He is incapable of refraining from lying. His word is mud.
LOL Coevett. Now not only you keep the (horrible) impersonation of spade detector, you also copy his usual post! He really lives rent-free in your head!
LOL Coevett. Now not only you keep the (horrible) impersonation of spade detector, you also copy his usual post! He really lives rent-free in your head!
From Elliott to Cram, the sport changed from an amateur one with no big European circuit and regular paced races, and where the best typically retired by 25 (21/22 in the case of Elliott), to one where the athletes were full-time pros and went on to their 30's, and had a lucrative European circuit with regular WR attempts. It also encompassed the switch from cinders and even grass, to synthetic tracks.
So the 1500m WR went from 3:35.8 in 1960, to 3:29.4 in 1985, with all those major changes in athletics. It went from 3:29.4 to 3:26.0 in 13 years and hasn't been improved in the 24 years since. The thing is, there was no major change between 1985 and 1997 other than EPO. Yes, El G and the rest enjoyed much better pacing than Coe and Cram, but that itself was almost certainly down to EPO.
Same with your 'steady increase' in numbers of runners faster than Coe. The reason why the number has risen recently is obviously due to super shoes and kangeroo tracks, as well as a genuine resurgence in performances from non-African runners (itself largely due to motivation factors with EPO testing introduced in Kenya and North Africa, as well as no doubt other things such as GPS and sharing of online coaching (and videos of Coe and Cram to inspire)).
Since the ABP in 2009, if you took out Tokyo and Monaco, the only guys to have ran faster than Seb Coe are convicted doper Kiprop, potato Tim, Augustine Choge, and Silas Kiplagat. If you took out Kiprop and Tokyo and Monaco, the fastest 1500m since the ABP is Choge with 3:29.47, slower than Aouita's WR in 1985.
This assumes that EPO was a major change that can cause such improvements.
This only makes sense if only 5 people took EPO, or EPO only existed in Morocco, Algeria, and Kenya.
You cannot eliminate the effect doping may have had on performance in the last few decades. Given that we know it has been widespread in the sport since the 80's if not before, it could well have been decisive - more so than improvements in technique, training, nutrition and equipment. The progression need not have been consistent, as doping practices have changed in response to attempts to eradicate it. But the practice has not been eradicated, which means the effects of doping must still be there in sporting performance, as it has been in the past, even if we do not know precisely how much it has boosted performances. Nonetheless, doping may be the single biggest factor in improved sports performances in recent decades. Your analysis of improvements is meaningless without that data. The improvements that changes in training may give, in better tracks and new shoe technology, cannot be accurately measured if there is another factor that aids performance but which is not amenable to exact assessment because it is clandestine - we don't know for sure who is using it - but is nonetheless known to have an effect.
You cannot established the effect doping may have had on performance in the last few decades.
I do not need to eliminate that which has not yet been established.
You are just repeating speculation and possibility and myth, and pretending it is knowledge.
From Elliott to Cram, the sport changed from an amateur one with no big European circuit and regular paced races, and where the best typically retired by 25 (21/22 in the case of Elliott), to one where the athletes were full-time pros and went on to their 30's, and had a lucrative European circuit with regular WR attempts. It also encompassed the switch from cinders and even grass, to synthetic tracks.
So the 1500m WR went from 3:35.8 in 1960, to 3:29.4 in 1985, with all those major changes in athletics. It went from 3:29.4 to 3:26.0 in 13 years and hasn't been improved in the 24 years since. The thing is, there was no major change between 1985 and 1997 other than EPO. Yes, El G and the rest enjoyed much better pacing than Coe and Cram, but that itself was almost certainly down to EPO.
Same with your 'steady increase' in numbers of runners faster than Coe. The reason why the number has risen recently is obviously due to super shoes and kangeroo tracks, as well as a genuine resurgence in performances from non-African runners (itself largely due to motivation factors with EPO testing introduced in Kenya and North Africa, as well as no doubt other things such as GPS and sharing of online coaching (and videos of Coe and Cram to inspire)).
Since the ABP in 2009, if you took out Tokyo and Monaco, the only guys to have ran faster than Seb Coe are convicted doper Kiprop, potato Tim, Augustine Choge, and Silas Kiplagat. If you took out Kiprop and Tokyo and Monaco, the fastest 1500m since the ABP is Choge with 3:29.47, slower than Aouita's WR in 1985.
This assumes that EPO was a major change that can cause such improvements.
This only makes sense if only 5 people took EPO, or EPO only existed in Morocco, Algeria, and Kenya.
Why would we take out Kiprop, Tokyo and Monaco?
You're not making any sense. It doesn't assume anything. It posits a reasonable inference from the sudden unexplained destruction of (all-time greats) world records, that have never been matched since, to the cause being the availability of a endurance boosting ped with no testing. We know that EPO was greatly abused in those countries, that's why all 3 are still on a AIU red flag list comprising only 2 or 3 other countries in the world. Your entire 'scientific' thesis rests on playing the childish 'you can't prove it' game and assuming that all athletes across the world are equally likely to dope. Do you also believe that the murder rate is the same in Kenya and New Zealand? Corruption rate?
We take out Kiprop because he's a convicted doper. We take out Tokyo and Monaco to get a more realistic view of the rate of improvement in times since the ABP.
You cannot eliminate the effect doping may have had on performance in the last few decades. Given that we know it has been widespread in the sport since the 80's if not before, it could well have been decisive - more so than improvements in technique, training, nutrition and equipment. The progression need not have been consistent, as doping practices have changed in response to attempts to eradicate it. But the practice has not been eradicated, which means the effects of doping must still be there in sporting performance, as it has been in the past, even if we do not know precisely how much it has boosted performances. Nonetheless, doping may be the single biggest factor in improved sports performances in recent decades. Your analysis of improvements is meaningless without that data. The improvements that changes in training may give, in better tracks and new shoe technology, cannot be accurately measured if there is another factor that aids performance but which is not amenable to exact assessment because it is clandestine - we don't know for sure who is using it - but is nonetheless known to have an effect.
You cannot established the effect doping may have had on performance in the last few decades.
I do not need to eliminate that which has not yet been established.
You are just repeating speculation and possibility and myth, and pretending it is knowledge.
Doping has been established as being present in sport - and in all sports. That is fact. It is not speculation or myth. Because we do not know with certainty which performances are doped and which aren't (because most dopers aren't caught) doping therefore cannot be removed as a factor in any top performance. None of the factors you confidently attribute to improved performances can be accepted as the sole reasons for those improvements once we are aware that doping is present. The exact effect doping has on performance doesn't have to be proven to know that it will have an effect. The overwhelming evidence is that it is not neutral or merely a placebo, except to those like yourself who are in denial of the facts.
This assumes that EPO was a major change that can cause such improvements.
This only makes sense if only 5 people took EPO, or EPO only existed in Morocco, Algeria, and Kenya.
Why would we take out Kiprop, Tokyo and Monaco?
You're not making any sense. It doesn't assume anything. It posits a reasonable inference from the sudden unexplained destruction of (all-time greats) world records, that have never been matched since, to the cause being the availability of a endurance boosting ped with no testing. We know that EPO was greatly abused in those countries, that's why all 3 are still on a AIU red flag list comprising only 2 or 3 other countries in the world. Your entire 'scientific' thesis rests on playing the childish 'you can't prove it' game and assuming that all athletes across the world are equally likely to dope. Do you also believe that the murder rate is the same in Kenya and New Zealand? Corruption rate?
We take out Kiprop because he's a convicted doper. We take out Tokyo and Monaco to get a more realistic view of the rate of improvement in times since the ABP.
Who are you working for?
You assume many things. The basis for your posited reasonable inference is a cherry-picked set of assumptions.
What doesn't make sense is to take Tokyo or Monaco out and say the view is more realistic. The special thing about Monaco is where it sits in the Diamond League schedule for 1500m -- when athletes are trying to qualify for the final.
It doesn't make sense to remove Kiprop, since we were looking precisely for an indication of the number of dopers faster than Elliot, Snell, Cram, and Coe. Before 1997, the number of performers faster than Coe was five. After 1997, the number of fast performers increased, and after the ABP, increased yet again.
You say "unexplained" but this ignores several non-doping explanations for the destruction of world-records in the 1990s, despite providing some of them yourself. EPO is a particularly bad explanation for dominance from athletes originating from local regions, even after they change nationalities and move to countries with testing, given the worldwide nature of availability, the worldwide lack of testing until 2000, and the worldwide lack of OOC blood testing until the ABP in 2009.
Being on the AIU red flag list is about what the AIU doesn't know. It is not evidence of a high degree of doping, but evidence of a low degree of anti-doping -- the process by which the AIU gains knowledge.
All of the myths surrounding EPO and top performance are built on a mountain of what we don't know -- this lack of knowledge is essential to propagating the myths.
Speaking of what we don't know, while you and others take it for granted, we don't even know if El G doped. Not too long ago, 43% of knowledgeable letsrun readers believed his world records were clean.
You cannot established the effect doping may have had on performance in the last few decades.
I do not need to eliminate that which has not yet been established.
You are just repeating speculation and possibility and myth, and pretending it is knowledge.
Doping has been established as being present in sport - and in all sports. That is fact. It is not speculation or myth. Because we do not know with certainty which performances are doped and which aren't (because most dopers aren't caught) doping therefore cannot be removed as a factor in any top performance. None of the factors you confidently attribute to improved performances can be accepted as the sole reasons for those improvements once we are aware that doping is present. The exact effect doping has on performance doesn't have to be proven to know that it will have an effect. The overwhelming evidence is that it is not neutral or merely a placebo, except to those like yourself who are in denial of the facts.
Sure presence, in some unknown degree, and a belief in effect, in large degree, exist, but you only further confirm that you cannot establish any effect doping may have had on performance in the last few decades.
I am not trifling over magnitudes but questioning the establishment of the very existence of any positive effect, beyond placebo, on the fastest performances (for men's distance running -- especially the 1500m/mile).
You appeal to "overwhelming evidence" but you have consistently failed to provide any evidence when asked, and what little evidence there is, in its absolute totality, is underwhelming.
You appeal to facts, ironically after arguing how much of what you preach is based on what you don't know, or cannot know.
Doping has been established as being present in sport - and in all sports. That is fact. It is not speculation or myth. Because we do not know with certainty which performances are doped and which aren't (because most dopers aren't caught) doping therefore cannot be removed as a factor in any top performance. None of the factors you confidently attribute to improved performances can be accepted as the sole reasons for those improvements once we are aware that doping is present. The exact effect doping has on performance doesn't have to be proven to know that it will have an effect. The overwhelming evidence is that it is not neutral or merely a placebo, except to those like yourself who are in denial of the facts.
Sure presence, in some unknown degree, and a belief in effect, in large degree, exist, but you only further confirm that you cannot establish any effect doping may have had on performance in the last few decades.
I am not trifling over magnitudes but questioning the establishment of the very existence of any positive effect, beyond placebo, on the fastest performances (for men's distance running -- especially the 1500m/mile).
You appeal to "overwhelming evidence" but you have consistently failed to provide any evidence when asked, and what little evidence there is, in its absolute totality, is underwhelming.
You appeal to facts, ironically after arguing how much of what you preach is based on what you don't know, or cannot know.
You make yourself ridiculous. Doping is established as being in every competitive activity, from chess to championship darts to curling to weightlifting to marathon running. Mileing is not exempt - as we have seen with runners like Kiprop and Ramzi. There is nothing that is unique to middle distance runners that means they won't gain any advantage from doping.
What are the typical effects of doping? Pro baseball player Jose Canseco spelled it out well in his autobiography (appropriately named "Juiced", in which he said 85% of pro players doped). He said drugs "will make an average athlete a good athlete, it will make a good athlete outstanding, and a top athlete invincible". He said that feeling of "invincibility" was incredibly powerful. It is what gave Lance Armstrong his 7 yellow jerseys and Ben Johnson his 9.79 at Seoul '88. There is little doubt that middle distance runners like Ramzi enjoyed the same powerful boost, as he went from an also-ran to a world champion.
Only a person ignorant of doping or wilfully denying its effects - as you do - cannot accept that it plays a significant part in sports and has done so for decades - and that is because of what the athletes themselves experience, which is the transformation in their levels of performance. Do you really think that when 9 weightlifters tested positive in one event at the London Olympics they were all so stupid as to sacrifice their careers on something that gave them no advantage? Of course they had proof of its advantages - in their training. It is the same for any athlete who dopes.
There are drugs for every kind of sport - as we have seen - and middle distance running is no exception. That we do not know whether the advantage an athlete will gain over the mile is 3 seconds or 10 seconds for any given athlete does not mean we can disregard its effects - because it will have some.
Doping is also prevalent enough - estimates range from a conservative 1 in 10 athletes to virtually all of them at the top level in some sports and in some countries (Russia) - that it must be a factor that simply cannot be removed from consideration of progressions in top level sporting performances. Only the uninformed or the sheer witless cannot see that - or - as in your case - it presents a reality that cannot be borne, so you try to find the most absurd and specious reasons for avoiding what stares you in the face.
Doping has been established as being present in sport - and in all sports. That is fact. It is not speculation or myth. Because we do not know with certainty which performances are doped and which aren't (because most dopers aren't caught) doping therefore cannot be removed as a factor in any top performance. None of the factors you confidently attribute to improved performances can be accepted as the sole reasons for those improvements once we are aware that doping is present. The exact effect doping has on performance doesn't have to be proven to know that it will have an effect. The overwhelming evidence is that it is not neutral or merely a placebo, except to those like yourself who are in denial of the facts.
Sure presence, in some unknown degree, and a belief in effect, in large degree, exist, but you only further confirm that you cannot establish any effect doping may have had on performance in the last few decades.
I am not trifling over magnitudes but questioning the establishment of the very existence of any positive effect, beyond placebo, on the fastest performances (for men's distance running -- especially the 1500m/mile).
You appeal to "overwhelming evidence" but you have consistently failed to provide any evidence when asked, and what little evidence there is, in its absolute totality, is underwhelming.
You appeal to facts, ironically after arguing how much of what you preach is based on what you don't know, or cannot know.
You also say there is no evidence to suggest doping will improve performances in men's middle distance (I gave the example of Ramzi), yet even the example of a top woman runner will demonstrate there is a manifest advantage. One of the Russian women whistleblowers had run 1.56 in the 800m when doped. (She had been on a cocktail of drugs). She couldn't beat 2.01 clean. 5 seconds slower. Even if you choose to argue the advantage may be less for men - it might be half that - it still would offer a huge competitive advantage. A 1.45 male who dopes to gain an advantage of 2 and a half seconds goes from being lucky to making a championship final to winning it. Like Ramzi.
You make yourself ridiculous. Doping is established as being in every competitive activity, from chess to championship darts to curling to weightlifting to marathon running. Mileing is not exempt - as we have seen with runners like Kiprop and Ramzi. There is nothing that is unique to middle distance runners that means they won't gain any advantage from doping.
What are the typical effects of doping? Pro baseball player Jose Canseco spelled it out well in his autobiography (appropriately named "Juiced", in which he said 85% of pro players doped). He said drugs "will make an average athlete a good athlete, it will make a good athlete outstanding, and a top athlete invincible". He said that feeling of "invincibility" was incredibly powerful. It is what gave Lance Armstrong his 7 yellow jerseys and Ben Johnson his 9.79 at Seoul '88. There is little doubt that middle distance runners like Ramzi enjoyed the same powerful boost, as he went from an also-ran to a world champion.
Only a person ignorant of doping or wilfully denying its effects - as you do - cannot accept that it plays a significant part in sports and has done so for decades - and that is because of what the athletes themselves experience, which is the transformation in their levels of performance. Do you really think that when 9 weightlifters tested positive in one event at the London Olympics they were all so stupid as to sacrifice their careers on something that gave them no advantage? Of course they had proof of its advantages - in their training. It is the same for any athlete who dopes.
There are drugs for every kind of sport - as we have seen - and middle distance running is no exception. That we do not know whether the advantage an athlete will gain over the mile is 3 seconds or 10 seconds for any given athlete does not mean we can disregard its effects - because it will have some.
Doping is also prevalent enough - estimates range from a conservative 1 in 10 athletes to virtually all of them at the top level in some sports and in some countries (Russia) - that it must be a factor that simply cannot be removed from consideration of progressions in top level sporting performances. Only the uninformed or the sheer witless cannot see that - or - as in your case - it presents a reality that cannot be borne, so you try to find the most absurd and specious reasons for avoiding what stares you in the face.
You keep pretending that the existence of doping in running, and in other sports, and your personal beliefs about its power and athletes' beliefs about its power, are important. I find none of this persuasive to the question of genuine performance benefit. I have told you many times these words are wasted.
I don't "willfully deny its effects", but called it placebo. Placebo effect is real and significant. The best way to disprove this is by double-blinding, not by ego-novels from athletes who have already lied to themselves, and are deeply emotionally invested in the lie.
I have never expressed doubts about steroids in events requiring muscular strength, so remain indifferent to examples of steroids in baseball or weightlifting. The fact that you feel you need to lean so heavily on examples from baseball, sprinting, weightlifting, and cycling (and chess and darts and marathoning) only cements my observation that you cannot establish any true performance effect of doping for distance running, in this case here, for the men's mile. You greatly underestimate the fact of what you don't know. It may be 3 seconds, or 10 seconds, as well as 0 seconds or -3 seconds or -7 seconds.
Whether you admit it or not, there are doubts that Ramzi ran faster because of EPO (beyond placebo effect) than he would have without it. I note he was also reported as training in Morocco at altitude. I'm not convinced the example of Kiprop helps since he was busted (assuming the WADA lab didn't make a mistake) two years after he started slowing down significantly. In 2017 he was running similar times closer to Snell and Ryun from the 1960s, than to what Kiprop ran at his peak and compared to what Jakob is running today. Did EPO make him slower (-7 seconds) or simply have no effect (0 seconds). This is also part of what you don't know.
You also say there is no evidence to suggest doping will improve performances in men's middle distance (I gave the example of Ramzi), yet even the example of a top woman runner will demonstrate there is a manifest advantage. One of the Russian women whistleblowers had run 1.56 in the 800m when doped. (She had been on a cocktail of drugs). She couldn't beat 2.01 clean. 5 seconds slower. Even if you choose to argue the advantage may be less for men - it might be half that - it still would offer a huge competitive advantage. A 1.45 male who dopes to gain an advantage of 2 and a half seconds goes from being lucky to making a championship final to winning it. Like Ramzi.
You gave the example of Ramzi, but you can prove nothing with one example, and your suggestions are not persuasive.
If you want to start arguing a point about the performance benefit of steroids for women in 800m, I will only point out how that is completely disconnected from a discussion about the men's mile, and moreso a discussion about EPO or blood-doping for the men's mile.
For the 1.45 male, the advantage might be half, or it might be one-fiftieth or one in a million, or zero -- these are things in the set of things you don't know.
You make yourself ridiculous. Doping is established as being in every competitive activity, from chess to championship darts to curling to weightlifting to marathon running. Mileing is not exempt - as we have seen with runners like Kiprop and Ramzi. There is nothing that is unique to middle distance runners that means they won't gain any advantage from doping.
What are the typical effects of doping? Pro baseball player Jose Canseco spelled it out well in his autobiography (appropriately named "Juiced", in which he said 85% of pro players doped). He said drugs "will make an average athlete a good athlete, it will make a good athlete outstanding, and a top athlete invincible". He said that feeling of "invincibility" was incredibly powerful. It is what gave Lance Armstrong his 7 yellow jerseys and Ben Johnson his 9.79 at Seoul '88. There is little doubt that middle distance runners like Ramzi enjoyed the same powerful boost, as he went from an also-ran to a world champion.
Only a person ignorant of doping or wilfully denying its effects - as you do - cannot accept that it plays a significant part in sports and has done so for decades - and that is because of what the athletes themselves experience, which is the transformation in their levels of performance. Do you really think that when 9 weightlifters tested positive in one event at the London Olympics they were all so stupid as to sacrifice their careers on something that gave them no advantage? Of course they had proof of its advantages - in their training. It is the same for any athlete who dopes.
There are drugs for every kind of sport - as we have seen - and middle distance running is no exception. That we do not know whether the advantage an athlete will gain over the mile is 3 seconds or 10 seconds for any given athlete does not mean we can disregard its effects - because it will have some.
Doping is also prevalent enough - estimates range from a conservative 1 in 10 athletes to virtually all of them at the top level in some sports and in some countries (Russia) - that it must be a factor that simply cannot be removed from consideration of progressions in top level sporting performances. Only the uninformed or the sheer witless cannot see that - or - as in your case - it presents a reality that cannot be borne, so you try to find the most absurd and specious reasons for avoiding what stares you in the face.
You keep pretending that the existence of doping in running, and in other sports, and your personal beliefs about its power and athletes' beliefs about its power, are important. I find none of this persuasive to the question of genuine performance benefit. I have told you many times these words are wasted.
I don't "willfully deny its effects", but called it placebo. Placebo effect is real and significant. The best way to disprove this is by double-blinding, not by ego-novels from athletes who have already lied to themselves, and are deeply emotionally invested in the lie.
I have never expressed doubts about steroids in events requiring muscular strength, so remain indifferent to examples of steroids in baseball or weightlifting. The fact that you feel you need to lean so heavily on examples from baseball, sprinting, weightlifting, and cycling (and chess and darts and marathoning) only cements my observation that you cannot establish any true performance effect of doping for distance running, in this case here, for the men's mile. You greatly underestimate the fact of what you don't know. It may be 3 seconds, or 10 seconds, as well as 0 seconds or -3 seconds or -7 seconds.
Whether you admit it or not, there are doubts that Ramzi ran faster because of EPO (beyond placebo effect) than he would have without it. I note he was also reported as training in Morocco at altitude. I'm not convinced the example of Kiprop helps since he was busted (assuming the WADA lab didn't make a mistake) two years after he started slowing down significantly. In 2017 he was running similar times closer to Snell and Ryun from the 1960s, than to what Kiprop ran at his peak and compared to what Jakob is running today. Did EPO make him slower (-7 seconds) or simply have no effect (0 seconds). This is also part of what you don't know.
You reason from what you don't know to "it is therefore not known" - by anybody - and then you confidently claim to know that doping doesn't actually enhance performance. Quite apart from your logic fail and self-contradiction, it is "known" - by countless athletes and their teams over generations, as well as the scientists who make the expert assessment about the performance enhancing properties of a drug. Athletes do not simply hope that a drug might help them in a race, they typically take it as part of their training and so experience its effects in a clearly comparable and measurable way. If there was no improvement doping would not exist.
There have been studies that show gains from doping, but no comprehensive study of elite athletes, since none would consent to being the subject of such a study. Yet the fact remains, as we see from doping busts, is that elite, championship and professional athletes continue to dope. For you to argue when you have no experience of doping that the gains they may have are only placebo leaves us with two choices: either thousands of athletes and anti-doping experts over generations are idiots - or you are. Inductive reasoning suggests the latter.
You also say there is no evidence to suggest doping will improve performances in men's middle distance (I gave the example of Ramzi), yet even the example of a top woman runner will demonstrate there is a manifest advantage. One of the Russian women whistleblowers had run 1.56 in the 800m when doped. (She had been on a cocktail of drugs). She couldn't beat 2.01 clean. 5 seconds slower. Even if you choose to argue the advantage may be less for men - it might be half that - it still would offer a huge competitive advantage. A 1.45 male who dopes to gain an advantage of 2 and a half seconds goes from being lucky to making a championship final to winning it. Like Ramzi.
You gave the example of Ramzi, but you can prove nothing with one example, and your suggestions are not persuasive.
If you want to start arguing a point about the performance benefit of steroids for women in 800m, I will only point out how that is completely disconnected from a discussion about the men's mile, and moreso a discussion about EPO or blood-doping for the men's mile.
For the 1.45 male, the advantage might be half, or it might be one-fiftieth or one in a million, or zero -- these are things in the set of things you don't know.
To argue that a woman md runner may clearly benefit from doping but a male won't, as though they have biologies from different planets, is stupidity of Olympian proportions. Then to add that Ramzi didn't actually benefit from his doping makes morons of him, his coach and the experts whose decision banned the drugs he was using. There is only one moron here, and, unfortunately for you, it isn't them.
From Elliott to Cram, the sport changed from an amateur one with no big European circuit and regular paced races, and where the best typically retired by 25 (21/22 in the case of Elliott), to one where the athletes were full-time pros and went on to their 30's, and had a lucrative European circuit with regular WR attempts. It also encompassed the switch from cinders and even grass, to synthetic tracks.
So the 1500m WR went from 3:35.8 in 1960, to 3:29.4 in 1985, with all those major changes in athletics. It went from 3:29.4 to 3:26.0 in 13 years and hasn't been improved in the 24 years since. The thing is, there was no major change between 1985 and 1997 other than EPO. Yes, El G and the rest enjoyed much better pacing than Coe and Cram, but that itself was almost certainly down to EPO.
Same with your 'steady increase' in numbers of runners faster than Coe. The reason why the number has risen recently is obviously due to super shoes and kangeroo tracks, as well as a genuine resurgence in performances from non-African runners (itself largely due to motivation factors with EPO testing introduced in Kenya and North Africa, as well as no doubt other things such as GPS and sharing of online coaching (and videos of Coe and Cram to inspire)).
Since the ABP in 2009, if you took out Tokyo and Monaco, the only guys to have ran faster than Seb Coe are convicted doper Kiprop, potato Tim, Augustine Choge, and Silas Kiplagat. If you took out Kiprop and Tokyo and Monaco, the fastest 1500m since the ABP is Choge with 3:29.47, slower than Aouita's WR in 1985.
Cheruiyot 3:28.77 in Lausanne and 3:29.26 in Doha, both 2019.
From Elliott to Cram, the sport changed from an amateur one with no big European circuit and regular paced races, and where the best typically retired by 25 (21/22 in the case of Elliott), to one where the athletes were full-time pros and went on to their 30's, and had a lucrative European circuit with regular WR attempts. It also encompassed the switch from cinders and even grass, to synthetic tracks.
So the 1500m WR went from 3:35.8 in 1960, to 3:29.4 in 1985, with all those major changes in athletics. It went from 3:29.4 to 3:26.0 in 13 years and hasn't been improved in the 24 years since. The thing is, there was no major change between 1985 and 1997 other than EPO. Yes, El G and the rest enjoyed much better pacing than Coe and Cram, but that itself was almost certainly down to EPO.
Same with your 'steady increase' in numbers of runners faster than Coe. The reason why the number has risen recently is obviously due to super shoes and kangeroo tracks, as well as a genuine resurgence in performances from non-African runners (itself largely due to motivation factors with EPO testing introduced in Kenya and North Africa, as well as no doubt other things such as GPS and sharing of online coaching (and videos of Coe and Cram to inspire)).
Since the ABP in 2009, if you took out Tokyo and Monaco, the only guys to have ran faster than Seb Coe are convicted doper Kiprop, potato Tim, Augustine Choge, and Silas Kiplagat. If you took out Kiprop and Tokyo and Monaco, the fastest 1500m since the ABP is Choge with 3:29.47, slower than Aouita's WR in 1985.
Cheruiyot 3:28.77 in Lausanne and 3:29.26 in Doha, both 2019.
To call Cheruiyot "gentleman Tim" probably hurted too much. "potato Tim" comes more fluent out of the racist mouth.
You reason from what you don't know to "it is therefore not known" - by anybody - and then you confidently claim to know that doping doesn't actually enhance performance. Quite apart from your logic fail and self-contradiction, it is "known" - by countless athletes and their teams over generations, as well as the scientists who make the expert assessment about the performance enhancing properties of a drug. Athletes do not simply hope that a drug might help them in a race, they typically take it as part of their training and so experience its effects in a clearly comparable and measurable way. If there was no improvement doping would not exist.
There have been studies that show gains from doping, but no comprehensive study of elite athletes, since none would consent to being the subject of such a study. Yet the fact remains, as we see from doping busts, is that elite, championship and professional athletes continue to dope. For you to argue when you have no experience of doping that the gains they may have are only placebo leaves us with two choices: either thousands of athletes and anti-doping experts over generations are idiots - or you are. Inductive reasoning suggests the latter.
I do not confidently claim to know that doping doesn't actually enhance performance. On the contrary, I've consistently said that some doping can enhance some performance, e.g. steroids in sports like weightlifing. And I conceded one real and signiificant effect of doping is placebo effect. Placebo effect is not a myth, but a reall effect that is scientifically proven.
Athletes and fans alike will likely misinterpret that, partly for psychological reasons, but especially because doping is typically not double-blinded.
Most experts who speculate about performance potential do so in vague terms with limitations, precisely because they know they lack the knowledge.
I have experience in analyzing data and making correlations and detecting bias and fallacies, even when lacking comprehensive studies.
While the pools of idiots are not exclusive, there is a third possibility of idiots -- unknowledgeable fans who attempt to reinterpret what athletes and experts must know in their own words. Recall I'm not "arguing" with thousands of athletes or experts about their knowledge, but anonymous believers of unproven myths.