And I concede your point, which you have argued many times, without listing any exceptions like you are trying to do now, and which is supported by at least one peer-reviewed paper, that when the only facts are a fast performance, it is impossible to tell whether such a performance was doped.(quote).
I do not concede that - and I have not "argued it many times". There will be numerous red flags for doped performances. Like Gidey's. But not that you will see them. You work very hard not to.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I do not concede that - and I have not "argued it many times"
At least 5 times in the past two years, even going so far as to suggest that most experts estimate a 50%-80% chance that performances are not doped:
Armstronglivs wrote:
“in the modern era it is no longer possible to tell the difference”
“we can no longer can tell (sic) a doped from a clean performance, or a doped from a clean athlete”
“it becomes impossible to distinguish the clean performance from the doped performance - particularly at the highest level”
“it becomes very difficult to confidently distinguish the clean from the doped performance next to it”
“it is difficult to distinguish the doped from the clean competitor, and there is a 50% chance (*) that an athlete would be doped. (* but then you immediately correct yourself) … “most expert estimates tend to a ball-park of between 20-50% over a range of sports.”
Your point that you argued at least 5 times is backed up by science:
SCIENCE wrote:
"It is tempting to attribute outstanding performances to the alleged use of doping. The main problem with such a line of thinking is that the athlete will always lose in any such discussion: no matter how much he trains without the use of any prohibited substance, as soon as he excels he is, by default, a doping suspect. The essence of sport is to excel, and if excelling becomes synonymous with suspicions of cheating, each and every sport performance turns into an attack on the essence of sport itself. If such reasoning persists, this will seriously jeopardise the credibility of sport."
"It can be concluded that, on the basis of performances alone, an individual assessment on possible doping is simply not possible, and, in addition, any attempt to try to do this will violate the essence of sport. Linking extraordinary athletic performances to doping use is highly insulting to clean champions. Both scientifically and morally it is not recommended to try and link performance levels to doping use; at best performances can be used to identify general influences of anti-doping measures on the entire population of elite athletes."
Reference:
Prevalence of Doping Use in Elite Sports: A Review of Numbers and Methods
Olivier de Hon • Harm Kuipers • Maarten van Bottenburg
Sports Med (2015) 45:57–69 DOI 10.1007/s40279-014-0247-x
Whether you backpedal now is hardly relevant, unless you can back it up.
What is not backed up by science, or fact, or observation, but appears to be pure imagination? I cannot see what is just your imagination.
Armstronglivs wrote:
There will be numerous red flags for doped performances. Like Gidey's. But not that you will see them. You work very hard not to.
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
I think rekeunner provides an attempt at balance in an area we just can’t assume anything.
Such is not doping cheerleading.
You confuse "balance" with denial. He never admits or concedes doping. He is the doping equivalent of a Holocaust or climate-change denier. That is about falsehood, not balance.
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
I think rekeunner provides an attempt at balance in an area we just can’t assume anything.
Such is not doping cheerleading.
You confuse "balance" with denial. He never admits or concedes doping. He is the doping equivalent of a Holocaust or climate-change denier. That is about falsehood, not balance.
He does admit and concedes doping.
You lie cheat and won’t read.
She's doped. They are all taking performance enhancing substances and have been for years. Russia even had state sponsored doping.
tight pants wrote:
She's doped. They are all taking performance enhancing substances and have been for years. Russia even had state sponsored doping.
Who are they?
One thing this absolute legend Gidey crushingly reminds us about is that if you can't jog 5:00 miles as a man, you are very much subpar, and should try to be humble about your running.
liar soorer wrote:
tight pants wrote:
She's doped. They are all taking performance enhancing substances and have been for years. Russia even had state sponsored doping.
Who are they?
Who ?
liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Who are they?
Who ?
Who are “ they “?
Giday is dirty and everyone knows it. Ethiopian testing is ridiculous.
*Subway wrote:
Giday is dirty and everyone knows it. Ethiopian testing is ridiculous.
I don’t know it!
AIU will test, on what basis would that ridiculous?
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I do not concede that - and I have not "argued it many times"
At least 5 times in the past two years, even going so far as to suggest that most experts estimate a 50%-80% chance that performances are not doped:
Armstronglivs wrote:
“in the modern era it is no longer possible to tell the difference”
“we can no longer can tell (sic) a doped from a clean performance, or a doped from a clean athlete”
“it becomes impossible to distinguish the clean performance from the doped performance - particularly at the highest level”
“it becomes very difficult to confidently distinguish the clean from the doped performance next to it”
“it is difficult to distinguish the doped from the clean competitor, and there is a 50% chance (*) that an athlete would be doped. (* but then you immediately correct yourself) … “most expert estimates tend to a ball-park of between 20-50% over a range of sports.”
Your point that you argued at least 5 times is backed up by science:
SCIENCE wrote:
"It is tempting to attribute outstanding performances to the alleged use of doping. The main problem with such a line of thinking is that the athlete will always lose in any such discussion: no matter how much he trains without the use of any prohibited substance, as soon as he excels he is, by default, a doping suspect. The essence of sport is to excel, and if excelling becomes synonymous with suspicions of cheating, each and every sport performance turns into an attack on the essence of sport itself. If such reasoning persists, this will seriously jeopardise the credibility of sport."
"It can be concluded that, on the basis of performances alone, an individual assessment on possible doping is simply not possible, and, in addition, any attempt to try to do this will violate the essence of sport. Linking extraordinary athletic performances to doping use is highly insulting to clean champions. Both scientifically and morally it is not recommended to try and link performance levels to doping use; at best performances can be used to identify general influences of anti-doping measures on the entire population of elite athletes."
Reference:
Prevalence of Doping Use in Elite Sports: A Review of Numbers and Methods
Olivier de Hon • Harm Kuipers • Maarten van Bottenburg
Sports Med (2015) 45:57–69 DOI 10.1007/s40279-014-0247-x
Whether you backpedal now is hardly relevant, unless you can back it up.
What is not backed up by science, or fact, or observation, but appears to be pure imagination? I cannot see what is just your imagination.
Armstronglivs wrote:
There will be numerous red flags for doped performances. Like Gidey's. But not that you will see them. You work very hard not to.
In your cherry-picking from a different discussion none of that says what you claim it says, which is that it is "impossible" to tell a doped from a clean performance. You are trying to tell me what I think - as though it somehow conforms to your unending denial of doping in running.
My position is that doping is endemic in professional sports, and especially elite running - which you refuse to see - and that the very best performances today -and certainly the world records - will be doped. It is only in the middle of the pack and with lower level runners, about whom we have less career information, that it will be difficult to determine whether or not they dope. That is largely because the athletes faster than them will probably be doped. But when expert estimates suggest up to 1 in 3 or even 1 in 2 championship athletes dope, none of this conjecture about who is doping and who isn't really makes any difference - the sport of professional running is effectively no cleaner than professional wrestling. I have no doubt that performances like Gidey's are doped. And yet you still deny that an athlete who has committed a confirmed doping violation (Shelby Houlihan) can be described as a "doper". You are a religious crank in drag.
Appreciation?? wrote:
One thing this absolute legend Gidey crushingly reminds us about is that if you can't jog 5:00 miles as a man, you are very much subpar, and should try to be humble about your running.
She "crushingly reminds us" that a doped woman is now as fast as Abebe Bikila and far faster than Emil Zatopek. Such is "progress".
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You confuse "balance" with denial. He never admits or concedes doping. He is the doping equivalent of a Holocaust or climate-change denier. That is about falsehood, not balance.
He does admit and concedes doping.
You lie cheat and won’t read.
I hear a flushing noise again.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Appreciation?? wrote:
One thing this absolute legend Gidey crushingly reminds us about is that if you can't jog 5:00 miles as a man, you are very much subpar, and should try to be humble about your running.
She "crushingly reminds us" that a doped woman is now as fast as Abebe Bikila and far faster than Emil Zatopek. Such is "progress".
The planet will be a better place when you are no longer on it.
Armstronglivs wrote:
In your cherry-picking from a different discussion none of that says what you claim it says, which is that it is "impossible" to tell a doped from a clean performance. You are trying to tell me what I think - as though it somehow conforms to your unending denial of doping in running.
My position is that doping is endemic in professional sports, and especially elite running - which you refuse to see - and that the very best performances today -and certainly the world records - will be doped. It is only in the middle of the pack and with lower level runners, about whom we have less career information, that it will be difficult to determine whether or not they dope. That is largely because the athletes faster than them will probably be doped. But when expert estimates suggest up to 1 in 3 or even 1 in 2 championship athletes dope, none of this conjecture about who is doping and who isn't really makes any difference - the sport of professional running is effectively no cleaner than professional wrestling. I have no doubt that performances like Gidey's are doped. And yet you still deny that an athlete who has committed a confirmed doping violation (Shelby Houlihan) can be described as a "doper". You are a religious crank in drag.
You mean “it becomes impossible to distinguish the clean performance from the doped performance - particularly at the highest level” does not say what I claim it says, that it is impossible to distinguish the clean performance from the doped performance - particularly at the highest level? By “the highest level”, did you really mean, not the fastest runners, but the middle of the pack and lower level runners?
It hardly matters what you you think or say now about what you thought and said then, unless you can find an intelligent way to support it rather than resorting to false arrogance. I found a source to support what you said then, and now deny you meant. This allows me to disregard your unsupported contradictions now. Your doubts about “performances like Gidey’s” don’t matter, when you’ve already told us that experts give it a 50%-80% chance of not being doped. You can have your doubts about as many as 20%-50% of performances “like Gidey’s”, and be no wiser about Gidey’s performance.
I have already described Houlihan’s violations, the same way the AIU, WADA, and the CAS described them. It brings no positive value to attempt to redescribe it in words that are not mine, and terms not used, nor defined, by the AIU, WADA, and the CAS.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
At least 5 times in the past two years, even going so far as to suggest that most experts estimate a 50%-80% chance that performances are not doped:
Your point that you argued at least 5 times is backed up by science:
Whether you backpedal now is hardly relevant, unless you can back it up.
What is not backed up by science, or fact, or observation, but appears to be pure imagination? I cannot see what is just your imagination.
In your cherry-picking from a different discussion none of that says what you claim it says, which is that it is "impossible" to tell a doped from a clean performance. You are trying to tell me what I think - as though it somehow conforms to your unending denial of doping in running.
My position is that doping is endemic in professional sports, and especially elite running - which you refuse to see - and that the very best performances today -and certainly the world records - will be doped. It is only in the middle of the pack and with lower level runners, about whom we have less career information, that it will be difficult to determine whether or not they dope. That is largely because the athletes faster than them will probably be doped. But when expert estimates suggest up to 1 in 3 or even 1 in 2 championship athletes dope, none of this conjecture about who is doping and who isn't really makes any difference - the sport of professional running is effectively no cleaner than professional wrestling. I have no doubt that performances like Gidey's are doped. And yet you still deny that an athlete who has committed a confirmed doping violation (Shelby Houlihan) can be described as a "doper". You are a religious crank in drag.
Oh! The liar reappears and demonstrates yet again that he does not read.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
In your cherry-picking from a different discussion none of that says what you claim it says, which is that it is "impossible" to tell a doped from a clean performance. You are trying to tell me what I think - as though it somehow conforms to your unending denial of doping in running.
My position is that doping is endemic in professional sports, and especially elite running - which you refuse to see - and that the very best performances today -and certainly the world records - will be doped. It is only in the middle of the pack and with lower level runners, about whom we have less career information, that it will be difficult to determine whether or not they dope. That is largely because the athletes faster than them will probably be doped. But when expert estimates suggest up to 1 in 3 or even 1 in 2 championship athletes dope, none of this conjecture about who is doping and who isn't really makes any difference - the sport of professional running is effectively no cleaner than professional wrestling. I have no doubt that performances like Gidey's are doped. And yet you still deny that an athlete who has committed a confirmed doping violation (Shelby Houlihan) can be described as a "doper". You are a religious crank in drag.
You mean “it becomes impossible to distinguish the clean performance from the doped performance - particularly at the highest level” does not say what I claim it says, that it is impossible to distinguish the clean performance from the doped performance - particularly at the highest level? By “the highest level”, did you really mean, not the fastest runners, but the middle of the pack and lower level runners?
It hardly matters what you you think or say now about what you thought and said then, unless you can find an intelligent way to support it rather than resorting to false arrogance. I found a source to support what you said then, and now deny you meant. This allows me to disregard your unsupported contradictions now. Your doubts about “performances like Gidey’s” don’t matter, when you’ve already told us that experts give it a 50%-80% chance of not being doped. You can have your doubts about as many as 20%-50% of performances “like Gidey’s”, and be no wiser about Gidey’s performance.
I have already described Houlihan’s violations, the same way the AIU, WADA, and the CAS described them. It brings no positive value to attempt to redescribe it in words that are not mine, and terms not used, nor defined, by the AIU, WADA, and the CAS.
Why bother with the liar and nom reader?
Dew wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
She "crushingly reminds us" that a doped woman is now as fast as Abebe Bikila and far faster than Emil Zatopek. Such is "progress".
The planet will be a better place when you are no longer on it.
That is a bit harsh; but to depart these threads would be very agreeable.
liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Who ?
Who are “ they “?
Any of the hard line supporters of Wada care to respond ?