The women's World record was set in 1987 by an Soviet athlete.
Wrong fact from Armstrong, like on most occasions.
In his reply he will not just agree that he was wrong, he will change the subject. He always does.
Wikipedia was incorrect but how much difference does it make to say the women's world record was set in the '80's by a Soviet athlete? It simply shows that in the women's event a doped record can't be surpassed by any athlete today, let alone a clean one. Crouser, however, destroys the doped male records - and you lot think he will be clean.
Wikipedia? HAHAHAHAHA What a self-proclaimed expert you are. Dumbo.
All record holders can be described in the same way. They are but a fraction of the best athletes in the planet. And many of them have doped - and I would say all of them dope today. A clean athlete can't beat an athlete of near equal ability who dopes. If it were so, doping would be ineffective. It clearly isn't.
If you believe all record holders today are doping, why bother commenting on it when doping isn’t the subject of the thread? You could just create one thread that says you believe all record holders are doping. Wouldn’t that be more efficient than going to every thread about a record breaker and derailing each thread by insinuating that person is doping?
You believe that Crouser is doping, you believe the guy whose record he broke was doping, and you believe the record holder before that was doping too. So even *if* you’re correct about every record holder doping, it’s a moot point. Crouser’s records are still exceptional.
They are exceptional because they will be doped. If they aren't you must be prepared to say that doping is either ineffective or that a clean athlete is somehow able to be far better than the very best doped athletes.
Wikipedia was incorrect but how much difference does it make to say the women's world record was set in the '80's by a Soviet athlete? It simply shows that in the women's event a doped record can't be surpassed by any athlete today, let alone a clean one. Crouser, however, destroys the doped male records - and you lot think he will be clean.
Wikipedia? HAHAHAHAHA What a self-proclaimed expert you are. Dumbo.
I don't claim to have every wr stored in my head or any other of a host of statistics. I simply looked online to see what the records in the event were. But the fact remains that the women's record has been out of reach for decades. But we are supposed to believe the men's record is somehow clean now, when it would have been previously been a doped record, as the women's record still is.
If you believe all record holders today are doping, why bother commenting on it when doping isn’t the subject of the thread? You could just create one thread that says you believe all record holders are doping. Wouldn’t that be more efficient than going to every thread about a record breaker and derailing each thread by insinuating that person is doping?
You believe that Crouser is doping, you believe the guy whose record he broke was doping, and you believe the record holder before that was doping too. So even *if* you’re correct about every record holder doping, it’s a moot point. Crouser’s records are still exceptional.
They are exceptional because they will be doped. If they aren't you must be prepared to say that doping is either ineffective or that a clean athlete is somehow able to be far better than the very best doped athletes.
But if they’re all dopers as you believe, he’s still exceptional, is he not?
As for being clean, if you had to pick which current world record holder is most likely to be clean, wouldn’t he be a good choice based on his pedigree and track record?
They are exceptional because they will be doped. If they aren't you must be prepared to say that doping is either ineffective or that a clean athlete is somehow able to be far better than the very best doped athletes.
But if they’re all dopers as you believe, he’s still exceptional, is he not?
As for being clean, if you had to pick which current world record holder is most likely to be clean, wouldn’t he be a good choice based on his pedigree and track record?
Yes, he is exceptional - and that is where many misunderstand what I am saying about doping. All top athletes - doped or otherwise - are exceptional talents. That is why they dope - to gain an advantage over others.
Crouser is indeed an exceptional talent but it is naive to imagine he can be so much better than his peers and all others in history and not be doping, when so many others have.
In response to your last question, of what I would pick is a clean world record today, I don't think I could. My view is that it isn't possible to set a clean wr against dopers. I would like to believe Rudisha's record was clean but to be consistent I have to doubt it.
All top athletes - doped or otherwise - are exceptional talents.
This is incorrect.
In the population of world athletes, what proportion of them are championship finalists or medallists? By that measure, they are absolutely "exceptional".
The argument you have used hundreds of times in this form: anybody who beats all the best doped athletes is doped.
Adams regularly has beaten all the best - for sure doped - athletes from the US, Russia and so on. Therefore she IS doped. For you.
It's just YOUR argumentation. But it seems your argumentation does not hold true for Kiwis?
I didn't say that. But since she didn't get near a doped wr record the chances of her doping are far less than Crouser, who easily beat a doped world record. But if you are going to argue Adams is a doper then you must convict Crouser as well. But you haven't thought far enough with the rubbish you spout to realise that. You continue to prove that it is always the least intelligent posters who choose to argue with me.
You continue to prove that it is always the least intelligent posters who choose to argue with me.
Wrong. You get the level of responses your posts call for. Have you ever noticed that wherever you go conflict follows? The common denominator is always you.
Look at the number of insults you have hurled at a bunch of strangers today? At 71 you should know better.