El Guerrouj 2k WR - Incredible 3:49 Mile pace

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The suggested improvement of 3s for an elite athlete over 1500m would convert El G's 3.26 wr to about 3.29. Or his 4.44 time over 2k to about 4.48. Pretty much on the money, I would say.

Or ... the suggested improvements convert to 3:23 and 4:40.

Proof - if any were needed - of just how monumentally stupid you really are.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

If the study didn't include elite athletes you are unable to claim they wouldn't have benefited. Shoot yourself in the foot again. I'll go with the fact that they continue to use EPO as well as anything else that's available.

I didn't claim that elite athletes "wouldn't have" benefited.

You are disputing a claim I don't make.

It is not me shooting my feet. It is a scarecrow.

I agree that many athletes, even elite ones, use EPO and other drugs and supplements.

But they are all too stupid to know what you know, which is that it doesn't help them. Because you have read "studies". With "citations", no less.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I have had this experience before, of someone on my doorstep trying to explain that Noah's Ark existed and the world was made in 7 days. But they were more scintillating than you - even if just as absorbed in their delusions.

I have no doubt you have had many religious experiences which have little do with elite performance. This is why you frequently jump to analogies rather than staying on topic.

Says the constant mover of goal posts.

rekrunner wrote:

High-Octane Dopers wrote:

A thought here: I wonder if 3:29xx would be the fastest time possible by a clean athlete? Ramzi's PB is 3:29.14, so his fastest clean time would be in the 3:32's. Also, both Kiprop (confirmed doper) & Lagat (highly suspected) ran 3:26, so they'd be around the 3:29 mark as well. In fact, if you look at all the sub-3:29 times there's a lot of guys from countries with a high prevalence of doping (e.g. Morroco, Kenya, Algeria).

A counter-thought -- what if Ramzi's 3:29:14 is the fastest doped 1500m performance?

Kiprop slowed down in 2016 and 2017.

59% of letsrunners still thought Lagat was clean in a recent poll.

There are a lot of countries with high prevalence of doping that failed to crack 3:30 (e.g. Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Greece, Belarus, Bulgaria, etc.)

That isn't a "counter thought"- it is a brain fart. You are effectively saying that the fastest doped performance is far slower than the fastest clean performance. There appears to be no limit to your doping denial - and how dumb you can be.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

If the study didn't include elite athletes you are unable to claim they wouldn't have benefited. Shoot yourself in the foot again. I'll go with the fact that they continue to use EPO as well as anything else that's available.

I didn't claim that elite athletes "wouldn't have" benefited.

You are disputing a claim I don't make.

It is not me shooting my feet. It is a scarecrow.

I agree that many athletes, even elite ones, use EPO and other drugs and supplements.

If you aren't making that claim then you have to acknowledge it is possible they would benefit. Logic requires it. It is also possible the benefit could be significant - which is what the study suggests. And then there's the inconvenient fact that elites have been doping for years, which they wouldn't do (as it is illegal) if it didn't provide significant benefit. But go ahead - slither out of it. That's what you do.

I guess we have to take your word that you have read any study then.

But the offer still stands, and if you do not take me up on the offer, then you can only blame yourself for any alleged confirmation bias on my part. [/quote]

I get it. That you're a moron is other people's fault for not educating you. The mind of a moron. And a lazy one.

Shopping hour wrote:

The point was that you said they wouldn't speculate and that it would be stupid to do so, and yet they did.

I did not say "they wouldn't speculate".

To play your game, I paraphrased what a nuanced and qualified and limited response I could agree to would look like, contrasting it with your oversimplified suggestion that "Experts say it works" -- they never just say "it works", unless you can provide an example of such an unconditional finding. I wouldn't agree with such a "carte blanche" statement that doesn't explain the context. Real "expert" responses would not match my paraphrased example, but would be tailored to the study in question, and their findings, and their limitations.

But to be clear, I agree it is stupid to do so, even when researchers do it in peer-reviewed papers. I would not agree that such speculations, equivalencies, translations are hard rules that apply to elite 1500m runners.

They are not so stupid as to say it wouldn't work for elites. They leave that up to cretins like you.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

As is your study.

Meanwhile, countless athletes continue to find reason to dope. It's called results.

Again -- your reasoning is your words.

My study is not really "mine" as such. I did not quote my words.

But it does show experts saying that it is not enough to talk about oxygen getting into the blood.

I didn't say you had authored the study, you mindless pedant, but it was a study that you were relying upon - because you prefer what it says against other studies that found a significant delay in the onset of fatigue when EPO was used.

Shopping hour wrote:

They made all the disclaimers you like to hear and then still made the statement that you speculated they would not or should not. Because they use logic and reason. They do not say 'it would be stupid etc."

" Although caution is required when extrapolating findings from subelite to truly elite athletes, the significant improvements in running performance we report would almost certainly translate into a worthwhile enhancement in elite performance."

So I agree with experts when they say "caution is required when extrapolating findings from sub-elite to truly elite athletes".

Armstronglivs wrote:

I didn't say you had authored the study, you mindless pedant, but it was a study that you were relying upon - because you prefer what it says against other studies that found a significant delay in the onset of fatigue when EPO was used.

But you see the difference don't you -- you are arguing with your words, not against my words, but against the words of a study. And somehow you are blaming the messenger.

You asked me to get of my lazy butt and do my own research and one of the first things I find is that more oxygen in the blood is not necessarily all that meaningful, according to some experts.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Or ... the suggested improvements convert to 3:23 and 4:40.

Proof - if any were needed - of just how monumentally stupid you really are.

Or you. I guess to settle this we need to resolve some of these open questions at the beginning of this thread, plus one or two new ones.

They are real experts and they tailored that statement to their findings.

rekrunner wrote:

Shopping hour wrote:

They made all the disclaimers you like to hear and then still made the statement that you speculated they would not or should not. Because they use logic and reason. They do not say 'it would be stupid etc."

" Although caution is required when extrapolating findings from subelite to truly elite athletes, the significant improvements in running performance we report would almost certainly translate into a worthwhile enhancement in elite performance."

So I agree with experts when they say "caution is required when extrapolating findings from sub-elite to truly elite athletes".

No you dont, because you never acknowledge that elite performances could have have benefited from doping, but find every reason for arguing the reverse. Hence you cannot ever say - albeit it "cautiously" - that El G's record performances were possibly achieved through doping and not just talent and training.

Armstronglivs wrote:

If you aren't making that claim then you have to acknowledge it is possible they would benefit. Logic requires it. It is also possible the benefit could be significant - which is what the study suggests. And then there's the inconvenient fact that elites have been doping for years, which they wouldn't do (as it is illegal) if it didn't provide significant benefit. But go ahead - slither out of it. That's what you do.

I acknowledge that a benefit is possible. I don't share your faith (again -- your words) in the motivation and rationale for athletes to take banned drugs.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Proof - if any were needed - of just how monumentally stupid you really are.

Or you. I guess to settle this we need to resolve some of these open questions at the beginning of this thread, plus one or two new ones.

No, we don't. The debate is settled when you suggested that if El G had doped he might have run 3.23 or 4.40.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I didn't say you had authored the study, you mindless pedant, but it was a study that you were relying upon - because you prefer what it says against other studies that found a significant delay in the onset of fatigue when EPO was used.

But you see the difference don't you -- you are arguing with your words, not against my words, but against the words of a study. And somehow you are blaming the messenger.

You asked me to get of my lazy butt and do my own research and one of the first things I find is that more oxygen in the blood is not necessarily all that meaningful, according to some experts.

I guess it isn't that meaningful if you don't know what superior aerobic fitness is. It seems you need to progress beyond the "first thing" you read.

Shopping hour wrote:

They are real experts and they tailored that statement to their findings.

It may be tailored, but it is far removed from their findings.

It remains a speculative hypothesis from experts who studied recreational subjects with cycling exercises.

It is not an observation or finding or conclusion of the study.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

If you aren't making that claim then you have to acknowledge it is possible they would benefit. Logic requires it. It is also possible the benefit could be significant - which is what the study suggests. And then there's the inconvenient fact that elites have been doping for years, which they wouldn't do (as it is illegal) if it didn't provide significant benefit. But go ahead - slither out of it. That's what you do.

I acknowledge that a benefit is possible. I don't share your faith (again -- your words) in the motivation and rationale for athletes to take banned drugs.

You acknowledge there could be a benefit - baby steps. There might even be a significant benefit? No, that's a bridge too far.

You don't share my "faith" in why athletes dope. So why do they? They just like taking illegal pills and injections that could get them banned from their sport?