Are you joking? People talk about faster tracks all the time. Not too long ago, there was a thread entitled "If it isn't PEDS, what were the reasons for the incredible performances in Paris?" The first response was "The track is faster?" The next response was you, preaching that fast times can only be explained by PEDs.
So El G would be running 3:24 on today's tracks - or 3:41 for the mile? Who - apart from those afflicted by your idiocy - argues that? Or, conversely, that if Ingebrigtsen was running in El G's era, he would only be good for 3:29 because of the tracks. What an inferior athlete! You are witless.
You've let yourself get distracted from what anyone was talking about. I talked about a confluence of several factors, like shoes, bicarb, tracks and/or wavelights, and not just tracks. All these things are new. What were Jakob's times before all of these?
With all your wit, why aren't you giving us any answer to "which new drug"? Aren't you the unofficial spokesman for all things drugs?
Are you joking? People talk about faster tracks all the time. Not too long ago, there was a thread entitled "If it isn't PEDS, what were the reasons for the incredible performances in Paris?" The first response was "The track is faster?" The next response was you, preaching that fast times can only be explained by PEDs.
So El G would be running 3:24 on today's tracks - or 3:41 for the mile? Who - apart from those afflicted by your idiocy - argues that? Or, conversely, that if Ingebrigtsen was running in El G's era, he would only be good for 3:29 because of the tracks. What an inferior athlete! You are witless.
Im open to the idea that shoes,bicarb wave lights and tracks can take 2.5-3 seconds from a 1500 or mile. i cant be sure though.Its vaguely possible jakob might have only run 3.29 flat in the 90s,or high 3.28,which was competitive,but he wouldnt have won.Unless the stockholm diamond league(on its older track) banned shoes,and wave lights,and made everyone run without them,we will never know. I agree with you,that theres a whole lotta dopey goin on,and that its gotten worse,but i also believe technology helps just a bit. Technology might subtract 2.5 seconds from a 1500,,microdosing will subtract 5 seconds, full on steroid/EPO use will subtract 10. More for women.
So El G would be running 3:24 on today's tracks - or 3:41 for the mile? Who - apart from those afflicted by your idiocy - argues that? Or, conversely, that if Ingebrigtsen was running in El G's era, he would only be good for 3:29 because of the tracks. What an inferior athlete! You are witless.
You've let yourself get distracted from what anyone was talking about. I talked about a confluence of several factors, like shoes, bicarb, tracks and/or wavelights, and not just tracks. All these things are new. What were Jakob's times before all of these?
With all your wit, why aren't you giving us any answer to "which new drug"? Aren't you the unofficial spokesman for all things drugs?
A "confluence of factors", you say? But you don't include drugs amidst those factors. Yet they remain present.
You duck the point about tracks. Are El G's times worth more on today's tracks? If so, how much and why? Conversely, are Ingebrigtsen's times worth less on the tracks El G set his records on - and how much and why?
The difference made by tracks in the last twenty years - no one aside from you and other fantasists here claim that - and a cooking product which isn't classified as a ped - and training methods that aren't superior to what El G used - aren't a "confluence of factors" that explain a sudden recent surge in elite performances. But drugs do. They are throughout the sport and most are undetectable.
So El G would be running 3:24 on today's tracks - or 3:41 for the mile? Who - apart from those afflicted by your idiocy - argues that? Or, conversely, that if Ingebrigtsen was running in El G's era, he would only be good for 3:29 because of the tracks. What an inferior athlete! You are witless.
Im open to the idea that shoes,bicarb wave lights and tracks can take 2.5-3 seconds from a 1500 or mile. i cant be sure though.Its vaguely possible jakob might have only run 3.29 flat in the 90s,or high 3.28,which was competitive,but he wouldnt have won.Unless the stockholm diamond league(on its older track) banned shoes,and wave lights,and made everyone run without them,we will never know. I agree with you,that theres a whole lotta dopey goin on,and that its gotten worse,but i also believe technology helps just a bit. Technology might subtract 2.5 seconds from a 1500,,microdosing will subtract 5 seconds, full on steroid/EPO use will subtract 10. More for women.
But doping is the factor that the deniers here wish to rule out. They can't. It won't be wished away in a dirty sport.
You've let yourself get distracted from what anyone was talking about. I talked about a confluence of several factors, like shoes, bicarb, tracks and/or wavelights, and not just tracks. All these things are new. What were Jakob's times before all of these?
With all your wit, why aren't you giving us any answer to "which new drug"? Aren't you the unofficial spokesman for all things drugs?
A "confluence of factors", you say? But you don't include drugs amidst those factors. Yet they remain present.
You duck the point about tracks. Are El G's times worth more on today's tracks? If so, how much and why? Conversely, are Ingebrigtsen's times worth less on the tracks El G set his records on - and how much and why?
The difference made by tracks in the last twenty years - no one aside from you and other fantasists here claim that - and a cooking product which isn't classified as a ped - and training methods that aren't superior to what El G used - aren't a "confluence of factors" that explain a sudden recent surge in elite performances. But drugs do. They are throughout the sport and most are undetectable.
How many threads talked about the 1500m best times all coming from Monaco from 2010-2019? You think only fantasists mentioned it was the track, and the real reason was no drug testing in Monaco?
I can't help you when you fight so hard to be willfully ignorant about all that has changed in the last 20-50 years, whether it is tracks, shoes, training, etc.
You've had plenty of opportunities to answer any and all of these same questions about drugs, but the only thing you can tell me is that some unnamed drugs with unknown properties taken by unknown athletes with unknown performance benefits are "present". This broad failure, combined with general observations of 60+ years of mile/1500m performances uncorrelated to known drug use, is not enough for me to consider drugs a non-negligible part of the confluence of factors. This could change, but you need to make the point. Instead you are talking about El G and tracks.
Note that for all your powerful talk about drugs existing, no non-African Americans, or Europeans were running 3:27s before the supershoe era, or even before 2023. The question of this thread, which you seem so emotionally committed to, but intellectually incapable of responding: which new drug are the Americans taking?
Ingebrigtsen would probably be a 3:29 guy in El G's shoes, likely around a half-second faster than Nick Willis.
El G might be marginally faster with today's shoes and tracks, but according to some law of diminishing returns -- maybe also half a second.
Im open to the idea that shoes,bicarb wave lights and tracks can take 2.5-3 seconds from a 1500 or mile. i cant be sure though.Its vaguely possible jakob might have only run 3.29 flat in the 90s,or high 3.28,which was competitive,but he wouldnt have won.Unless the stockholm diamond league(on its older track) banned shoes,and wave lights,and made everyone run without them,we will never know. I agree with you,that theres a whole lotta dopey goin on,and that its gotten worse,but i also believe technology helps just a bit. Technology might subtract 2.5 seconds from a 1500,,microdosing will subtract 5 seconds, full on steroid/EPO use will subtract 10. More for women.
But doping is the factor that the deniers here wish to rule out. They can't. It won't be wished away in a dirty sport.
I know that. Also on here,they accuse everyone from countries not their own of doping,but their own athletes are always clean. Mind you im sure some people on here,think you,me,astro and steve the addict are the same user,when we're not. Im nowhere near as interesting,or as funny,as you are :) I dont get trolled as much as you do ,because im not as memorable.
A "confluence of factors", you say? But you don't include drugs amidst those factors. Yet they remain present.
You duck the point about tracks. Are El G's times worth more on today's tracks? If so, how much and why? Conversely, are Ingebrigtsen's times worth less on the tracks El G set his records on - and how much and why?
The difference made by tracks in the last twenty years - no one aside from you and other fantasists here claim that - and a cooking product which isn't classified as a ped - and training methods that aren't superior to what El G used - aren't a "confluence of factors" that explain a sudden recent surge in elite performances. But drugs do. They are throughout the sport and most are undetectable.
How many threads talked about the 1500m best times all coming from Monaco from 2010-2019? You think only fantasists mentioned it was the track, and the real reason was no drug testing in Monaco?
I can't help you when you fight so hard to be willfully ignorant about all that has changed in the last 20-50 years, whether it is tracks, shoes, training, etc.
You've had plenty of opportunities to answer any and all of these same questions about drugs, but the only thing you can tell me is that some unnamed drugs with unknown properties taken by unknown athletes with unknown performance benefits are "present". This broad failure, combined with general observations of 60+ years of mile/1500m performances uncorrelated to known drug use, is not enough for me to consider drugs a non-negligible part of the confluence of factors. This could change, but you need to make the point. Instead you are talking about El G and tracks.
Note that for all your powerful talk about drugs existing, no non-African Americans, or Europeans were running 3:27s before the supershoe era, or even before 2023. The question of this thread, which you seem so emotionally committed to, but intellectually incapable of responding: which new drug are the Americans taking?
Ingebrigtsen would probably be a 3:29 guy in El G's shoes, likely around a half-second faster than Nick Willis.
El G might be marginally faster with today's shoes and tracks, but according to some law of diminishing returns -- maybe also half a second.
Half a second over the 1500? You just plucked that out of the air? What is the difference in materials used today compared to 25 years ago and how do they make a difference at the elite level? Why don't they make a difference in women's events up to the 800, with records that have stood for 35-40 years?
But doping is the factor that the deniers here wish to rule out. They can't. It won't be wished away in a dirty sport.
Why should we rule it in? On what basis?
Because it is a long-established practice in sports that evades detection and that those concerned for the integrity of sport are trying to eradicate, albeit unsuccessfully. It is certainly present in running. It is a black market activity that persists because of what it offers to those who engage in it but cannot be easily detected or measured because it is a black market. You are obviously completely unaware that many Third World economies are based around black markets of various kinds.
This post was edited 59 seconds after it was posted.
But doping is the factor that the deniers here wish to rule out. They can't. It won't be wished away in a dirty sport.
I know that. Also on here,they accuse everyone from countries not their own of doping,but their own athletes are always clean. Mind you im sure some people on here,think you,me,astro and steve the addict are the same user,when we're not. Im nowhere near as interesting,or as funny,as you are :) I dont get trolled as much as you do ,because im not as memorable.
I know that. Also on here,they accuse everyone from countries not their own of doping,but their own athletes are always clean. Mind you im sure some people on here,think you,me,astro and steve the addict are the same user,when we're not. Im nowhere near as interesting,or as funny,as you are :) I dont get trolled as much as you do ,because im not as memorable.
But you're not naive.
Ahhh, you found your little echo chamber. Good for you.
Ahhh, you found your little echo chamber. Good for you.
The poster just showed they aren't, that they aren't anything like me but for the fact we share similar views about doping in sport. There are others of course but probably outnumbered by the deniers like yourself.
Ahhh, you found your little echo chamber. Good for you.
just wait till we sing duets on here,thatll be fun.
We won't be able to match the chorus of doping-deniers although one can take satisfaction from the fact that every second thread on this site raises doping - painful as it is for them to hear that.
Half a second over the 1500? You just plucked that out of the air? What is the difference in materials used today compared to 25 years ago and how do they make a difference at the elite level? Why don't they make a difference in women's events up to the 800, with records that have stood for 35-40 years?
I expect you will provide high quality answers and estimates to these very questions for drugs.
Are you still dwelling on the track, rather than a confluence of multiple factors? This demonstrates a lack of depth in your rationale.
Regarding the track, according to a writeup of the Paris Olympics, we see that the track is engineered and tuned to provide energy return to the athlete, improving efficiency:
"They're able to alter the rubber track's energy return mechanism by changing the shape of the particulate and the compressibility of it"
"When your foot strikes a Mondo surface, it'll sink in slightly, and the surface gives energy back. This pushes your foot back off that track quicker, putting the foot back into the cycle to complete another stride"
"sprinters and distance runners will run faster with the same effort they normally exert on any other surface"
This is a similar benefit with the shoes: The combination of PEBAX cushioning (or similar) on a carbon fiber plate (or similar) directs energy return back to the athlete's foot, measurably and demonstrably improving efficiency.
As both "track" and "shoes" address efficiency, this matters more in events where expending less energy for the same effort will leave more energy for the last lap. It matters much less in events more dependent on power like the women's 800m -- a rare event where drugs like steroids and male hormones do seem to provide a significant performance benefit. Yet Keely Hodginson still just ran 1:54.61 in London last year for a modern era best.
Regarding "bi-carb", what's new is the innovative delivery system, inside a gel, which means the bi-carb bypasses the stomach, and is delivered to the intestines and into the bloodstream, where it can counter-act acid buildup in the muscles that cause early fatigue, rather than being counter-acted by stomach acids, and often quickly flushed out causing great distress and embarrassment for athletes.
Wavelights, like pacers, provide continuous feedback to maintain optimal paces minimizing energy loss due to erratic pacing.
Drugs? Without any specific information, every discussion about alleged potential drug benefits are nothing more than pure speculation.
Once again, rek, tallon, and Armstronglivs show they can screw up a thread by demonstrating how little they actually know about running and the factors surrounding it.
Because it is a long-established practice in sports that evades detection and that those concerned for the integrity of sport are trying to eradicate, albeit unsuccessfully. It is certainly present in running. It is a black market activity that persists because of what it offers to those who engage in it but cannot be easily detected or measured because it is a black market. You are obviously completely unaware that many Third World economies are based around black markets of various kinds.
None of that constitutes a basis for distance running performance.