You should think about the message you are sending to younger athletes. If anyone believes you, there will be fewer people willing to train twice a day for 10-15 years to try to become the world's best.
Exactly! This doping-obsessed man is telling young athletes they will never be champions or at the top unless they dope.
I'm not telling them that. Other athletes, coaches, trainers, and physios will be doing that.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
We know people ran 3.29 in the 1500, before the EPO era. With the same shoes and on the same track, they would beat almost all of the athletes you claim are doped today. They would manage this with much less, and poorer training.
You should think about the message you are sending to younger athletes. If anyone believes you, there will be fewer people willing to train twice a day for 10-15 years to try to become the world's best.
Pre EPO the best were running 3:30 or just under. Tracks and shoes haven't given them 4 seconds since. But drugs have.
So who are the clean athletes beating doped athletes? Which ones do you know are doping? How do you know the clean athletes are in fact "clean"?
Clean athletes are only likely to beat doped athletes if they are at completely another level from the doped athletes. They are unlikely to meet, since most races at any higher level pull together athletes of a similar competitive level. My point is that if two athletes are of a similar level without doping then if one of them were to dope they would have a clear advantage. If would be like you racing a doped version of yourself. You would lose.
Who are the clean athletes that beat an admitted EPO doper like Zane Robertson? Well, as you are saying we can’t know who is clean, but does this mean, in your opinion, that every athlete with a better pb than Robertson has to be doped!? (His pbs: Marathon-2.08, half m-59.47, 10k -27.28, 5000m-13.13, 1500m-3.34). If so you must have changed your prior opinion about at least some elite athletes not taking drugs..? (As long as they aren’t top top elite)…
You take it as granted that a doping situation is that of two athletes on the same level one takes dope and thus becomes the better performer. But what if none of these two dope, but only the fifth clean best changes his mind and start doing dope and thus becomes f.x the second all time best -still beaten by a clean athlete, but absolute impossible in your eyes..? (An concrete example could be constructed -I say constructed, because I wouldn’t dream of accusing Lagat- based on the two test irregularities (Lagats A sample, Kiprops A and B) that have been here: El Guerrouj 3.26.0 clean, Jakob 3.26.73 clean, all the 3.27 guys clean. That would make two 3.26 athletes doped, who would f.x only be 3.28/3.29 clean, and 7 x 3.27 athletes clean -summed up to 9 sub 3.28 clean and 2 dirty =doping prevalence among the very top elite around 20%. So how do you know that this scenario/ prevalence is impossible? And for the sake of it: No problem for me to suggest that Lagat was clean, and change him with one of the others sub 3.28’s, or even adding one more of them to the dirty ones…. So how do you know what is right?
My eyes glazed so I stopped reading. You need to state your opinions succinctly. Your view that doping isn't defining top performances only works if doping isn't prevalent in the sport - it is - and if it doesn't significantly aid performance - it does.
It's to see, in this thread. You just have to go back a few pages.
"Yes" or "No" from you means nothing, since you have no interest in the truth but only to remain the "winner".
The irony in that last sentence. I am not interested in winning against you - there is no triumph in being smarter than a dullard.
You have claimed most of my posts were removed - wrong, none was removed.
You have claimed I went to personal attacks - wrong, I have attacked nobody.
A few pages back in this thread you unquestionally have agreed with me - go back and look for yourself. No, you deny it just for the fact that you can't agree to somebody you think is some doping denier or something like that. The point if you agreed or not - you did - is of no relevance at this point. You have to deny. And you will. For ever. But it doesn't change the reality.
My eyes glazed so I stopped reading. You need to state your opinions succinctly. Your view that doping isn't defining top performances only works if doping isn't prevalent in the sport - it is - and if it doesn't significantly aid performance - it does.
I respect that you refuse to go into details, and thus discussing with me. But going into things is the only discussion I do, and therefore will keep on doing. So I will now and then address your posts, so you can answer if you change your view here, or else my answers will be for other readers…
The irony in that last sentence. I am not interested in winning against you - there is no triumph in being smarter than a dullard.
You have claimed most of my posts were removed - wrong, none was removed.
You have claimed I went to personal attacks - wrong, I have attacked nobody.
A few pages back in this thread you unquestionally have agreed with me - go back and look for yourself. No, you deny it just for the fact that you can't agree to somebody you think is some doping denier or something like that. The point if you agreed or not - you did - is of no relevance at this point. You have to deny. And you will. For ever. But it doesn't change the reality.
The reality is no one except you is interested in anything you say.
My eyes glazed so I stopped reading. You need to state your opinions succinctly. Your view that doping isn't defining top performances only works if doping isn't prevalent in the sport - it is - and if it doesn't significantly aid performance - it does.
I respect that you refuse to go into details, and thus discussing with me. But going into things is the only discussion I do, and therefore will keep on doing. So I will now and then address your posts, so you can answer if you change your view here, or else my answers will be for other readers…
I respect that you are sincere about what you say but your posts are too discursive to make any point that can be responded to. You need to be clearer about what you're trying to say or it descends into waffle.
You have no basis to claim this, even though some idiots use doping.
Developments in training, shoes and track have progressed through all time.
Emil Zatopek is a legend, and one of the best runners ever, but his PBs would not be as impressive today.
There have been developments in training, although the most significant of these mostly occurred decades ago, and tracks (yet modern tracks were being used in Mexico '68) and shoes, but periodic changes to the sole of a shoe don't make the difference that is typically claimed. The biggest change to performances in the last few decades is the result of drugs. Without them performances in distance running would probably be little different from the early '70's, although drugs (steroids) were definitely a factor from the late '60's onwards in the sprints.
You have claimed most of my posts were removed - wrong, none was removed.
You have claimed I went to personal attacks - wrong, I have attacked nobody.
A few pages back in this thread you unquestionally have agreed with me - go back and look for yourself. No, you deny it just for the fact that you can't agree to somebody you think is some doping denier or something like that. The point if you agreed or not - you did - is of no relevance at this point. You have to deny. And you will. For ever. But it doesn't change the reality.
The reality is no one except you is interested in anything you say.
You are.
But also others are interested when your ignorance is exposed.
Absolutely typical that you change the subject when some of your wrong claims were exposed.
Khamis is literally one of the stupidest, most clueless posters ever to grace this discussion board. Kerr’s crushing defeat in Paris due to Hero Hocker has sent him off the deep end for good.
Incorrect sir, Kerr's crushing defeat in Paris due to Hockerdope has sent me Khamis screaming injustice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It should never have happened, it was preventable!!!!!
Is there a grammy award for best lying playacting in history???
"I have consistently agreed that doping is prevalent and widespread and goes deep and right to the top....." LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No wonder Armstrong correctly pointed out you are a practised liar!!!!!!!!
That's not what we all saw you write in so many threads over the course of 1 year Mr PD!!!!
You clearly suppressed at every opportunity saying or otherwise "there is no objective evidence to show that doping is prevalent/widespread and no objective evidence to show that doping does indeed provide performance enhancement if at all!!!!!!!!!"
Grammy awards are for music, not acting.
Again, if you think I lied about something before in another thread, you are surely mistaken. I do not believe the things you say you saw I said before. But maybe you have a specific quote you need me to explain how you misinterpreted.
I would say, and have said, that annual WADA "Testing Figures" and WADA "ADRV" Reports alone provide objective evidence that doping is prevalent and widespread, as well as the AIU website, USADA website, ADAK website, Sunday Times report of the leaked IAAF blood data, etc.
I'm not sure what you think you saw, but often prevalence is described in non-quantitative, emotional terms, like "rampant" or "widespread" or "throughout", which can mean 100 things to 100 people. None of these emotional terms bring anyone any closer to knowing if elite distance running prevalence is closer to 10% or 80%. Indeed, over time in various posts, your own darling has told me that official estimates range from 10% to 80%. I may challenge specific figures, but more generally I never deny the existence of doping among athletes, at the top, in the middle, or at the bottom, from countries and events around the world.
Look Mr PD, you are equally adept at another skill called gaslighting!!!!!!!!!!!
So you lie, and if you failed you switch to gaslighting!!!!!!!!!!!! And if that's not enough, you then do pro-doping to top it off!!!!!!
Don't tell me what I saw or didn't see, it's my own 2 eyes alright and it has happened so often and in so recent era of the past 1 year!!!!!!!!!
You not only challenged specific figures, you even challenged the widely held belief of WADA and AIU that doping is prevalent and widespread for the sake of winning the debate against me, don't you remember Mr PD???????
We had so many battles and arguments but it became more personally charged each other which resulted in you taking stances and positions you normally wouldn't take just so that I do not gain the upper hand over you in the course of the debate!!!!!! You were afflicted by narcissism alright!!!!!!!!!!! You just wanted to win which was why you even said doping wasn't prevalent anymore precisely because I took the very opposite position that it was!!!!! You were so pretentious and two-faced!!!
And I gladly let you have the upper hand and let you ridicule me and let you have the empty victory while saying a prayer for you in Christ that you will be saved from eternal lakefire!!!!!
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.