they keep using it, despite the insistence of a lobotomized individual like yourself that it doesn't help them except in their imaginations.
Recall again, you said it was "my guesswork". I know you are really slow on the uptake, and you really hate it when you are proven wrong, again, but by now you should know that none of it is "my guesswork". If you have problems with these statements, your problem is not with me.
You always say that elite athletes are the ones who know better than me, and that scientists know nothing compared to the actual experience and knowledge of elite athletes, coaches, and trainers with real boots on the ground (or spikes on the track). While athletes never actually share their experience with doping, leaving it wide open for mythological speculation from fans of ancient druid potions, here are real athletes talking about shoes and tracks, and for some inexplicable reason, now you don't like what elite athletes have to say.
Whether "doping enhances performance" or not, you claimed all these other non-doping factors were marginal, compared to the performance benefit of doping. Once again, first grade math teaches us that the "less than" is a binary operator requiring two numbers, and you have still provided none. I have provided some numbers for my side of the equation.
If now you say it is impossible to determine what effect shoes and tracks (and improvements in training and event specialization and incentives and pacing and drafting, etc.) will have had on improving performances, because of the effect of doping, how can you possibly say shoes and tracks and the rest are all marginal and that doping is not marginal? It cannot both be impossible to determine and then possible to say you are right, while I am wrong.
Sorry, you're still a moron. You can't measure or even estimate the effect shoes and tracks have had on times when doping is a factor and you don't know the extent of its effect on performances. But the athletes do. That's why they keep using it, despite the insistence of a lobotomized individual like yourself that it doesn't help them except in their imaginations.
The opinions you quoted aren't scientific data - which you have always insisted you only rely on - they are mere unsupported anecdote - which you routinely dismiss.
Those who say doping doesn't enhance performance are lunatics like yourself. As it in fact enhances performances - and on that many athletes, coaches, trainers, and physicians agree - then it will have contributed to faster times in the sport. Deniers like yourself refuse to see that. Hence, it is impossible to determine what effect shoes and tracks will have had on improving performances, because the effect of doping cannot be removed from that equation.
What is a denier ; you have been asked scores of times.
Recall you said: "That is mere guesswork in your part because you cannot show ...". Now we can plainly see that you are once again wrong, because you are ignorant about the history of track and field you grew up watching.
Any contribution from doping is your mythology. You claim doping is the reason times have improved. That is mere guesswork on your part because you cannot show how it will have done so. You might just as well argue that it was brought about by "the rain in Spain falling mainly on the plain".
The opinions you quoted aren't scientific data - which you have always insisted you only rely on - they are mere unsupported anecdote - which you routinely dismiss.
Those who say doping doesn't enhance performance are lunatics like yourself. As it in fact enhances performances - and on that many athletes, coaches, trainers, and physicians agree - then it will have contributed to faster times in the sport. Deniers like yourself refuse to see that. Hence, it is impossible to determine what effect shoes and tracks will have had on improving performances, because the effect of doping cannot be removed from that equation.
Sorry, you're still a moron. You can't measure or even estimate the effect shoes and tracks have had on times when doping is a factor and you don't know the extent of its effect on performances. But the athletes do. That's why they keep using it, despite the insistence of a lobotomized individual like yourself that it doesn't help them except in their imaginations.
If you are calling me a moron, it's because you must think that others think you are the moron, probably because of your inability to bring substantive facts into any thread. This is your classic pot-kettle modus operandi.
If the athletes know about doping, then surely they must also know about shoes and tracks too, contrary to your lobotomized objections that athletes are stupid. Nick Willis gave his opinion about the spikes based on his personal experience. He would personally know if he doped, before estimating the benefit.
But the question isn't what I know or athletes know, but how you can ignorantly suggest doping effect is greater than all other non-doping factors combined, only to then argue that it is impossible for you to make such a suggestion in the first place. You are dimwittingly and obliviotly debunking yourself, and blaming me for you making yourself look like a moron, while I watch on the sidelines amused and bemused.
What I do know is that -- regardless of the collective beliefs of ignorant fans, athletes, coaches, agents, managers, husbands, chemists, doctors, etc. -- assumptions of high prevalence, and high effect for elite athletes, are incompatible with the reality of the low quantity and low quality of elite non-African EPO-era performances for nearly three decades.
Superspikes, wavelight and better training are the two most obvious factors. I think the tracks might be better now, plus there are probably new "designer" drugs that are undetectable using current technology.
Sorry, you're still a moron. You can't measure or even estimate the effect shoes and tracks have had on times when doping is a factor and you don't know the extent of its effect on performances. But the athletes do. That's why they keep using it, despite the insistence of a lobotomized individual like yourself that it doesn't help them except in their imaginations.
If you are calling me a moron, it's because you must think that others think you are the moron, probably because of your inability to bring substantive facts into any thread. This is your classic pot-kettle modus operandi.
If the athletes know about doping, then surely they must also know about shoes and tracks too, contrary to your lobotomized objections that athletes are stupid. Nick Willis gave his opinion about the spikes based on his personal experience. He would personally know if he doped, before estimating the benefit.
But the question isn't what I know or athletes know, but how you can ignorantly suggest doping effect is greater than all other non-doping factors combined, only to then argue that it is impossible for you to make such a suggestion in the first place. You are dimwittingly and obliviotly debunking yourself, and blaming me for you making yourself look like a moron, while I watch on the sidelines amused and bemused.
What I do know is that -- regardless of the collective beliefs of ignorant fans, athletes, coaches, agents, managers, husbands, chemists, doctors, etc. -- assumptions of high prevalence, and high effect for elite athletes, are incompatible with the reality of the low quantity and low quality of elite non-African EPO-era performances for nearly three decades.
What you "know" is that drugs don't help Kenyans, that they only "believe" it does, that there aren't really many dopers in the sport and those that are aren't the ones who get busted, they aren't "deliberately" doping, and are "innocent victims of an unfair system" and mostly they ate contaminated pork. Unfortunately, WADA and WA disagree with everything you think you "know".
This post was edited 31 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.