Femke MF Bol

Your own "logic" is your problem. When there is a high prevalence of doping in sport and yet few are caught it is easier to see evidence for it being present than claiming to be sure that an athlete is clean. Athletes like Allyson Felix have conceded that no one can prove they are clean but there can be evidence that an athlete isn't.

The issue is not whether women can build muscle but how much. It's a simple point but apparently beyond you. If that natural limit didn't exist women bodybuilders and other female athletes wouldn't use steroids to build muscle bulk. But they do.

The hardest part of the body for a woman to build significant muscle is the upper body, because they don't have the kind of hormones that males have, such as high levels of testosterone, which produce bigger chests, shoulders and arms. However a combination of upper body muscle bulk and high definition in a woman is a red flag for drug use. The reason many of you can't see it is that it has become a norm for many female athletes, such as sprinters.

You know, they have tests for excessive testosterone with definitive parameters and track probably has the toughest and stringent standards of all sports. They also have tests that show banned substances plus blockers and cleansers. And it's random, year round. And they do in fact catch dopers and in spite of such claims as toothpaste and burritos the results almost always stick. And not just marquee athletes, even the lane fillers get busted.

Guess what? Two of the test parameters NOT used are body size or progression because there is no definitive parameter. You can't even define it yourself. Show us numbers that say if you progress so much or weigh so much or how muscular one needs to be to get busted.

Let me ask this Mr. Doubtfire...if Klaver was doping based on her physique then why does she not show facial hair or a deep voice and only a 1.17 second progression in 4 years plus no individual medals and no DL wins? And she competes quite often.

Also prove factually that Klaver's physique is beyond what can normally be achieved while clean. You've provided nothing that tells us differently, it's just your own bias.

You don't understand the human body, you don't understand physiology, you don't understand training, you don't understand testing...in short, you don't understand sh*t.

So 'easy' its amazing she missed the finish line in the mixed relay.

Congratulations...look at what you wrote...a negative test means they are doping. How stupid. If that were true why would there be any testing at all?

NED WL NETHERLANDS NED 3:20.72

51.82

48.78

51.37

48.75

I believe they're talking about the open relay, there were no splits given for the final.

The women's 4x4 final on Day 9?

It's a hard challenge for you, I know.

Also I'm not very optimistic, but give it another try, OK?

According to your own words, you can detect a doper when you see one, right?

Now, think for a while about it: what conclusions can you do when you see a clean athlete?

You got it? No? Try again - and again.

Yes, I searched for days to find them but never did. I'm not sure where they found them but they weren't on the WA results.

https://media.aws.iaaf.org/competitiondocuments/pdf/7138987/AT-4X4-W-f----.RS6.pdf

see username. and butterrack.

Looks like they're copied and pasted in above. I just clicked on the results and figured it out. Click on race analysis.

I see, I see....

The Neds had the top two legs:

Bol 48.75

Klaver 48.78

Kaz 48.80

All 3 Dutch trained by the same coach and all 3 with distinctively different physiques...Armstrong? Tell us which ones are doping based on their physiques.

And they therefore do not have public relations problem stemming from drugs.

Track fans want harsh drug testing protocols so they can get constant busts. Congrats, you played yourself.

Armstrong you know what I believe about athlete drug use.

But you have to be more careful and precise with your writing. My wife was a swimmer who also did rowing. She has always been clean, and makes Klaver look runner-small.

Yes she carried a bit of upper-body fat as most swimmers do in training, but when she tapered, look out. And she has no Y chromosome.

Also, I have known xxy women athletes, one a rower. Clean. Huge, and ripped in-comp.

But the most incredible I ever trained with was a woman with lipodystrophy. She was the single most ripped person I have ever seen, male or female. Big, too, and pretty fast. She was already older when I knew her, maybe 40-45. But never was a world-beater.

And there are spectra for all these things.

So, while very suggestive, especially when a quick change is seen, to me it is no “red flag”.

To me, otherworldly performances are that red flag.

Also, impossible combinations, like that huge and ripped British geezer marathon record holder. The performance is the red flag, the physique for that performance seals the deal. It is no less implausible than if some overweight fattie held the record.

Among these new performance levels we’re seeing, I can’t think of anybody who physiologically stands out as obvious, like for instance Kelli White did on the women’s side.

It's unbelievable how badly informed some running fans are. Only 1% of tests return a positive yet it is known, from confidential athlete surveys among others, than many more athletes dope than are caught. The reason for this is that drugs are typically "masked" and are not detected through testing, which remains several steps behind doping. You might well ask why do we bother with testing when it catches so few, but to give it up is to concede that nothing substantial can be done to stop doping or even discourage it. That is probably where we are.

It's unbelievable how badly informed some running fans are. Only 1% of tests return a positive yet it is known, from confidential athlete surveys among others, that many more athletes dope than are caught. The reason for this is that drugs are typically "masked" and are not detected through testing, which remains several steps behind doping. You might well ask why do we bother with testing when it catches so few, but to give it up is to concede that nothing substantial can be done to stop doping or even discourage it. That is probably where we are.

You seem to think a masculine caricature is what would give away doping by a female athlete. Did you see that with Shelby Houlihan? Or Marion Jones?

Many more female (and male) athletes dope than are caught but what is increasingly typical in top athletes is enhanced muscular development, which is achievable through drugs. Most of the female athletes in a championship sprint final will be doped but they won't necessarily look like Kratochvilova. More like Flojo. She is pretty normal now by today's standards.

I might add that not every doper finds themselves on the podium; they aren't of equal talent - but they will still be better than what they would be if they weren't doped. That's why they do it.

Lastly, testing catches few. Doping is more sophisticated than antidoping. WADA has put T and F in the same category for risk of doping as those sports which wouldn't exist without it, of bodybuilding, weightlifting and cycling.

You need to give up. You're chasing your own tail.