El Guerrouj 2k WR - Incredible 3:49 Mile pace

Tom Cochrane wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Well if swiftness is gullibility, thanks for the high praise.

It is not but you are known for making up new definitions on the fly.

Doesn't he think swiftness is El G? Was El G gullible? I guess he was. He likely used EPO when rekrunner could have told him it wouldn't help him.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Confirming your slowness, by getting it wrong. Swiftness isn't gullibility - it's being ahead of the pedestrian plodder. Like you.

And so you continue to spin around the merry-go-round of personal insults.

Meanwhile, neither you nor Tom Cochrane, nor any of your other allies, have produced anything of substance to support your ideas, or contradict mine.

You simply don't engage at the required level of intellect required to give your ideas credibility.

No ideas have credibility to you except your own. That is because of your level of intellect. Unfortunately.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Highly talented athletes also face competition from other highly talented athletes, whose incentive to dope will be to beat those athletes as talented as themselves. Ramzi is incidentally proof that a doped athlete will beat the best clean competition available, even if that competition is more naturally talented and better trained than he was. Clearly, if they had wanted to win they would have also needed to dope - as El G may well have done to beat his competition, some of whom were undoubtedly doping in an era when there was no test for EPO. Your "logic" doesn't work and you also fail on the facts, as doping has been shown to occur consistently amongst the very top athletes in all sports.

The logic is fairly solid. You'd probably have to obtain and read and understand Hopkins to get it.

If your clean winning percentage is 1%, and doping brings you to 11%, then you risk little (your future opportunity of 1% victories) and gain a lot (11x the number of victories).

If your clean winning percentage is 38%, and doping brings you to 48%, then you risk a lot (your future opportunity of 38% victories), and gain a little (about 1.25x the number of victories).

This should make sense to someone arguing a rational risk/reward decision making process.

Obviously, if your winning percentage is 0%, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

This likely explains why so many no names, and over-the-hill athletes get busted, despite the fact that frequent winners are tested more (each time they get to the podium).

Armstronglivs wrote:

Doesn't he think swiftness is El G? Was El G gullible? I guess he was. He likely used EPO when rekrunner could have told him it wouldn't help him.

Since you likely didn't read it, he interpreted quickness at accepting myths without conclusive evidence, reason, and logic, as "swift on the uptake".

If a solid case had been established, someone would have made it by now.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Confirming your slowness, by getting it wrong. Swiftness isn't gullibility - it's being ahead of the pedestrian plodder. Like you.

And so you continue to spin around the merry-go-round of personal insults.

Meanwhile, neither you nor Tom Cochrane, nor any of your other allies, have produced anything of substance to support your ideas, or contradict mine.

You simply don't engage at the required level of intellect required to give your ideas credibility.

Sure we have. You're just too stubborn to accept it.

Tom Cochrane wrote:

Likely all of the above.

Paging Professor Jones.....

You overlook those busted right at the top of the hill. Boulami, Ramzi, Sumgong, Kiptum...

how does that work? wrote:

Tom Cochrane wrote:

Likely all of the above.

Paging Professor Jones.....

He's peddling Nitrous at the moment and can't get back to you.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Speaking of straw-man arguments - we have your speculation that athletes will dope even if the likely returns are unknown and possibly non-existent. That is a specious argument, when the benefits from doping can be easily predicted. It also confirms you aren't so much up with the current state of science.

Ouch! Strong words from somebody, who hasn't shown any sign of knowledge about the concepts of high-, low- or no-responders. Not surprising in the light that not a long time ago you lectured and self-bragged here with your "expert knowledge" about the anti-doping policy but didn't even know the existence of the three criteria of the WADA code.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

And so you continue to spin around the merry-go-round of personal insults.

Meanwhile, neither you nor Tom Cochrane, nor any of your other allies, have produced anything of substance to support your ideas, or contradict mine.

You simply don't engage at the required level of intellect required to give your ideas credibility.

No ideas have credibility to you except your own. That is because of your level of intellect. Unfortunately.

55 pages of you pontificating about oxygen delivery.

Do you actually believe that you are an expert on oxygen kinetics?

rekrunner wrote:

This makes clear why athletes with lower chances of winning, will have a higher incentive to dope, to increase their chances of winning, compared to more talented athletes who are already winning with a high percentage naturally, due to realizing extreme talent through training.

I don't follow what you're saying. So, let's use a couple of high-profile dopers that created a buzz in Kiptum & B. Boulami as an example: You're saying Kiptum had a lower chance of winning, therefore had a higher incentive to dope to increase his chances of winning ...so much so that he doped himself to the HM WR? And Boulami also had a lower chance of winning, therefore had a higher incentive to dope to increase his chances of winning...so much so he doped himself to the SC WR? (a time that still stands as the fastest today!).

I take it that if neither Kiptum nor Boulami were busted for doping and both WRs stand today, you would state that they're were both highly talented athletes who trained "naturally" and it was their extreme talent that won the day and set a WR?

If I'm correct on your stance on this, it sounds like you're hinging everything on the outcome of anti-doping test results. A great performance and a positive doping case/ABP case, the athlete was less talented and had a higher incentive to dope. A great performance and the athlete doesn't test positive or isn't banned for an ABP case, the athlete was clean, and is so highly talent he/she didn't need to dope to perform at such an exceptional level?

So, relying on your "expertise" now and how you want your skeptics to capitulate, I can rest assured that anti-doping has reached a new milestone of 100% detection accuracy that if any great performance or WR set - and the athlete isn't busted for doping - the performance has to be clean?

Estimate El Gerrouj's VO2max during his 2000m World Record?

Aragon wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Speaking of straw-man arguments - we have your speculation that athletes will dope even if the likely returns are unknown and possibly non-existent. That is a specious argument, when the benefits from doping can be easily predicted. It also confirms you aren't so much up with the current state of science.

Ouch! Strong words from somebody, who hasn't shown any sign of knowledge about the concepts of high-, low- or no-responders. Not surprising in the light that not a long time ago you lectured and self-bragged here with your "expert knowledge" about the anti-doping policy but didn't even know the existence of the three criteria of the WADA code.

So blowing raspberries is what you're left with. I'm not surprised. I don't expect that you will be that aware of signs of knowledge in others, as you appear confined by your own limitations in that respect. As far as my knowing the WADA code is concerned, I am aware of the criteria but was discussing that which specifically related to performance enhancement. Only a pedant like yourself assumes someone doesn't know something because they haven't explicitly referred to it.

None of that related to what I said above. You just ducked it - like you do.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Ouch! Strong words from somebody, who hasn't shown any sign of knowledge about the concepts of high-, low- or no-responders. Not surprising in the light that not a long time ago you lectured and self-bragged here with your "expert knowledge" about the anti-doping policy but didn't even know the existence of the three criteria of the WADA code.

So blowing raspberries is what you're left with. I'm not surprised. I don't expect that you will be that aware of signs of knowledge in others, as you appear confined by your own limitations in that respect. As far as my knowing the WADA code is concerned, I am aware of the criteria but was discussing that which specifically related to performance enhancement. Only a pedant like yourself assumes someone doesn't know something because they haven't explicitly referred to it.

55 pages of you pontificating about oxygen delivery.

Do you actually believe that you are an expert on oxygen kinetics?

You identify a few problems there. The records set by Kiptum and Boulami show that dopers, who are "inferior" athletes in rekrunner's books, can nonetheless be faster than any of their clean but "extremely talented and properly trained" competition. It appears doping can top talent. In which case there is an incentive for talent to dope. How inconvenient for rekrunner's argument.

But the other issue you pick up on is rekrunner's assumption that the fastest performances presume talent and training without doping (because they haven't failed a drug test) until we see that some of them were doped after all. It is also extraordinarily wilfully blind, as only a fraction of those doping are caught.

how does that work? wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So blowing raspberries is what you're left with. I'm not surprised. I don't expect that you will be that aware of signs of knowledge in others, as you appear confined by your own limitations in that respect. As far as my knowing the WADA code is concerned, I am aware of the criteria but was discussing that which specifically related to performance enhancement. Only a pedant like yourself assumes someone doesn't know something because they haven't explicitly referred to it.

55 pages of you pontificating about oxygen delivery.

Do you actually believe that you are an expert on oxygen kinetics?

I dont claim to be an expert on anything but I can see when oxygen hasn't been delivered to the brain. You should have that seen to.

If you are currently aware is irrelevant, because you lectured others about the anti-doping code, but had no clue that one out of three criteria wouldn't be sufficient for a method to be banned. This is equivalent of an Arabic teacher lecturing self-confidently about the Fusha/Amiyya grammar and having simultaneously no clue that it is written from right to left. It wasn't me, who succumbed to ad hominem bitching and whining, but here it is. Sorry, but the glove just didn't fit, an "Aleppo moment".

Aragon wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It doesn't have to satisfy all three criteria. One is sufficient. Performance enhancing would do the job.

From the WADA website:

For a substance or method to be added to the List, it must be determined that it meets two of the following three criteria:

- It has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance

- It represents an actual or potential health risk to the athletes

- It violates the spirit of sport.

Sorry dude, but this is 101 of anti-doping basics. For a self-described anti-doping specialist with legal you should know better.

how does that work? wrote:

Estimate El Gerrouj's VO2max during his 2000m World Record?

I tell you what - why don't you? Or are you only good for asking questions?