"Some doping does produce some performance games, for some people, in some events."
So what's your data for saying that? What is "some" doping, what are "some" performance gains, who are "some" people and what are "some" events? Figures, please. And not just guesses.
But you are just guessing like you say everyone else does. If you don't have the data on the above you're spouting hot air.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
As I have said, drugs are continuously developed because they are primarily based on medical research, which never stops. They are also produced by labs (like Balco was) that have identified drugs that are known to have performance enhancing effects and they mask the drugs. This means the drugs may never be detected - which is why WADA keeps test samples for 8 years, in the possibility they may eventually be able to detect an illicit substance. Sometimes they are lucky. The Al Jazeera report on doping said there are likely to be a hundred substances at any one time used by athletes that cannot be tested for. That is why antidoping is always trying to play catch up to doping - and failing. For the most part we will not know what drugs athletes are using because most users aren't caught. That does not enable you to say there is "insufficient data" to conclude they are doping - there is, we know there is doping - or that there are no new drugs being developed simply because they haven't been identified and may never be.
What enables me to say "insufficient data" is the lack of sufficient data. You seem to dwell on the possible existence of new drugs, and the possibility of athletes doping, but forget the only question is how that is relevant to performance, and more specifically, world record performances.
Nothing in your post seems relevant to helping you establish your currently baseless suggestion that some newly developed drug is able to explain, even in small part, the performances we are seeing in the supershoe era, in the last few years.
Your approach seems to be to convince me how much we don't know, and base your conclusions off of that ignorance.
What enables you to say "insufficient data" is to ignore the data we do have - the known facts about the historical presence of drugs in the sport, where they come from and how they are developed.
Nothing about shoes, tracks and bicarb precludes doping. But the naive here think it does - that it's a choice between doping and using these other things. It isn't. Just add doping to your list, because it's there.
I have but I don't have to supply the response you require. To do so would be irrelevant.
Your answer clearly shows you havn't.
You are not certain if Coe in 1981 was doped. Yet you are certain to reach the same level of fitness 44 years later you have to be doped.
I didn't say the same level. I said to beat the best today he would have to be doped. You've just shown what I said about you. It's always the dimmest here who think they are clever.
You are not certain if Coe in 1981 was doped. Yet you are certain to reach the same level of fitness 44 years later you have to be doped.
I didn't say the same level. I said to beat the best today he would have to be doped. You've just shown what I said about you. It's always the dimmest here who think they are clever.
1:41.73 ran in those conditions would definitely be competitive today. As for your last sentence, that applies perfectly to you.
You are not certain if Coe in 1981 was doped. Yet you are certain to reach the same level of fitness 44 years later you have to be doped.
I didn't say the same level. I said to beat the best today he would have to be doped. You've just shown what I said about you. It's always the dimmest here who think they are clever.
No, you didn't say that, liar.
With his fitness level from 1981, Coe would be extremely competitive today.
I didn't say the same level. I said to beat the best today he would have to be doped. You've just shown what I said about you. It's always the dimmest here who think they are clever.
No, you didn't say that, liar.
With his fitness level from 1981, Coe would be extremely competitive today.
But, as said, you didn't understand the sentence you were replying to.
That's a good question. There was a US training philosophy of quality over quantity while the Kenyans and Ethiopians were putting in high volume of easy runs which turns out to be better for distance running. But also, we don't know when their doping culture began. And they may have more natural talent for distance running, statistically speaking.
It's funny that we agree on the Houlihan issue and disagree on general doping. The reverse with Armstronglivs. Either way, it's good conversation.
I think doping in athletics in US and Europe peaked around 1990*, and in cycling in the early 2000s. F.ex. the highest doping prevalence estimate I have seen comes from Edwin Moses with 80% in the late 80s.
* A combo of the fall of the wall / end of cold war / end of state-sponsored doping (for the most part) / begin of out-of-comp testing / public awareness after the Ben Johnson scandal.
UCI had their scandal much later (Festina in 1998), and still let Armstrong get away with this positive tests in 1999. IAAF was much more serious in 1999. F. ex. their stars Baumann + Decker. Even Germany banned their own Krabbe already back in 1992 - that would never had happened in 1988, on the contrary.
I didn't say the same level. I said to beat the best today he would have to be doped. You've just shown what I said about you. It's always the dimmest here who think they are clever.
No, you didn't say that, liar.
With his fitness level from 1981, Coe would be extremely competitive today.
He lies so much. And then throws petty insults trying to gaslight other people. Who does that? A coward.
That's a good question. There was a US training philosophy of quality over quantity while the Kenyans and Ethiopians were putting in high volume of easy runs which turns out to be better for distance running. But also, we don't know when their doping culture began. And they may have more natural talent for distance running, statistically speaking.
It's funny that we agree on the Houlihan issue and disagree on general doping. The reverse with Armstronglivs. Either way, it's good conversation.
I treat doping-related performance like I treat everything -- I don't care too much what anyone says or believes or assumes or presumes, but form my own opinions on the available data provided in support of what people say. Armstronglivs says many things, but can never provide the supporting data.
"Some doping does produce some performance games, for some people, in some events."
So what's your data for saying that? What is "some" doping, what are "some" performance gains, who are "some" people and what are "some" events? Figures, please. And not just guesses.
But you are just guessing like you say everyone else does. If you don't have the data on the above you're spouting hot air.
The default hypothesis (also known as the null hypothesis), when lacking any data, is that no doping produces any performance gains for anyone in any event. I was giving you a partial concession, but I'm happy to take that back if you insist.
As you no doubt must recall, I have never challenged the power of steroids for women in events requiring muscular strength -- largely on the basis of Soviet and Eastern Bloc performances from the '70s and '80s.
What enables you to say "insufficient data" is to ignore the data we do have - the known facts about the historical presence of drugs in the sport, where they come from and how they are developed.
From these known facts, we can say that historical drugs were present then.
This says nothing about new drugs today, nor whether the drugs, historic or new, were or are performance enhancing for elite athletes at the peak of their fitness, nor whether athletes like Kiplomo doped.
Nothing about shoes, tracks and bicarb precludes doping. But the naive here think it does - that it's a choice between doping and using these other things. It isn't. Just add doping to your list, because it's there.
The ball is in your court to support your claims regarding these powerful new drugs.
Doping, and the relation to elite performance, is on my list of baseless speculations.
I didn't say the same level. I said to beat the best today he would have to be doped. You've just shown what I said about you. It's always the dimmest here who think they are clever.
1:41.73 ran in those conditions would definitely be competitive today. As for your last sentence, that applies perfectly to you.
I said it wouldn't win now. You're just arguing in circles with yourself.
Nothing about shoes, tracks and bicarb precludes doping. But the naive here think it does - that it's a choice between doping and using these other things. It isn't. Just add doping to your list, because it's there.
The ball is in your court to support your claims regarding these powerful new drugs.
Doping, and the relation to elite performance, is on my list of baseless speculations.
It doesn't have to be "powerful new drugs" but athletes being able to use any of the listed banned substances, for example, without being caught - which we know they can since says doping remains ahead of antidoping. But the other fact is that drugs continue to be developed, because medicine, on which they are based, hasn't stood still since 1970. Only someone as deluded as yourself still sees no connection between an illicit practice over half a century old, that continues to evolve, and sporting performance - which is why athletes do it. You can say the connection is "baseless" because no doped athletes obligingly come forward to be the willing subjects of your academic studies. By the same token, you would say no crimes are committed unless someone is convicted for them, otherwise there is no "data", when in many countries few are convicted for the crimes they commit.
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.