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.
You contradict yourself on a daily basis.
I am not arguing that he would be "competitive" - what does that mean? 2nd, 3rd, 10th?20th? I said he wouldn't be the best in this era if he didn't dope - because that's what the best clearly do now.
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.
You contradict yourself on a daily basis.
You can't follow a discussion. There are runners today who are running faster than he did in 1981 over the 800 and much faster over the 1500. I said that if he were to beat the best today he would have to be faster than what he ran in his era. To do that he would have to dope, as the fastest do today.
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.
You said "it wouldn't win now", but this old 40+ year old performance, before the EPO-era, on an old 40+ year old track would still win many races in this modern era.
"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.
I've already conceded your point that even partly speculating some drugs can enhance some performance is still baseless.
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.
Or you have.
The "ex ante" potential to enhance performance is only one of the reasons drugs are banned, and also one reason many athletes consider trying to use drugs when they no longer believe in clean training.
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.
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.
You contradict yourself on a daily basis.
I am not arguing that he would be "competitive" - what does that mean? 2nd, 3rd, 10th?20th? I said he wouldn't be the best in this era if he didn't dope - because that's what the best clearly do now.
Why are you lying? You always lie. You said he wouldn't be competitive today. You dishonest little prick.
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.
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.
You contradict yourself on a daily basis.
You can't follow a discussion. There are runners today who are running faster than he did in 1981 over the 800 and much faster over the 1500. I said that if he were to beat the best today he would have to be faster than what he ran in his era. To do that he would have to dope, as the fastest do today.
1:41.73 while running wide in the curve -worth 1:41.5
2:12.18 - still no. 2 all-time
3:31.95 - after absolute ridiculous splits, definitely at least capable of 3:30.0
3:47.33
For sure he would be strong candidate today for any 800m title and he also would be in the mix for 1500m golds.
For you he was not necessarily doping in 1981, but he would need to to win today. You are obviously stupid.
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.
You said "it wouldn't win now", but this old 40+ year old performance, before the EPO-era, on an old 40+ year old track would still win many races in this modern era.
Yes, he could probably win the NCAA'S (except for Hoey). I said he isn't as fast as the best in this era. That is a fact. To beat them he would have to dope as they do.
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.
Or you have.
The "ex ante" potential to enhance performance is only one of the reasons drugs are banned, and also one reason many athletes consider trying to use drugs when they no longer believe in clean training.
Athletes don't use drugs to impair their health or breach standards of sportsmanship but to make performance gains.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
I am not arguing that he would be "competitive" - what does that mean? 2nd, 3rd, 10th?20th? I said he wouldn't be the best in this era if he didn't dope - because that's what the best clearly do now.
Why are you lying? You always lie. You said he wouldn't be competitive today. You dishonest little prick.
So losing to the best today is being "competitive"?
You said "it wouldn't win now", but this old 40+ year old performance, before the EPO-era, on an old 40+ year old track would still win many races in this modern era.
Yes, he could probably win the NCAA'S (except for Hoey). I said he isn't as fast as the best in this era. That is a fact. To beat them he would have to dope as they do.
You can't follow a discussion. There are runners today who are running faster than he did in 1981 over the 800 and much faster over the 1500. I said that if he were to beat the best today he would have to be faster than what he ran in his era. To do that he would have to dope, as the fastest do today.
1:41.73 while running wide in the curve -worth 1:41.5
2:12.18 - still no. 2 all-time
3:31.95 - after absolute ridiculous splits, definitely at least capable of 3:30.0
3:47.33
For sure he would be strong candidate today for any 800m title and he also would be in the mix for 1500m golds.
For you he was not necessarily doping in 1981, but he would need to to win today. You are obviously stupid.
He has been surpassed by several runners today over the 800 and he is over 4 seconds slower than the best today over the 1500. Yep - he would have to dope to beat them.
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.