rekrunner wrote:
In a recent poll, 43% of letsrunners believed he was clean.
Are you one of the 43% that believe El G was clean?
rekrunner wrote:
In a recent poll, 43% of letsrunners believed he was clean.
Are you one of the 43% that believe El G was clean?
Tom Cochrane wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
No. What about you?
No. Have you or Jack done a lab study of EPO users?
No. Why would JD debase his good name with such quackery?
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
In a recent poll, 43% of letsrunners believed he was clean.
Are you one of the 43% that believe El G was clean?
Do you have any credible information to accuse him with?
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Given that Britian had Coe, Cram, and Ovett, before EPO, I don't find four from Morroco, over 30 years, all that noteworthy, nor seven all that remarkable.
If Morocco is second, that doesn't make Morocco noteworthy, but the rest of the world even less worthy.
In my initial response to your post, I neglected to mention Aouita though he didn't compete in the EPO-era. However, he's another highly suspicious Moroccan who ran the fastest 1500 pre-1990s in 1985 (3:29.46). Didn't blood transfusions exist in the 80's? If Aouita used transfusions (or other PEDs) then you have a doped sub-3:30 guy from the 80's.
Estimate the VO2 max needed to run 3.29 and 3.26 for 1500?
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
In a recent poll, 43% of letsrunners believed he was clean.
Are you one of the 43% that believe El G was clean?
I did not take the survey. I believe that El G could run 3:26 (1500m) and 4:45 (2K) clean.
rekrunner wrote:
I believe that El G could run 3:26 (1500m) and 4:45 (2K) clean.
Why?
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I believe that El G could run 3:26 (1500m) and 4:45 (2K) clean.
Why?
No obvious correlation between doping and fast 1500m performances (men).
rekrunner wrote:
No obvious correlation between doping and fast 1500m performances (men).
What time do you use as fast? IOW, do you have a cutoff time that determines a "fast" 1500m performance?
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
No obvious correlation between doping and fast 1500m performances (men).
What time do you use as fast? IOW, do you have a cutoff time that determines a "fast" 1500m performance?
I don't have a cutoff time. Fast is a sliding scale.
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I believe that El G could run 3:26 (1500m) and 4:45 (2K) clean.
Why?
Because he had the natural speed, a 70 VO2 max and superb endurance.
rekrunner wrote:
Tom Cochrane wrote:
Your efforts to go off on a decision to dope tangent are typical of someone dodging.
Regardless of decision, the bottom line is that after the decision is made, the dope starts working for almost every athlete.
You might as well go off talking about ' "the decision to train".
I guess you meant that for Armstronglivs -- he is the one attempting to argue that the decision is rational -- an argument that doesn't really matter.
I don't depend on deciding the motivation of athletes to dope for any of my ideas, but always assumed significant prevalence is widespread and goes to the top, and contrasted that to significant performance NOT being widespread but narrowly confined to athletes originating from selected regions of Africa, e.g. the Frenchmen you noted is Algerian, and similarly the best Americans are overwhelmingly Kenyan, Eritrean, Somalian, Sudanese, Moroccan, etc..
I did not
Now you're going off on an Africans are inherently more talented tangent.
Duh. But dope still works for nearly everyone.
how does that work? wrote:
Tom Cochrane wrote:
No. Have you or Jack done a lab study of EPO users?
No. Why would JD debase his good name with such quackery?
In search of the truth. Which hurts.
rekrunner wrote:
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
What time do you use as fast? IOW, do you have a cutoff time that determines a "fast" 1500m performance?
I don't have a cutoff time. Fast is a sliding scale.
lol. So is "top athlete".
Everything is a sliding scale when it comes to the chief goalpost mover.
rekrunner wrote:
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
Are you one of the 43% that believe El G was clean?
I did not take the survey. I believe that El G could run 3:26 (1500m) and 4:45 (2K) clean.
It is apt that you use the term "believe" there, as you typically apply it to mean that for which there isn't the evidence to maintain it as fact.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I did not take the survey. I believe that El G could run 3:26 (1500m) and 4:45 (2K) clean.
It is apt that you use the term "believe" there, as you typically apply it to mean that for which there isn't the evidence to maintain it as fact.
My usage of terms are generally apt.
As you can see, I was asked a question about my belief.
How I mean things and what you interpret are often two different things.
Belief can have evidence supporting it, such as a belief in Lydiard training.
rekrunner wrote:
Tom Cochrane wrote:
Your efforts to go off on a decision to dope tangent are typical of someone dodging.
Regardless of decision, the bottom line is that after the decision is made, the dope starts working for almost every athlete.
You might as well go off talking about ' "the decision to train".
I guess you meant that for Armstronglivs -- he is the one attempting to argue that the decision is rational -- an argument that doesn't really matter.
I don't depend on deciding the motivation of athletes to dope for any of my ideas, but always assumed significant prevalence is widespread and goes to the top, and contrasted that to significant performance NOT being widespread but narrowly confined to athletes originating from selected regions of Africa, e.g. the Frenchmen you noted is Algerian, and similarly the best Americans are overwhelmingly Kenyan, Eritrean, Somalian, Sudanese, Moroccan, etc..
If the above point doesn't really matter it is because you can't prove that it is wrong - although it hasn't previously deterred you from making that baseless claim, because you refuse to believe doping does what athletes believe it does. But what do they know - they only take the stuff, unlike your laboratory "experts" and the hobby jogger that you are.
Tom Cochrane wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I don't have a cutoff time. Fast is a sliding scale.
lol. So is "top athlete".
Everything is a sliding scale when it comes to the chief goalpost mover.
Do you mean Armstronglivs again?
I often end up moving the goalposts back to the original position.
I would agree that top-10 and top-30 and top-100 are also a sliding scale.
Armstronglivs wrote:
If the above point doesn't really matter it is because you can't prove that it is wrong - although it hasn't previously deterred you from making that baseless claim, because you refuse to believe doping does what athletes believe it does. But what do they know - they only take the stuff, unlike your laboratory "experts" and the hobby jogger that you are.
If I can't prove it wrong, and you can't prove it right, where does that leave the argument?
I would defer to experts in the field, who say athletes can be irrational and not well-informed.
As I said, you can't speak for the motivations of thousands of athletes deciding to dope.
I will continue to say doping prevalence is evidence of belief. This belief can be rational or irrational, and is true regardless of whether it really "works" or doesn't - unless you can prove that athletes decide to dope, without believing in its powerful effect.
You will continue to misinterpret this and argue against a strawman you've built.
how does that work? wrote:
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
Why?
Because he had the natural speed, a 70 VO2 max and superb endurance.
Only 70? Your friend Jack Daniels, and partner Jimmy Gilbert, would estimate a slightly higher VO2max for the 2000m performance:
"VO2 Max based on this performance is 82.59 ml/kg/min and VO2 at this pace (109.78% of max) is 90.66ml/kg/min."
rekrunner wrote:
Tom Cochrane wrote:
lol. So is "top athlete".
Everything is a sliding scale when it comes to the chief goalpost mover.
Do you mean Armstronglivs again?
I often end up moving the goalposts back to the original position.
I would agree that top-10 and top-30 and top-100 are also a sliding scale.
Again?