Armstronglivs wrote:
There's no end to the arguments here that records will still be clean in a doped sport. I feel like I'm seeing endless threads claiming fraud in the US elections. But plenty here believe that, too.
Op here. I didn't make any claim as to whether it was clean or dirty. I only claimed it was unsurprising and overdue.
Collin wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
There's no end to the arguments here that records will still be clean in a doped sport. I feel like I'm seeing endless threads claiming fraud in the US elections. But plenty here believe that, too.
Op here. I didn't make any claim as to whether it was clean or dirty. I only claimed it was unsurprising and overdue.
Don't even try to have a sane dialogue with that person.
Renato, You could have just said the following:
Renato Canova wrote:
And in LR, this is a common mistake, clearly showing how very few people here know really what athletics of high level is.
....but the majority of LRC are being strung along by the owners of the site. From the type of posts that rojo in particular has started recently, asking questions he should know, either he is that 'green' or they are sitting around over coffee every morning, with a whiteboard 'brain'storming some thread ideas to get lots of clicks.
They certainly pull in the puppets and peepers
5t5thh wrote:
Collin wrote:
Op here. I didn't make any claim as to whether it was clean or dirty. I only claimed it was unsurprising and overdue.
Don't even try to have a sane dialogue with that person.
When you can have a much more sane dialogue with a doping denier.
Collin wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
There's no end to the arguments here that records will still be clean in a doped sport. I feel like I'm seeing endless threads claiming fraud in the US elections. But plenty here believe that, too.
Op here. I didn't make any claim as to whether it was clean or dirty. I only claimed it was unsurprising and overdue.
I am not suggesting you made that claim. But simply to raise the subject of elite achievement, as you have, elicits the usual chorus of opinion that looks for any reason except doping for every new record, when we have known for years that doping is an ineradicable part of elite sport. By analogy, believing in clean sport is little different from believing the last US election was stolen - a belief against all the evidence.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I am not suggesting you made that claim. But simply to raise the subject of elite achievement, as you have, elicits the usual chorus of opinion that looks for any reason except doping for every new record, when we have known for years that doping is an ineradicable part of elite sport. By analogy, believing in clean sport is little different from believing the last US election was stolen - a belief against all the evidence.
On the contrary, I see many parallels with claims of election fraud, and claims of doping fraud.
The doping worshippers are the Giuliani in this comparison.
Im-not-a-scientist wrote:
i am going to sleep, someone wake me up when Nike starts the "Breaking 55 project"?
INEOS will come up with INEOS 54 challenge after Nike fail.
Renato Canova wrote:
1- All those records were achieved in an era with great stars, who had the opportunity to run against the current WR almost every time. Gebrselassie, Komen, Bekele and Shaheen in steeple were by far at different level from the other best runners, and in the years 1995 - 2007 meetings on track had big budget with the opportunity to have agreements with the managers of those champions about appearance, special bonuses in case of WR, and availability of good money for the rabbits. In many cases, the appearances were among 40,000 and 60,000 USD for trying a WR, and among 20,000 - 30,000 for the rabbits. This was the main reason of the WR in that period (Komen, Haile and Kenenisa in 5000m, Tergat, Haile and Kenenisa in 10,000m, Shaheen in steeple).
There's no way Komen wasn't sauced to the gills.
The gains this year are all technological. Bekele would've crushed Cheptegei.
Armstronglivs wrote:
5t5thh wrote:
Don't even try to have a sane dialogue with that person.
When you can have a much more sane dialogue with a doping denier.
Yes, the keyword is "sane".
Subway Surfers wrote:
There's no way Komen wasn't sauced to the gills.
You can prove it or continue to be like a fart in the wind.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I am not suggesting you made that claim. But simply to raise the subject of elite achievement, as you have, elicits the usual chorus of opinion that looks for any reason except doping for every new record, when we have known for years that doping is an ineradicable part of elite sport. By analogy, believing in clean sport is little different from believing the last US election was stolen - a belief against all the evidence.
On the contrary, I see many parallels with claims of election fraud, and claims of doping fraud.
The doping worshippers are the Giuliani in this comparison.
Exhibit A.
5t5thh wrote:
Subway Surfers wrote:
There's no way Komen wasn't sauced to the gills.
You can prove it or continue to be like a fart in the wind.
Congratulations on re-hashing the laziest and worst logic example surrounding doping in the sport. "Prove it or else..." Yep, take that nice long deep breath and just jam that head of yours even deeper in the f---ing sand pal.
Alex Hutchinsong wrote:
5t5thh wrote:
You can prove it or continue to be like a fart in the wind.
Congratulations on re-hashing the laziest and worst logic example surrounding doping in the sport. "Prove it or else..." Yep, take that nice long deep breath and just jam that head of yours even deeper in the f---ing sand pal.
Can you give some of the best examples of someone who is not lazy who provides the best logic examples showing that Komen was sauced to the gills?
The laziness of others is no excuse for failing to provide "proof".
You can't use logic to go from generalities, like "doping in the sport" to specific allegations regarding a specific athlete.
rekrunner wrote:
Alex Hutchinsong wrote:
Congratulations on re-hashing the laziest and worst logic example surrounding doping in the sport. "Prove it or else..." Yep, take that nice long deep breath and just jam that head of yours even deeper in the f---ing sand pal.
Can you give some of the best examples of someone who is not lazy who provides the best logic examples showing that Komen was sauced to the gills?
The laziness of others is no excuse for failing to provide "proof".
You can't use logic to go from generalities, like "doping in the sport" to specific allegations regarding a specific athlete.
I will conclude from the silence that no one can provide any example, let alone chose the best ones, of someone using good logic to arrive at unsubstantiated allegations that "Komen was sauced to the gills".
Or alternatively, there is an abundance of laziness all around.
That is because, in the world of logic, unsubstantiated allegations of this nature can only be arrived at through a series of logical fallacies and some bad faith.
There's been plenty of arguments put forward here regarding Komen and doping, aside from the obvious that he set insane records at the peak of the EPO era. That he burnt out so quick, that he was completely financially motivated, that he got busted for caffeine doping, that he was faster than any Kenyan 20 years later and 137 Kenyan busts later...
Perhaps you misunderstood what was being asked. Of course there have been plenty of arguments put forward here.
Since "Alex Hutchinsong" applies the high bar of logic, I was looking for "some of the best examples of someone who is not lazy who provides the best logic examples".
Are you suggesting this is one of the best examples of logic surrounding doping in sport?
From these arguments, we can logically conclude that Komen set records during an era when many cyclists were taking EPO, and that other Kenyan athletes were busted for doping and non-doping offenses, and the sauce that Komen was on was caffeine.
rekrunner wrote:
Can you give some of the best examples of someone who is not lazy who provides the best logic examples showing that Komen was sauced to the gills?
The laziness of others is no excuse for failing to provide "proof".
You can't use logic to go from generalities, like "doping in the sport" to specific allegations regarding a specific athlete.
Perhaps many are unclear as to what constitutes good logic. Logic boils down to a set of givens (in this case, assumptions or evidence) and a set of rules how to manipulate these givens.
Lacking any evidence or proof, the statement "Komen was sauced to the gills" can only be considered a logical conclusion when given favorable, yet unproven, assumptions.
Some google research on the introduction to logic:
all logic is built on assumptions. 1 + 1 = 2 being logically correct assumes that we all hold the exact same understanding of 1, +, =, and 2. Logic is infallible, the only variance comes from assumptions and understanding of those assumptions.
The first step ... is understanding what, exactly, they mean by “assumption.” An assumption ... is the unstated link somewhere in the chain of evidence and conclusion. Finding the assumption means, basically, finding that gap in the argument and filling it.
... mastery of the formal system is not an end in itself but rather serves as a means to help you to become better reasoners. The skills you acquire in studying logic – such as ... developing the habit of paying close attention to what a statement says (and what it doesn’t say!), and learning what makes an argument a good argument – can prove invaluable as you make your way in the world, no matter what course of study, or what career, you choose. Of course, if you go on to study more philosophy, your study of logic will have additional benefits, since many contemporary philosophers presuppose an understanding of logic in their writing. Finally, to mention one very practical consideration: studying logic helps you to be more analytical.
Collin wrote:
The world record has been in the low 58s for over a decade. That was possibly the most surprisingly stagnant record in the books. It barely improved over 10 years despite huge talent and better shoes. Regardless of those shoes, it should be easily sub-58 by now based on previous rate of progression. I wouldn't even be surprised to see some of today's 57:xx guys go 56:5x at some point with vaporflys and adios pros.
rekrunner wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Can you give some of the best examples of someone who is not lazy who provides the best logic examples showing that Komen was sauced to the gills?
The laziness of others is no excuse for failing to provide "proof".
You can't use logic to go from generalities, like "doping in the sport" to specific allegations regarding a specific athlete.
Perhaps many are unclear as to what constitutes good logic. Logic boils down to a set of givens (in this case, assumptions or evidence) and a set of rules how to manipulate these givens.
Lacking any evidence or proof, the statement "Komen was sauced to the gills" can only be considered a logical conclusion when given favorable, yet unproven, assumptions.
Some google research on the introduction to logic:
all logic is built on assumptions. 1 + 1 = 2 being logically correct assumes that we all hold the exact same understanding of 1, +, =, and 2. Logic is infallible, the only variance comes from assumptions and understanding of those assumptions.
The first step ... is understanding what, exactly, they mean by “assumption.” An assumption ... is the unstated link somewhere in the chain of evidence and conclusion. Finding the assumption means, basically, finding that gap in the argument and filling it.
... mastery of the formal system is not an end in itself but rather serves as a means to help you to become better reasoners. The skills you acquire in studying logic – such as ... developing the habit of paying close attention to what a statement says (and what it doesn’t say!), and learning what makes an argument a good argument – can prove invaluable as you make your way in the world, no matter what course of study, or what career, you choose. Of course, if you go on to study more philosophy, your study of logic will have additional benefits, since many contemporary philosophers presuppose an understanding of logic in their writing. Finally, to mention one very practical consideration: studying logic helps you to be more analytical.
Logic is only useful when it is based on facts. Without facts, it tells you nothing. When only some of the facts are available - which is typical of conjecture about doping - it can lead to falsehood, such as the claim that doping doesn't exist or doesn't work. Until you have all the facts it is best to put your logic to one side, otherwise it will convince you of what you don't know. Logic suggests Komen didn't dope because he didn't fail a drug test (that we know of). But the facts also tell us that dopers can avoid detection. Logic isn't going to tell us whether or not he doped; only the facts will. We rarely have all of them.