Actually it wasnt armstrong who said 3.29 was impossible without drugs.It was another poster who mentioned that 3.33 is about the natural limit,for a male 1500 runner.That poster also said that anything under 3.35 would be very hard to run,clean,and that for women the cut off is 4.03.Armstrong never gave an exact ballpark figure,or cut off point.
For the women's 800 he stated that sub 1:55 is clearly doped territory and that Athing Mu with a 1:55.04 PB at age 19 might be clean.
So, still 5 possible limits.
That isn't a contradiction as Mu hasn't run sub-1.55. It is a minor but rather obvious point - and yet apparently beyond you.
But I would definitely conclude Mu is now doping based on her equivalent 14 seconds improvement over her best mile time in a year with her 4.03 for the 1500 against her mile pr of 4.37. She wasn't even able to finish at Millrose last year because the pace was too fast for her. With Bobby "Clean" Kersee she now has no such problems with that kind of pace. 14 seconds - virtually a 100 metres. Nothing to it. Two races and she's there. Kipyegon's world mark now awaits.
However you might disagree you are unable to prove I am wrong about her. The odds are that I am right, as doping is throughout elite sport and most dopers aren't caught.
For the women's 800 he stated that sub 1:55 is clearly doped territory and that Athing Mu with a 1:55.04 PB at age 19 might be clean.
So, still 5 possible limits.
That isn't a contradiction as Mu hasn't run sub-1.55. It is a minor but rather obvious point - and yet apparently beyond you.
But I would definitely conclude Mu is now doping based on her equivalent 14 seconds improvement over her best mile time in a year with her 4.03 for the 1500 against her mile pr of 4.37. She wasn't even able to finish at Millrose last year because the pace was too fast for her. With Bobby "Clean" Kersee she now has no such problems with that kind of pace. 14 seconds - virtually a 100 metres. Nothing to it. Two races and she's there. Kipyegon's world mark now awaits.
However you might disagree you are unable to prove I am wrong about her. The odds are that I am right, as doping is throughout elite sport and most dopers aren't caught.
How do western athletes risk getting away with it in 2023?
For the women's 800 he stated that sub 1:55 is clearly doped territory and that Athing Mu with a 1:55.04 PB at age 19 might be clean.
So, still 5 possible limits.
That isn't a contradiction as Mu hasn't run sub-1.55. It is a minor but rather obvious point - and yet apparently beyond you.
But I would definitely conclude Mu is now doping based on her equivalent 14 seconds improvement over her best mile time in a year with her 4.03 for the 1500 against her mile pr of 4.37. She wasn't even able to finish at Millrose last year because the pace was too fast for her. With Bobby "Clean" Kersee she now has no such problems with that kind of pace. 14 seconds - virtually a 100 metres. Nothing to it. Two races and she's there. Kipyegon's world mark now awaits.
However you might disagree you are unable to prove I am wrong about her. The odds are that I am right, as doping is throughout elite sport and most dopers aren't caught.
However you might disagree you are unable to prove I am wrong about her. The odds are that I am right, as doping is throughout elite sport and most dopers aren't caught.
What a brilliant point. People have tried to enlighten you regarding science (And Karl Popper and falsification) and statistics. Yes, we are all unable to prove that you are wrong about her or other people that you accuse. You know why? There are no odds. Even if you are right in "most dopers aren't caught" this does not apply to Mu or Nordås or Ingebrigtsen. You know why?
However you might disagree you are unable to prove I am wrong about her. The odds are that I am right, as doping is throughout elite sport and most dopers aren't caught.
What a brilliant point. People have tried to enlighten you regarding science (And Karl Popper and falsification) and statistics. Yes, we are all unable to prove that you are wrong about her or other people that you accuse. You know why? There are no odds. Even if you are right in "most dopers aren't caught" this does not apply to Mu or Nordås or Ingebrigtsen. You know why?
The least evidence against athletes is clear evidence that they are cheating as they are hiding the evidence. Thank you Armstrong the Intellectual.
Has he read any Karl Popper yet?
Silly question as he refuses to read any of the anti doping rules.
Actually it does apply to them,as much as anyone.Jakob is a full on doper.Looks like one,runs like one,acts like one,runs sub 3.28 then does a fast cheery jog,at the end of it,no sign of fatigue,no weaknesses.His skin looks like hes glowing.Muscles on a really skinny frame,acne,its all there,but youre a fan so you refuse to see the obvious.
Actually it does apply to them,as much as anyone.Jakob is a full on doper.Looks like one,runs like one,acts like one,runs sub 3.28 then does a fast cheery jog,at the end of it,no sign of fatigue,no weaknesses.His skin looks like hes glowing.Muscles on a really skinny frame,acne,its all there,but youre a fan so you refuse to see the obvious.
Yes in your mind it does apply. And no education in informal logic? Your sentence: "... youre a fan so you refuse to see the obvious" is a brilliant example of a Ad Hominem Fallacy.
But you should elaborate your occular philosophy i.e. incorporate it in epistemology.
Actually it does apply to them,as much as anyone.Jakob is a full on doper.Looks like one,runs like one,acts like one,runs sub 3.28 then does a fast cheery jog,at the end of it,no sign of fatigue,no weaknesses.His skin looks like hes glowing.Muscles on a really skinny frame,acne,its all there,but youre a fan so you refuse to see the obvious.
I have eyes.They tell me all i need to know.Meanwhile youre very strange.Nothing you type makes any sense.And im not changing my mind about jakob,just to suit you.
I have eyes.They tell me all i need to know.Meanwhile youre very strange.Nothing you type makes any sense.And im not changing my mind about jakob,just to suit you.
So how do your eyes tell you that one running action is that of a doper and another style of a non doper?
I am not asking you to change your mind rather to explain it so we can all benefit from your higher level of perception.
I have eyes.They tell me all i need to know.Meanwhile youre very strange.Nothing you type makes any sense.And im not changing my mind about jakob,just to suit you.
You did not understand what I wrote. Just as I expected. You are not familiar with logic, are you? Your eyes tell you, or do you make an interpreation of what you see? And how do you come to such conclutions.? You are a master. You just look and then you come to a conclution.
I dont even think YOU understood what you wrote,let alone me,or anyone else.I think you just grabbed your nearest dictionary,and tried to string a disjointed sentance together,using fancy words you dont know the meaning of.As for my logic ,my logic tells me youre very strange,and i have better things to do than chat to you.And you will never ever change my mind about jakob,no matter what you type.so dont even try.Keep prattling on, if you must,but i wont respond,or listen.
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.