aduck is the only doping accuser poster I trust on this website. Is it igf-1 lr3, tren, or something else? You seem to have actual information over the others that blindly make accusations.
Despite everything, some of these crazy times from teenagers lately still are hard for me to comprehend — they make me think something other than merely bicarb and supershoes are happening and I have to believe it has to do with training approaches (particularly from a younger age) and the change in mentality broadly speaking from trying to win races to people attacking fast times en masse
Did you run XC and track when you were in school? “Mentality” isn’t worth even a fraction of a second. In a fast paced race with better runners, no matter what a runner is thinking, there will be a point where it becomes impossible to keep up.
Not according to me. I would never make any absurd contradictory claim that PEDs don't work. If tens of thousands of athletes are taking a "drug" that "works", then we can rightfully call it a PED.
My claims are much more nuanced than these shallow baseless conclusions.
Go on then, give us some nuance. But please keep it brief.
Well here's two points:
1) Calling a drug a PED requires first establishing that it is performance enhancing (PE), typically with carefully measured data, against a precise definition of performance. We are generally not interested in "better than untrained", but rather "better than ever".
2) We should also say what we mean by "works", and whether that meaning is interesting in the context of racing at ones peak.
Otherwise, simply saying "PEDs work" leaves everything to the imagination of the beholder.
I prefer avoiding such conclusions where all the terms used are vague and ambiguous or unestablished in the context, and would never make the contradictory conclusions that something called PEDs are somehow simultaneously not PE.
"My claims are much more nuanced than these shallow baseless conclusions."
That's one way of describing doping denial.
Those who simply can't grasp the nuance need to come up with labels that wipe out the nuance leaving something simple, but often false, that they can understand.
Have you tried training and racing in super shoes compared to regular shoes?
Have you tried using Maurten bicarb?
Have you tried racing with pacing lights?
Have you tried racing on the BU track?
Mine is effectively the same question as yours. You have no experience of drugs. You obviously think experience of these things is essential in order to take a view.
However, many athletes do use drugs and have done so for generations. That says drugs are effective. They will be more effective than baking soda. If it were not so bicarb would be listed as a banned substance for conferring an unfair advantage.
Shoes are not complex technology. They will aid running but not to the degree that many maintain here. As far as tracks are concerned there have been synthetic tracks since the late sixties. Athletes are not running on trampolines and certainly not in the last couple of years. Wavelight - well athletes have used pacemakers for decades, but also some of the fastest times achieved in recent times have not used wavelight. El G didn't use it.
When athletes wish to make better than incremental gains they aren't relying on new training methods - there aren't any - it's all variations on what's been done before - or shoes or tracks. The biggest gains still come from drugs, which are being developed all the time. Drugs enlarge the engine; shoes and tracks don't. And training is what it has been for decades. Kids have long run 40-60mpw before Sam Ruthe did.
"My claims are much more nuanced than these shallow baseless conclusions."
That's one way of describing doping denial.
Those who simply can't grasp the nuance need to come up with labels that wipe out the nuance leaving something simple, but often false, that they can understand.
Did you run XC and track when you were in school? “Mentality” isn’t worth even a fraction of a second. In a fast paced race with better runners, no matter what a runner is thinking, there will be a point where it becomes impossible to keep up.
Those who simply can't grasp the nuance need to come up with labels that wipe out the nuance leaving something simple, but often false, that they can understand.
So still denying.
There are things I deny. There are things I don't deny. It is nuanced.
Have you tried training and racing in super shoes compared to regular shoes?
Have you tried using Maurten bicarb?
Have you tried racing with pacing lights?
Have you tried racing on the BU track?
Mine is effectively the same question as yours. You have no experience of drugs. You obviously think experience of these things is essential in order to take a view.
However, many athletes do use drugs and have done so for generations. That says drugs are effective. They will be more effective than baking soda. If it were not so bicarb would be listed as a banned substance for conferring an unfair advantage.
Shoes are not complex technology. They will aid running but not to the degree that many maintain here. As far as tracks are concerned there have been synthetic tracks since the late sixties. Athletes are not running on trampolines and certainly not in the last couple of years. Wavelight - well athletes have used pacemakers for decades, but also some of the fastest times achieved in recent times have not used wavelight. El G didn't use it.
When athletes wish to make better than incremental gains they aren't relying on new training methods - there aren't any - it's all variations on what's been done before - or shoes or tracks. The biggest gains still come from drugs, which are being developed all the time. Drugs enlarge the engine; shoes and tracks don't. And training is what it has been for decades. Kids have long run 40-60mpw before Sam Ruthe did.
The difference is I don't deny the significant effect of drugs. You're denying the significant effect of super shoes, Maurten bicarb, pacing lights, and fast tracks. Yet you've never tried any of them so you are speaking from a position of ignorance.
Yes they appear to accumulate in a 1:1(stoichiometric)ratio and we are supposed to believe that ingesting bicarbonate reduces this ratio, but there is another way to achieve this that doesn't involve ingesting bicarbonate.
Mine is effectively the same question as yours. You have no experience of drugs. You obviously think experience of these things is essential in order to take a view.
However, many athletes do use drugs and have done so for generations. That says drugs are effective. They will be more effective than baking soda. If it were not so bicarb would be listed as a banned substance for conferring an unfair advantage.
Shoes are not complex technology. They will aid running but not to the degree that many maintain here. As far as tracks are concerned there have been synthetic tracks since the late sixties. Athletes are not running on trampolines and certainly not in the last couple of years. Wavelight - well athletes have used pacemakers for decades, but also some of the fastest times achieved in recent times have not used wavelight. El G didn't use it.
When athletes wish to make better than incremental gains they aren't relying on new training methods - there aren't any - it's all variations on what's been done before - or shoes or tracks. The biggest gains still come from drugs, which are being developed all the time. Drugs enlarge the engine; shoes and tracks don't. And training is what it has been for decades. Kids have long run 40-60mpw before Sam Ruthe did.
The difference is I don't deny the significant effect of drugs. You're denying the significant effect of super shoes, Maurten bicarb, pacing lights, and fast tracks. Yet you've never tried any of them so you are speaking from a position of ignorance.
I'm speaking from the position of following the sport, as you are. Your personal experience of these things - if you have that experience - is too small a class sample to generalize for thousands of athletes world-wide. But when countless athletes are known to dope we can be assured they stand to gain from it. The factors you attribute to performance gains won't match what drugs can achieve. They are an excuse for drugs.
The difference is I don't deny the significant effect of drugs. You're denying the significant effect of super shoes, Maurten bicarb, pacing lights, and fast tracks. Yet you've never tried any of them so you are speaking from a position of ignorance.
I'm speaking from the position of following the sport, as you are. Your personal experience of these things - if you have that experience - is too small a class sample to generalize for thousands of athletes world-wide. But when countless athletes are known to dope we can be assured they stand to gain from it. The factors you attribute to performance gains won't match what drugs can achieve. They are an excuse for drugs.
Firsthand knowledge is important if you're going to deny the effectiveness of what I listed above. You don't have the firsthand knowledge to credibly deny their effectiveness. You deny what you don't know.
I'm speaking from the position of following the sport, as you are. Your personal experience of these things - if you have that experience - is too small a class sample to generalize for thousands of athletes world-wide. But when countless athletes are known to dope we can be assured they stand to gain from it. The factors you attribute to performance gains won't match what drugs can achieve. They are an excuse for drugs.
Firsthand knowledge is important if you're going to deny the effectiveness of what I listed above. You don't have the firsthand knowledge to credibly deny their effectiveness. You deny what you don't know.
Do I need to have first hand knowledge of doping to understand what it does? Apparently not, since you say you know what doping does and I assume you haven't doped. But, as I said, your first -hand knowledge of the other factors you describe is too small a class sample from which to make any definitive conclusions. It is cancelled out by those who've said here they didn't experience any gains from bicarb, or the new shoes.
This post was edited 43 seconds after it was posted.
Do I need to have first hand knowledge of doping to understand what it does? Apparently not, since you say you know what doping does and I assume you haven't doped. But, as I said, your first -hand knowledge of the other factors you describe is too small a class sample from which to make any definitive conclusions. It is cancelled out by those who've said here they didn't experience any gains from bicarb, or the new shoes.
You sound like a global warming denier. "It's not any warmer in my town this week! Look, it's snowing! Global warming is a hoax!"