Gidey just ran the single greatest female running performance ever... Give her the black page! Letesenbet MF Gidey 1:02:52

Armstronglivs wrote:

letsdrum wrote:

You have been wrong on several accounts (for example the only number you gave was just plain wrong) in just this thread also you never will admit to it.

I know very well what a proof is or a cogent argument. Why do you claim the opposite? And not just that I know what cogent arguments are, I also use them.

What is a doping apoligist?

It seems you think I try to argue that Gidey is clean. But I have not said anything to this.

Your figure for what would be an estimated full marathon time equivalent to Gidey's hm time is only an estimate. So it doesn't prove my estimate wrong. There are some who have suggested her hm time is closer to 2.10 for the full distance.

I have described what a doping apologist is on other threads. If you don't know what a doping apologist is you aren't intellectually equipped to debate issues concerning doping.

Armstronglivs wrote:

letsdrum wrote:

There are some? Really? That's some great argument, at least for you.

Your estimate is based on what? 1:02:51 is not close to 2:10, please give a better argument than "some have suggested".

2:12:58 is based on percentages at the male comparison.

It is still merely an estimate, not a fact. Other estimates put it at faster than 2.12. Also, in running, it isn't possible to simply equate female with male performances. Their physiologies are not the same - and neither are their performances.

As a previous poster in the thread showed with data, Gidey is running a hm comparable to many high level male runners. That is a nonsense. She is faster it seems than the great Abebe Bikila, the winner of two Olympic marathons. That alone convinces me she is doped. That fact the male times today are also faster means nothing; the estimated incidence of doping in the sport (almost all of which escapes detection) easily explains all record performances.

It is a matter of complete indifference to me whether you agree; you cannot prove she isn't doped. The undeniable presence of doping in sport suggests it is easily possible if not likely.

Armstronglivs wrote:

letsdrum wrote:

There are some? Really? That's some great argument, at least for you.

Your estimate is based on what? 1:02:51 is not close to 2:10, please give a better argument than "some have suggested".

2:12:58 is based on percentages at the male comparison.

It is still merely an estimate, not a fact. Other estimates put it at faster than 2.12. Also, in running, it isn't possible to simply equate female with male performances. Their physiologies are not the same - and neither are their performances.

As a previous poster in the thread showed with data, Gidey is running a hm comparable to many high level male runners. That is a nonsense. She is faster it seems than the great Abebe Bikila, the winner of two Olympic marathons. That alone convinces me she is doped. That fact the male times today are also faster means nothing; the estimated incidence of doping in the sport (almost all of which escapes detection) easily explains all record performances.

It is a matter of complete indifference to me whether you agree; you cannot prove she isn't doped. The undeniable presence of doping in sport suggests it is easily possible if not likely.

letsdrum wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It is still merely an estimate, not a fact. Other estimates put it at faster than 2.12. Also, in running, it isn't possible to simply equate female with male performances. Their physiologies are not the same - and neither are their performances.

As a previous poster in the thread showed with data, Gidey is running a hm comparable to many high level male runners. That is a nonsense. She is faster it seems than the great Abebe Bikila, the winner of two Olympic marathons. That alone convinces me she is doped. That fact the male times today are also faster means nothing; the estimated incidence of doping in the sport (almost all of which escapes detection) easily explains all record performances.

It is a matter of complete indifference to me whether you agree; you cannot prove she isn't doped. The undeniable presence of doping in sport suggests it is easily possible if not likely.

For sure, all such numbers are just estimates. You said close to 2:10. Now you are at "faster than 2:12". What's the background of this "estimate". Why not 2:08? 2:07? 2:12:58 gives the same proportion HM - Marathon for men and women. Why do you think sub 2:12 (or your initial close to 2:10) is a better estimate?

I can't prove she isn't doping? I never ever just have given the smallest indication I want to prove this. So why are you writing this concretely to me?

The points - as you obviously stgill havn't grasped - are all different from this.

Call it obsession if you want, but - again - enough is enough. And it's good to see that many posters don't accept it anymore that you occupie so many threads with your terrible conversation habitus.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It is still merely an estimate, not a fact. Other estimates put it at faster than 2.12. Also, in running, it isn't possible to simply equate female with male performances. Their physiologies are not the same - and neither are their performances.

As a previous poster in the thread showed with data, Gidey is running a hm comparable to many high level male runners. That is a nonsense. She is faster it seems than the great Abebe Bikila, the winner of two Olympic marathons. That alone convinces me she is doped. That fact the male times today are also faster means nothing; the estimated incidence of doping in the sport (almost all of which escapes detection) easily explains all record performances.

It is a matter of complete indifference to me whether you agree; you cannot prove she isn't doped. The undeniable presence of doping in sport suggests it is easily possible if not likely.

What sort of doping escapes detection?

Armstronglivs wrote:

letsdrum wrote:

For sure, all such numbers are just estimates. You said close to 2:10. Now you are at "faster than 2:12". What's the background of this "estimate". Why not 2:08? 2:07? 2:12:58 gives the same proportion HM - Marathon for men and women. Why do you think sub 2:12 (or your initial close to 2:10) is a better estimate?

I can't prove she isn't doping? I never ever just have given the smallest indication I want to prove this. So why are you writing this concretely to me?

The points - as you obviously stgill havn't grasped - are all different from this.

Call it obsession if you want, but - again - enough is enough. And it's good to see that many posters don't accept it anymore that you occupie so many threads with your terrible conversation habitus.

It seems you and your friends don't get to choose who posts here. You won't win any argument by unceasingly attacking me - you'll just keep it going. Not very smart, are you?

letsdrum wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The differential between the men's best hm time and full marathon is only about 3 mins per split (less, if you take Kipchoge's sub-2). A similar differential for the women would give a marathon time of between 2.10-12. But either time is doped to the gills. Abebe Bikila won the '64 Olympic marathon in 2.12 by a record margin. Women now running the same sort of time is achievable only one way. But all of the sport is now infected by it - men and women.

So you are using the same method I did. Nice to see you agree with me. You did a few mistakes, but we easily can fix them:

Your so called "differential" of "about 3 mins" is 3:19 minutes.

And to use the same "differential" for women as for men for sure is not very wise, when the womens times are around 9.3% slower. So if we add this to the 3:19 "differential" we get 3:38 minutes.

And it seems you use 1:02 for Gidey's world record when it is 1:02:51.

With the correct numbers your method gives 2:12:58. That's what I have given also.

So the real equivalent to Gidey's 1:02:51 probably is somewhere in between 2:12:30 to 2:13:30, so an absolutely phenomenal time (the first sub 2 hours womens marathon was only 20 years ago).

Gidey's record is extraordinary and it's worth to be examined more closely (shoes, weather, wind, course). And for sure she could have been doped, and you have any right to speculate about this (but I think this thread is not the correct place for this when the OP started this thread to give this performance more credit) - but not to put it as a fact.

Why do you use Abebe Bikila as your male benchmark? Hannes Kolehmainen was a great runner. He set the marathon world record of 2:32:35 in 1920, also at the Olympics, like Bikila (worth maybe 2:31, because the distance was 42.75km). And now? Is it allowed for women to run faster?

liar soorer wrote:

letsdrum wrote:

So you are using the same method I did. Nice to see you agree with me. You did a few mistakes, but we easily can fix them:

Your so called "differential" of "about 3 mins" is 3:19 minutes.

And to use the same "differential" for women as for men for sure is not very wise, when the womens times are around 9.3% slower. So if we add this to the 3:19 "differential" we get 3:38 minutes.

And it seems you use 1:02 for Gidey's world record when it is 1:02:51.

With the correct numbers your method gives 2:12:58. That's what I have given also.

So the real equivalent to Gidey's 1:02:51 probably is somewhere in between 2:12:30 to 2:13:30, so an absolutely phenomenal time (the first sub 2 hours womens marathon was only 20 years ago).

Gidey's record is extraordinary and it's worth to be examined more closely (shoes, weather, wind, course). And for sure she could have been doped, and you have any right to speculate about this (but I think this thread is not the correct place for this when the OP started this thread to give this performance more credit) - but not to put it as a fact.

Why do you use Abebe Bikila as your male benchmark? Hannes Kolehmainen was a great runner. He set the marathon world record of 2:32:35 in 1920, also at the Olympics, like Bikila (worth maybe 2:31, because the distance was 42.75km). And now? Is it allowed for women to run faster?

Armstronglivs is the king of tautology.

He makes a statement, you go round the houses with it and then he refers back to his first statement to justify justify himself..

letsdrum wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The differential between the men's best hm time and full marathon is only about 3 mins per split (less, if you take Kipchoge's sub-2). A similar differential for the women would give a marathon time of between 2.10-12. But either time is doped to the gills. Abebe Bikila won the '64 Olympic marathon in 2.12 by a record margin. Women now running the same sort of time is achievable only one way. But all of the sport is now infected by it - men and women.

So you are using the same method I did. Nice to see you agree with me. You did a few mistakes, but we easily can fix them:

Your so called "differential" of "about 3 mins" is 3:19 minutes.

And to use the same "differential" for women as for men for sure is not very wise, when the womens times are around 9.3% slower. So if we add this to the 3:19 "differential" we get 3:38 minutes.

And it seems you use 1:02 for Gidey's world record when it is 1:02:51.

With the correct numbers your method gives 2:12:58. That's what I have given also.

So the real equivalent to Gidey's 1:02:51 probably is somewhere in between 2:12:30 to 2:13:30, so an absolutely phenomenal time (the first sub 2 hours womens marathon was only 20 years ago).

Gidey's record is extraordinary and it's worth to be examined more closely (shoes, weather, wind, course). And for sure she could have been doped, and you have any right to speculate about this (but I think this thread is not the correct place for this when the OP started this thread to give this performance more credit) - but not to put it as a fact.

Why do you use Abebe Bikila as your male benchmark? Hannes Kolehmainen was a great runner. He set the marathon world record of 2:32:35 in 1920, also at the Olympics, like Bikila (worth maybe 2:31, because the distance was 42.75km). And now? Is it allowed for women to run faster?