"Drugs are banned by an anti-doping agency. There is no comparable anti-shoe agency."(quote)
Sometimes you make a joke. But you never intend to. Images come to mind of Kenyans and Ethiopians throwing their shoes out of windows to avoid the shoe testers.
"Drugs are banned by an anti-doping agency. There is no comparable anti-shoe agency."(quote)
Sometimes you make a joke. But you never intend to. Images come to mind of Kenyans and Ethiopians throwing their shoes out of windows to avoid the shoe testers.
Actually I did intend to show how ridiculous it was to compare the legality of drugs to shoes. You are the unintentional comic.
"Drugs are banned by an anti-doping agency. There is no comparable anti-shoe agency."(quote)
Sometimes you make a joke. But you never intend to. Images come to mind of Kenyans and Ethiopians throwing their shoes out of windows to avoid the shoe testers.
Actually I did intend to show how ridiculous it was to compare the legality of drugs to shoes. You are the unintentional comic.
The only one made ridiculous here is you. That is because you insist drugs are not performance enhancing but shoes are. The earth is flat, too.
How can you be so sure you are pointing the finger in the right direction without any facts?
There are facts that show doping is throughout professional sport but you will never see them while you remain convinced the earth is flat because you can't see beyond the horizon.
Do you have any performance data on the drugs, and the shoes?
There is a link to the front page with a lot of shoe data from Ross Tucker and Geoff Burns. But no doping data.
There is a lot of information from a lot of different sources that present a composite picture of the effects of doping. But to see that would require you to remove your doping-denial blinkers.
Drugs have permeated sports from the earliest times and are now so pervasive that professional sport would not exist without them. They are able to change human capacity, since they affect the entire human organism, in a way and to a degree that altering the sole of a shoe cannot. That is why they are used to the extent they are. There is no debate that drugs have transformed sports - except to the doping-denial "flat-earthers" like yourself - whereas the effects of shoe technology are being questioned because some athletes experience no advantage in them. A shoe is ultimately a relatively modest tool. It will not turn an average athlete into a good athlete or a good athlete into an outstanding athlete. Drugs will.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Just listened to a podcast with someone who works at a shoe-retailer in the UK. They're often invited to meet the major shoe brands and have various relationships etc etc.
Long story short, pre-Marathon the Adidas team said that best possible case scenario in these new shoes, Assefa would be expected to run 2:13-low based on Adidas' own testing.
Ross Tucker made a great observation on his podcast that it very well could be the shoes based on the research. That assumes that Assefa is a positive responder to supershoes. He thinks it is more likely that than drugs, as she would have to have access to something nobody else does. He did add that he can't discount doping and that we will know if she never busts out a sub 215 again.
3-5% improvement is a lot of time. Go back to the first 2:05-2:07 guys. That's getting to the 2 hour point for men and this 2:12 seems realistic for women.
I'm NOT saying she was clean, but it IS possible.
Joan Benoit and Ingrid Christianson were running 2:21-2:22 back in the early 80's.
Put them in Super Shoes and they're in 2:16-17 territory and that doesn't include any gain from training and recovery from them.
Joan Benoit and Ingrid Christianson were running 2:21-2:22 back in the early 80's.
Put them in Super Shoes and they're in 2:16-17 territory and that doesn't include any gain from training and recovery from them.
That may be so (who?), but don't forget that the 80s were arguably the dirtiest decade in history, not to mention that Benoit was with AW like Decker and Salazar.
Also I seriously doubt that the shoes give you 5 minutes. With the super shoes, the men's WR has improved by less than 2 minutes over 8 years, and the women's by 3.5 minutes over 20 years.
How can you be so sure you are pointing the finger in the right direction without any facts?
There are facts that show doping is throughout professional sport but you will never see them while you remain convinced the earth is flat because you can't see beyond the horizon.
If there are facts, why don't you just provide them, instead of beating around the bush. I would follow the facts.
Note there are two variables: 1) doping; 2) performance. Are there also facts that show that elite marathon performance is throughout professional sport? That would be a compelling argument suggesting one could be related/correlated with, or cause, the other. But when I looked, only 9 non-Africans worldwide surpassed 1980s performances.
There is a lot of information from a lot of different sources that present a composite picture of the effects of doping. But to see that would require you to remove your doping-denial blinkers.
Drugs have permeated sports from the earliest times and are now so pervasive that professional sport would not exist without them. They are able to change human capacity, since they affect the entire human organism, in a way and to a degree that altering the sole of a shoe cannot. That is why they are used to the extent they are. There is no debate that drugs have transformed sports - except to the doping-denial "flat-earthers" like yourself - whereas the effects of shoe technology are being questioned because some athletes experience no advantage in them. A shoe is ultimately a relatively modest tool. It will not turn an average athlete into a good athlete or a good athlete into an outstanding athlete. Drugs will.
A lot of information from a lot of differents sources? Oh boy. Now we are getting somewhere. Don't stop now. Can you just provide some of that information here? Maybe just the top-5 most important pieces of information relavent to the very fastest elite marathon performances?
Recall I took off the blinkers, and looked at 60+ years of all time performances, looking for these powerful results of all these composite effects all throughout the world. I didn't see Bikila though.
There are facts that show doping is throughout professional sport but you will never see them while you remain convinced the earth is flat because you can't see beyond the horizon.
If there are facts, why don't you just provide them, instead of beating around the bush. I would follow the facts.
Note there are two variables: 1) doping; 2) performance. Are there also facts that show that elite marathon performance is throughout professional sport? That would be a compelling argument suggesting one could be related/correlated with, or cause, the other. But when I looked, only 9 non-Africans worldwide surpassed 1980s performances.
You don't look for anything, you merely find what suits what you already believe. Good little flat-earther.