OMG...Jakob 3:46.46 in the mile!!

Coevett wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Your short term memory is so bad, you cannot remember what you were discussing yesterday. We were discussing why the physiology/biology/hormones of men and women are completely different -- because men produce large amounts of male hormones naturally, as much as 20-30x what women produce. This was the lead-in to Manangoi.

Somehow you think Manangoi's failure to update a website, or be at home, caused a reduction of his natural production of male hormones.

My supposition is that we cannot infer that Manangoi doped at all with any likelihood, and that no cocktail of doping is worth 10 secs at that level, or else we would have seen many many runners around the world much much faster than Coe/Cram/Ovett/Webb/Wheating/Willis/Ingebrigtsen/....

So we can't even infer that a person like Manangoi banned for breaking anti-doping rules doped, even when his times on his return are 10 seconds slower, even when his mentor failed an EPO test, and over 150 of his compatriots have been suspended, but at the same time, there are so many people out there doping, that we would see loads of people running 3:19 if peds had any effect.

Logical consistency is not your strong point, is it Rekrunner?

Coevett wrote:

restrunner wrote:

I'm not upvoting my posts. I don't think PEDs are just placebos.

Why is the Kenyan NR 15 seconds faster than the Nigerian?

I have no idea, and it doesn't really interest me. The simple point I'm trying to make is that it is much slower. Rekrunner's 'argument' appears to rest on the assumption that, peds don't work, because - for example - the best Kenyans are not running 3:19. It assumes that there are lots of Kenyan runners with 3:29 clean potential. Perhaps there aren't? Just as there does not appear to be 3:29 potential runners in Nigeria, clean or doped? Does this make sense?

As far as Nigerian times being so much slower than Kenyans, I would not assume any genetic difference (due to the massive and dangerous social and ethical ramifications such a racist view contains). Rather, more likley Nigerians favor other sports, the climate is not suitable for distance training etc. The gap (3:42 to 3:26) can't even be bridged by peds (assuming again that the Nigerian 3:42 was clean), so I guess there is less motivation to take peds too.

Coevett wrote:

restrunner wrote:

I'm not upvoting my posts. I don't think PEDs are just placebos.

Why is the Kenyan NR 15 seconds faster than the Nigerian?

I have no idea, and it doesn't really interest me. The simple point I'm trying to make is that it is much slower. Rekrunner's 'argument' appears to rest on the assumption that, peds don't work, because - for example - the best Kenyans are not running 3:19. It assumes that there are lots of Kenyan runners with 3:29 clean potential. Perhaps there aren't? Just as there does not appear to be 3:29 potential runners in Nigeria, clean or doped? Does this make sense?

As far as Nigerian times being so much slower than Kenyans, I would not assume any genetic difference (due to the massive and dangerous social and ethical ramifications such a racist view contains). Rather, more likley Nigerians favor other sports, the climate is not suitable for distance training etc. The gap (3:42 to 3:26) can't even be bridged by peds (assuming again that the Nigerian 3:42 was clean), so I guess there is less motivation to take peds too.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"Male hormones" is the goal that you restricted your speculation to; I was discussing doping. The Russian female 800m runner had doped with a selection of drugs. Only one of them included a "male hormone" - testosterone - which - wait for it - is also a banned drug for men. Could it also be performance enhancing for men? Men can clearly benefit from the same drugs women use, as WADA recognises.

I am not interested in your equally stupid supposition that Manangoi used a "male hormone" only. There is a range of peds he could have been using - including the Kenyan favorite of EPO. But a cocktail of peds is typical of dopers. What we do know is that since his violation and return to competition he is a good 10secs slower than when we can infer he was likely doping. That is the same degree of difference that doping gave to the female Russian 800m runner. What a coincidence!

I so wish there was a drug that could address your problem, but, alas ...

Your short term memory is so bad, you cannot remember what you were discussing yesterday. We were discussing why the physiology/biology/hormones of men and women are completely different -- because men produce large amounts of male hormones naturally, as much as 20-30x what women produce. This was the lead-in to Manangoi.

Somehow you think Manangoi's failure to update a website, or be at home, caused a reduction of his natural production of male hormones.

My supposition is that we cannot infer that Manangoi doped at all with any likelihood, and that no cocktail of doping is worth 10 secs at that level, or else we would have seen many many runners around the world much much faster than Coe/Cram/Ovett/Webb/Wheating/Willis/Ingebrigtsen/....

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

We were discussing doping, not your ring-fencing the debate by restricting it to "male hormones". I guess that's because your argument flounders if you have to deal with the fact that athletes use a range of drugs and not simply "male hormones".

Manangoi didn't fail to update his website; he incurred a doping violation. The inference is therefore he was likely doping - that is WADA'S position, and is why he incurred a doping penalty. Now, presumably clean he can't get near the times he recorded before he incurred his violation. The logical conclusion for that is however the one you refuse to make. I gain satisfaction from two facts: he incurred a penalty equivalent to that of a confirmed doper and he is now unable to perform anywhere near what he was able to do before his violation. None of your feeble arguments changes either fact.

Actually you were telling me that men and women are identical physiologically, biologically and hormonally. You just changed the subject because you ran out of arguments. Even you don't believe your lame arguments enough to stand by them more than 1 day.

I don't doubt that many athletes take a range of drugs.

It's not a fact that Manangoi took any.

A 2-year penalty is not the equivalent of a 4-year ban. You are not very gifted in math. Or logic. Or biology. Or statistics.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Actually you were telling me that men and women are identical physiologically, biologically and hormonally. You just changed the subject because you ran out of arguments. Even you don't believe your lame arguments enough to stand by them more than 1 day.

I don't doubt that many athletes take a range of drugs.

It's not a fact that Manangoi took any.

A 2-year penalty is not the equivalent of a 4-year ban. You are not very gifted in math. Or logic. Or biology. Or statistics.

I did not say men and women are identical; I said they share the same human physiology, subject to the defining characteristics of their sex. I can trust you won't see that distinction. However, that issue is largely irrelevant in a discussion about Manangoi.

It doesn't have to be a proven fact that Manangoi took any drugs, but missing three tests suggests he has, which is why it is a doping violation. What further suggests he was doping is that his performances since his ban have plummeted, without significant injury being offered as the only credible alternative explanation. That sharp decline is typical of many dopers who have been busted.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I did not say men and women are identical; I said they share the same human physiology, subject to the defining characteristics of their sex. I can trust you won't see that distinction. However, that issue is largely irrelevant in a discussion about Manangoi.

It doesn't have to be a proven fact that Manangoi took any drugs, but missing three tests suggests he has, which is why it is a doping violation. What further suggests he was doping is that his performances since his ban have plummeted, without significant injury being offered as the only credible alternative explanation. That sharp decline is typical of many dopers who have been busted.

No -- you didn't say anything remotely resembling "subject to the defining characteristics of their sex". You repeatedly said they were the same physiologically, and would respond to steroids the same way because they have the same physiology, until eventually you finally conceded that they differed in degree -- which was precisely the point you were arguing against.

As much as you wish it were so, there is simply no suggestion that missing 3 tests, or forgetting to update a website, means he was doping. This is just bad-faith wishful thinking.

Another thing you want to overlook is that performance is linked to physical training as well as mental psychology. If you are serving a 2-year ban, or a 4-year ban, both your training and psychology can suffer negatively. Athletes can no longer formally train using signatory resources and must make private arrangements, and may even have to find a job, further impacting their ability to train. The negative experience of being banned itself can be a highly demotivating factor.