But if some of the drugs are potentially ineffective, athletes risk harming themselves by increasing the doses beyond what is healthy, and/or by long term use of ineffective drugs.
You're assuming the drugs are ineffective. Decades of doping by countless athletes suggest they aren't. WADA takes a similar view, or it wouldn't be actively opposed to unfair advantage through drugs.
I am assuming that WADA bans some drugs for health reasons, because they say so.
WADA's similar view is about potentials without proof.
In other words, some athletes believe, WADA believes, and therefore Armstronglivs believes.
The are several runners today faster than his best, so the reasonable assumption is he wouldn't win against them. But I'm sure he would have every chance if he was on what they are.
Supershoes and bicarb?
Try any one of an estimated hundred or so illicit substances that can't be tested for. (Al Jazeera)
You're assuming the drugs are ineffective. Decades of doping by countless athletes suggest they aren't. WADA takes a similar view, or it wouldn't be actively opposed to unfair advantage through drugs.
I am assuming that WADA bans some drugs for health reasons, because they say so.
WADA's similar view is about potentials without proof.
In other words, some athletes believe, WADA believes, and therefore Armstronglivs believes.
You may assume WADA bans drugs for health reasons but they may also be banning them because they offer unfair performance gains - which is why athletes use them. WADA doesn't require "proof" of performance gains - no athletes come forward to demonstrate what the drugs do - but they rely on the advice of doctors that tell them what the drugs do physiologically and the knowledge of those involved in the sport who advise them how the drugs are being used by athletes and the perceived effects they have - on performance and on health.
This post was edited 36 seconds after it was posted.
Again: With his level of fitness which he has had in 1981, he wouldn't be a Gold contender now?
Sure. If he doped.
You didn't understand and you never will understand.
With his level of fitness which Coe has had in 1981, he undoubtedly would be a strong contender for any 800m title today, and he also would be in the mix for 1500m success at the highest level.
Others have run faster, that's all you can bring.
In the 800m, 7 athletes have run faster than Coe - in 43 years.
5 did so last season - by 0.06 seconds, by 0.12 seconds, by 0.27 seconds, by 0.53 seconds, by 0.62 seconds. 43 years after Coe has run 1:41.73, while running wide in the 3rd curve, his time worth around 1:41.5. While Coe has shown unique sprint capabilities over 800m and also much better strength from 1000m to the Mile than the current best in the event.
You are uncertain if he was doped in 1981 - so for you the current top level over 800m can be reached without doping.
But you can't understand this. Because you are stupid.
You didn't understand and you never will understand.
With his level of fitness which Coe has had in 1981, he undoubtedly would be a strong contender for any 800m title today, and he also would be in the mix for 1500m success at the highest level.
Others have run faster, that's all you can bring.
In the 800m, 7 athletes have run faster than Coe - in 43 years.
5 did so last season - by 0.06 seconds, by 0.12 seconds, by 0.27 seconds, by 0.53 seconds, by 0.62 seconds. 43 years after Coe has run 1:41.73, while running wide in the 3rd curve, his time worth around 1:41.5. While Coe has shown unique sprint capabilities over 800m and also much better strength from 1000m to the Mile than the current best in the event.
You are uncertain if he was doped in 1981 - so for you the current top level over 800m can be reached without doping.
But you can't understand this. Because you are stupid.
Everything you argue about how Coe would fare today is only speculation. It can't be proven. Perhaps you aren't bright enough to realise it's only your opinion.
You didn't understand and you never will understand.
With his level of fitness which Coe has had in 1981, he undoubtedly would be a strong contender for any 800m title today, and he also would be in the mix for 1500m success at the highest level.
Others have run faster, that's all you can bring.
In the 800m, 7 athletes have run faster than Coe - in 43 years.
5 did so last season - by 0.06 seconds, by 0.12 seconds, by 0.27 seconds, by 0.53 seconds, by 0.62 seconds. 43 years after Coe has run 1:41.73, while running wide in the 3rd curve, his time worth around 1:41.5. While Coe has shown unique sprint capabilities over 800m and also much better strength from 1000m to the Mile than the current best in the event.
You are uncertain if he was doped in 1981 - so for you the current top level over 800m can be reached without doping.
But you can't understand this. Because you are stupid.
Everything you argue about how Coe would fare today is only speculation. It can't be proven. Perhaps you aren't bright enough to realise it's only your opinion.
It's not speculation, it's analysis. Not something you can do objectively for that requires intelligence.
You may assume WADA bans drugs for health reasons but they may also be banning them because they offer unfair performance gains - which is why athletes use them. WADA doesn't require "proof" of performance gains - no athletes come forward to demonstrate what the drugs do - but they rely on the advice of doctors that tell them what the drugs do physiologically and the knowledge of those involved in the sport who advise them how the drugs are being used by athletes and the perceived effects they have - on performance and on health.
Because of all these unknowns, there is really nothing that can be inferred from a drug being banned by WADA, except that a secret committee recommended to ban it for reasons they do not provide.
Here's what the doctors/experts "know" about performance enhancement:
"Only 5 of 23 substance classes (banned by WADA) show evidence of having the ability to enhance actual sports performance, i.e. anabolic agents, Beta2-agonists, stimulants, glucocorticoids and Beta-blockers. One additional class, growth hormone, has similar evidence but only in untrained subjects. The observed effects all relate to strength or sprint performance (and accuracy for Beta-blockers); there are no studies showing positive effects on reliable markers of endurance performance. For 11 classes, no well-designed studies are available, and, for the remaining six classes, there is evidence of an absence of a positive effect. In conclusion, for the majority of substance classes, no convincing evidence for performance enhancement is available, while, for the remaining classes, the evidence is based on a total of only 266 subjects from 11 studies."
Everything you argue about how Coe would fare today is only speculation. It can't be proven. Perhaps you aren't bright enough to realise it's only your opinion.
It's not speculation, it's analysis. Not something you can do objectively for that requires intelligence.
It still only amounts to your opinion - which is speculation. Are you proposing to teleport Coe from 1981 to the present?
Try any one of an estimated hundred or so illicit substances that can't be tested for. (Al Jazeera)
Can you name/recommend a few of the best ones, and describe to us what you know about their expected/proven benefit?
Can you tell me who made the statement you refer to and his background and credentials? Hint: his name is not Al Jazeera. Second hint: I can.
Can you name the Al Jazeera documentary?
You missed where Al Jazeera said the substances wouldn't be able to be tested for. If they were known they could be tested. Thick as a brick.
The comment was reported by Al Jazeera in an investigation into sports doping. I am not interested in participating in your quiz. Go watch it yourself.
You may assume WADA bans drugs for health reasons but they may also be banning them because they offer unfair performance gains - which is why athletes use them. WADA doesn't require "proof" of performance gains - no athletes come forward to demonstrate what the drugs do - but they rely on the advice of doctors that tell them what the drugs do physiologically and the knowledge of those involved in the sport who advise them how the drugs are being used by athletes and the perceived effects they have - on performance and on health.
Because of all these unknowns, there is really nothing that can be inferred from a drug being banned by WADA, except that a secret committee recommended to ban it for reasons they do not provide.
Here's what the doctors/experts "know" about performance enhancement:
"Only 5 of 23 substance classes (banned by WADA) show evidence of having the ability to enhance actual sports performance, i.e. anabolic agents, Beta2-agonists, stimulants, glucocorticoids and Beta-blockers. One additional class, growth hormone, has similar evidence but only in untrained subjects. The observed effects all relate to strength or sprint performance (and accuracy for Beta-blockers); there are no studies showing positive effects on reliable markers of endurance performance. For 11 classes, no well-designed studies are available, and, for the remaining six classes, there is evidence of an absence of a positive effect. In conclusion, for the majority of substance classes, no convincing evidence for performance enhancement is available, while, for the remaining classes, the evidence is based on a total of only 266 subjects from 11 studies."
"Nothing can be inferred from a WADA ban", when they indicate the reasons drugs are banned and when their express purpose is to fight doping in sports? Add to that, none of the studies you rely on involved the participation of elite athletes who were doping. There has been no study of that kind. You really are the most stupid **** ever on these boards.
You didn't understand and you never will understand.
With his level of fitness which Coe has had in 1981, he undoubtedly would be a strong contender for any 800m title today, and he also would be in the mix for 1500m success at the highest level.
Others have run faster, that's all you can bring.
In the 800m, 7 athletes have run faster than Coe - in 43 years.
5 did so last season - by 0.06 seconds, by 0.12 seconds, by 0.27 seconds, by 0.53 seconds, by 0.62 seconds. 43 years after Coe has run 1:41.73, while running wide in the 3rd curve, his time worth around 1:41.5. While Coe has shown unique sprint capabilities over 800m and also much better strength from 1000m to the Mile than the current best in the event.
You are uncertain if he was doped in 1981 - so for you the current top level over 800m can be reached without doping.
But you can't understand this. Because you are stupid.
Everything you argue about how Coe would fare today is only speculation. It can't be proven. Perhaps you aren't bright enough to realise it's only your opinion.
You still havn't understood. You never will.
What a stupidity: "how Coe would fare today". What's the meaning of this at all?
From all of Coe's performances in 1981, we KNOW that he has had a level of fitness in this year which easily makes him comparable with this level to the best of today. Without any doubt in the 800m. But also in the 1500m - maybe not in a extremely fast race, but that's for speculation.
In an actual race? I think you got this really well: we will not see such a race. Maybe he would fall at the start and wouldn't finish. Maybe he would use his unique finishing speed in a 1:47 race for an easy win. Maybe he would struggle to hold on Wanyonyi/Arop in a low 1:41 race and finish third. Or maybe maybe maybe...
But one thing is for certain: with the level which he has shown in various instances in 1981 he would be one of the top candidates for the win in the 800m (more speculative is the situation in the 1500m, but I strongly believe he would be in the mix there too). 3:31.95 is not representative for his level of fitness in 1981.
Do you think shoes, tracks and so on have improved in close to half a century? Do you think they were actually better in 1981 than they are now?
I see from your posts here that you don't even know Coe's PBs, so it's easy to state you don't know anything about his wins in slow races in 1981. Try to educate yourself.
Now try to check what Arop achieved in a serious WR attempt in the 1000m last year. Then try to find what Coe has done 43 years earlier. Could you find the marks? Not easy for you, I know. Try again.
"Nothing can be inferred from a WADA ban", when they indicate the reasons drugs are banned and when their express purpose is to fight doping in sports? Add to that, none of the studies you rely on involved the participation of elite athletes who were doping. There has been no study of that kind. You really are the most stupid **** ever on these boards.
It's funny to watch you get so upset because of your general failure to comprehend plain English.
But on the contrary, when WADA adds drugs to the list, they do not give us any indication which criteria were met, and how that was determined.
They have said there are three criteria they consider: potential performance benefit, potential harm to health, and spirit of sport. So for every drug added to the list, there are several questions: Which two criteria were satisfied? How did they determine that the criteria were met? Was it "potential" or was it "real"?
Because of all these unknowns, there is really nothing that can be inferred from a drug being banned by WADA, except that a secret committee recommended to ban it for reasons they do not provide, on a basis they do not provide.
Everything you argue about how Coe would fare today is only speculation. It can't be proven. Perhaps you aren't bright enough to realise it's only your opinion.
You still havn't understood. You never will.
What a stupidity: "how Coe would fare today". What's the meaning of this at all?
From all of Coe's performances in 1981, we KNOW that he has had a level of fitness in this year which easily makes him comparable with this level to the best of today. Without any doubt in the 800m. But also in the 1500m - maybe not in a extremely fast race, but that's for speculation.
In an actual race? I think you got this really well: we will not see such a race. Maybe he would fall at the start and wouldn't finish. Maybe he would use his unique finishing speed in a 1:47 race for an easy win. Maybe he would struggle to hold on Wanyonyi/Arop in a low 1:41 race and finish third. Or maybe maybe maybe...
But one thing is for certain: with the level which he has shown in various instances in 1981 he would be one of the top candidates for the win in the 800m (more speculative is the situation in the 1500m, but I strongly believe he would be in the mix there too). 3:31.95 is not representative for his level of fitness in 1981.
Do you think shoes, tracks and so on have improved in close to half a century? Do you think they were actually better in 1981 than they are now?
I see from your posts here that you don't even know Coe's PBs, so it's easy to state you don't know anything about his wins in slow races in 1981. Try to educate yourself.
Now try to check what Arop achieved in a serious WR attempt in the 1000m last year. Then try to find what Coe has done 43 years earlier. Could you find the marks? Not easy for you, I know. Try again.
As I said - it is only your opinion. You can't transport Coe from 1981 to the present. But if he were in the present he would have to dope, like the best do today.