We like to have 1 thread per topic so we merged two threads together and kept the title of this thread. The other thread was entitled, "Assefa performance."
In a nutshell, you are not providing any substantial supporting facts to support all of your wild claims about doping prevalence and doping power. No one else is either.
We should consider "PEDs don't exist for the marathon" not as something I "categorically dismiss" but as the "null hypothesis" that has yet to be disproved. Establishing the existence of a PED not only requires a representive set of data that includes doping data and performance data strongly correlated, but also requires disproving the null hypothesis that all of the data collected thus far may have no statistical significance.
eh?
Uh, yo, it absolutely IS possible to prove that a performance-enhancing drug (PED) exists even if the data we have is not statistically significant!
The null hypothesis, which is the assumption that there is no difference between athletes who dope and those who don't, is not the same as the alternative hypothesis, which is the assumption that there is a difference.
In other words, even if neither you nor I can't say for sure that the data we have is enough to prove that doping helps athletes perform better, we can still say that the data suggests that doping might help athletes perform better.
For example, if a study finds that athletes who dope are able to run faster marathons than athletes who don't, even if the difference in performance is not statistically significant, this would still be evidence that doping can improve marathon performance.
Try on this analogy to help elevate your comprehension:
You flip a coin 10 times and it lands on heads every single time. Is this statistically significant? No, but it does suggest that the coin is biased towards heads. In the same way, even if we don't have enough data to say for sure that doping helps athletes perform better, the data we do have suggests that doping might help athletes perform better.
You are trying to tell one who is like a fanatic from an obscure religious order that his "God" exists only in his imagination. He will only cling more tenaciously to his superstitions.
You are the moron that insists a given figure must be read to hundredths of a second. I never indicated that. Since you haven't understood a simple point of that nature it shows everything else being discussed here is also out of your reach.
You have said over and over that any woman who runs the 800 under 1:55 is doping. But now you say that under 1:55 doesn't actually mean under 1:55? You are a piece of work.
I don't think a jackhammer could penetrate the concrete that is your cranium. I have never insisted that the time be read to the hundredth of a second. It is a ballpark for a clean limit, not an absolute measure, and so it could be a few tenths above or below. I am dubious about any time that is significantly faster - not a few hundredths of a second. Have you by any chance read "Portnoy's Complaint"? You quite apparently have the same problem.
In a nutshell, you are not providing any substantial supporting facts to support all of your wild claims about doping prevalence and doping power. No one else is either.
Are those races time trials? Are the coaches/trainers rewarded for the horse breaking time records? The horses would likely run faster if they were controlling their own affairs and track and field was a big sport in their civilization.
Anyway, humans run most longer distance (1500 and up) championship and olympic races at much slower paces than the respective world records.
The horses are running as fast as they can. They haven't got any faster in decades. Whereas human running has become a parade of record breaking. Obviously the horses aren't doped like we are.
In a nutshell, you are not providing any substantial supporting facts to support all of your wild claims about doping prevalence and doping power. No one else is either.
And so the cultist raves on.
You know what I find fascinating? If we then see her drop a 2:10 followed by a 2:08 etc they will take that as proof that this athlete is some clean talented freak lol.
You are the moron that insists a given figure must be read to hundredths of a second. I never indicated that. Since you haven't understood a simple point of that nature it shows everything else being discussed here is also out of your reach.
Nice backtrack 😂
I don't backtrack on something assumed by a moron.
Appearance fees can be far more than any published prize money.
So the extra effort for 2:11 hasn't been explained sufficiently to me by anyone claiming she cheated.
One possible explanation is that by putting it out of reach, she can for a longer time have "WR-holder" on her resume and thereby command at least appearance fees, if not increased appearance fees.
You know what I find fascinating? If we then see her drop a 2:10 followed by a 2:08 etc they will take that as proof that this athlete is some clean talented freak lol.
IMO she could have gone 2:10 here if she had run a more balanced race behind a serious wall of men breaking the wind for her.
You know what I find fascinating? If we then see her drop a 2:10 followed by a 2:08 etc they will take that as proof that this athlete is some clean talented freak lol.
LOL this is like when Rhonex Kipruto (18 at the time) ran 27:08 at the Healthy Kidney 10K in Central Park (not a historically fast course). It blew Komon's time out of the water and people were quick to praise it as a clean performance despite it being a blatant example of a doped performance. Fast forward to 2023, and Kipruto gets popped for his biological passport data....surprise surprise.
I disagree in TODAYS WORLD, I Am Sure there are Lots of Men Including some American MEN who could be scheduled to run A Marathon and on the Morning of the Race they could say They IDENTIFY as a Woman, Go Out and break The World Record and the MEDIA would say how Brave the New World Record Holder is and If The First REAL Woman tried to Protest They would be Villainized by The Media. That is the World we now Live in Currently. Personally I think it is Absurd, but I am just an EVIL Person, in fact I am so Evil That I Do NOT think Adults should be able to talk to kids who are NOT their Own about Sex, I am so Terrible HUH
Appearance fees can be far more than any published prize money.
Assefa definitely made several times that for returning after winning last year.
And here's the thing no-one has explained, she didn't have to drop a sub-2:12, all she had to do was beat the WR by a few seconds for any bonus.
Why put a spotlight on yourself if cheating by doing anything more than the minimum, all she had to do was run 2:14:03
There was no extra money for 2:13 2:12 or 2:11
No money is taken away from her if someone else beats her next year.
In fact some elites leave a little time on the table so they can beat it next year for more bonus money.
So the extra effort for 2:11 hasn't been explained sufficiently to me by anyone claiming she cheated.
You can be sure they are doing her blood tests, etc. very very carefully and probably with whatever new tech has been developed for 2024 Olympics
Testing her blood and urine post race is meaningless. Unless her handlers are idiots, whatever she may have used would be long out of her system by the time she toed the starting line. I watched the full race last night. What helped to make her performance unbelievable is how she kept getting faster and faster throughout the race. She was ahead of WR pace at halfway and she continued to accelerate! She wasn't straining/struggleing at the end either. After cutting over 2 minutes off and setting a PR by nearly 4 minutes??!! Come on!! This just does not pass the believability test. Goes from 2:34 to 2:11 in 3 marathons after not racing in 2020-21, and being a former 800 meter runner.
Appearance fees can be far more than any published prize money.
Assefa definitely made several times that for returning after winning last year.
And here's the thing no-one has explained, she didn't have to drop a sub-2:12, all she had to do was beat the WR by a few seconds for any bonus.
Why put a spotlight on yourself if cheating by doing anything more than the minimum, all she had to do was run 2:14:03
There was no extra money for 2:13 2:12 or 2:11
No money is taken away from her if someone else beats her next year.
In fact some elites leave a little time on the table so they can beat it next year for more bonus money.
So the extra effort for 2:11 hasn't been explained sufficiently to me by anyone claiming she cheated.
You can be sure they are doing her blood tests, etc. very very carefully and probably with whatever new tech has been developed for 2024 Olympics
Testing her blood and urine post race is meaningless. Unless her handlers are idiots, whatever she may have used would be long out of her system by the time she toed the starting line. I watched the full race last night. What helped to make her performance unbelievable is how she kept getting faster and faster throughout the race. She was ahead of WR pace at halfway and she continued to accelerate! She wasn't straining/struggleing at the end either. After cutting over 2 minutes off and setting a PR by nearly 4 minutes??!! Come on!! This just does not pass the believability test. Goes from 2:34 to 2:11 in 3 marathons after not racing in 2020-21, and being a former 800 meter runner.
Appearance fees can be far more than any published prize money.
Assefa definitely made several times that for returning after winning last year.
And here's the thing no-one has explained, she didn't have to drop a sub-2:12, all she had to do was beat the WR by a few seconds for any bonus.
Why put a spotlight on yourself if cheating by doing anything more than the minimum, all she had to do was run 2:14:03
There was no extra money for 2:13 2:12 or 2:11
No money is taken away from her if someone else beats her next year.
In fact some elites leave a little time on the table so they can beat it next year for more bonus money.
So the extra effort for 2:11 hasn't been explained sufficiently to me by anyone claiming she cheated.
You can be sure they are doing her blood tests, etc. very very carefully and probably with whatever new tech has been developed for 2024 Olympics
Testing her blood and urine post race is meaningless. Unless her handlers are idiots, whatever she may have used would be long out of her system by the time she toed the starting line. I watched the full race last night. What helped to make her performance unbelievable is how she kept getting faster and faster throughout the race. She was ahead of WR pace at halfway and she continued to accelerate! She wasn't straining/struggleing at the end either. After cutting over 2 minutes off and setting a PR by nearly 4 minutes??!! Come on!! This just does not pass the believability test. Goes from 2:34 to 2:11 in 3 marathons after not racing in 2020-21, and being a former 800 meter runner.
You have stated, sub 1:55 is clearly doped territory. So your limit is somewhere above 1:55. 1:55.5 might be suspect or in some grey area. But 1:54.99 not anymore - there is not anymore any question, the athlete must have doped. According to you.
You are the moron, not the people who point on your obvious inconsistency.
No - you are the moron who insists 1:55 must be read to the hundredth of a second. I have not said that. It is an estimate of a line where I suggest performances that are significantly faster will be unlikely to be clean. You are arguing with your own straw-man but since that is the only argument you can win, go for it.
As usual, you havn't understood the critique. Most likely you never will. And if you finaly would understand, you wouldn't admit to it. Dozens of examples for this behaviour.
Nobody reads anything here to the hundredth of a second. Sub 1:55 clearly is doped territory - that's from you. This doesn't include at all, that 1:55.00 is your limit. This could be 1:57 or 1:56 or whatever. But 1:54.99 is not anymore questionable - it's doped. Definitely. That's from Armbraindead.
But good to hear you agree your statement was wrong (which it obviously is). A solo and definitely clean 1:58.4 52 years ago while leading from gun to tape clearly shows that today much faster times are possible clean.
If Mu further improves (at her 1:54.97 she was capable to run sub 1:54 just looking on the extra meters she ran), when do you say she must be doped?
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.