It wasn't due to the shoes. Otherwise El G could have run 3:21 for the 1500 in your shoes.
That's not how it works. It's not a flat improvement rate. The improvements vary by level, distance, and one's responsiveness.
In that case your example is irrelevant in indicating what might be the case for other athletes. But shoes aren't so "super" if they only work for some athletes and not for others.
That's not how it works. It's not a flat improvement rate. The improvements vary by level, distance, and one's responsiveness.
In that case your example is irrelevant in indicating what might be the case for other athletes. But shoes aren't so "super" if they only work for some athletes and not for others.
But he held world junior age records. He was an acknowledge prodigy. No one imagined someone was going to come along and blow his times away.
They might have imagined it if they knew about the super shoes, pacing lights, Maurten bicarb, nomio, and track enhancements that were coming soon.
All of that is little more than an excuse for what drugs have done. There are world records still standing there were achieved before any of that was available. That shows drugs still trump everything else.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
In that case your example is irrelevant in indicating what might be the case for other athletes. But shoes aren't so "super" if they only work for some athletes and not for others.
They might have imagined it if they knew about the super shoes, pacing lights, Maurten bicarb, nomio, and track enhancements that were coming soon.
All of that is little more than an excuse for what drugs have done. There are world records still standing there were achieved before any of that was available.
What major distance records are still standing besides Hicham's? He was obviously doping. If everyone today was doping plus benefitting from everything I listed, Hicham's records would have been shattered by now.
All of that is little more than an excuse for what drugs have done. There are world records still standing there were achieved before any of that was available.
What major distance records are still standing besides Hicham's? He was obviously doping. If everyone today was doping plus benefitting from everything I listed, Hicham's records would have been shattered by now.
Flojo, Kratochvilova and El G's records. Your point about Hicham shows that doping is superior to any of the other technologies available.
What major distance records are still standing besides Hicham's? He was obviously doping. If everyone today was doping plus benefitting from everything I listed, Hicham's records would have been shattered by now.
Flojo, Kratochvilova and El G's records. Your point about Hicham shows that doping is superior to any of the other technologies available.
Bad examples. Flojo was aided by wind. Jarmila was so roided up she looked like a man.
The vast majority of records have gone down. Rare exceptions don't disprove the mountains of evidence of broken records in other distances and across levels.
Flojo, Kratochvilova and El G's records. Your point about Hicham shows that doping is superior to any of the other technologies available.
Bad examples. Flojo was aided by wind. Jarmila was so roided up she looked like a man.
The vast majority of records have gone down. Rare exceptions don't disprove the mountains of evidence of broken records in other distances and across levels.
All of which is more likely to be drugs than anything else. Howman has admitted dopers are getting away with it.
I don't deny the effectiveness of drugs. You deny the effectiveness of shoes you've never raced in. Peak hubris.
But if personal experience is what is necessary to have a view you can't offer an opinion on drugs. You contradict yourself.
Personal experience isn't necessary to have a view, only to deny. You deny what scientists, athletes, and coaches say without having any personal experience in the matter. Peak hubris.
Im pretty sure everyone in an olympic final is a doper,and most athletes who do A qualifiers to get to the olympics are dopers. The high qualifying standards are way too steep even for the most gifted natural athletes.
But if personal experience is what is necessary to have a view you can't offer an opinion on drugs. You contradict yourself.
Personal experience isn't necessary to have a view, only to deny. You deny what scientists, athletes, and coaches say without having any personal experience in the matter. Peak hubris.
I listen to experts. Many of them are experts on doping and they've persuaded me that drugs do more for athletes than bicarb, shoes or wavelight.