Is Sabastian Sawe showing that the sport is cleaner than we thought?

You always complain when the numbers disprove you ("playing with statistics") and when the words disprove you ("semantic rubbish").

Words and numbers work against you because they have a substantial common meaning to the rest of us, even if you cannot understand their significance.

You are trying to stretch the meaning of "plausible", attaching to it some evidentiary standard which you invented. In order to settle the matter, it is appropriate to go to an independent authority. They say "plausible" means "believable", while you said "plausible" is "not believable".

The anti-doping expert Howman quoted said exactly the same thing -- the evidence base suggests one estimate range (0-5%), while another estimate (up to 30%) is "plausible", but apparently not suggested by that "evidence base".

The conclusion I drew is that we need better evidence.

"far exceed" doesn't come from anti-doping experts. That is again your nonsense. You embellish what is there with your own fantasies, and pretend that it comes from the anti-doping experts, when it is always your own invention.

My "religion" isn't a religion at all, as my cautious skepticism prevents me from jumping to popular conclusions when they are not supported by facts, data, evidence, or observations.

Already done to death on the other thread and here, you choose to ignore, or you simply do not understand proper running biomechanics as it relates to running economy (efficiency) nor the relationship of that to longer distance performance.

You do so because it just not support (in fact counters) your dogmatic views on doping. You cannot accept nor participate in debate because of your inability to learn from others and accept that your views can be wrong. That makes it pointless educating someone like you

I'm sorry - my eyes simply glaze when I encounter these posts. I'm not interested in what you attempt to argue and nor would I accept any of it. They are your same old story of attempting to prove what remains false. Tedious beyond measure.

So you can't prove that the shoes enable more performance enhancement than EPO. Of course you can't. That's why athletes in super shoes with altitude training still dope.

Still the same old story, trying to prove the sport isn't really dirty, you never see intentional doping and in any case doping doesn't help distance runners - especially Kenyans. It would be more fruitful to debate with a religious nutter on a street corner.

On the thread topic, there is no way clean runners runner destroy marks set by the legion of doped athletes before them.

Please prove that EPO enables more performance enhancement than the shoes.

You are requesting proof from an idiot. The class clown who failed exams then asks the teacher for more proof on facts that were in the textbooks he didn't read.

In 22 pages he hasn't named a single new chemical that supposedly is being missed by analyses, nor its effects on performance, yet wants further proof on the enhancement by shoes....when, ...several peer reviewed studies have confirmed the following amongst other:

An average of 4% reduction in running economy by biomechanical effects (through increased stride length, decrease in energy losses at contact etc). This alone would be enough to produce a better conversion of short distance times to marathon times.

This is supported by statistical usage data (times) and physiological data eg HR, blood analyses, plus anecdotal feedback on recovery/training effect.

That's about what I would expect from someone who literally cannot understand why more samples would lead to more positives, in and of itself.

According to WADA reports, the sport is dirty. It is about as dirty as the global average of all WADA sports combined.

There is a scientifically approved way clean runners destroy previous marks -- a new generation of shoes which significantly improves running economy.

"Running economy" doesn't beat drugs or the shoes would be banned and the drugs wouldn't. Plus of course that there are world records still standing that were set long before supershoes.

Deflection. T and f is one of the dirtiest sports or WADA would seek to explain that the stats misrepresent that - as you attempt to do.

Kiprop 3:26.6 doped and without supershoes.

You're just another waffler using empty phrases that you can't actually convert into tangible measurable gains from the shoes.

If I could name all the new drugs so could WADA and no doper would escape detection. But most do and that is why WADA keeps blood samples for 10 years, because there are drugs they can't test for.

But you have to maintain the gains are from the shoes alone - despite being unable to prove it - because otherwise it's the same old same old. Drugs in an irrefutably dirty sport.

Kiprop has never run 3:26.6

There is enough proof on running economy gains in peer reviewed studies.

And further proof of your ignorance and lack of understanding of the biomechanics and running economy gains.

You do not need running economy gains for short distance and if any it would be marginal. Superspikes have not shown any such improvement.

If you don't know why running economy is an important factor for marathons, you have never raced one in seriousness in your life.

99% of your posts are now just trolling the same arguments. Sad individual

Going in circles there fellas,

World Record Improvement by Distance since shoes (2016 vs. 2026)

Sprints 100m, 200m, 400m:
Men 0%, Women 0%

Middle Distance 800m, 1500m:
Men 0%, Women 0.3%

Long distance 5km, 10km
Men 0.34%, Women 1.43% (track)
Men 1.5%, Women 5.4% (road)

Marathon
Men 2.81%, Women 4.05%

Assuming doping rates consistent across events, we know the shoes give at least 2-3% since they are banned on the track. Also, anyone who has ran in them can tell you (grudgingly).

It is established that the women's marathon was both drugs and shoes (why is this record standing?), but we can't say for sure the men's is doped (topic of this thread).

From above my sense is the shoes have a bigger impact than drugs for men. At a guess, shoes: ~3%, drugs+shoes: ~4%

Great, but can you make it even simpler for Armstrong?

Just on the topic of shoes and running economy. As I said in the other thread, today you would not see someone with poor (low efficiency) running style/form. They are just not able to convert faster HM's into equivalent full Marathon. No room for those energy losers any more.

You now have a cohort already at max economy, enhanced by the extra energy return (less losses actually) from shoes. My guess has always been that this assistance would be less for the men than the females (purely on observation) because the females do display what is regarded as poor form. So it might be logical for females to have the higher percentage. Things will eve out at some stage.

In general for us weekend warriors etc, if you already have good form, good efficiency, you should expect less improvement for your $$ from the supershoes.