Well, I think Elliott could have done 3.26, especially if his career had surpassed 22 years of age… (Modern shoes, tracks and so on).
And I do think somebody will “touch El Guerrouj’s times”, and they may very well be clean… -Cheruiyot could have done it at his best with better pacing, and Jakob will do it (my best guesses). And the last one isn’t even that talented (physiologically; as a whole he is of course) in the 1500m / mile… And of course people could be doped, but they might also not be. And my gut feeling is that Jakob is clean (based on the indications we have; very fluffy ones of course, but that’s what we have, in addition to Herb Elliott who isn’t fluffy at all.)
You know that drugs like EPO were rife in EL G's era, and undetectable, and yet you think the best athletes weren't using them. Who were? And how could clean athletes beat them?
I wonder what you think a doped El G would have run. 3.23? I don't think you understand just how fast his records really are. After quarter of a century they are still untouchable. Yet a quarter of a century before then the 1500 record was 6 seconds slower and the mile record was 8 seconds slower. Same tracks, shoes and training.
I still don’t think the current WR in the 1500m is too good compared to what Elliott did (To be honest I’m a little puzzled it’s not better!) But I won’t rewrite my arguments from earlier post -I can’t see these are challenged at all..
But I shall give you that that the current WR, and all nearby times may be doped. But we just don’t know. And they don’t have to be (well not all; it’s unlikely and un logical that all is clean)…
1: no I am not using those old full throttle estimates. The Sunday Times was from 2015, and the experts therein specifically mentioned the 2012 final 5000 in London (just about blood doping). In 2012, the ABP was in full effect, not to mention the EPO test, and the full throttle stuff long gone. Schumacher (not Baumann, what did Baumann say?) said that in 2017 in a CAS hearing, about EPO alone. So one should add something to those two (quite similar) estimates for steroids and SARMS etc.
2 + 3: no disagreement there really; I just find those scenarios very unlikely.
4: Is there a significant difference between doping in 2012/2017 and nowadays? The Kenyans are more regularly tested, and that shows indeed, but other than that, globally? Are there any updated expert estimates since 2017?
Well, obviously I didn’t know The Sunday Times from 2015, and even if a “Schumacher expert” now rings some bells I thought you meant Baumann’s 10000m pr was estimated to be 1 min slower without PEDs.. But due to my ignorance here you have to be left with “Rekrunner’s” answer to most of that paragraph…
I will say this however: I don’t necessarily buy what experts think. -There is significant uncertainty in the researchers % and numbers; f.ex when you mention 2012 we know that WADA engaged researchers estimated 9-28 % blood doped in the samples from 2011 and 2013 Athletics Wch. Meaning (in theory) that one researcher could root for 9% doped and another for 3 times more! And they hadn’t even adjusted for altitude training / reports! And the same with the estimates for gained time -I just think this is too difficult and debated to use…
There are a difference between 2012 and current times (although ABP was introduced in 2011) -of course 2012 athletes had to be more cautious in their cheating -not full throttle- but we don’t know if they are far more cautious now more than 10 years later (micro dosing and so on). -Anyway: The researchers anticipated real decrease in doping eventually due to the ABP. (But hadn’t found any from 2011 to 2013). Conclusion: We don’t know how to estimate doping gains nowadays -this is an extremely complex matter… (And my examples / seconds wasn’t meant to be scientific-they were merely examples on how a diversity of athletes could be on same or different levels due to doping / no doping….)
4. I haven’t seen any (really) updated doping estimates after 2017. And I’m a little puzzled that the 9-28% suspicion never gave a wave of suspensions, or new insight / reports / research. So we seems to be stuck with what the researchers anticipated based on 2011 / 2013: That the blood pass (ABP) wouldn’t perhaps reduce the doping doses / doping prevalence…
This post was edited 11 minutes after it was posted.
You are wrong on motivation - you don't really understand what drives achievement of any kind. The best are the most highly-motivated - they have to be; no one gets to the top less motivated than those behind them. If there is anything that increases the chances of success the highly-motivated, i.e. the best, will use it. That is why drugs are throughout sport today. Like many idealistic followers of sport you imagine the most driven and motivated of athletes compete as though they are participating in a "village green" contest, with its antiquated and largely "Anglo" notions of amateur sportsmanship. That disappeared decades ago. A few years ago a top football coach was asked if it was "life and death" out there on the pitch. He famously replied, "it's more important than that". That is where we are with sport. More important than life and death means drugs also.
Maybe the genie we need is to tell us which of your beliefs are real.
No, we don't. All is needed is for you to understand motivation. Although you don't, you should. Top athletes are as fanatical about achieving success as you are in denying they would dope to succeed.
This post was edited 27 seconds after it was posted.
No, we don't. All is needed is for you to understand motivation. Although you don't, you should. Top athletes are as fanatical about achieving success as you are in denying they would dope to succeed.
These are all just things you want to believe, but you have no ability to connect your beliefs to the real world.
No, we don't. All is needed is for you to understand motivation. Although you don't, you should. Top athletes are as fanatical about achieving success as you are in denying they would dope to succeed.
These are all just things you want to believe, but you have no ability to connect your beliefs to the real world.
You have no idea about the motivation that drives the very best - at anything. But that is unsurprising, as you will not have achieved anything like they have.
These are all just things you want to believe, but you have no ability to connect your beliefs to the real world.
You have no idea about the motivation that drives the very best - at anything. But that is unsurprising, as you will not have achieved anything like they have.
You are not the magic genie able to grant knowledge.
Sure, the very best are motivated and driven to train and win.
It is inferiority and self-doubt that motivates clean athletes to dope.
You have no idea about the motivation that drives the very best - at anything. But that is unsurprising, as you will not have achieved anything like they have.
You are not the magic genie able to grant knowledge.
Sure, the very best are motivated and driven to train and win.
It is inferiority and self-doubt that motivates clean athletes to dope.
"It is inferiority and self-doubt that motivates clean athletes to dope." (Uh - "clean athletes who dope" are called dopers). And how many dopers do you know that have told you this? How many convicted dopers have said they did it because of "self-doubt"? Lack of confidence isn't what drives doping - or you would have to conclude a considerable number of championship-level athletes lack confidence, because they have admitted to doping in confidential surveys - nearly one in two athletes. Ben Johnson lacked confidence, Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds, Ramzi, any number of Kenyan world championship or Olympic medallists, and so on - all lacked self-belief? Try the overwhelming desire to succeed, which all athletes have - and especially the best - which is why they dope. They are as fanatical in their desire to succeed as you are your belief they don't dope or only dope because of their "self-doubt". It is ironic that you don't see your own nature explains why they would do what you refuse to believe they do.
You are not the magic genie able to grant knowledge.
Sure, the very best are motivated and driven to train and win.
It is inferiority and self-doubt that motivates clean athletes to dope.
"It is inferiority and self-doubt that motivates clean athletes to dope." (Uh - "clean athletes who dope" are called dopers). And how many dopers do you know that have told you this? How many convicted dopers have said they did it because of "self-doubt"? Lack of confidence isn't what drives doping - or you would have to conclude a considerable number of championship-level athletes lack confidence, because they have admitted to doping in confidential surveys - nearly one in two athletes. Ben Johnson lacked confidence, Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds, Ramzi, any number of Kenyan world championship or Olympic medallists, and so on - all lacked self-belief? Try the overwhelming desire to succeed, which all athletes have - and especially the best - which is why they dope. They are as fanatical in their desire to succeed as you are your belief they don't dope or only dope because of their "self-doubt". It is ironic that you don't see your own nature explains why they would do what you refuse to believe they do.
The irony is all yours.
You paint a fantastic picture, but how many dopers do you know that have told you this? (See how stupid that sounds?)
Before they doped, we could call "dopers" clean athletes, who were then motivated to dope by a self-perceived consistent underperformance. Doping can remove a mental barrier that was blocking them before.
I think it goes without saying that resorting to artificial support against the rules is a sign of a lack of self-confidence in talent and training the right way. All of your long list of athletes lacked this self-confidence, or had a coach/agent/etc. who lacked confidence.
I know all of this because I understand the motivations to win are not the same as the motivations to dope.
You don't truly understand motivation because your thinking is too clouded with unsupportable fantasy.
You also rely too much on unreliable surveys. At just one world championship event, a similar "survey" estimated 20%, while estimating 30% non-compliance, and estimates are as low as 9-12% when you consider 95% confidence intervals. This is exactly what David Howman, long time chief anti-doping official, estimated when he said "at least 10%".
Probably wouldn't choose Jamila because she was possibly intersex. The answer might come out, "nope she wasn't doping..." And then we'd still have lots of quesitons. In the post it doesn't say you get to know about their natural testosterone levels (or anything else about them), just that you get to know whether they are doping or not. So I'd avoid anyone who might have been benefiting from natural testosterone.
Tuohy is the most likely doper in the US. She backed off for NCAA in fear of getting tested. She will never go pro because she won't permit herself to go into the testing pool. A mysterious injury will end her career.
Imo its unrealistic to believe that either el g or MJ were clean
All the circumstancial evidence says otherwise
Same with bolt
All the circumstantial evidence? Lol. "Believe". Lol.
I won't speak about the sprinters, but given the relatively few number of athletes in history running the less challenging marks of sub-3:30 (and sub-3:47 in the mile), is it "realistic" to "believe" that doping is a necessary or relevant factor for El G's dominance in the 1500m/mile? Why didn't more athletes just take the same "PEDs" then, to at least run sub-3:30 and sub-3:47? In fact, given the "belief" of high doping prevalence in the last few decades, it would be "unrealistic" to "believe" that more athletes didn't take the same "PEDs".
"It is inferiority and self-doubt that motivates clean athletes to dope." (Uh - "clean athletes who dope" are called dopers). And how many dopers do you know that have told you this? How many convicted dopers have said they did it because of "self-doubt"? Lack of confidence isn't what drives doping - or you would have to conclude a considerable number of championship-level athletes lack confidence, because they have admitted to doping in confidential surveys - nearly one in two athletes. Ben Johnson lacked confidence, Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds, Ramzi, any number of Kenyan world championship or Olympic medallists, and so on - all lacked self-belief? Try the overwhelming desire to succeed, which all athletes have - and especially the best - which is why they dope. They are as fanatical in their desire to succeed as you are your belief they don't dope or only dope because of their "self-doubt". It is ironic that you don't see your own nature explains why they would do what you refuse to believe they do.
The irony is all yours.
You paint a fantastic picture, but how many dopers do you know that have told you this? (See how stupid that sounds?)
Before they doped, we could call "dopers" clean athletes, who were then motivated to dope by a self-perceived consistent underperformance. Doping can remove a mental barrier that was blocking them before.
I think it goes without saying that resorting to artificial support against the rules is a sign of a lack of self-confidence in talent and training the right way. All of your long list of athletes lacked this self-confidence, or had a coach/agent/etc. who lacked confidence.
I know all of this because I understand the motivations to win are not the same as the motivations to dope.
You don't truly understand motivation because your thinking is too clouded with unsupportable fantasy.
You also rely too much on unreliable surveys. At just one world championship event, a similar "survey" estimated 20%, while estimating 30% non-compliance, and estimates are as low as 9-12% when you consider 95% confidence intervals. This is exactly what David Howman, long time chief anti-doping official, estimated when he said "at least 10%".
You claim to know that self-doubt is what drives dopers yet you know none who would have told you this, and none of those caught have admitted self-doubt was the reason for their doping. There is your first unsupported assertion. It is mere fantasy on your part. The second is that you say doping shows a lack of confidence when it is more plausible to say it demonstrates ambition and the desire to succeed, because we know all successful athletes must have that - and dopers are often the most successful.
Howman does not restrict his estimate of doping to 10% but suggests that is the lowest figure likely when he says it is "at least" that. That means he allows it is quite likely to be higher, which is what other estimates are as well as what athlete surveys have shown.
The ambitious - in any area of life - will brook no obstacle to their goals and will do whatever they see is necessary to achieve them. Athletes are amongst the most single-mindedly ambitious amongst us. For them, doping is a necessity if your competitors are doping. So that is why they dope.
You cannot understand how the most ambitious amongst us think. You are still trapped in a "village green" version of sporting amateurism that disappeared decades ago. You are the Pollyanna of doping-deniers.
Tuohy is the most likely doper in the US. She backed off for NCAA in fear of getting tested. She will never go pro because she won't permit herself to go into the testing pool. A mysterious injury will end her career.
Reasoning on the basis of facts and according to probability is unknown to you. You should be an "election-denier".
Probably wouldn't choose Jamila because she was possibly intersex. The answer might come out, "nope she wasn't doping..." And then we'd still have lots of quesitons. In the post it doesn't say you get to know about their natural testosterone levels (or anything else about them), just that you get to know whether they are doping or not. So I'd avoid anyone who might have been benefiting from natural testosterone.
You claim to know that self-doubt is what drives dopers yet you know none who would have told you this, and none of those caught have admitted self-doubt was the reason for their doping. There is your first unsupported assertion. It is mere fantasy on your part. The second is that you say doping shows a lack of confidence when it is more plausible to say it demonstrates ambition and the desire to succeed, because we know all successful athletes must have that - and dopers are often the most successful.
Howman does not restrict his estimate of doping to 10% but suggests that is the lowest figure likely when he says it is "at least" that. That means he allows it is quite likely to be higher, which is what other estimates are as well as what athlete surveys have shown.
The ambitious - in any area of life - will brook no obstacle to their goals and will do whatever they see is necessary to achieve them. Athletes are amongst the most single-mindedly ambitious amongst us. For them, doping is a necessity if your competitors are doping. So that is why they dope.
You cannot understand how the most ambitious amongst us think. You are still trapped in a "village green" version of sporting amateurism that disappeared decades ago. You are the Pollyanna of doping-deniers.
"Dopers are often the most successful". The doping headlines are mainly full of anonymous nobodies, only famous for being caught, and sometimes the occasional star.
But what I say is self-evident. If an athlete believed in talent and training alone, there would simply be no motivation to dope or cheat, taking the risk, to destroy his/her career and reputation.
Whatever Howman says, he didn't say "1 in 2", but "at least" "1 in 10". Howman was being realistic. You are being fantastic, believing in a land of magic potions not yet proven to be effective. Your fantastic "1 in 2" estimate is both exagerrated and unreliable.
But you may be partly right that ambition and desire partly motivates some of the "at least 10%" weaker minded athletes lacking self-confidence, including some occasional winners, to dope.
You claim to know that self-doubt is what drives dopers yet you know none who would have told you this, and none of those caught have admitted self-doubt was the reason for their doping. There is your first unsupported assertion. It is mere fantasy on your part. The second is that you say doping shows a lack of confidence when it is more plausible to say it demonstrates ambition and the desire to succeed, because we know all successful athletes must have that - and dopers are often the most successful.
Howman does not restrict his estimate of doping to 10% but suggests that is the lowest figure likely when he says it is "at least" that. That means he allows it is quite likely to be higher, which is what other estimates are as well as what athlete surveys have shown.
The ambitious - in any area of life - will brook no obstacle to their goals and will do whatever they see is necessary to achieve them. Athletes are amongst the most single-mindedly ambitious amongst us. For them, doping is a necessity if your competitors are doping. So that is why they dope.
You cannot understand how the most ambitious amongst us think. You are still trapped in a "village green" version of sporting amateurism that disappeared decades ago. You are the Pollyanna of doping-deniers.
"Dopers are often the most successful". The doping headlines are mainly full of anonymous nobodies, only famous for being caught, and sometimes the occasional star.
But what I say is self-evident. If an athlete believed in talent and training alone, there would simply be no motivation to dope or cheat, taking the risk, to destroy his/her career and reputation.
Whatever Howman says, he didn't say "1 in 2", but "at least" "1 in 10". Howman was being realistic. You are being fantastic, believing in a land of magic potions not yet proven to be effective. Your fantastic "1 in 2" estimate is both exagerrated and unreliable.
But you may be partly right that ambition and desire partly motivates some of the "at least 10%" weaker minded athletes lacking self-confidence, including some occasional winners, to dope.
Howman was being conservative. He knows the lowest figure is unarguable but that doping is likely also to be much higher because tests catch only a fraction. The athlete surveys suggest many more and so do other informed estimates from insiders. An exact figure for doping cannot be ascertained because very few are actually caught.
You talk of "anonymous nobodies" - like Armstrong, Jones, Johnson, Bonds, Ramzi and Kiprop - and Houlihan - as well as the numerous Kenyan distance runners who have been championship medallists as well as world record-holders. It simply shows that doping will be found amongst the very best in sports. Of course. That's how you get to be the best.
If an athlete "believed in training and talent alone" then they are conceding to those with equal talent and training who also dope. No athlete who wants to be the best will concede being second-best if they can avoid it. That is why doping in sports is a billion dollar black-market industry.
That you think athletes looking for every advantage they can is "weak-minded" shows you know nothing about what it takes to get to the top in sport - or in anything. They don't hold to your antiquated values - and never did.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
"Dopers are often the most successful". The doping headlines are mainly full of anonymous nobodies, only famous for being caught, and sometimes the occasional star.
But what I say is self-evident. If an athlete believed in talent and training alone, there would simply be no motivation to dope or cheat, taking the risk, to destroy his/her career and reputation.
Whatever Howman says, he didn't say "1 in 2", but "at least" "1 in 10". Howman was being realistic. You are being fantastic, believing in a land of magic potions not yet proven to be effective. Your fantastic "1 in 2" estimate is both exagerrated and unreliable.
But you may be partly right that ambition and desire partly motivates some of the "at least 10%" weaker minded athletes lacking self-confidence, including some occasional winners, to dope.
Howman was being conservative. He knows the lowest figure is unarguable but that doping is likely also to be much higher because tests catch only a fraction. The athlete surveys suggest many more and so do other informed estimates from insiders. An exact figure for doping cannot be ascertained because very few are actually caught.
You talk of "anonymous nobodies" - like Armstrong, Jones, Johnson, Bonds, Ramzi and Kiprop - and Houlihan - as well as the numerous Kenyan distance runners who have been championship medallists as well as world record-holders. It simply shows that doping will be found amongst the very best in sports. Of course. That's how you get to be the best.
If an athlete "believed in training and talent alone" then they are conceding to those with equal talent and training who also dope. No athlete who wants to be the best will concede being second-best if they can avoid it. That is why doping in sports is a billion dollar black-market industry.
That you think athletes looking for every advantage they can is "weak-minded" shows you know nothing about what it takes to get to the top in sport - or in anything. They don't hold to your antiquated values - and never did.
This is just you repeating your unsupported fantasies.
They failed to persuade before and remain unpersuasive. But you are entitled to your opinions, even if baseless.