Wtf kind of mathematical 'analysis' is this? This is one of the dumbest things I've read on here. Why would you be comparing WR % change in times to random improvements from an individual persons progression? Did you know if you Ingrefied the WR's from his earlier 1500 times, the WR for the mens marathon would be 1:49 ... which tells you absolutely nothing.
Maybe you should put on your abstract thinking cap. The analogy doesn’t seem that hard to grasp, but I’ll spell it out for you.
Would you be shocked if any of those WRs were broken to the same degree as Jessica Hull’s recent PR? It seems almost impossible to think women are just one Hull-jump from a 10.26, 3:44, 13:41, etc. I guarantee LRC would go ballistic in more ways than one.
The point is that Jessica Hull ran an UNBELIEVABLE time, literally.
The historically most influential definition, discussed since ancient Greek philosophy, characterizes knowledge in relation to three essential features: as (1) a belief that is (2) true and (3) justified. There is still wide acceptance that the first two features are correct, that is, that knowledge is a mental state that affirms a true proposition. However, there is a lot of dispute about the third feature: justification. This feature is usually included to distinguish knowledge from true beliefs that rest on superstition, lucky guesses, or faulty reasoning. This expresses the idea that knowledge is not the same as being right about something. Traditionally, justification is understood as the possession of evidence: a belief is justified if the believer has good evidence supporting it. Such evidence could be a perceptual experience, a memory, or a second belief.
Here, kookie definitely has belief that Hull is doping. It is unclear whether it is true and justified. Of course kookie *believes* it is true and justified, but that's different from actually *being* true and justified.
Truth: "Jess Hull is doping." We don't know if that statement is true or false. But in the ether, it is either true or false, i.e., Jess Hull indeed either is or is not doping. There's an objective reality. kookie can *think he knows* that Jess Hull is doping, but it's not real knowledge unless she is indeed doping, which may or may not be true.
Justification: "X, Y, and Z provide sufficient reason to conclude that Jess Hull is doping" Here, there is more room for dispute. For Karma, X, Y, and Z is satisfied by a positive test, or maybe a confession. For kookie, X, Y, and Z is satisfied by an athlete's times and progression.
Based on this analysis, I would say kookie is playing loose and fast with the meaning of knowledge. I'm prescribing remedial philosophy.
i have no idea if she's doping or not but it's a dumb analogy because WRs are the peak of athletic performance, the margin for improvement is much smaller. jess hull's PRs are not the peak or anything close to the peak. i mean the next step is to take some dude at a park run improving his PR from 25 minutes to 19 minutes in a year and state he is doping because he improved faster than the WR progression.
Hull has run at a level that was the world record before Dibaba and then Kipyegon took it. It was a level set by doped athletes. That is at the very top of the sport, not recreational park runners.
i have no idea if she's doping or not but it's a dumb analogy because WRs are the peak of athletic performance, the margin for improvement is much smaller. jess hull's PRs are not the peak or anything close to the peak. i mean the next step is to take some dude at a park run improving his PR from 25 minutes to 19 minutes in a year and state he is doping because he improved faster than the WR progression.
This statement is the definition of a false equivalency. That is completely different. When someone starts running its such easy to make huge jumps in performance. A guy who picked up 5ks and improved is not the same as a professional runner who jumped 7 seconds. You must know this if you're on a running site.
I'm being pretentious, but I'm not *just* being pretentious. There is an actual point I'm making here (which is that the argument in this thread gets to the fundamental definition of knowledge and will never be resolved until the arguers agree on a working definition). That point is dressed in acidity and disdain to fit the quality of discourse in this thread.
I'm being pretentious, but I'm not *just* being pretentious. There is an actual point I'm making here (which is that the argument in this thread gets to the fundamental definition of knowledge and will never be resolved until the arguers agree on a working definition). That point is dressed in acidity and disdain to fit the quality of discourse in this thread.
"Acidity and disdain"? Yours? Pretentious doesn't do your vanity justice.
This post was edited 35 seconds after it was posted.
I'm being pretentious, but I'm not *just* being pretentious. There is an actual point I'm making here (which is that the argument in this thread gets to the fundamental definition of knowledge and will never be resolved until the arguers agree on a working definition). That point is dressed in acidity and disdain to fit the quality of discourse in this thread.
"Acidity and disdain"? Yours? Pretentious doesn't do your vanity justice.
Do you think there's something incorrect about my actual point? Or are you just upset that I'm being obnoxious
I was wondering if someone would use the mile times to post the actual improvement. I calculated a 5.8 second improvement for Hull. For Yared Nuguse, I calculated a 5.7 second improvement. Both were in modern shoes, on a fast track and dragged to an amazing time by the world’s best pacers. Hull had a major change in the type of training for the year prior.
Ellie St. Pierre went from a relatively slow 4:02.34 1500m runner to having a 4.3 second improvement in 8 months. But that improvement was run in the 2nd fastest indoor mile time in history!
Nikki Hiltz and Corey McGee had relatively big improvements in one year and they’re nearly senior citizens by some people’s standards. And both of these improvements came after running two rounds. It wouldn’t shock me if they ran even faster this year.
I choose to believe that most or all of these runners are not doping and there are several good reasons for the bigger improvements in the last few years. Thinking everyone is doping is a miserable way to be a fan in my opinion.
Clearing up some of mischaracterizations: Nuguse: Yes he went from 3:33.26 in Padova to 3:43.97 (3:27.38c). However, this happened at ages 23 to 24 in his first to second year as a pro. Padova was a B-level meet where he won uncontested and going away (indicating not a maximal time) as opposed to a glorified time trial in Eugene with Jakob as pacer. He also had battled injury problems from over a year into summer of 2022, whereas Hull has been healthy nearly 4 years in a row. The improvements also came in more waves than Hull, a 3:47.38 mile indoors (3:30.54c) in February and Oslo 3:29.02 in June.
Hull: Her major change in training came ahead of 2023, not 2024 to be clear. Your argument reads like it was this year. Last year she got to a consistent 3:57 level and Monaco was 3:56.42c.
Hiltz: Hiltz certainly has gotten better and deserves some scrutiny as well. Hiltz did run 4:01.52 in non-superspikes (likely a 3:59.5 type performance) in Doha in the third race in 4 days. Now Hiltz is running 3:55.3, which is significant. Last year's peak was 3:57.36c from that Monaco mile, so it's about a 2s improvement (and rounds too). Hiltz is similarly in the second year under a new system (Mike Smith Elite), but seems to have battled more injuries and personal struggles in '20-'22 than Hull who's had more of a linear improvement to her career.
McGee: Yes it was a huge time drop, but McGee had run a 3:58.99c level time in the Bislett mile the year prior. It felt like more of a quirk that McGee had never broken 4, and a 1.5s drop for an athlete who has long been competitive with 3:57-4:00 women consistently doesn't seem as alarming. Even at age 32.
St. Pierre: The significant thing was ESP was split between the 1500 and 5000 in 2019. She ran 4:02.34 in June, and then chose the 5,000 for USAs and Worlds breaking 15 in the Finals. She was also much younger than Hull like Nuguse (age 24). 2020 was her second year as a pro. 2019 was her first. In 2020 the switch was made to the 1500 and that Millrose Mile is worth 3:57.82c.
I was wondering if someone would use the mile times to post the actual improvement. I calculated a 5.8 second improvement for Hull. For Yared Nuguse, I calculated a 5.7 second improvement. Both were in modern shoes, on a fast track and dragged to an amazing time by the world’s best pacers. Hull had a major change in the type of training for the year prior.
Ellie St. Pierre went from a relatively slow 4:02.34 1500m runner to having a 4.3 second improvement in 8 months. But that improvement was run in the 2nd fastest indoor mile time in history!
Nikki Hiltz and Corey McGee had relatively big improvements in one year and they’re nearly senior citizens by some people’s standards. And both of these improvements came after running two rounds. It wouldn’t shock me if they ran even faster this year.
I choose to believe that most or all of these runners are not doping and there are several good reasons for the bigger improvements in the last few years. Thinking everyone is doping is a miserable way to be a fan in my opinion.
Clearing up some of mischaracterizations: Nuguse: Yes he went from 3:33.26 in Padova to 3:43.97 (3:27.38c). However, this happened at ages 23 to 24 in his first to second year as a pro. Padova was a B-level meet where he won uncontested and going away (indicating not a maximal time) as opposed to a glorified time trial in Eugene with Jakob as pacer. He also had battled injury problems from over a year into summer of 2022, whereas Hull has been healthy nearly 4 years in a row. The improvements also came in more waves than Hull, a 3:47.38 mile indoors (3:30.54c) in February and Oslo 3:29.02 in June.
Brasschaat, Belgium was also a B-level meet where Webb won uncontested and going away (yet, it indicated maximal time) as opposed to glorified time trial against Lagat at the Reebok Grand Prix.
You said I was arguing with a straw man. I don't think I am. Anyway, the "but you cannot prove it" rings very hollow when you look at that all time list. You keep missing the point, which is that she suddenly ran a time comparable to East Germany level, state sponsored dopers by your own admission. And of course, doping today does not require a state program, especially if a nation's sports authorities are in see no evil mode. Just ask the East Africa corp. An athlete going for broke to achieve Olympic glory seems a reasonable interpretation of events. And she likely won't even be the most doped athlete in her event. It is what it is.
Geez that is muddled.
You mean she ran a time comparable to Chinese level, not East German. However she did it 30 years later, all standards have improved since then, for various reasons.
You're also accusing the Aussie national sports authorities (AA and ASADA I assume you mean) in being complicit in doping, again with zero evidence. That allegation has no merit. They just sort of busted Pete Bol by OOC testing, one of Australia's highest profile athlete (despite the lab getting it wrong, but that's another story).
What you aren't getting is that just because someone is running times that doped up people ran 30-40 years ago, does not mean those current people are also doping.
