He is a skilled troll. If you notice he tries to engage particularly with the individuals here who are of the opinion that 'everybody dopes'. So the discussion on doping becomes reduced to 'nobody dopes/doping doesn't work anyway' vs 'everybody dopes'. He posts walls of text with fluffy statistics and vague unsupported claims and denials of obvious truths, inevitably provoking his opponents to respond with their own walls of text. Any possibility of a serious discussion on the problem of doping in athletics is therefore nullified. Job done.
If doping is as real as the fact that we landed on the moon then with rekrunner we are up against the argument that it took place in a warehouse in Arizona. But it depends on what you mean by "warehouse" and "Arizona" and the "moon".
So Ramzi won because he and his coach were fired by a purely superstitious belief that drugs were helping him - your "placebo effect". I guess if he became sick and was treated successfully with drugs you would also say that, too, was only a "placebo effect". Or is it only drugs used medically that work, even though many of the same drugs are used by athletes to enhance performance - like growth hormone or testosterone? More likely, to you, modern medicine - like drugs in sport - is simply a 'con' and no more real than the magic potions of witch doctors, but patients are too stupid to realise this. However, you don't mind admitting to a contradictory belief that weightlifters can benefit from doping but not runners, or that Russian female runners can benefit but not males. There is simply no end to the intellectual contortions you engage in. You should be in a circus.
Drugs for medicinal purposes undergo a gold-standard of extensive clinical trials with large populations and controls, to demonstrate both safety and effectiveness.
You can use this gold standard and remove all of my doubts by showing me the clinical research demonstrating the effectiveness of any doping for improving the personal bests of distance runners.
Is it a contradiction to suggest steroids increasing muscular strength beyond natural limits can enhance performance in events requiring such strength, while suggesting men and women are biologically different, precisely because of the lifelong effects of male hormones verus female hormones, and that blood-doping has not yet been similarly "proven" for distance running?
Fundamentally in logical discussion, when you change the facts and conditions and the objects and the subjects, you can arrive at different conclusions that do not contradict each other because the two sets do not intersect.
Only a complete moron would expect "gold standard" clinical research on the effects of doping on running elites. Who of them would volunteer to be subjects? "Hi - I am a world record-holder and a doper. Where's the lab?" You are beyond belief. Your other comments about the differences between men and women doping are simply more of your ignorant drivel.
Why do you not call him 'gentleman Tim' as I tried to do for a year, but not a single other person followed my lead? Lots of people here call him potato Tim, for the most part affectionately, including the BroJos. I believe it dates to when El K posted a thread entitled - 'Timothy Cheruiyot skips the Bislett Mile to plant potatoes'. This was less than two weeks after Kiprop had been busted for EPO. Since then, you may have heard, Gentleman Tim's training partner Manangoi has been suspended for doping offences, and since his return has been unable to break 3:40.
Manangoi ran 3:38 yesterday.
Manangoi's best was 3.28. We have a pretty reliable indication the difference doping makes.
Why do you not call him 'gentleman Tim' as I tried to do for a year, but not a single other person followed my lead? Lots of people here call him potato Tim, for the most part affectionately, including the BroJos. I believe it dates to when El K posted a thread entitled - 'Timothy Cheruiyot skips the Bislett Mile to plant potatoes'. This was less than two weeks after Kiprop had been busted for EPO. Since then, you may have heard, Gentleman Tim's training partner Manangoi has been suspended for doping offences, and since his return has been unable to break 3:40.
Manangoi ran 3:38 yesterday.
George Mills destroys both Manangois, brilliant. Wonder what El K has to say about that?
More bad news for El K and Manangoi - the 2015 1500m final results have finally been reviewed and altered - Kiprop and Manangoi lose their gold and silver medals.
Drugs for medicinal purposes undergo a gold-standard of extensive clinical trials with large populations and controls, to demonstrate both safety and effectiveness.
You can use this gold standard and remove all of my doubts by showing me the clinical research demonstrating the effectiveness of any doping for improving the personal bests of distance runners.
Is it a contradiction to suggest steroids increasing muscular strength beyond natural limits can enhance performance in events requiring such strength, while suggesting men and women are biologically different, precisely because of the lifelong effects of male hormones verus female hormones, and that blood-doping has not yet been similarly "proven" for distance running?
Fundamentally in logical discussion, when you change the facts and conditions and the objects and the subjects, you can arrive at different conclusions that do not contradict each other because the two sets do not intersect.
Only a complete moron would expect "gold standard" clinical research on the effects of doping on running elites. Who of them would volunteer to be subjects? "Hi - I am a world record-holder and a doper. Where's the lab?" You are beyond belief. Your other comments about the differences between men and women doping are simply more of your ignorant drivel.
Are you talking to a mirror? You are the one who doesn't know the difference between proven effectiveness for drugs trialed for medicinal purposes, but not for drugs used for doping purposes, as well as the fundamental biological and hormonal differences between men and women.
This isn' t just theory, but matches observation. Recall I looked for fast performances post-1990. We can look at the country known to have doped the most, and compare Russian women versus their men.
At that time, I found no Russian men faster than the 1990's thresholds in any of 6 different distance events from 1500m to the marathon.
I did find about a dozen Russian women across 4 events, but curiously, in the 1500m, there were no Russian women on the post-1990 list, while there were two pre-1990, with their fastest performances in 1980 and 1982.
This would seem to confirm that doping didn't help the Russian men run better than 1990, and that steroids for their women in the '80s helped more than EPO did post-1990.
Are you talking to a mirror? You are the one who doesn't know the difference between proven effectiveness for drugs trialed for medicinal purposes, but not for drugs used for doping purposes, as well as the fundamental biological and hormonal differences between men and women.
This isn' t just theory, but matches observation. Recall I looked for fast performances post-1990. We can look at the country known to have doped the most, and compare Russian women versus their men.
At that time, I found no Russian men faster than the 1990's thresholds in any of 6 different distance events from 1500m to the marathon.
I did find about a dozen Russian women across 4 events, but curiously, in the 1500m, there were no Russian women on the post-1990 list, while there were two pre-1990, with their fastest performances in 1980 and 1982.
This would seem to confirm that doping didn't help the Russian men run better than 1990, and that steroids for their women in the '80s helped more than EPO did post-1990.
Until 1989, the Soviet Union had one of the most advanced state sponsored doping systems known to man. In the 90's, the EPO era, it was mostly chaos.
But you think that because Russian 1500m runners didn't improve in the 90's, then it proves that EPO doesn't work and the scientific consensus that it does, needs to be overturned?????????????????????????????
I don't know how you can even compare 'Russian' times with Soviet Union times. You are aware most of the world class runners that the Soviet Union produced were from the Ukraine? In any case, Russia in the 90's had less than half the population of the Soviet Union of the 80's.
Only a complete moron would expect "gold standard" clinical research on the effects of doping on running elites. Who of them would volunteer to be subjects? "Hi - I am a world record-holder and a doper. Where's the lab?" You are beyond belief. Your other comments about the differences between men and women doping are simply more of your ignorant drivel.
Are you talking to a mirror? You are the one who doesn't know the difference between proven effectiveness for drugs trialed for medicinal purposes, but not for drugs used for doping purposes, as well as the fundamental biological and hormonal differences between men and women.
This isn' t just theory, but matches observation. Recall I looked for fast performances post-1990. We can look at the country known to have doped the most, and compare Russian women versus their men.
At that time, I found no Russian men faster than the 1990's thresholds in any of 6 different distance events from 1500m to the marathon.
I did find about a dozen Russian women across 4 events, but curiously, in the 1500m, there were no Russian women on the post-1990 list, while there were two pre-1990, with their fastest performances in 1980 and 1982.
This would seem to confirm that doping didn't help the Russian men run better than 1990, and that steroids for their women in the '80s helped more than EPO did post-1990.
You are astonishing - yet again. Drugs used for medicinal purposes will have a necessarily different effect from the same drugs used in sports because in the former the patient is being treated for an illness while in the latter the drugs are being used by healthy athletes. However, those drugs that are used to correct a deficiency in the unwell are known to have a boosting effect on the healthy - which is why they are banned. It is also staggeringly obvious that what can be proven in medical trials cannot be proven in the same way for a drug's use in sports, because the users do not subject themselves to analysis. The point however is that they choose to use the drugs - which they wouldn't do in the numbers they do if they gained no result.
Your argument about the differences between men and women physiologically is similarly facile - and false. You use results to argue biology. I could use the same argument based on the results of African male athletes before 1980 to claim these show they are inferior athletes. You are ridiculous.
Are you talking to a mirror? You are the one who doesn't know the difference between proven effectiveness for drugs trialed for medicinal purposes, but not for drugs used for doping purposes, as well as the fundamental biological and hormonal differences between men and women.
This isn' t just theory, but matches observation. Recall I looked for fast performances post-1990. We can look at the country known to have doped the most, and compare Russian women versus their men.
At that time, I found no Russian men faster than the 1990's thresholds in any of 6 different distance events from 1500m to the marathon.
I did find about a dozen Russian women across 4 events, but curiously, in the 1500m, there were no Russian women on the post-1990 list, while there were two pre-1990, with their fastest performances in 1980 and 1982.
This would seem to confirm that doping didn't help the Russian men run better than 1990, and that steroids for their women in the '80s helped more than EPO did post-1990.
You are astonishing - yet again. Drugs used for medicinal purposes will have a necessarily different effect from the same drugs used in sports because in the former the patient is being treated for an illness while in the latter the drugs are being used by healthy athletes. However, those drugs that are used to correct a deficiency in the unwell are known to have a boosting effect on the healthy - which is why they are banned. It is also staggeringly obvious that what can be proven in medical trials cannot be proven in the same way for a drug's use in sports, because the users do not subject themselves to analysis. The point however is that they choose to use the drugs - which they wouldn't do in the numbers they do if they gained no result.
Your argument about the differences between men and women physiologically is similarly facile - and false. You use results to argue biology. I could use the same argument based on the results of African male athletes before 1980 to claim these show they are inferior athletes. You are ridiculous.
It is you who are astonishing -- forgetting why we are even talking about the differences between doping and medicine. You were wondering if I would doubt medicinal drugs for illnesses. I don't because they are proven effective using the gold-standard of clinical trials on large populations wth controls.
Drugs used for doping are widely believed to have a boosting effect on the healthy.
We don't really know the "numbers they do", but they would take it in those numbers based on that wide belief without any guarantee that it would or did boost performance. But I do not say they gain no result. Placebo effect would confirm that belief, and the athlete would be none the wiser.
You are equally astonishing not knowing the difference between males and females.
I argued men and women were different biologically and hormonally, but now that you bring it up, their physiologies are different too. Note that the best women tend to run about 10% slower than men.
Are you talking to a mirror? You are the one who doesn't know the difference between proven effectiveness for drugs trialed for medicinal purposes, but not for drugs used for doping purposes, as well as the fundamental biological and hormonal differences between men and women.
This isn' t just theory, but matches observation. Recall I looked for fast performances post-1990. We can look at the country known to have doped the most, and compare Russian women versus their men.
At that time, I found no Russian men faster than the 1990's thresholds in any of 6 different distance events from 1500m to the marathon.
I did find about a dozen Russian women across 4 events, but curiously, in the 1500m, there were no Russian women on the post-1990 list, while there were two pre-1990, with their fastest performances in 1980 and 1982.
This would seem to confirm that doping didn't help the Russian men run better than 1990, and that steroids for their women in the '80s helped more than EPO did post-1990.
Until 1989, the Soviet Union had one of the most advanced state sponsored doping systems known to man. In the 90's, the EPO era, it was mostly chaos.
But you think that because Russian 1500m runners didn't improve in the 90's, then it proves that EPO doesn't work and the scientific consensus that it does, needs to be overturned?????????????????????????????
Are you suggesting Africa had a more advanced doping regime than Russia?
Do you also think that Russian men and women are the same, biollogically, hormonally, and physiologically?
In the 1500m, EPO isn't as important for women as steroids is, and steroids is less important for men than for women.
There is no scientific consensus on elite running performance -- only scientific speculation among the scientists and popular belief among the unscientific.
Are you suggesting Africa had a more advanced doping regime than Russia?
Do you also think that Russian men and women are the same, biollogically, hormonally, and physiologically?
In the 1500m, EPO isn't as important for women as steroids is, and steroids is less important for men than for women.
There is no scientific consensus on elite running performance -- only scientific speculation among the scientists and popular belief among the unscientific.
No, EPO is far easier to administer than blood transfusions, and can be done by any athlete entirely by himself (at least if he doesn't have to worry about testing).
Not sure what point you are trying to make in your 2nd and 3rd claims. Is the 3rd sentence your personal view or are you asking me a question??
There is scientific consensus that performance enhancers work. That is why they are called performance enhancers and why they are banned.
You are aware most of the world class runners that the Soviet Union produced were from the Ukraine?
He might be not aware of this. It's wrong.
3 of the top 6 USSR 1500m times were from the Ukraine or Bylorussia, including Kirov the best known and 800m Olympic bronze winner.
Look at the anti-racist so concerned for the welfare of young East African athletes that he supports a shill who is trying to convince us all that EPO is a harmless substance that has no effects other than a positive placebo one.
You are astonishing - yet again. Drugs used for medicinal purposes will have a necessarily different effect from the same drugs used in sports because in the former the patient is being treated for an illness while in the latter the drugs are being used by healthy athletes. However, those drugs that are used to correct a deficiency in the unwell are known to have a boosting effect on the healthy - which is why they are banned. It is also staggeringly obvious that what can be proven in medical trials cannot be proven in the same way for a drug's use in sports, because the users do not subject themselves to analysis. The point however is that they choose to use the drugs - which they wouldn't do in the numbers they do if they gained no result.
Your argument about the differences between men and women physiologically is similarly facile - and false. You use results to argue biology. I could use the same argument based on the results of African male athletes before 1980 to claim these show they are inferior athletes. You are ridiculous.
It is you who are astonishing -- forgetting why we are even talking about the differences between doping and medicine. You were wondering if I would doubt medicinal drugs for illnesses. I don't because they are proven effective using the gold-standard of clinical trials on large populations wth controls.
Drugs used for doping are widely believed to have a boosting effect on the healthy.
We don't really know the "numbers they do", but they would take it in those numbers based on that wide belief without any guarantee that it would or did boost performance. But I do not say they gain no result. Placebo effect would confirm that belief, and the athlete would be none the wiser.
You are equally astonishing not knowing the difference between males and females.
I argued men and women were different biologically and hormonally, but now that you bring it up, their physiologies are different too. Note that the best women tend to run about 10% slower than men.
A lot of medicinal drugs used by athletes are stimulants. That is why they are performance enhancing. They are not placebos. You are a medical ignoramus.
Men and women share the same human physiology. They are not different species. That is why drugs will have a similar effect in them - and why they use the same drugs.
It's a shame there isn't a drug that can cure your mental deficiencies.
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.