The extraordinary detail always explains at length the many ways your unfounded beliefs are wrong. It's curious, but not surprising, you think that is a sign of relevance, rather than baseless ignorance.
Canova is as dodgy as any other Italian in the business.
He went running to Africa and left his Italian athletes behind as soon as they developed a reasonably reliable test for EPO.
Testosterone has long been used as a ped by males - it doesn't merely have the "potential" to do so. But as you know nothing about doping you won't know that.
You are unbelievably thick. The individual identity of athletes in an anonymous survey (that's what "anonymous" means - we don't know who they are) is irrelevant to the fact that a given number of athletes admitted to drug use, which thereby indicates doping prevalence. We don't need to know who the dopers are to obtain that information. Your historical analysis, on the other hand, tells us nothing because you have no idea whether any of the athletes whose performance you purport to measure was doped or not. So you can't measure the effects of doping on performance - which you claim when you say it hasn't improved performance. You really aren't equipped to debate any of these issues.
Sure. Steroids were long used by male sprinters, and fielders. I have never expressed doubts about steroids for men in these non-distance running events. But male distance runners generally don't believe in the performance enhancement effect of steroids. According to Salazar, "Other than blood doping, ..., there were not any prohibited practices or doping methods that were clearly beneficial for distance runners,"
I always read your personal insults as self-projection -- it makes so much more sense that way. It's also a sign that you are smart enough to know you lack merit, but not smart enough to admit it, so you need to resort to insults. But you've got it all wrong -- it is the soles of the new shoes that are unbelievably thick.
The obvious point that escapes your feeble mental grasp is that in my all-time performance analysis, like the anonymous survey, it doesn't really matter who doped, because, contrary to your repeated suggestions, I don't attempt to make any individual performance enhancement assessments. My only real observation then was that non-African men worldwide, with a few marginal exceptions, were not faster than Coe/Ovett/Jones/Lopes in the events ranging from 1500m to the marathon, for nearly three decades, before the new thick soled carbon fiber plated shoes. And even then, my conclusion was not a conclusion, but a question: "if doping was so signficant, and so widespread, in the EPO-era, then why were there so few non-Africans running faster, and then only by so little?"
You cannot make a collective assessment of the effects of doping on runners when you have no base for a clean performance, whether it is of individual athletes or collectively. You can only guess - like everyone else. However the safest assumption is that with a practice that is decades old and has involved significant athletes in every sport there will be gains, even if they can't be exactly measured by observers of the sport. Athletes, coaches, trainers and physicians are rational actors - they are not going to persist with an activity that involves risk without rewards that would justify it. The only debate might be how much of a performance gain athletes will derive from doping; there can be no doubt that there will be gains. For those with historical knowledge of the sport it is evident without question that the top range of performances today are only permissable through doping.
When Canova posts it is often in response to my posts - and he does so at great length and extraordinary detail. He would hardly do that if my opinions were irrelevant.
The extraordinary detail always explains at length the many ways your unfounded beliefs are wrong. It's curious, but not surprising, you think that is a sign of relevance, rather than baseless ignorance.
That Canova goes to considerable detail to present another view from the one I express shows that he takes what I say seriously. He disagrees with me but he does not take what I say lightly. I respect that he does that, even though I am not persuaded to his view.
The extraordinary detail always explains at length the many ways your unfounded beliefs are wrong. It's curious, but not surprising, you think that is a sign of relevance, rather than baseless ignorance.
That Canova goes to considerable detail to present another view from the one I express shows that he takes what I say seriously. He disagrees with me but he does not take what I say lightly. I respect that he does that, even though I am not persuaded to his view.
Canova doesn't take what you say seriously. What he takes seriously, is that ignorant morons like you spread lies and desinformation about elite athletes.
That Canova goes to considerable detail to present another view from the one I express shows that he takes what I say seriously. He disagrees with me but he does not take what I say lightly. I respect that he does that, even though I am not persuaded to his view.
Canova doesn't take what you say seriously. What he takes seriously, is that ignorant morons like you spread lies and desinformation about elite athletes.
He doesn't want your ignorance to spread.
Canova speaks for himself. He doesn't require one as dull as you are to try to do it for him.
Because you are intellectually limited you don't realise that your extreme concern about the effect my views will have on others, especially young athletes, is an indication that I have some real influence over others. You have a way of paying me compliments without intending to do so.
However if I don't in fact have that influence then your incessant posts attacking me are merely a tantrum - like a baby. They show you have been completely overcome by your obsession with views you can't tolerate.
This post was edited 37 seconds after it was posted.
The extraordinary detail always explains at length the many ways your unfounded beliefs are wrong. It's curious, but not surprising, you think that is a sign of relevance, rather than baseless ignorance.
Canova is as dodgy as any other Italian in the business.
He went running to Africa and left his Italian athletes behind as soon as they developed a reasonably reliable test for EPO.
The extraordinary detail always explains at length the many ways your unfounded beliefs are wrong. It's curious, but not surprising, you think that is a sign of relevance, rather than baseless ignorance.
Canova is as dodgy as any other Italian in the business.
He went running to Africa and left his Italian athletes behind as soon as they developed a reasonably reliable test for EPO.
"As dodgy as" can mean all Italians in the business are not dodgy. You might say Conconi/Ferrari are Italian, but they were in the "cycling" business, and not "athletics".
Renato worked for the Italian Federation (FIDAL) from 1971 to 2002, for 32 years. Before the EPO tests, Italians did not enjoy anywhere near the same degree of success as the East Africans (dating as far back as 1980s World Cross Country, if not farther).
Canova doesn't take what you say seriously. What he takes seriously, is that ignorant morons like you spread lies and desinformation about elite athletes.
He doesn't want your ignorance to spread.
Canova speaks for himself. He doesn't require one as dull as you are to try to do it for him.
When he spoke, he called you a donkey. I respect that he does that. After all, he is an expert.
The extraordinary detail always explains at length the many ways your unfounded beliefs are wrong. It's curious, but not surprising, you think that is a sign of relevance, rather than baseless ignorance.
That Canova goes to considerable detail to present another view from the one I express shows that he takes what I say seriously. He disagrees with me but he does not take what I say lightly. I respect that he does that, even though I am not persuaded to his view.
That puts things in a whole different light. Your repeated eagerness to respond to me is only because you take what I say seriously.
You cannot make a collective assessment of the effects of doping on runners when you have no base for a clean performance, whether it is of individual athletes or collectively. You can only guess - like everyone else. However the safest assumption is that with a practice that is decades old and has involved significant athletes in every sport there will be gains, even if they can't be exactly measured by observers of the sport. Athletes, coaches, trainers and physicians are rational actors - they are not going to persist with an activity that involves risk without rewards that would justify it. The only debate might be how much of a performance gain athletes will derive from doping; there can be no doubt that there will be gains. For those with historical knowledge of the sport it is evident without question that the top range of performances today are only permissable through doping.
Now you are finally coming around.
You cannot make a collective assessment of the effects of doping on runners when you have no base for a clean performance, whether it is of individual athletes or collectively. You can only guess - like everyone else.
That is what I have been saying all along.
However, the safest assumption ... is still an assumption.
That is what I have been saying all along.
Athletes, coaches, trainers and physicians may be rational actors, but, like everyone else, can only guess.
As long as no one has a base for clean performance, there will be doubts that there will be gains, and there will be questions that the top range of performances today are only permissable through doping.
Canova speaks for himself. He doesn't require one as dull as you are to try to do it for him.
When he spoke, he called you a donkey. I respect that he does that. After all, he is an expert.
But not on doping - as he has admitted. But if he is an expert then so is Sage, so you will respect him as well, no doubt. And Sage is certainly expert about you.
That Canova goes to considerable detail to present another view from the one I express shows that he takes what I say seriously. He disagrees with me but he does not take what I say lightly. I respect that he does that, even though I am not persuaded to his view.
That puts things in a whole different light. Your repeated eagerness to respond to me is only because you take what I say seriously.
I do - but not for the reasons you think. You are the board's resident doping apologist and propagandist and it is my role not to let you spout that incessant rubbish unchallenged. At a more modest level, it's a bit like sweeping dogsh*t off the pavement.
You cannot make a collective assessment of the effects of doping on runners when you have no base for a clean performance, whether it is of individual athletes or collectively. You can only guess - like everyone else. However the safest assumption is that with a practice that is decades old and has involved significant athletes in every sport there will be gains, even if they can't be exactly measured by observers of the sport. Athletes, coaches, trainers and physicians are rational actors - they are not going to persist with an activity that involves risk without rewards that would justify it. The only debate might be how much of a performance gain athletes will derive from doping; there can be no doubt that there will be gains. For those with historical knowledge of the sport it is evident without question that the top range of performances today are only permissable through doping.
Now you are finally coming around.
You cannot make a collective assessment of the effects of doping on runners when you have no base for a clean performance, whether it is of individual athletes or collectively. You can only guess - like everyone else.
That is what I have been saying all along.
However, the safest assumption ... is still an assumption.
That is what I have been saying all along.
Athletes, coaches, trainers and physicians may be rational actors, but, like everyone else, can only guess.
As long as no one has a base for clean performance, there will be doubts that there will be gains, and there will be questions that the top range of performances today are only permissable through doping.
BS. Your "assumption" has throughout been that doping is less than most experts believe it is and that it has made no significant difference to elite performance. This is refuted both by the acknowledgement of the experts that doping is always ahead of antidoping and that the only rational basis for the persistence of doping in all sports is that it enhances performance.
"Athletes, coaches, trainers and physicians may be rational actors, but, like everyone else, can only guess."(copy)
False - again. They aren't "like everyone else" - they are using the drugs - we aren't - and can see first-hand what it does. If drugs had no effect they wouldn't be used and doping wouldn't exist as a problem.
When he spoke, he called you a donkey. I respect that he does that. After all, he is an expert.
But not on doping - as he has admitted. But if he is an expert then so is Sage, so you will respect him as well, no doubt. And Sage is certainly expert about you.
You have weird logic. Canova is a proven expert. Sage? Not yet.
I guess donkey is the right call because you get so many things bass-ackwards.
That puts things in a whole different light. Your repeated eagerness to respond to me is only because you take what I say seriously.
I do - but not for the reasons you think. You are the board's resident doping apologist and propagandist and it is my role not to let you spout that incessant rubbish unchallenged. At a more modest level, it's a bit like sweeping dogsh*t off the pavement.
Maybe now you can understand Renato was simply not letting you spout that incessant rubbish unchallenged, like sweeping dogsh*t off the pavement.
I would be more than happy if you, or anyone, could challenge any of my statements with facts and evidence and observations. But you offer only baseless conclusions and personal insults.
"Athletes, coaches, trainers and physicians may be rational actors, but, like everyone else, can only guess."(copy)
False - again. They aren't "like everyone else" - they are using the drugs - we aren't - and can see first-hand what it does. If drugs had no effect they wouldn't be used and doping wouldn't exist as a problem.
Is it false?
So when you said "everyone", you didn't really mean "everyone"?
It would be different if we had some of these first-hand accounts of their experience. Without them, ignorant fans like you are left just guessing.
Even then, these first-hand experiences will unlikely have taken the time and effort to establish an accurate base for a clean performance, and since drug use is not blinded, these first-hand accounts will potentially be biased by placebo effect.
BS. Your "assumption" has throughout been that doping is less than most experts believe it is and that it has made no significant difference to elite performance. This is refuted both by the acknowledgement of the experts that doping is always ahead of antidoping and that the only rational basis for the persistence of doping in all sports is that it enhances performance.
There is that word "believe" again ...
Once again, that is what I've been saying all along.
Even the best experts lack knowledge, and can only express their beliefs.
Which "expert" says "the only rational basis for the persistence of doping in all sports is that it enhances performance"? I bet none -- it only comes from a "non-expert" anonymous nobody involved in any sport, unable to find substantial "expert" references for his views.
Here are some more rational bases to add to your "only": "greed" from medical/pharmaceutical "experts" able to convince athletes; doping to allow quicker recovery, and more intense and frequent training, which hopefully will, but may or may not, lead to improved performance.
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.