From "rekrunner has the mods on his side" (is this true?) you deduce they have the same view on doping (uninformed?) AND rekrunner loses all the arguments.
- rekrunner is uninformed (definitely not true, but...)
- the mods have same view, so they are also "uninformed"
- so rekrunner loses all the arguments
Armstronglogic at his best.
Since you deny what is factually correct you won't get any of the arguments.
Absolutely no argument from you.
Even from your false promise, you can't deduct what you want.
Occam's razor, and history, says you cannot. You can only preach gospel, appeal to false authorities, and insult.
If you truly understood Occam's razor it would show you that the simplest explanation for continuous improvements in the sport is the availability of widely used and mostly undetectable drugs.
I guess you saw someone somewhere say Occam's razor was not being used right, and thought it sounded intelligent, and that would make you sound intelligent here.
I understand it and used it correctly. On the question of "can you be specific", the simplest explanation is that you simply cannot.
In the sport of men's distance running, historically, since the mid-'80s, there was relative stagnation, rather than continuous improvements, for decades, for most of the world, out of Africa and Africans. Since you are the pro on Occam's razor, what is the simplest explanation for the relative lack of continuous improvements for most of the distance running world, in terms of both quantity and quality, even in highly doped countries like Russia, before the era of supershoes?
My views were persuaded by facts, observation and evidence. What is sure is I cannot be further persuaded by those who don't bother to try, nor by those who chose to follow false idols.
I've noticed you have the mods on your side on these threads. That shows they hold the same uninformed views on the role of doping in the sport and that you lose all the arguments so they have to protect you.
That is some really complex and tortured logic.
Wouldn't the simpler explanation be that the mods deleted an insulting post according to guidelines that say insulting posts will be deleted by the mods? And that the reason for the insults is that you, and others, don't have a winning argument, and therefore rekrunner wins all arguments?
But you digress -- none of that prevents you from providing real world facts, observations, and evidence for your own stated beliefs which remain baseless.
I guess you saw someone somewhere say Occam's razor was not being used right, and thought it sounded intelligent, and that would make you sound intelligent here.
I understand it and used it correctly. On the question of "can you be specific", the simplest explanation is that you simply cannot.
In the sport of men's distance running, historically, since the mid-'80s, there was relative stagnation, rather than continuous improvements, for decades, for most of the world, out of Africa and Africans. Since you are the pro on Occam's razor, what is the simplest explanation for the relative lack of continuous improvements for most of the distance running world, in terms of both quantity and quality, even in highly doped countries like Russia, before the era of supershoes?
The simplest explanation is also the one that fits in with the evidence of literally hundreds of busts - Africa doped far more than other countries.
You keep using this Russia argument, even though Russia wasn't even a country in the mid-80's, and you're comparing the Soviet Union that was state of the art doping, with a country in the 90's and 00's (Russia) that had less than half-the-population, the most inhospitable climate for distance running, and that was a chaotic mess. Even if there was state sponsored doping in the EPO era in Russia, it was probably less effective than the hot housing of young athletes and the advanced blood doping of the Soviet era.
This just demonstrates what a complete psuedoscientist you are. That and the repeated reference to a 2008 LetsRun poll that showed a majority felt El G was clean (before LetsRun could even distinguish between IPs, and before the mountain of doping busts in Morocco).
I guess you saw someone somewhere say Occam's razor was not being used right, and thought it sounded intelligent, and that would make you sound intelligent here.
I understand it and used it correctly. On the question of "can you be specific", the simplest explanation is that you simply cannot.
In the sport of men's distance running, historically, since the mid-'80s, there was relative stagnation, rather than continuous improvements, for decades, for most of the world, out of Africa and Africans. Since you are the pro on Occam's razor, what is the simplest explanation for the relative lack of continuous improvements for most of the distance running world, in terms of both quantity and quality, even in highly doped countries like Russia, before the era of supershoes?
The simplest explanation is also the one that fits in with the evidence of literally hundreds of busts - Africa doped far more than other countries.
You keep using this Russia argument, even though Russia wasn't even a country in the mid-80's, and you're comparing the Soviet Union that was state of the art doping, with a country in the 90's and 00's (Russia) that had less than half-the-population, the most inhospitable climate for distance running, and that was a chaotic mess. Even if there was state sponsored doping in the EPO era in Russia, it was probably less effective than the hot housing of young athletes and the advanced blood doping of the Soviet era.
This just demonstrates what a complete psuedoscientist you are. That and the repeated reference to a 2008 LetsRun poll that showed a majority felt El G was clean (before LetsRun could even distinguish between IPs, and before the mountain of doping busts in Morocco).
Good point about the Russian weather.
That's why half of Europe since decades instead travels to Scotland for beach vacation.
And - yes - the enormous improvements from 13:11.99 (1981) to currently 13:11.95 and from 27:55.17 (1984) to currently 27:53.12 just weren't even bigger because the Soviets doped better than the Russians and already have had super shoes already in the early 80s which were unknown in the West.
And the only reason why dozens and dozens of East African teenagers run much faster is just because they dope since the age of 4.
Because Kenyans are some of the biggest stars in the sport, and it is a training ground of athletes from all over. Without belief that there is state-sponsored doping, the powers-that-be would rather surge testing and try to catch cheaters as opposed to a highly contentious decision.
If you truly understood Occam's razor it would show you that the simplest explanation for continuous improvements in the sport is the availability of widely used and mostly undetectable drugs.
I guess you saw someone somewhere say Occam's razor was not being used right, and thought it sounded intelligent, and that would make you sound intelligent here.
I understand it and used it correctly. On the question of "can you be specific", the simplest explanation is that you simply cannot.
In the sport of men's distance running, historically, since the mid-'80s, there was relative stagnation, rather than continuous improvements, for decades, for most of the world, out of Africa and Africans. Since you are the pro on Occam's razor, what is the simplest explanation for the relative lack of continuous improvements for most of the distance running world, in terms of both quantity and quality, even in highly doped countries like Russia, before the era of supershoes?
You are the one who introduced Occam's razor - such a pretentious cliche here - to the discussion. But using that formula for your doping views requires that you will always look for the explanation that conforms with your partiality. There it is at its simplest. We need look no deeper or further.
There is racism against Russians because Kenyans have more doping busts at this point and there has been no attempt to ban Kenya like Russia. But yet this myth of the East African running barefoot to school and reaching medals through hard work and talent alone remains. We need to be fair and equal. If one nation gets banned, another doing the same thing also needs to get banned.
Because Kenyans are some of the biggest stars in the sport, and it is a training ground of athletes from all over. Without belief that there is state-sponsored doping, the powers-that-be would rather surge testing and try to catch cheaters as opposed to a highly contentious decision.
So it is a political decision not to ban them and isn't based on the actual scale of their doping problem.
You are the one who introduced Occam's razor - such a pretentious cliche here - to the discussion. But using that formula for your doping views requires that you will always look for the explanation that conforms with your partiality. There it is at its simplest. We need look no deeper or further.
I did bring it in, on the question of "can you be specific?". You are the one who pretentiously suggested I didn't understand it and was misusing it.
You don't need to look at my views at all, to provide evidentiary support for your own. Constantly attacking me is just a diversion, attempting to avoid your own shortcomings.
Once again: Can you be specific? Can you provide facts, observations, and evidence? Contrary to your suggestion that I'm looking for confirmation for "my partiality" -- I am explicitly requesting you for tangible evidentiary confirmation of "your partiality".
But regarding my views on doping and elite distance running performance, the simplest explanation as to why so many people believe in the power of doping, without providing basis, can be described as faith and hope and belief. People want to believe supranatural power can come in pills and needles. Sure, sometimes it can, for some drugs, for some people, for some sports/events.
The simplest explanation is also the one that fits in with the evidence of literally hundreds of busts - Africa doped far more than other countries.
You keep using this Russia argument, even though Russia wasn't even a country in the mid-80's, and you're comparing the Soviet Union that was state of the art doping, with a country in the 90's and 00's (Russia) that had less than half-the-population, the most inhospitable climate for distance running, and that was a chaotic mess. Even if there was state sponsored doping in the EPO era in Russia, it was probably less effective than the hot housing of young athletes and the advanced blood doping of the Soviet era.
This just demonstrates what a complete psuedoscientist you are. That and the repeated reference to a 2008 LetsRun poll that showed a majority felt El G was clean (before LetsRun could even distinguish between IPs, and before the mountain of doping busts in Morocco).
Suggesting Africa outdoped all non-African nations combined, for decades, as far back as World Cross country in the 1980s, is not a simple explanation. It requires building a house of cards to explain how Africa financed the scale of doping required, and managed to evade detection for decades, while at the same time, richer, more sophisticated countries could not.
The population of the Russia of the '90s and '00s is still 3x the population of Kenya. Russia is a large country (17 million km^2) -- are you sure that it is all inhospitable, say compared to Scandanavia (Finland, Norway, Sweden), or Canada, nations who have produced superior athletes?
But you may have a point that state sponsored doping can be ineffective, and that we must look to environmental and geopolitical reasons and other non-doping factors to truly understand all the causes and factors in elite performance. Point taken.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.