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.
Drugs don't have to be new to be effective; they simply have to be used without the athletes being caught. They aren't being caught. Only someone as brain dead as you are would suggest banned drugs aren't performance enhancing to the elite athletes that we know do use them.
"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.
You are basing your "partial concession" - which I don't need - on a complete absence of data. You produce nothing to support your claims. Referring to Soviet women athletes (and why only them and no one else?) doesn't back up what you have said. So you have just committed what you claim so many others do here - you have made "baseless" claims. But, in truth, that's all you do. You've have just made it transparently obvious.
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.
It would have to be something new, if you want to downplay supershoes and bi-carb, and say we are seeing the results of something new about drugs in the supershoe era.
For me to stop calling it baseless, you have to provide a basis. I say it is baseless because you make extraordinary claims and never provide any basis. You make sweeping generalizations notably vague on details about which drugs, and which performance benefit, by how much, and which sport, only fortifying it with arrogance and insults directed at those who simply ask you to provide some factual support for your currently baseless claims. Saying "drugs exist in sport" is not as persuasive as you believe.
Note all these drugs and facts existed before the supershoe era, without producing all these records at the high school, university, and professional levels in the numbers (both quality and quantity) that we are seeing in the supershoe era. In other words, drugs were not so powerful before the supershoe era, as you baselessly suggest they are today.
Drugs don't have to be new to be effective; they simply have to be used without the athletes being caught. They aren't being caught. Only someone as brain dead as you are would suggest banned drugs aren't performance enhancing to the elite athletes that we know do use them.
This is "argument from ignorance". I'm not so brain dead that I cannot see you are assuming a conclusion based on what you don't know.
You are basing your "partial concession" - which I don't need - on a complete absence of data. You produce nothing to support your claims. Referring to Soviet women athletes (and why only them and no one else?) doesn't back up what you have said. So you have just committed what you claim so many others do here - you have made "baseless" claims. But, in truth, that's all you do. You've have just made it transparently obvious.
Good point -- under the shadow of a complete absence of data, I cannot concede, even in small part, that any banned drug or banned method produces any enhanced performance for any athlete in any sporting event.
Or alternatively, if I do say it, it must be understood as completely baseless speculation and/or unsupported opinion and/or unconfirmed hypothesis, rather than established fact.
I said it wouldn't win now. You're just arguing in circles with yourself.
1:41.73 is still #20 all time, and would have won all but 13 races all time.
It therefore doesn't make him the best in this era. As I said, to be the best today he would undoubtedly have to dope - whether or not he was doping in 1981.
1:41.73 is still #20 all time, and would have won all but 13 races all time.
It therefore doesn't make him the best in this era. As I said, to be the best today he would undoubtedly have to dope - whether or not he was doping in 1981.
In this era he would have bicarb, shoes and tracks. But you are thick as a plank and can't understand that today he would be faster than he was in the past.
Drugs don't have to be new to be effective; they simply have to be used without the athletes being caught. They aren't being caught. Only someone as brain dead as you are would suggest banned drugs aren't performance enhancing to the elite athletes that we know do use them.
This is "argument from ignorance". I'm not so brain dead that I cannot see you are assuming a conclusion based on what you don't know.
Drugs are banned because they can be performance enhancing: fact. They are still being used and developed: fact. Many athletes have used them and do use them for performance gains - which they would not do if there were no gains: fact. You have just proven you are brain dead.
It therefore doesn't make him the best in this era. As I said, to be the best today he would undoubtedly have to dope - whether or not he was doping in 1981.
In this era he would have bicarb, shoes and tracks. But you are thick as a plank and can't understand that today he would be faster than he was in the past.
You left out doping - which everyone has access to in addition to shoes, tracks and bicarb.
"if I do say it, it must be understood as completely baseless speculation and/or unsupported opinion and/or unconfirmed hypothesis, rather than established fact."
The only correct thing you have said about anything.
1:41.73 is still #20 all time, and would have won all but 13 races all time.
It therefore doesn't make him the best in this era. As I said, to be the best today he would undoubtedly have to dope - whether or not he was doping in 1981.
To reach his unique level in 1981 for you he doesn't necessary had to dope. With his level from 44 years ago he would be extremely competitive today from 800m to the Mile. In the 800m he would be a candidate for no. 1.
Yet you state today he undoubtedly would have to dope.
In this era he would have bicarb, shoes and tracks. But you are thick as a plank and can't understand that today he would be faster than he was in the past.
You left out doping - which everyone has access to in addition to shoes, tracks and bicarb.
If doping for him wasn't necessary in 1981, than it wouldn't today.
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.