Faith Kipyegon v Keely Hodgkinson over 800m

"Kipyegon's advantage is, that Hodgkinson MAY not be doped? What a nonsensical argumentation."(quote)

If that is the sentence you are referring to, how is it "nonsensical" to suggest that a runner who is almost certainly be doped will have an advantage over an athlete who may not be? I have no doubts about Kipyegon. Hodgkinson I reserve judgment - until she runs times that I think are equally absurd.

Is that what you call it?

(1) Armstrong: Kipyegon has an advantage. She is without doubt juiced to the gills; Hodgkinson may not be.

(2) rest: Hodkinson may not - so 1:55.77 is allowed to be run clean?
Kipyegon's advantage is, that Hodgkinson MAY not be doped? What a nonsensical argumentation.

(3) Armstrong: 1:55.7 does not of itself suggest doping. 1:53.2 undoubtedly does. Just
like 3:49x, to beat what were certainly previously doped world marks.

(4) rest: The 2nd sentence obviously is completely beyond your level of understanding.

(5) Armstrong: So 1:53x (Kratochvilova's record) isn't doped? You know nothing about the sport, you simply see what you want to see.

In (2) i gave a comment to your nonsense in (1)

In (3) you commented my 1st sentence but not my 2nd sentence.

In (4) I pointed on this.

In (5) you showed again that you are a dummy.

Your statement, Kipyegon's advantage against Hodgkinson is that she (Kipyegon) is doped to an enormous amount (your source: she is fast) and Hodgkinson maybe is not doped (because she fast, but not as fast as Kipyegon).

So Hodgkinson is 50% doped? And the advantage which Kipyegon has over Hodgkinson is half of the advantage she has (if she really is doped) to an undoped athlete?

You are stupid, extremely stupid. Try to accept it, dummy.

So, dummy, when 1:53.2 is an 100% sign of doping and 1:55.7 not, there must be a number in between where this 100% sign begins. Is it 1:55.6 or 1:55.5 or 1:55.4 or ... or 1:53.3?

If you could follow an argument or even construct one I might respond. But you can't. So I won't.

All this is way beyond you.

Armstrong: I'm rich now.

Why?

Armstrong: I played in the lottery. I might have won.

For me, that 5,000m WR performance was somewhat suspicious.

For the record, I despise doping accusations.

So, to stay on topic,1:56 No problem for Faith with her current fitness. Maybe faster.

Keeley would need to take it out hard, just to be sure.

You won't respond because he exposed your dumb "reasoning".

Sadly, you don't realise it but you keep proving my point. You have no idea what constitutes a valid argument.

And another joins in. It is always the most puny here who think they are the most skilled in argument.

Since the children in this thread have difficulty understanding a nuanced argument I will simplify it.

1. A woman who runs 3:49 for the 1500, beating previously doped times, is without doubt in my view a doped athlete. Her 5k record is a bonus that reinforces the same point.

2. A woman who runs 1:55-high for the 800m is less likely to be doped, since in my view that time can conceivably be achieved clean. 1:53 cannot.

Given they are competitive over the same distance, the 800 in this case, the doped athlete likely beats the one who probably isn't, since doping confers advantage over those who arent doped.

STOP this POPPYCOCK in this thread.

I'll pass your advice on to the idiots who choose to argue with me.

I agree, any attempt to argue with you is idiotic since you are not interested in arguments, talking to a rhino could be more effective.

1:53.2 is - according to you - impossible without doping. On the other side, you say 1:55.7 is possible. When did it start to become impossible without doping? 1:55.5? 1:55.0? 1:54.5? 1:54.0? 1:53.5?

Keely's in 1:52 shape.

It would be a good race. Both can go sub 1:55.

The fact that at some point it becomes difficult to make a judgment as to whether a given time can be accomplished clean does not negate the fact that some times will undoubtedly be doped - as 1.53 was - and times that are nowhere near as fast may conceivably be accomplished clean - which is my observation about 1.55-high. But you would need to know something about the sport and doping to understand that so I realise this falls on deaf ears.

You confuse her appearance - which is indeed impressive - with how fast she can run. To be in "1.52 shape" she would have to resemble Kratochvilova in more ways than one.

I believe Mu can run 1:53 clean.

Let me save your time. This Armstrong guy is nearly 100 years old and is permanently stuck in the "everybody fast is doping" loop. You would have better luck arguing with a pigeon.