Stop lying to yourselves about ATHING MU, she has WR potential

VIPAM wrote:

Armstrong live

At some point God Almighty thru time and evolution produces small number of humans and athletes that are mire gifted every generation. Eventually all the records will be broken and I'm CERTAIN some of them are by clean athletes.

Like Almaz AYANA said, "God Almighty * was her drug. So too is Athing MU"s.

Sport is science; not religion. Except perhaps for fans like you. I wouldn't give a bar for any argument that Ayana is clean.

Wise Old Man wrote:

+1

She looks just like Rudisha. How many strides does it take her to cover 800 compared with Wilson? She's going to run 1:54xx in Tokyo and embarrass the rest of the field. She will definitely be the greatest female 800 runner of all time. That's not even a question worth debating. As for the 400 and 1500, well ok, a bit of a stretch, but she certainly will be a multi time 400 WC/Olympic champion if she enters these races. As for the 1500, we have no real data to suggest that she can't kick a-s in that event too. I would not put it past her if she trained for it. She can turn to the 1500 after 2024. She will be all of 23 and will already have two 800 Olympic golds and the WR in that event. Nothing else for her to do in the 800.

Did you argue that when Jelimo ran 1.54 at 18, 2 seconds faster than Mu has ever run, at 19? And then did nothing. Or when Amos ran 1.41x at 18? And never got any better.

You may be an old man but I suggest you drop the "wise" bit from your handle.

Heres food for thought.If athing wins at tokyo,and if she runs under 1.55(which is possible)americans will clap .cheer and applaud her.Yet if she were competing for kenya or another african country those same people would accuse her of doping,or call her a man.

Pamela Jelimo ran 1:54.01 and I never accused her of either. People who scream drugs at every outstanding performance need to find another sport.

Athing MU is capable of sub 1:55 this year and I think she is clean and definitely not a man.

You just wanted attention so you tried to create a controversy here. Everybody knew she was special when you created this thread. EVERYBODY knew it.

Hey, cut the cr-p with the name calling. What’s wrong with you?

Yeah, I watched Jelimo run 1:54 in a paced race. You really think she had more talent than Mu? Yes, I’m old and have been watching the women’s 800 for decades and have never seen an athlete like Mu. Have you, really?

Wise Old Man wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Did you argue that when Jelimo ran 1.54 at 18, 2 seconds faster than Mu has ever run, at 19? And then did nothing. Or when Amos ran 1.41x at 18? And never got any better.

You may be an old man but I suggest you drop the "wise" bit from your handle.

Hey, cut the cr-p with the name calling. What’s wrong with you?

Yeah, I watched Jelimo run 1:54 in a paced race. You really think she had more talent than Mu? Yes, I’m old and have been watching the women’s 800 for decades and have never seen an athlete like Mu. Have you, really?

Jelimo at a year younger than Mu ran 2 seconds faster than Mu has. If Jelimo was clean then she clearly had more talent than Mu has so far shown. You could have predicted great things for her, on the same basis you make grand predictions for Mu - but she went no further. Pretty much the same for Amos at 18. Career predictions in sport are as good as long-range weather forecasting. Anything can happen. Or not.

"Name- calling"? You're a bit sensitive. When you call yourself a "wise" old man you open yourself up to having your leg pulled about that if you say something that looks anything but wise. Sure - Mu looks like a great talent but as we see in sport, that guarantees nothing. Anything can happen, as I said. I recall Jim Ryun in '66/67 - who was a much greater talent than Mu has shown. He never got any better or hit those heights again.

As for saying you've never seen an 800m talent like Mu in the women's event for decades, you may be right - but I do think the event has not had many truly great md runners on the women's side (excluding the E Bloc dopers). The men's clearly has - Snell, Juantorena, Coe, Cruz, Kipketer, and Rudisha, for example.

Ok, nothing to do now but wait and see how this goes. I am sure I am not as much as an expert as you, but I am not making the judgement based solely on time. It has a lot do with with my observation of Mu's running. To my eye, Jelimo never looked like Mu does now, regardless of the times produced so far. Talent scouting is not just based on the times already produced, is it? It shouldn't be. Kessler is getting all sort of love now. I don't think it should only be based on his times at a certain age, but how he looks doing it. By the same token, Hocker is amazing, yes, but I see issues with his form, and I judge him not to possess the same talent as Mu and I am pretty sure he does not have the same ceiling. Certainly, there are exceptions to what I am saying, but again, I have watched a lot of women run the 800, and I have never seen anybody look like Mu. You may put no stock in this sort of observation, but when I see her, I know she's getting the WR.

Expressed in a more measured way than the insufferable Armstronglivs deserves but this is an excellent post from someone who gets it.

There are sometimes athletes who exude an extra special talent and grace, even when competing against world class peers.

Brazier, Kiprop, Gidey, Barshim, Ovett, Bekele: not all of the super super super talents actually follow through and set world records but when you see them you know.

Did you recognize the dopers amongst "the super super super talented" before they were busted?

If you think Mu is a clean athlete who will improve 3 seconds on her best time for the 800m - the better part of 20+m - to beat a 4 decade old wr then you are also required to believe that doping doesn't enhance performance, because the best clean athlete will beat the best doped athlete.

Even though I don't deserve it - as you say - I await your measured response, as "someone who gets it".

It's impossible to "recognise the dopers ... before they were busted" - that's called "suspecting", not "recognizing". There have, of course, been plenty of athletes I've suspected of cheating over the years; this is the sport of Salwa Eid Naser and Rashid Ramzi.

I have no idea how much Mu will improve, or whether she'll break the world record. But you can type out your little "required to believe that doping doesn't enhance performance, because the best clean athlete will beat the best doped athlete" spiel as often as you like, it won't make it true.

It will be true that doping doesn't offer advantage if a clean Mu beats a juiced wr. Or she is juicing herself - a possibility in today's sport.

You think you can recognize genuine talent when you see it. Some of them - like Kiprop you mention above - were doping. There is no way we can be sure that the appearance of extraordinary talent is genuine.

But if clean athletes can beat doped world marks then WADA is wasting everyone's time, because doping doesn't offer advantage at the top if that is so. No one who knows anything about the effects of doping in sport holds that view.

if mu breaks the world record ill be very suprised.but then athletics is full of suprises these days.id have never guessed christine mboma had hyperandrogenism if it wasnt for her 48.54 400.she looks no less femenine than anyone else in her races.

Armstronglivs wrote:

But if clean athletes can beat doped world marks then WADA is wasting everyone's time, because doping doesn't offer advantage at the top if that is so.

Jesus Mary and Joseph. No. This is just so completely stupid

- Doping - taking Performance Enhancing Drugs - certainly confers an advantage. If it didn't, it wouldn't be doping

- A clean athlete beating a mark by a different athlete who has cheated by taking PEDs in no way proves that doping doesn't work

- I'm far from world class but I've broken 14 minutes and I'm clean; there are athletes who have been busted for EPO who are slower than me. This obviously doesn't mean blood boosters don't help

- It's time for me to stop getting sucked in by your stupid stupid posts

- If you're a troll, well done I guess, another idiot sucked in

lemmy from motorhead wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

But if clean athletes can beat doped world marks then WADA is wasting everyone's time, because doping doesn't offer advantage at the top if that is so.

Jesus Mary and Joseph. No. This is just so completely stupid

- Doping - taking Performance Enhancing Drugs - certainly confers an advantage. If it didn't, it wouldn't be doping

- A clean athlete beating a mark by a different athlete who has cheated by taking PEDs in no way proves that doping doesn't work

- I'm far from world class but I've broken 14 minutes and I'm clean; there are athletes who have been busted for EPO who are slower than me. This obviously doesn't mean blood boosters don't help

- It's time for me to stop getting sucked in by your stupid stupid posts

- If you're a troll, well done I guess, another idiot sucked in

You can certainly speak for the idiots here.

Your mediocre efforts are not what prove that a clean athlete can beat a doped athlete. You are not being compared either with the best in the sport or those who are not at your level. At the very top of the sport the differences between athletes in terms of ability are marginal. In that bracket doping will confer an unassailable advantage over a clean athlete, as it would amongst any athletes of comparable ability.

It would be the same, that with athletes of your level, who are capable of around 14min for the 5k clean, that the doped athlete has the advantage. If 14min clean were near the top of the sport the fastest athlete at that level would be the doped athlete. You are not being compared with those are are considerably slower than you, like14.30 or 15min dopers.

Top 5k exponents will be able to run in the region of 13 min for the 5k. Those who dope will be able to improve considerably on that time - an estimated 15 seconds at least. Similarly, in the women's 800m, those athletes who are capable of 1.57/58 can take several seconds off their time with doping. An example of how this works is of a Russian whistleblower who had recorded 1.56 doped but was not able to beat 2.01 clean.

If you had thought the issues through for a moment before posting this should have been apparent to you.

1. In a world where everyone used PEDs, and those PEDs affected everyone equally, talent would still win out. And does, even if you subscribe to the idea that every record holder is a doper. There's never been any evidence to suggest that only record holders were dopers.

2. It is highly simplistic, however, to assume that all PEDs are created equal. And it's mistaken to assume that modern PEDs are better than the stuff they were using in the 80s.

Nothing has ever been more effective than the brute force approach of the 80s PEDs, particularly on women who are naturally more responsive to them than men. The fact that so many of those 80s female records have lasted is all the proof you need. New drugs have to sacrifice effectiveness to evade today's far more sensitive modern doping tests.

But today the tracks are faster, the shoes are better, the training is better, the talent is coming from a wider talent pool from more countries. If you gave Athing Mu the same horse steroids that Jarmila Kratochvilova was using, she would start growing facial hair, her voice would drop an octive, and her physique would change massively. And she'd destroy Jarmila's record by multiple seconds. 1:51s would be possible, maybe even 1:50s.

Hey Armstronglivs, is Mu doping yet?

Just checking in.

Sopa de Sabadell wrote:

Hey Armstronglivs, is Mu doping yet?

Just checking in.

I'll let you know when she runs 1.53. But you know for sure she isnt, right - like any other top athlete today?

Talent wouldn't win out; ped's would. Not all drugs are the same or have the same effect, and not everyone responds the same. Doping is not a level playing field; it is an arms race with a constantly changing arsenal so that its users might get an edge on their competition.

Drugs were indeed high-powered in the 80's, which is why records in that era still stand. However the process has become more sophisticated, and falls more into the realm today of micro-dosing, so that athletes can gain an advantage without detection or serious side effects to their health.

So far, dopers are clearly still way ahead of the testers - even with newer tests and the Bio Passport. The off-the-charts performances in the lead up to the Games are pretty indicative. Everybody everywhere is all of a sudden running prs and getting so much better. It is no accident that this has occurred after a sustained period of reduced testing over the pandemic.

However, the argument about whether the best clean athletes could still win out over the best dopers is resolved quite simply. You take two athletes of very similar ability (which is characteristic of the best athletes, where the differences are in small margins) and you employ doping in one and not the other. The doped athlete can train twice as hard - which creates its own advantage - as well as using drugs to boost for competition. The clean athlete stands no chance. If you have two 13min 5k runners and one then dopes, if that doped runner is not far and away superior to the clean runner - say, 12.45 as against the clean runner's 13min - then doping doesn't work. We know that isn't the case. It does. Everywhere and in all sports.