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.
Please prove that EPO enables more performance enhancement than the shoes.
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.
Please prove that EPO enables more performance enhancement than the shoes.
Just look at the record performances from the EPO era. It’s taken39 years and more for the top runners of today to catch up.
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.
Your arguments fail logically, in addition to relying on a faulty premise.
We can't say what beats what, or where drugs fit in on the spectrum of performance, if at all, without any performance data for drugs for comparison.
Potential performance benefit alone is not enough to ban a drug. According to WADA, they also consider if it's potentially harmful to health, and/or against the spirit of the sport. After consideration, these factors don't apply to the shoes.
Regarding world records, we need to distinguish supershoes on the roads, with thicker foam, where world records have been smashed, tightly correlated in time with the rollout of the supershoes, and the superspikes on the track, where most world records have also been broken, tightly correlated in time with the rollout of superspikes, but by less, with rare exceptions for the fastest races, the mens 800m and 1500m, where the predicted effect is the smallest.
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.
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.
But the stats don't misrepresent that, since the WADA stats include both the number of samples, for proper perspective, and the number of AAFs, and the number of ADRVs.
It is the mis-interpretation of someone who literally cannot why more samples would lead to more positives, that leads to the conclusions about the magnitude of just how dirty T&F is, compared to other WADA sports. Dirtiness is better measured as a percentage of athletes who are dirty. A sport (or rather a collection of many disparate events), shouldn't be penalized as dirty just for having the most athletes.
There is no reason to think that WADA would go out of their way to correct your misinterpretations of their clear stats.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Please prove that EPO enables more performance enhancement than the shoes.
Kiprop 3:26.6 doped and without supershoes.
Did Kiprop run 3:26.6 doped? The EPO charge came 2 years later, after Kiprop's performance had been steadily declining.
Assuming for argument he did take EPO 2 years earlier, where is the proof of how much EPO helped this performance? Seems like that is a prerequisite before we can compare it with any benefit from superspikes.
"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.
Your arguments fail logically, in addition to relying on a faulty premise.
We can't say what beats what, or where drugs fit in on the spectrum of performance, if at all, without any performance data for drugs for comparison.
Potential performance benefit alone is not enough to ban a drug. According to WADA, they also consider if it's potentially harmful to health, and/or against the spirit of the sport. After consideration, these factors don't apply to the shoes.
Regarding world records, we need to distinguish supershoes on the roads, with thicker foam, where world records have been smashed, tightly correlated in time with the rollout of the supershoes, and the superspikes on the track, where most world records have also been broken, tightly correlated in time with the rollout of superspikes, but by less, with rare exceptions for the fastest races, the mens 800m and 1500m, where the predicted effect is the smallest.
He is bereft of logic.
There are a direct correlation studies of the benefit of supershoes, which does exactly what physics in theory expects it to do biomechanically vs anecdotal and ad hoc benefits from PEDS.
On the one hand you have formulaic and direct benefitrs that are supported by measurement ---supershoes
vs drug benefits with placebo input that are different from athlete to athlete and not predictable
Yet he asks for evidence of the former without giving same for the latter
There are a direct correlation studies of the benefit of supershoes, which does exactly what physics in theory expects it to do biomechanically vs anecdotal and ad hoc benefits from PEDS.
On the one hand you have formulaic and direct benefitrs that are supported by measurement ---supershoes
vs drug benefits with placebo input that are different from athlete to athlete and not predictable
Yet he asks for evidence of the former without giving same for the latter
He is bereft of data.
I can understand and appreciate a certain degree of skepticism, but there is a real lack of consistency and a real double standard. You cannot just be skeptical when it is convenient.
Did Kiprop run 3:26.6 doped? The EPO charge came 2 years later, after Kiprop's performance had been steadily declining.
Assuming for argument he did take EPO 2 years earlier, where is the proof of how much EPO helped this performance? Seems like that is a prerequisite before we can compare it with any benefit from superspikes.
So he runs slower on EPO than when he was "clean". You are nothing if not consistent - consistently moronic.
So a few hundreths out. 3:26.69. Makes all the difference to the issue of how did a convicted doper do that without supershoes if the shoes offer greater advantage than EPO.
Did Kiprop run 3:26.6 doped? The EPO charge came 2 years later, after Kiprop's performance had been steadily declining.
Assuming for argument he did take EPO 2 years earlier, where is the proof of how much EPO helped this performance? Seems like that is a prerequisite before we can compare it with any benefit from superspikes.
Of course you will argue that a convicted doper will be faster clean than when he was doped. There is no limit to your doping denial.
There are a direct correlation studies of the benefit of supershoes, which does exactly what physics in theory expects it to do biomechanically vs anecdotal and ad hoc benefits from PEDS.
On the one hand you have formulaic and direct benefitrs that are supported by measurement ---supershoes
vs drug benefits with placebo input that are different from athlete to athlete and not predictable
Yet he asks for evidence of the former without giving same for the latter
He is bereft of data.
I can understand and appreciate a certain degree of skepticism, but there is a real lack of consistency and a real double standard. You cannot just be skeptical when it is convenient.
"So you cannot be skeptical when it is convenient"? Your lack of self awareness is hilarious. You perfectly describe what you do all the time when it comes to the performance gains from drugs.
Your arguments fail logically, in addition to relying on a faulty premise.
We can't say what beats what, or where drugs fit in on the spectrum of performance, if at all, without any performance data for drugs for comparison.
Potential performance benefit alone is not enough to ban a drug. According to WADA, they also consider if it's potentially harmful to health, and/or against the spirit of the sport. After consideration, these factors don't apply to the shoes.
Regarding world records, we need to distinguish supershoes on the roads, with thicker foam, where world records have been smashed, tightly correlated in time with the rollout of the supershoes, and the superspikes on the track, where most world records have also been broken, tightly correlated in time with the rollout of superspikes, but by less, with rare exceptions for the fastest races, the mens 800m and 1500m, where the predicted effect is the smallest.
He is bereft of logic.
There are a direct correlation studies of the benefit of supershoes, which does exactly what physics in theory expects it to do biomechanically vs anecdotal and ad hoc benefits from PEDS.
On the one hand you have formulaic and direct benefitrs that are supported by measurement ---supershoes
vs drug benefits with placebo input that are different from athlete to athlete and not predictable
Yet he asks for evidence of the former without giving same for the latter
I agree - he is bereft of logic. I assume you're referring to rekrunner.
You can't provide statistically verified gains from the shoes. Unlike the new shoes, drugs have been in the sport - indeed in all sports - for decades and yet you think the case isn't proven they enable significant performance enhancement. The practice wouldn't exist without it. You only see what you wish to see.
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.
But the stats don't misrepresent that, since the WADA stats include both the number of samples, for proper perspective, and the number of AAFs, and the number of ADRVs.
It is the mis-interpretation of someone who literally cannot why more samples would lead to more positives, that leads to the conclusions about the magnitude of just how dirty T&F is, compared to other WADA sports. Dirtiness is better measured as a percentage of athletes who are dirty. A sport (or rather a collection of many disparate events), shouldn't be penalized as dirty just for having the most athletes.
There is no reason to think that WADA would go out of their way to correct your misinterpretations of their clear stats.
Track and field isn't being "penalized for having the most athletes"; it is ranked as one of the dirtiest sports on the planet. It isn't a percentage game - its total violations are amongst the highest of any sport.
But why should you seek to argue otherwise, when you claim doping doesn't enable advantage and when you never see intentional doping? By your assessment doping is a minor and harmless distraction for those taken in by it.
"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.
Your arguments fail logically, in addition to relying on a faulty premise.
We can't say what beats what, or where drugs fit in on the spectrum of performance, if at all, without any performance data for drugs for comparison.
Potential performance benefit alone is not enough to ban a drug. According to WADA, they also consider if it's potentially harmful to health, and/or against the spirit of the sport. After consideration, these factors don't apply to the shoes.
Regarding world records, we need to distinguish supershoes on the roads, with thicker foam, where world records have been smashed, tightly correlated in time with the rollout of the supershoes, and the superspikes on the track, where most world records have also been broken, tightly correlated in time with the rollout of superspikes, but by less, with rare exceptions for the fastest races, the mens 800m and 1500m, where the predicted effect is the smallest.
You are still effectively maintaining that shoes offer greater advantage than drugs. It is rubbish of course because it would make it utterly untenable to ban drugs for aiding performance and not the shoes. You also dismiss the advantage from drugs without data that shows a lack of comparative performance enhancement from drugs.
Health consequences from doping are not the main purpose of antidoping but to ensure that sport remains fair. Antidoping cannot be concerned about fairness unless athletes can make performance gains from using drugs.
I can understand and appreciate a certain degree of skepticism, but there is a real lack of consistency and a real double standard. You cannot just be skeptical when it is convenient.
"So you cannot be skeptical when it is convenient"? Your lack of self awareness is hilarious. You perfectly describe what you do all the time when it comes to the performance gains from drugs.
You are still bereft of data.
To paraphrase Carl Sagan, I am only skeptical of extraordinary claims lacking extraordinary evidence.
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.
Did Kiprop run 3:26.6 doped? The EPO charge came 2 years later, after Kiprop's performance had been steadily declining.
Assuming for argument he did take EPO 2 years earlier, where is the proof of how much EPO helped this performance? Seems like that is a prerequisite before we can compare it with any benefit from superspikes.
So he runs slower on EPO than when he was "clean". You are nothing if not consistent - consistently moronic.
Recall what was requested of you: "Please prove that EPO enables more performance enhancement than the shoes."