There's definitely still dopers out there, but don't let this message board give you the wrong idea, doping controls have definitely improved over the last twenty years. That's probably why we hardly see any North Africans at the highest levels anymore. Plus, not all doping is created equal - El G was likely taking a regimen that you couldn't possibly pull off today. The sport didn't hit a wall, it's just that you can't get away with as much doping these days
The former head of WADA wouldn't agree with you. He says dopers are getting away with it.
How exactly is that farcical? The shoes are designed to improve running economy, which benefits all runners, but the worse running economy you have, the more benefit you can gain. That seems to be true as well, since high school/college runners have had bigger % drops than elites. You're playing some weird zero-sum game where you think shoe companies would only make advancements if it helps elite athletes more than amateurs - that sounds like the only farce here
There is nothing that supports your claim. It is like you're discussing a prosthetic to aid someone with a club foot, not a high performance shoe for professional athletes.
Bro if you're making a goof-faith argument here, provide me with some actual rebuttal and don't just whine. The studies cited here plus the trends throughout all runners are the support. Give me some counterpoints if you're actually serious about your claims.
All data supports it. High school depth, college deph, and pro depth exploded after the shoes were released. You seem to hate data.
It depends what you consider "data". Not all improvements may be due to the shoes. I question the extent of the gains attributed to college athletes, for example, because the studies don't confirm that. They suggest performance gains across the board of 1-1.5%. But the point I make is that if even those gains apply it makes the best md runners 20-30 years ago far faster than the best today. It follows from the research claims but is it accepted?
This post was edited 22 seconds after it was posted.
There's definitely still dopers out there, but don't let this message board give you the wrong idea, doping controls have definitely improved over the last twenty years. That's probably why we hardly see any North Africans at the highest levels anymore. Plus, not all doping is created equal - El G was likely taking a regimen that you couldn't possibly pull off today. The sport didn't hit a wall, it's just that you can't get away with as much doping these days
The former head of WADA wouldn't agree with you. He says dopers are getting away with it.
That's literally not what I said. Certainly there are dopers getting away with, like I said. El G dominated nearly every race he entered - only Jakob can even be compared in terms of dominance. El G's era saw him and 1-2 other guys at 3:26-3:27, then the peloton started around 3:29/3:30. We're now seeing that same glut of performances around that 3:27 mark. El G was doped more than his contemporaries and current runners, and/or he was truly just at an unprecedented talent level. Either way, my point remains plausible
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
There is nothing that supports your claim. It is like you're discussing a prosthetic to aid someone with a club foot, not a high performance shoe for professional athletes.
Bro if you're making a goof-faith argument here, provide me with some actual rebuttal and don't just whine. The studies cited here plus the trends throughout all runners are the support. Give me some counterpoints if you're actually serious about your claims.
You have misrepresented or misunderstood what the studies show. They don't show that the shoes chiefly advantage inferior athletes. They give an across the board performance improvement of around 1-1.5%. That also applies to elites and pros, as well as amateurs.
I have many years of data that you refuse to accept. I have coached hundreds of runners. I can look at particular workouts and see that runners with the new spikes race faster than previous runners did. Those are facts.
The former head of WADA wouldn't agree with you. He says dopers are getting away with it.
That's literally not what I said. Certainly there are dopers getting away with, like I said. El G dominated nearly every race he entered - only Jakob can even be compared in terms of dominance. El G's era saw him and 1-2 other guys at 3:26-3:27, then the peloton started around 3:29/3:30. We're now seeing that same glut of performances around that 3:27 mark. El G was doped more than his contemporaries and current runners, and/or he was truly just at an unprecedented talent level. Either way, my point remains unfalsified.
Claims about how much El G and others in his era were doping are as speculative as claims about doping today. There isn't anything that supports your claim that doping will be less today or harder to get away with. Howman has indicated the reverse, that doping today is as big a problem as it always was and dopers aren't being caught.
Which studies? I though you were throwing out all studies without sufficient participants (i.e. all the ones referenced here)
I am referring to the consensus in the studies that have been made. I am not saying that I agree with them, only that they are making similar estimates about gains from the shoes.
I have many years of data that you refuse to accept. I have coached hundreds of runners. I can look at particular workouts and see that runners with the new spikes race faster than previous runners did. Those are facts.
They are your facts. They wouldn't be considered research by any scientist.
I have many years of data that you refuse to accept. I have coached hundreds of runners. I can look at particular workouts and see that runners with the new spikes race faster than previous runners did. Those are facts.
The level of talent at your school is a constant? At other schools, it can really vary from year to year.
That's literally not what I said. Certainly there are dopers getting away with, like I said. El G dominated nearly every race he entered - only Jakob can even be compared in terms of dominance. El G's era saw him and 1-2 other guys at 3:26-3:27, then the peloton started around 3:29/3:30. We're now seeing that same glut of performances around that 3:27 mark. El G was doped more than his contemporaries and current runners, and/or he was truly just at an unprecedented talent level. Either way, my point remains unfalsified.
Claims about how much El G and others in his era were doping are as speculative as claims about doping today. There isn't anything that supports your claim that doping will be less today or harder to get away with. Howman has indicated the reverse, that doping today is as big a problem as it always was and dopers aren't being caught.
- Russia is banned from international sport
- Kenya is now busting its own athletes at unprecedented rates
- Places known for egregious doping historically (Morocco, Algeria, China, etc. ) are no longer relevant on the global stage.
Of course there's speculation here, anyone who posts on this board claiming to have conclusive information on global doping is lying. However, suggesting there's nothing to back up my claims is absurd and a bad-faith argument. I think this is an important subject that isn't discussed enough, but if you're going to continue to just be a petulant contrarian, I'm out
This post was edited 41 seconds after it was posted.
Claims about how much El G and others in his era were doping are as speculative as claims about doping today. There isn't anything that supports your claim that doping will be less today or harder to get away with. Howman has indicated the reverse, that doping today is as big a problem as it always was and dopers aren't being caught.
- Russia is banned from international sport
- Kenya is now busting its own athletes at unprecedented rates
- Places known for egregious doping historically (Morocco, Algeria, China, etc. ) are no longer relevant on the global stage.
Of course there's speculation here, anyone who posts on this board claiming to have conclusive information on global doping is lying. However, suggesting there's nothing to back up my claims is absurd and a bad-faith argument. I think this is an important subject that isn't discussed enough, but if you're going to continue to just be a petulant contrarian, I'm out
I disputed two of your claims, that the shoes favour inefficient runners - the studies don't say that - and that athletes today are unlikely to get way with doping like they did in the past. The former head of WADA says otherwise. If you think that is being a "petulant contrarian" you're not used to hearing views you don't agree with.
It is only speculation to suggest the best runners wouldn't experience comparable gains to inferior athletes. The shoes weren't designed with the mediocre in mind.
Not speculation, but (at least) one study that observed largest improvements occurred at 14-18km/h and another study which observed smaller improvements at faster paces in the top-100 times of track events from 800m to 10000m.
What is pure speculation is suggesting the best runners would experience comparable gains -- your sample size is 0.
I find it better math to round figures than truncate them as it produces smaller errors. Nick Willis ran 3:29.66. A 2-3 second improvement makes him a 3:26.66-3:27.66 guy, or 3:27-3:28 when rounded.
But good job ignoring it.
Furthermore, I clarified that when Nick Willis said that in Jan. 2021, he wasn't running 3:29, but 3:37 (using your math), which would make him a 3:34-3:35 guy, which he did run later that year.
In both cases, I am not scoffing at anything, but sharing Nick Willis' stated opinion after a 1200m time trial, and the results of several studies showing where the largest economy gains are, and how they decline at faster speeds.
I think El G could have gained a second. Within a margin of error, he could have been a 3:24 guy (your math).
Armstronglivs is right about what exactly? We both seem to agree that 5 seconds is wrong for El G, but disagree that it could be right for high school milers. I'm following the data. What is he following?
Armstronglivs is applying the wrong improvement model to El G, Ngeny, Lagat, etc.
Armstronglivs is wrong to think that elite athletes should gain a similar amount as NCAA and high school milers.
Armstronglivs is wrong to repeatedly ignore all these numerous studies and replace it with his own "gains should be similar" model, based on a sample size of 0, only to argue that his model leads to ridiculous consequences.
You choose to round Willis's time upwards - to make him slower - whereas I have been berated at length on other threads by posters who insist times should be rounded downwards.
I don't refer to the study as definitive any more than the ones you have referred to. It is merely to show that another study has made claims about the gains that runners might experience from using the shoes. If those gains are accepted then the best runners would also experience 1-1.5% performance gains. That puts the best md and distance runners of the '90s and 2000s on another plateau from the best today.
Although you say optimal gains are experienced at speeds less than what El G and Lagat were running the difference may well be very small. If it were otherwise the shoes would be regarded as having no significant value to professionals. If that were so they wouldn't be using them. They are.
I don't say anything about optimal gains, but point you to studies that have observed where they occur.
As these time trials were done at 16km/h (or 4.4 m/s), their results of 1-1.5% is in line with all the studies I have linked, but doesn't predict what improvements should be expected at 26 km/h.
One study that does shows a rapid decline (showing a curve fit dropping from 1.7% to 0.3%) in improvement at speeds above 5 m/s.
There is no question that elite milers and 800m achieve a benefit -- that is why elite runners use them.
What you failed to grasp was that it was simply another study making performance claims in performance data. I didn't state that I agreed with it, only that its conclusions had implications for the differences between athletes over two decades ago and athletes today. In essence, you can always find a study to support a particular point of view - your specialty.
All the studies linked, even the studies you found, support my point of view -- because my views are formed by the study results.
But few of these studies can be applied to elite athletes, either from the '90s, or today.
- Kenya is now busting its own athletes at unprecedented rates
- Places known for egregious doping historically (Morocco, Algeria, China, etc. ) are no longer relevant on the global stage.
Of course there's speculation here, anyone who posts on this board claiming to have conclusive information on global doping is lying. However, suggesting there's nothing to back up my claims is absurd and a bad-faith argument. I think this is an important subject that isn't discussed enough, but if you're going to continue to just be a petulant contrarian, I'm out
I disputed two of your claims, that the shoes favour inefficient runners - the studies don't say that - and that athletes today are unlikely to get way with doping like they did in the past. The former head of WADA says otherwise. If you think that is being a "petulant contrarian" you're not used to hearing views you don't agree with.
You know I'm honored to be accused of being unwilling to change my opinion by the champion that behavior themself. You told me there is nothing that supports the idea and I provided you three examples, and your rebuttal was that 'the former head of WADA says otherwise'. Please provide the actual quote suggesting that it's easier to dope today than it was historically. I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion if I have, you know, data to do so. You've provided nothing of the sort, just a repeated reference to a quote by one person. Your post here is absolutely oozing with irony.
This post was edited 47 seconds after it was posted.
You amuse me. You choose to round Willis's time upwards - to make him slower - whereas I have been berated at length on other threads by posters who insist times should be rounded downwards. But even a 1-1.5% performance gain in supershoes for 3:29.66 is in the region of 2-3 secs, which would have put Willis in a ball park of 3:26-mid to 3:27-mid. And that's just the shoes. The same percentage gain for El G and Lagat puts them at 3:23-3:24 (and El G and Ngeny at 3:40-41 for the mile).
None of the estimates of likely performance gains say elites will make smaller percentage gains than anyone else. The shoes are not designed chiefly to benefit journeymen.
Lots of concern for the correctness of my math. Let's wipe the board clean and do the math right then.
First, Nick Willis actually only said 2 seconds for 1200m time trial. The 3 seconds came from me, incorrectly rounding up for the 1500m/mile (should I have truncated that too?)
If we want to do exact math, it would be 2.5 seconds for 1500m. That would make the 3:29.66 Nick Willis a 3:27.16 runner.
But why are we rounding/truncating 3:29.66? That was the time of the 2015 Nick Willis, not the 2021 Nick Willis who ran 3:37.53 in Februrary 2021. That was probably in superspikes, so the January 2021 Nick Willis was more like a 3:40.03 runner, when he said he gained 2 seconds in a 1200m time trial.
When you say "none of the estimates", you still disregard the study which observed elites did make smaller percentage gains at faster paces. Yet regardless of who the spikes were designed for, they still benefit elite athletes.
You might be right though (and "liar liar" seems to think so). If the money hadn't dried up on the track, and Nick Willis thinks 2.5 seconds is possible for him, and the best North and East Africans were running in their prime on the track, they might also be 3:23.5 - 3:24.xx runners with superspikes.
This post was edited 13 minutes after it was posted.