Joshua Cheptegei is SUSPICIOUS

Pro News/Info/Results

Moderation Moderation Information Moderation Information & Rules

Page 19 of 33

1 18 19 20 33

4 years ago 05/11/2021 2:21am EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
They do tell me what they know. I have talked with professional athletes and coaches, and doctors, about their experiences and what they observe or know about doping. I have done the same with antidoping officials. What I have learned from them is knowledge. To you it is hearsay because I can't give you a citation.
I am also a professional musician. I know quite a bit about the performance of music in an ensemble setting. My interactions with other musicians has given me knowledge. If you have no such experience then you would dismiss such experience because it cannot be accompanied by citations - it isnt "real world data".
So it is with this issue. What you have no experience of you disregard. But you don't have to depend on what I might tell you. There have been accounts from many in the field who have offered their experiences and insights. However, you dismiss all that as "anecdotal". Logically, you would do the same with every witness in a court case who described what they had seen or experienced. Thankfully, most jurors don't think like you - nor do most rational people.

I have seen firsthand how you distort what I say, even after multiple corrections, and how you describe other topics which are clearly written and verifiable. I seek to remove the filters that causes the distortion resulting from the combination of what you hear with what you believe.

Without real word facts that helps correlate doping with elite performance, I don't dismiss the idea, but characterize their substantive value with terms like baseless speculation, hypothesis, and belief. These have no greater value than competing speculations, hypotheses, and beliefs.

If someone observes you playing music, this a real world observation that can be recorded and measured and charcterized. If you tell me that the group can eradicate mice by playing the pied pipe, I would ask for a real world observation before I pay you for extermination services.

We can consider "anecdotes" and "direct experiences" as valuable input, but we must consider all confounders too, to reduce the risk of spurious conclusions. Whatever jurors do -- thankfully this is what scientists do.

4 years ago 05/11/2021 2:44am EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
So Canova would know more about the effect of training on an athlete than an athlete, like Snell, who has been the subject of training? If Canova's knowledge is based in his experience then the same certainly has to apply to Snell - who, incidentally, also made a career of studying exercise physiology.
Your insistence that I cannot prove to you what Snell said is a fatuous objection. It was made in the course of a public broadcast interview. Anyone who heard it would have understood what he was saying. It was not complex - which was also his point about training. It is immaterial to me that you are not convinced that what I have said is accurate; I do not expect to persuade you of anything. No one does. A verbatim transcript would not change that.
I maintain my earlier point that your historical performances are not a measure of the effects of doping on sport - or its lack of effect - when you have no base for establishing what is clean. That is reinforced when you have no knowledge of the effect that any drug will have on an individual athlete, as you have made no study of ped's, you have no experience of their use, and no knowledge obtained from either those who have used them or who are trying to eradicate them. Your arguments are merely speculation, and your only purpose here is to set a standard of proof for others that you have made sure they cannot meet. That is how a denier works.

I would say Lydiard, who produced many champions, including Snell, knows a great deal more than Snell does about how training produces champions, in the 1960s and 1970s.

I would then say that coaches like Canova, stand on the shoulders of giants like Lydiard.

Your inability to cite others is not limited to Snell, but pretty much universal. We can now add your many "professional athletes and coaches, and doctors" and "antidoping officials". I can only take your word because you give me no choice.

Speaking to the merits of Snell's view of "simple training" -- modern training is also simple, once you understand the basic concepts. Lydiard/Snell, and Canova differ in details, not complexity. We can chose both Snell's simplicity and Canova's modern training.

You keep responding as if I am arguing some opposite point. This is a strawman as well as deflection. The fact is that you are making many claims that you do not support with facts or observations. You speak of doping revolutions, but provide no direction. When? For whom? Members of your local gym? You speak of "hallmark of doping" but fail to provide supporting examples. You accuse me of denying that which you and your team of athletes, coaches, physios, and anti-doping experts have not yet affirmed. I do not need to deny that which has not yet been established. For the moment I characterize it as baseless speculation, hypothesis, and belief, because you are unable to provide a basis.

4 years ago 05/11/2021 6:50am EDT

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So Canova would know more about the effect of training on an athlete than an athlete, like Snell, who has been the subject of training? If Canova's knowledge is based in his experience then the same certainly has to apply to Snell - who, incidentally, also made a career of studying exercise physiology.
Your insistence that I cannot prove to you what Snell said is a fatuous objection. It was made in the course of a public broadcast interview. Anyone who heard it would have understood what he was saying. It was not complex - which was also his point about training. It is immaterial to me that you are not convinced that what I have said is accurate; I do not expect to persuade you of anything. No one does. A verbatim transcript would not change that.
I maintain my earlier point that your historical performances are not a measure of the effects of doping on sport - or its lack of effect - when you have no base for establishing what is clean. That is reinforced when you have no knowledge of the effect that any drug will have on an individual athlete, as you have made no study of ped's, you have no experience of their use, and no knowledge obtained from either those who have used them or who are trying to eradicate them. Your arguments are merely speculation, and your only purpose here is to set a standard of proof for others that you have made sure they cannot meet. That is how a denier works.
I would say Lydiard, who produced many champions, including Snell, knows a great deal more than Snell does about how training produces champions, in the 1960s and 1970s.
I would then say that coaches like Canova, stand on the shoulders of giants like Lydiard.
Your inability to cite others is not limited to Snell, but pretty much universal. We can now add your many "professional athletes and coaches, and doctors" and "antidoping officials". I can only take your word because you give me no choice.
Speaking to the merits of Snell's view of "simple training" -- modern training is also simple, once you understand the basic concepts. Lydiard/Snell, and Canova differ in details, not complexity. We can chose both Snell's simplicity and Canova's modern training.
You keep responding as if I am arguing some opposite point. This is a strawman as well as deflection. The fact is that you are making many claims that you do not support with facts or observations. You speak of doping revolutions, but provide no direction. When? For whom? Members of your local gym? You speak of "hallmark of doping" but fail to provide supporting examples. You accuse me of denying that which you and your team of athletes, coaches, physios, and anti-doping experts have not yet affirmed. I do not need to deny that which has not yet been established. For the moment I characterize it as baseless speculation, hypothesis, and belief, because you are unable to provide a basis.

You would say Canova stands on the shoulders of giants like Lydiard but that comment proves nothing. It does not prove either that Lydiard was wrong or that Canova has improved on his methods. It is merely your subjective view of Canova. Snell, on the other hand, was a triple Olympic champion and multiple world record holder - there is no inflated metaphor required to embellish those facts - and he understood the methods that led to that success. He made their study his purpose in his subsequent academic career.

When I speak of doping "revolutions" I am using it to indicate that 50 or more years ago doping was rudimentary and still relatively rare in distance running. Since then it has developed to become a worldwide billion dollar black market industry, using the accretion in scientific and medical knowledge of half a century. This is not in dispute amongst antidoping experts, and was published in a 2019 Al Jazeera investigation. Only someone like Rip Van Winkle, who has slept all that time, would not know this.

But you continue to avoid my point, that you estimate the effects of doping without establishing a measure for a clean base in performance.

So what is the clean base that you are operating from, for the best in the following distances -

1500m

10k

Marathon

What are you using to determine what that base is? What drugs are you basing your estimations on? Does that base change over time, say from the 70's through to the 80's and so forth, or does it stay the same? If so, why?

If you can't supply me with that data your analysis of the effect of doping on historical performances is purely conjecture.

4 years ago 05/11/2021 7:44am EDT

re: rekrunner

A new report on Selemon Barega in World Athletics channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMSiME240ro

This one could one of the challengers of Cheptegei in the future meetings.

4 years ago 05/11/2021 9:52am EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
You would say Canova stands on the shoulders of giants like Lydiard but that comment proves nothing. It does not prove either that Lydiard was wrong or that Canova has improved on his methods. It is merely your subjective view of Canova. Snell, on the other hand, was a triple Olympic champion and multiple world record holder - there is no inflated metaphor required to embellish those facts - and he understood the methods that led to that success. He made their study his purpose in his subsequent academic career.

Your question was who would know more about training.

My answer was that both Lydiard and Canova would know much more than Snell with his Olympic medals and Exercise Physiology PhD.

While Lydiards' training and Canova's training are field proven, Snell's simplified training is unproven.

Armstronglivs wrote:
When I speak of doping "revolutions" I am using it to indicate that 50 or more years ago doping was rudimentary and still relatively rare in distance running. Since then it has developed to become a worldwide billion dollar black market industry, using the accretion in scientific and medical knowledge of half a century. This is not in dispute amongst antidoping experts, and was published in a 2019 Al Jazeera investigation. Only someone like Rip Van Winkle, who has slept all that time, would not know this.

So your measure is size of market, rather than super-human performance.

Size of market is a measure of belief and hope.

If that also translates into better performances, our measure should include performances.

Religion also has a valuable worldwide market.

We are talking about distance running events.

Did Al Jazeera say how much of that black market is the sport of distance running among elites?

Or how much was funded by East Africa?

What does "scientific and medical knowledge" tell us about doping and elite running performance? Can you break that down into a few real facts?

Armstronglivs wrote:
But you continue to avoid my point, that you estimate the effects of doping without establishing a measure for a clean base in performance.
So what is the clean base that you are operating from, for the best in the following distances -
1500m
5k
10k
Marathon
What are you using to determine what that base is? What drugs are you basing your estimations on? Does that base change over time, say from the 70's through to the 80's and so forth, or does it stay the same? If so, why?
If you can't supply me with that data your analysis of the effect of doping on historical performances is purely conjecture.

I didn't see your point having anything to do with me. I do not estimate the effects of doping from all-time performances. All time lists do not contain any doping information.

I use real performance data to test various popular claims about the link between doping and elite performance, and look for consistencies, or potential inconsistencies, between the assumptions and real world results.

This is one of the reasons I ask you to cite source directly, rather than relay your misunderstandings.

4 years ago 05/11/2021 11:39am EDT

re: rekrunner

I dont tell you that. I said that performing ensemble music is an experience necessary to understanding how it is performed. You prove you cannot grasp a point and that you are ignorant of something additional to the subject of doping in sports.

4 years ago 05/11/2021 12:17pm EDT

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You would say Canova stands on the shoulders of giants like Lydiard but that comment proves nothing. It does not prove either that Lydiard was wrong or that Canova has improved on his methods. It is merely your subjective view of Canova. Snell, on the other hand, was a triple Olympic champion and multiple world record holder - there is no inflated metaphor required to embellish those facts - and he understood the methods that led to that success. He made their study his purpose in his subsequent academic career.
Your question was who would know more about training.
My answer was that both Lydiard and Canova would know much more than Snell with his Olympic medals and Exercise Physiology PhD.
While Lydiards' training and Canova's training are field proven, Snell's simplified training is unproven.
Armstronglivs wrote:
When I speak of doping "revolutions" I am using it to indicate that 50 or more years ago doping was rudimentary and still relatively rare in distance running. Since then it has developed to become a worldwide billion dollar black market industry, using the accretion in scientific and medical knowledge of half a century. This is not in dispute amongst antidoping experts, and was published in a 2019 Al Jazeera investigation. Only someone like Rip Van Winkle, who has slept all that time, would not know this.
So your measure is size of market, rather than super-human performance.
Size of market is a measure of belief and hope.
If that also translates into better performances, our measure should include performances.
Religion also has a valuable worldwide market.
We are talking about distance running events.
Did Al Jazeera say how much of that black market is the sport of distance running among elites?
Or how much was funded by East Africa?
What does "scientific and medical knowledge" tell us about doping and elite running performance? Can you break that down into a few real facts?
Armstronglivs wrote:
But you continue to avoid my point, that you estimate the effects of doping without establishing a measure for a clean base in performance.
So what is the clean base that you are operating from, for the best in the following distances -
1500m
5k
10k
Marathon
What are you using to determine what that base is? What drugs are you basing your estimations on? Does that base change over time, say from the 70's through to the 80's and so forth, or does it stay the same? If so, why?
If you can't supply me with that data your analysis of the effect of doping on historical performances is purely conjecture.
I didn't see your point having anything to do with me. I do not estimate the effects of doping from all-time performances. All time lists do not contain any doping information.
I use real performance data to test various popular claims about the link between doping and elite performance, and look for consistencies, or potential inconsistencies, between the assumptions and real world results.
This is one of the reasons I ask you to cite source directly, rather than relay your misunderstandings.

You are just breaking wind. I don't care what you say your method is, you have just shown you cannot support your conclusions. You cannot identify a clean base for performance, ergo you cannot "test various popular claims about the link between doping and elite performance". You have no measure. That is, aside from your prejudices.

I further understand you wouldn't have seen the Al Jazeera report; it would have told you what you wouldn't wish to know. It made no distinction between doping in distance running and doping in sports generally. Your favorite athletes haven't somehow retained their virginity in the brothel that is doped sport.

Your comment about Snell surpasses stupid. He did not claim to have a method that replaced Lydiard.

For someone who boasts of basing his arguments on real world data you have nothing more to offer than empty musings, and as a professed adherent to logic you show only a limpet-like attachment to your ignorant prejudices.

4 years ago 05/11/2021 1:13pm EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
If someone observes you playing music, this a real world observation that can be recorded and measured and charcterized. If you tell me that the group can eradicate mice by playing the pied pipe, I would ask for a real world observation before I pay you for extermination services.(quote)
I dont tell you that. I said that performing ensemble music is an experience necessary to understanding how it is performed. You prove you cannot grasp a point and that you are ignorant of something additional to the subject of doping in sports.

I understand that this is yet another weird analogy which doesn't really fit, and doesn't provide any real world facts about doping and the link to elite performance.

4 years ago 05/11/2021 1:48pm EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
You are just breaking wind. I don't care what you say your method is, you have just shown you cannot support your conclusions. You cannot identify a clean base for performance, ergo you cannot "test various popular claims about the link between doping and elite performance". You have no measure. That is, aside from your prejudices.
I further understand you wouldn't have seen the Al Jazeera report; it would have told you what you wouldn't wish to know. It made no distinction between doping in distance running and doping in sports generally. Your favorite athletes haven't somehow retained their virginity in the brothel that is doped sport.
Your comment about Snell surpasses stupid. He did not claim to have a method that replaced Lydiard.
For someone who boasts of basing his arguments on real world data you have nothing more to offer than empty musings, and as a professed adherent to logic you show only a limpet-like attachment to your ignorant prejudices.

I think what you hear/smell is your own brainfart.

When you say "your conclusions" these are in fact not my conclusions -- but your strawmen.

I said I don't estimate doping effect from all-time performances -- I have other data I rely on if I ever need doping effect estimates. I start from upper-bound estimates from the experts who study well-trained amateurs in controlled experiments. Then I discount that upper-bound for amateurs when applying to elite runners performing in their best shape. If the runners are training at altitude, I can apply another discount.

I look for other things in all time performance data, adopting the assumption of others of widespread use and significant effect. I use two objective measures: quantitative and qualitative.

The Al Jazeera report sounds like it didn't discuss the link between doping and distance running performance -- just the size of the black market for all sports combined. It doesn't interest me if the data is co-mingled with other sports like weight lifting and body building and local gym mirror posing -- even moreso if it doesn't address performance with real data.

I don't actually know what Snell claimed -- only what you claimed. Well, except for the "garycohenrunning" interview I found, which I cited. There he did recommend changes he would do to his Lydiard training, if he knew then what he knows now. But if we want insight on the training of elite athletes after the 1970s, Lydiard/Snell are not really a viable option.

4 years ago 05/11/2021 3:34pm EDT

re: rekrunner

Rekrunner you spend a lot of time arguing about doping. That is a fact. There is a reason for this. Another fact.

4 years ago 05/11/2021 3:44pm EDT

re: Killeriotttt

Killeriotttt wrote:
Rekrunner you spend a lot of time arguing about doping. That is a fact. There is a reason for this. Another fact.

Your name rhymes with "idiot". That is a fact.

4 years ago 05/11/2021 3:46pm EDT

re: ykjdtyk

ykjdtyk wrote:
Killeriotttt wrote:
Rekrunner you spend a lot of time arguing about doping. That is a fact. There is a reason for this. Another fact.
Your name rhymes with "idiot". That is a fact.

No it does not. You have lost credibility.

4 years ago 05/11/2021 3:46pm EDT

re: Passant

Passant wrote:
A new report on Selemon Barega in World Athletics channel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMSiME240ro
This one could one of the challengers of Cheptegei in the future meetings.

Don't know why I waded into this dreadful thread again, but this video was great.

4 years ago 05/19/2021 2:43pm EDT

re: rekrunner

OK so today Cheptegei was able to run 3000m at his 5000m world record pace. Can you say doper? Come on people.

4 years ago 05/19/2021 3:03pm EDT

re: Killeriott

Killeriott wrote:
Joshua ran a 12:35 5000m which meant he was running liken 3 and 1/3 1500m avg 3:46.6 and yet he cannot easily run faster than 3:37 for 1500m. He should be able to EASILY run 3:37. It makes me think he is taking PEDs.

Yo mama is suspicious. And she's fat too.

4 years ago 05/19/2021 3:11pm EDT

re: yomama

yomama wrote:
Killeriott wrote:
Joshua ran a 12:35 5000m which meant he was running liken 3 and 1/3 1500m avg 3:46.6 and yet he cannot easily run faster than 3:37 for 1500m. He should be able to EASILY run 3:37. It makes me think he is taking PEDs.
Yo mama is suspicious. And she's fat too.

Sticks and stones....grow up!

4 years ago 05/19/2021 3:14pm EDT

re: Killeriotttt

Killeriotttt wrote:
OK so today Cheptegei was able to run 3000m at his 5000m world record pace. Can you say doper? Come on people.

Nice job stripping all context from the discussion.

4 years ago 05/19/2021 3:19pm EDT

re: THOUGHTSLEADER

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
Killeriotttt wrote:
OK so today Cheptegei was able to run 3000m at his 5000m world record pace. Can you say doper? Come on people.
Nice job stripping all context from the discussion.

The context is his agent apparently said he was going for a world record. Please educate yourself.

4 years ago 05/19/2021 3:38pm EDT

re: Killeriotttt

Killeriotttt wrote:
OK so today Cheptegei was able to run 3000m at his 5000m world record pace. Can you say doper? Come on people.

What time would Cheptegei have had to run today, for you to ask "Can you say clean?"

4 years ago 05/19/2021 3:40pm EDT

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
Killeriotttt wrote:
OK so today Cheptegei was able to run 3000m at his 5000m world record pace. Can you say doper? Come on people.
What time would Cheptegei have had to run today, for you to ask "Can you say clean?"

And for you to say “Can you say dirty?”

Page 19 of 33

1 18 19 20 33

Next Last

What People Are Talking About On LetsRun

No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

Joshua Cheptegei is SUSPICIOUS

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

Joshua Cheptegei is SUSPICIOUS

Jump To A Page

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Passant

Block Passant

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Follow THOUGHTSLEADER

Block THOUGHTSLEADER

Follow THOUGHTSLEADER

Block THOUGHTSLEADER

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Jump To A Page

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.