Was Paula Radcliffe the biggest genetic outlier in running history? Underappreciated on Letsrun

yeah, but no, but yeah wrote:

Do you people actually believe that drugs can give you more energy?

Yes

Clenbuterol stimulates both the heart and central nervous system. It has a similar effect on the body as epinephrine and amphetamines.

It is also a beta-2-agonist, which is the opposite of a beta-blocker. While a beta-blocker will reduce the production of epinephrine and noradrenaline, clenbuterol increases it.

This increase will lead to a variety of effects, such as:

rapid fat burning

excitability

nervousness

increased energy

greater determination

heelstriker wrote:

yeah, but no, but yeah wrote:

Do you people actually believe that drugs can give you more energy?

Yes

Clenbuterol stimulates both the heart and central nervous system. It has a similar effect on the body as epinephrine and amphetamines.

It is also a beta-2-agonist, which is the opposite of a beta-blocker. While a beta-blocker will reduce the production of epinephrine and noradrenaline, clenbuterol increases it.

This increase will lead to a variety of effects, such as:

rapid fat burning

excitability

nervousness

increased energy

greater determination

Increased energy eh? You sure about that?

So where do you suppose this extra energy come from?

short answer is No, she is over-appreciated...

Hagridore wrote:

short answer is No, she is over-appreciated...

Wow, really? 2.15 marathon in 2003 wasn't impressive enough for all you kids?

Rainy Day wrote:

Even with doping, when was the last time a Western European man held a distance WR?

Coe held the 1000m WR until September 1999. This was the last time.

letsdrum wrote:

Rainy Day wrote:

Even with doping, when was the last time a Western European man held a distance WR?

Coe held the 1000m WR until September 1999. This was the last time.

if you look at sports, like soccer and baseball, etc, you have plenty of dudes from all over that clock in as fastest,

giant Japanese dudes are throwing 100mph plus, stealing the most bases,

garth bale, clocks in as fastest, or some other dude you never heard of.

in distance running, if you're healthy, skinny, strong, and have a rib cage, and a maniac to win, you can get on the podium,

Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:

Geez...you're so incredulous with everything I say that's it's getting to the point of refraining from responding to your posts anymore and just let you babble on.

...

An interview with one your favorite coaches who you have defended vehemently over his doping bust, states this in an interview he gave to Sweatelite:

"Alberto Salazar: Locating the Line Between Acceptable Performance Enhancement and Cheating."

"I believe ..."

There you go - from your idol: ... don't try to tell us in future debates that there are no elite coaches who don't know the power of doping with world class athletes).

The problem is that you quickly lose sight of what my statement was: if doping were a big part of an explanation of the fastest women's marathon performances, then Paula's marathon record would not be an outlier.

You are trying to explain what "can be", when history tells us it "hasn't been" -- for all forms and categories of doping and methods, and for all assumptions of use.

You offer a quote about what Salazar *believed* in 1999, before Paula's records, and before the men's marathon times really plummeted . If that is your best argument, I will tell you in future debates and in this debate that Salazar does not *know* the power of doping with world class marathon athletes of the 21st century.

yeah, but no, but yeah wrote:

So where do you suppose this extra energy come from?

Of course calories are energy but these drugs increase the rate at which those energy reserves can be utilised.

heelstriker wrote:

yeah, but no, but yeah wrote:

So where do you suppose this extra energy come from?

Of course calories are energy but these drugs increase the rate at which those energy reserves can be utilised.

How do they do that without affecting thermoregulation?

I'll give you $10,000 if you can answer that question.

rekrunner wrote:

You offer a quote about what Salazar *believed* in 1999, before Paula's records, and before the men's marathon times really plummeted . If that is your best argument, I will tell you in future debates and in this debate that Salazar does not *know* the power of doping with world class marathon athletes of the 21st century.

Oh...so now Salazar only "believed" that - and what he said in 1999 hasn't nothing to do with the some of the fast times set in the 2000's including Radcliff's time? Lol.

You keep changing the rules! For years I have referenced renowned researchers such as Schumacher & Malm who have calculated the performance benefit of EPO with elites. Your response is they're not qualified to make those calculations because they're not elite coaches in the field. Well...Salazar is about as elite as a coach can be in the field and now you undermine & minimize his conclusions? I can't take you seriously anymore. ?

You mean like EL G's 1500 and mile records - also apparent outliers - that have stood for over 20 years? So doping isn't part of middle distance running either.

Let's not forget Flojo's sprint records and the E bloc women's records either, that still stand. Outliers all.

Why do you believe that EPO can deliver supernatural amounts of oxygen to the muscles?

The key word there is supernatural....like it's some kind of miracle. Think,dont just believe, actually think about it.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You mean like EL G's 1500 and mile records - also apparent outliers - that have stood for over 20 years? So doping isn't part of middle distance running either.

As a reminder, the discussion is doping as a partial explanation of the fastest performances, and not a discussion of doping "use" or "prevalence" or "belief".

I made the statement for the women's marathon. If you change the gender, and the event, it requires a "de novo" analysis looking at different fact patterns, and the different evolution of performance improvements in the different populations with potentially different conclusions.

In the case of the men's 1500m and mile, it has not yet been reliably established that El G doped.

Until then, we are stuck at unsubstantiated suggestions of what "can be".

Armstronglivs wrote:

Let's not forget Flojo's sprint records and the E bloc women's records either, that still stand. Outliers all.

Likewise, this requires a "de novo" analysis of the facts relevant to women's sprint and strength events.

As the physical demands of each event are unique to these events, and the population of competitors, we can form different hypotheses for women in events requiring physical strength, versus men in the 1500m, versus women in the marathon.

She wanted transparency before it affected herself, then she wanted privacy

The biggest problem is that her new views

set back the anti doping fight

She was right originally with her views on samples and transparency but had to change her mind when she was personally affected

just sayin wrote:

She wanted transparency before it affected herself, then she wanted privacy

The biggest problem is that her new views

set back the anti doping fight

She was right originally with her views on samples and transparency but had to change her mind when she was personally affected

She is too involved in this ridiculous Anti Doping war.

The problem with Anti Doping is that it just endorses doping, but people are too blind to see it. So the rhetoric ramps up and both sides; the dopers and the anti dopers escalate and become more entrenched in their beliefs.

Thankfully, more and more young athletes are just getting on with the job of transforming themselves into World class athletes without getting involved in this ridiculous arms race.

Once again, you are the one who proved Salazar's belief in 1999, by quoting a paragraph he wrote starting with "I believe ...". If you now doubt what you proved, I think this is an argument you need to settle with yourself.

My rules have never changed. You are trying to palm off "belief" as "knowledge". This has always been against my rules.

A 1999 declaration of belief is not the conclusion you suggest it is.

This declaration of belief in 1999 was written before he was the elite coach of NOP.

If he were to rewrite this paper today, I would reconsider in light of his experience gained as an elite coach.

I would also consider USADA's lack of finding that any NOP athletes were doped by Salazar, and the ranking of any marathon results among the fastest of all time.

just sayin wrote:

She wanted transparency before it affected herself, then she wanted privacy

The biggest problem is that her new views

set back the anti doping fight

She was right originally with her views on samples and transparency but had to change her mind when she was personally affected

Paula naively underestimated the margins of error for blood testing in the early days, before standards were introduced and uniformly applied, and the bad will of yellow journalists, and a small minority of the general public who still call themselves fans of the sport as they try to destroy the reputations of heros of the sport.

She was wrong to call for transparency, because of the general lack of ability, and sometimes willingness, of the general public to properly interpret data in full context.

Publishing partial information, out of context, has only hurt the sport, and set back public trust in clean athletes, in the WA (IAAF), and in anti-doping organizations.