I think there should be some rules, which there are.
Bouncing down the street on carbon fiber springs, while juiced to the gills, is running?
Exactly. What you saw at the front of the pack in Chicago yesterday was not running. It was mechanically enhanced bouncing, and in all likelihood, drug-enabled, mechanically enhanced bouncing.
In my opinion, the line has been crossed. It's not running anymore. It's no more running than if they wore roller skates, or rollerblades, or rode bicycles. Heck, at this point, they may as well all get in race cars and drive 26.2 miles.
It's not running anymore. It's no more running than if they wore roller skates, or rollerblades, or rode bicycles. Heck, at this point, they may as well all get in race cars and drive 26.2 miles.
People wonder why the sport isn’t more popular. The sport places no importance in its history.
Look a the clown shoes Kiptum wore to set his “world record”. It’s no longer an athletic competition. It’s a shoe tech competition.
All you need is the right doped up jockey to ride the shoes and boom a new “world record”.
What sports places any importance on history? I have kids I teach in HS school who were debating the best NFL running back of all time the other day, and the two names they mentioned were: Adrian Peterson and Marshawn Lynch.
I said, "What about Walter Payton?" and they said, "who?"
No one cares about runners from 20+ years ago. Fans of the sport now were not watching back then.
I don't want to see people winning marathon majors in 2:07. We should be innovating in all aspects of performance so that the athletic limit continues to be pushed.
Yes, we know you're in favour of doping and winning anyway you can, including being a male runner in female races.
So if the shoes are aiding performance it must show in increasing stride-length and/or turnover. Where is the data that confirms this, and if so, how does the few inches of a sole of a shoe do this in a way shoes haven't done before?
Hey bro science. The shoes don't have to do either of those things to improve performance.
The shoes only have to allow someone to maintain thesamestride-length and turnover for longer and performance would be boosted a great deal.
So you're effectively saying the shoes act like EPO. SO how do they do that and where is the confirmed data that says they do?
So why is your username "drugs"? Is that supposed to be irony?
Armstrong refuses to acknowledge that the shoes make a difference. He uses bro science to accuse everyone of doping. I don't understand why in his head it's only due to doping.
The truth is doping has remained constant for 50+ years, it didn't go away. The only difference is the shoes. The shoes do make a difference.
Doping records fall due to a combination of doping and shoes. It's both.
What you don't understand - despite your username - is that drugs are not a "constant" in the sense they don't change. They are changing all the time - and far more often than shoes and with more comprehensive effect since they change how the body functions. They are the basis of most athletic improvement in at least the last 40 or so years.
It is simply not credible to ascribe huge changes to levels of athletic performance based on what is put in the sole of a shoe. Whatever improvements they may offer these will be far outstripped by chemicals that build muscle mass and increase the capacity of the body to resist fatigue.
If the shoes were guaranteed to increase performance all athletes would be using the same shoe and they would all show comparable levels of improvement. They don't - some make no improvements. There is nothing credible in the argument that the shoes favour some biomechanics over others. Whereas if an athlete uses peds, like EPO, they will all gain, regardless of their level. That's why drugs are banned and the new shoes aren't.
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
Exactly. What you saw at the front of the pack in Chicago yesterday was not running. It was mechanically enhanced bouncing, and in all likelihood, drug-enabled, mechanically enhanced bouncing.
In my opinion, the line has been crossed. It's not running anymore. It's no more running than if they wore roller skates, or rollerblades, or rode bicycles. Heck, at this point, they may as well all get in race cars and drive 26.2 miles.
Shoe technology has advanced throughout the years since the beginning of the modern marathon in 1896, so where should we draw the line on history regarding which records are legit and which records aren't.
People used to run in shoes with leather soles. Imagine if they said rubber soles weren't legit, or if foam wasn't allowed. Records were broken regularly throughout all the years of changes. Are all those records not legit?
The point is that you do need to draw a line SOMEWHERE. Would you be okay with "runners" wearing roller skates? If not, then you're drawing a line somewhere, too.
Some of us believe the line needs to be drawn to exclude the current super shoes. In my opinion, it's made "running" no longer running. It's some form of pogo-ing. If you want to make a separate sport out of pogo-ing, okay, but don't call it running. It's no more running than if they wore roller skates.
The current improvement is so small compared to previous improvements.
20% of the field in Chicago this year qualifying for Boston indicates the shoes offer improvement across the board. No doubt doping can offer even greater benefits, but denying the benefits of super shoes is absurd.
20% of the field in Chicago this year qualifying for Boston indicates the shoes offer improvement across the board. No doubt doping can offer even greater benefits, but denying the benefits of super shoes is absurd.
- Were 20% of the Chicago field that you say qualified for Boston wearing the same shoes?
- What percentage of the Chicago field normally qualify for Boston?
- If doping is a factor (it will be), could that also have enabled more runners to qualify on times?
20% of the field in Chicago this year qualifying for Boston indicates the shoes offer improvement across the board. No doubt doping can offer even greater benefits, but denying the benefits of super shoes is absurd.
- Were 20% of the Chicago field that you say qualified for Boston wearing the same shoes?
- What percentage of the Chicago field normally qualify for Boston?
- If doping is a factor (it will be), could that also have enabled more runners to qualify on times?
The fact that you are (willlfully) ignorant of easily observable or knowable things does not make those things untrue. It also makes YOU the flat-earther.
It's a shame that some athletes, who were naturally talented and played by the rules, are forgotten because of cheats. Evelyn Ashford for example. How many people even know who she was? FloJo is the name most people remember.
People wonder why the sport isn’t more popular. The sport places no importance in its history.
Look a the clown shoes Kiptum wore to set his “world record”. It’s no longer an athletic competition. It’s a shoe tech competition.
All you need is the right doped up jockey to ride the shoes and boom a new “world record”.
You're right about the history aspect- look at the hate Prefontaine gets here.
And the average Hobby Jogger has no clue who most of the great runners are.
I like the new technology but I now think it's gone too far.
I was lucky enough to be in a facebook discussion with about 5-6 great American Marathoners from the 70's/80's (and Rod Dixon was in there).
One of them said- they used to train hard and they all wore the same shoes (basically there was no difference).
It was all about competition- I miss that. I miss a Boston top 10 meaning more than the time you ran to achieve it.
But even here on this message board- people will talk about how slow they ran- as if 2:08 is slow in any shoes.
- Were 20% of the Chicago field that you say qualified for Boston wearing the same shoes?
- What percentage of the Chicago field normally qualify for Boston?
- If doping is a factor (it will be), could that also have enabled more runners to qualify on times?
The fact that you are (willlfully) ignorant of easily observable or knowable things does not make those things untrue. It also makes YOU the flat-earther.
That's one way of admitting you can't answer any of those questions.
Every other week a new world record. It’s really stupid. The technology and obvious doping has erased the record books. The juiced times are so outrageous that the sport no longer has a history.
It’s become quite boring.
Yes. The ultimate for me was this weekend when Desiree Linden broke Deena’s master record by 12 seconds. TWELVE SECONDS. The obvious superior performance is erased.
