I thought about the pole Vault but the performance is so good... Bubka was already such a dominant athlete and Duplantis goes much higher. It's true he doesn't look superhuman but still...
His poles are quite different from the ones SB used. Technology has improved quite a bit in this area; he can hold the pole much higher as a result--and they give superior energy return.
You mean just like the new "shoes" - and no one is doping who uses those.
It is possible that we have a sufficient population size to have identified the greatest pole vaulter in the world. But it is also possible that we do not.
In your example, a village of 100 people is far less likely to have someone with a 170 IQ (.0002 of people) than New York City. Setting a World Record in track is like having an IQ that is way, way "off the charts." The more people you have trying, the more likely you will find someone truly exceptional.
I am saying that pole vaulting, with far fewer participants, is like the village. Mondo is the King of a village.
100 meter running is like New York City. The village might not have anyone who can break 11 seconds. The city will have several people who can run 10.2 and faster.
Bolt is the King of a much bigger population, and we agree that being THAT King most likely requires dope.
Snell came from a "village" of only 3 million people - yet in addition to being the best in his tiny country he was by far the greatest in his era. Elliott's "village" was only somewhat larger and yet he, too, was easily the best of his time. Smaller populations don't preclude outstanding talent.
What a stupid thinking, it's just hurting to read something so nonsensical. "Smaller populations don't preclude outstanding talent." - for sure not. Who has said it does?
But bigger populations have a higher chance to include the biggest, fastest, strongest, whatever person (given the overall conditions in the different populations are similar) - is this really beyond you?
Why consider the population of Snell's country? Why not the one of his real village? Or of his family? Or just the "population" of Snell himself? 1 person! Compared to the other group of maybe 500 Million relevant males at the time. And the group of just 1 contained the best middle distance runner of the early 60s - and not the group of those 500 Millions. He will deny, but that's his point. Armstrong at his best.
The Pole Vault record is probably clean. There's little incentive to bulk up with anabolic steroids and little incentive to use performance enhancing drugs like EPO because you have to be light enough for the pole to launch you over the bar. So using PEDs in that event might be a net negative. In some ways, same for the javelin. Part of the force behind the throw is the run up. If you bulk up too much, you slow your speed and therefore the force you put into the throw.
I think all running events are probably not clean to a degree, but if there is one running event where performance enhancing drugs have less of a return, it's probably the 800. You can bulk up with anabolic steroids and improve your speed but that weakens your endurance. You can add to your endurance with EPO, but that weakens your speed. Since it's a mix of speed and endurance, there's less of a payoff in it.
Snell came from a "village" of only 3 million people - yet in addition to being the best in his tiny country he was by far the greatest in his era. Elliott's "village" was only somewhat larger and yet he, too, was easily the best of his time. Smaller populations don't preclude outstanding talent.
You could also make the argument that if everybody who could possibly compete in a sport chose to do so we might encounter more outstanding talents. That might be true, but it isn't how sport works. Those who participate do so because they want to or were given the opportunity. That applies to every sport. It may also be the case that although we might see more top talents from a larger pool they wouldn't necessarily be better than the best that have emerged. With more pole-vaulters there might be more Duplantis's but they wouldn't necessarily be better.
Athletes dope to win in their sport; they don't engage in a calculus to work out whether or not they need to because someone suggests statistically their sport may be "soft". I also doubt that Duplantis considers his event is "soft".
You have inappropriately redefined the relevant population for Snell and Elliott. I'll assume that was an honest mistake.
For Elliott, the population (relative to setting his 1500 World Record) would better be described as: Every male who had ever completed a 1500 Meter Race, prior to and including 8/28/1958, regardless of their place of origin. Elliott's country of origin is immaterial.
That population is MASSIVE. It is hard to even comprehend how large that is. That is a metropolis, in our analogy
For Mondo Duplantis, the population that he must better to set the record is: Every male who has competed in a pole vault competition, regardless of their place of origin, prior to 2/8/2020. (Aside: He has broken that record several times, since, but he did not need to. He would bet the record holder regardless).
That is a far smaller population. That is a village.
Yes, it is possible that a record setter could come from a small country. It is also immaterial. The population from which they must emerge as "the best" is the population of "everyone who has competed in that event, from that moment backward through recorded history.
Based on that, I think it is fair to say that records set by someone in a far larger population are generally more likely to be "harder" records (or, they are records that better reflect the limit of human potential, as we currently know it).
Now, to your point; As records come closer and closer to our known human potential does it become more likely that performance enhancing drugs will (or must) be used to break them? Yes. That stands to reason. But it is not guaranteed.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
The Pole Vault record is probably clean. There's little incentive to bulk up with anabolic steroids and little incentive to use performance enhancing drugs like EPO because you have to be light enough for the pole to launch you over the bar. So using PEDs in that event might be a net negative.
Glad we agree! ; )
I also think we should consider world record progression. As a record approaches human potential, it would be harder to break, would be broken less often, and could require either a breakthrough in technology, training techniques, a genetic freak unlike any other, doping (which can combine with the aforementioned), or another significant game-changing occurrence.
While a record like the men's 1500 meters has only been improved 9 times since 1980 (an arbitrary date), the men's pole vault record has been improved 34 times over that same period.
This would support an argument that the pole vault record, by comparison, is still well short of human potential, particularly when coupled with advances in poles, shoes, training techniques, etc.
Mondo Duplantis is breaking a record that is very "breakable," so I have no reason to believe that doping is a MUST to break it.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
I think all running events are probably not clean to a degree, but if there is one running event where performance enhancing drugs have less of a return, it's probably the 800. You can bulk up with anabolic steroids and improve your speed but that weakens your endurance. You can add to your endurance with EPO, but that weakens your speed. Since it's a mix of speed and endurance, there's less of a payoff in it.
I highly doubt that part. The opposite is true: the 800 benefits so much from doping, that the 1:41s and 1:53s from the 80s can't currently - with the enhanced testing - be reached despite the superspikes. The last 1:41 is from 2019, and slower than the ones from the 80s, and the last 1:53 is from 1983! The last 1:54 is from Caster S....
Also have a look at the famous Sunday Times 2015 review, as cited here often:
Suspicious blood values (EPO + transfusions) of medal winners from 2001 - 2012(ish):
800 m: 30% 1500 m: 54%
5000 m: 28% 10000 m: 28% Marathon: 11%
Doesn't look like the 800 athletes use less blood doping than the rest, on the contrary, only the 1500 was worse.
Snell came from a "village" of only 3 million people - yet in addition to being the best in his tiny country he was by far the greatest in his era. Elliott's "village" was only somewhat larger and yet he, too, was easily the best of his time. Smaller populations don't preclude outstanding talent.
What a stupid thinking, it's just hurting to read something so nonsensical. "Smaller populations don't preclude outstanding talent." - for sure not. Who has said it does?
But bigger populations have a higher chance to include the biggest, fastest, strongest, whatever person (given the overall conditions in the different populations are similar) - is this really beyond you?
Why consider the population of Snell's country? Why not the one of his real village? Or of his family? Or just the "population" of Snell himself? 1 person! Compared to the other group of maybe 500 Million relevant males at the time. And the group of just 1 contained the best middle distance runner of the early 60s - and not the group of those 500 Millions. He will deny, but that's his point. Armstrong at his best.
I don't think you have understood what I was saying. The point is that you can take a talent from a small group of participants and find that they are still the best when you enlarge that pool. More isn't necessarily better.
The Pole Vault record is probably clean. There's little incentive to bulk up with anabolic steroids and little incentive to use performance enhancing drugs like EPO because you have to be light enough for the pole to launch you over the bar. So using PEDs in that event might be a net negative. In some ways, same for the javelin. Part of the force behind the throw is the run up. If you bulk up too much, you slow your speed and therefore the force you put into the throw.
I think all running events are probably not clean to a degree, but if there is one running event where performance enhancing drugs have less of a return, it's probably the 800. You can bulk up with anabolic steroids and improve your speed but that weakens your endurance. You can add to your endurance with EPO, but that weakens your speed. Since it's a mix of speed and endurance, there's less of a payoff in it.
Do pole vaulters need to run fast and apply force? Do steroids help with those 2 things? Distance runners who care about mass as much as anyone do roids. We have heard this roids don't help with event/sport X countless times. It is never right. Pretty much every sport gets people caught doping.
And no the 800m is the prime drug event. You can do EPO to give you the endurance so you don't kill your speed with volume, steroids for the speed to be a 46s guy, and then do some baking soda to help tolerate the acid..
Snell came from a "village" of only 3 million people - yet in addition to being the best in his tiny country he was by far the greatest in his era. Elliott's "village" was only somewhat larger and yet he, too, was easily the best of his time. Smaller populations don't preclude outstanding talent.
You could also make the argument that if everybody who could possibly compete in a sport chose to do so we might encounter more outstanding talents. That might be true, but it isn't how sport works. Those who participate do so because they want to or were given the opportunity. That applies to every sport. It may also be the case that although we might see more top talents from a larger pool they wouldn't necessarily be better than the best that have emerged. With more pole-vaulters there might be more Duplantis's but they wouldn't necessarily be better.
Athletes dope to win in their sport; they don't engage in a calculus to work out whether or not they need to because someone suggests statistically their sport may be "soft". I also doubt that Duplantis considers his event is "soft".
You have inappropriately redefined the relevant population for Snell and Elliott. I'll assume that was an honest mistake.
For Elliott, the population (relative to setting his 1500 World Record) would better be described as: Every male who had ever completed a 1500 Meter Race, prior to and including 8/28/1958, regardless of their place of origin. Elliott's country of origin is immaterial.
That population is MASSIVE. It is hard to even comprehend how large that is. That is a metropolis, in our analogy
For Mondo Duplantis, the population that he must better to set the record is: Every male who has competed in a pole vault competition, regardless of their place of origin, prior to 2/8/2020. (Aside: He has broken that record several times, since, but he did not need to. He would bet the record holder regardless).
That is a far smaller population. That is a village.
Yes, it is possible that a record setter could come from a small country. It is also immaterial. The population from which they must emerge as "the best" is the population of "everyone who has competed in that event, from that moment backward through recorded history.
Based on that, I think it is fair to say that records set by someone in a far larger population are generally more likely to be "harder" records (or, they are records that better reflect the limit of human potential, as we currently know it).
Now, to your point; As records come closer and closer to our known human potential does it become more likely that performance enhancing drugs will (or must) be used to break them? Yes. That stands to reason. But it is not guaranteed.
I redefined population to show, as I argued above, that a competitor from a small talent pool - as Snell and Elliott were - can still be the best when you enlarge that pool.
I don't agree that records must be "soft" because a competitor broke them several times. Ron Clarke did that repeatedly in 65/66 over the 5k and 10k, but that didn't show they were weak records, but that he had gone to another level from previous competitors. (It has also been argued on these threads that a record that stood for quarter of a century was "soft". So which is it - broken often or longstanding?)
My view about doping is that it is found in every sport now at the top level. That is the view of antidoping experts. There is no reason to think that, alone amongst T and F events, doping would not be present in the pole vault. Doping is present in chess, championship-darts, curling - any competitive activity you can think of. I would therefore infer that an athlete who utterly dominates their event in this era - as Duplantis does - would most likely be doping, as a clean athlete would not stand much of a chance against doped competitors. (Ironically, I suspect he would also be insulted if you said to him the reason for his domination is a lack of quality competition).
The Pole Vault record is probably clean. There's little incentive to bulk up with anabolic steroids and little incentive to use performance enhancing drugs like EPO because you have to be light enough for the pole to launch you over the bar. So using PEDs in that event might be a net negative.
Glad we agree! ; )
I also think we should consider world record progression. As a record approaches human potential, it would be harder to break, would be broken less often, and could require either a breakthrough in technology, training techniques, a genetic freak unlike any other, doping (which can combine with the aforementioned), or another significant game-changing occurrence.
While a record like the men's 1500 meters has only been improved 9 times since 1980 (an arbitrary date), the men's pole vault record has been improved 34 times over that same period.
This would support an argument that the pole vault record, by comparison, is still well short of human potential, particularly when coupled with advances in poles, shoes, training techniques, etc.
Mondo Duplantis is breaking a record that is very "breakable," so I have no reason to believe that doping is a MUST to break it.
The record that is "very breakable" is only being broken by Duplantis.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.