After this morning’s result I’m struggling to find enjoyment in following this sport

HRE wrote:

the problem's all inside your head wrote:

No, the problem is idiots like you. You people ARE the Drug problem but you're too ignorant to see it.

Sure. Explain to me how people not using PEDs ARE the drug problem in the sport. Please help with my ignorance. And while you're at it maybe explain why you think "Drug" required capitalization.

I've explained it to you many times for many years and you still don't comprehend because you don't want to to learn.

In a nutshell you're basically telling young athletes

" Don't take drugs kids, they'll make you faster but it's cheating"

It's just twisted nonsense. Pseudoscience.

Gidey has a very long stride. Do some simple arithmetic. Drugs don't give you a longer stride, that's not how the human body works.

Drugs don't give you more energy, but you won't stop believing that will you?

But what do you care? You never did and you never will.

You people ARE the drug problem, you fill young people's heads with nonsense. You pretend to be pure but you preach ignorance and doubt.

I see, Let's start with "Drugs don't give you a longer stride." Agreed but a longer stride does not automatically make you faster than someone with a shorter stride. A short lever can turn over faster than a long one. Now let's go to "Drugs don't give you more energy." Well, some do. Amphetamines do. And EPO allows your blood to carry more oxygen throughout your system and with oxygen being a major source of energy, EPO does give you more energy. It was synthesized for people like cancer patients whose energy was depleted by chemotherapy.

I'll take you at your word that you've been telling me this for many years though I have no recollection of that nor any idea of who you are. Have you also been giving me a reason to think there's a chance you know what you're talking about when you've been telling me this? Could you give me such a reason now? Can you give me a reason why I should be interested in learning from someone I don't know and who hasn't, as far as I know, given any credentials to convince me that he's not just someone who really wants to see these performances as legitimate and who gets upset with people who question them? Honestly, someone who wants to teach me something but who doesn't understand the correct usage of capital letters isn't real convincing.

PS

"Drugs don't give you more energy but you won't stop believing that will you?" What's this about? You're telling me that I believe that drugs don't people more energy. I very much believe some drugs do. This is very confusing.

Well you are talking to Jon Orange here. He keeps switching his username every couple of weeks to minimize getting banned all over again.

"Homeostasis! Oxygen kinetics! Thermoregulation! Energy kinetics! Drugs don't give you more energy! The scientists have no clue!" LOL

casual obsever wrote:

Well you are talking to Jon Orange here. He keeps switching his username every couple of weeks to minimize getting banned all over again.

"Homeostasis! Oxygen kinetics! Thermoregulation! Energy kinetics! Drugs don't give you more energy! The scientists have no clue!" LOL

Do you think so? Maybe. Jon's writing is usually a lot more clear at least when I can recognize it. I've actually been interested in his ideas. I've even told him now and again that he could be onto something but if he wants to convince people he really needs to do some major work in terms of supporting what he's arguing. Well, if it is Jon I'll just say again that a few "drugs don't work" posts are just not going to have much affect.

HRE wrote:

the problem's all inside your head wrote:

No, the problem is idiots like you. You people ARE the Drug problem but you're too ignorant to see it.

Sure. Explain to me how people not using PEDs ARE the drug problem in the sport. Please help with my ignorance. And while you're at it maybe explain why you think "Drug" required capitalization.

Once again, I can only whole heartedly agree with Armstronglivs — “think like rekrunner”.

But wishful thinking aside, don’t fall into the trap that there can only be one doping related problem in the sport. Sure, athletes using “PEDs” are a problem, and sure, let’s fund frequent, and foolproof, testing. (My idea is that non-African federations should fund it, as Africa has no money, and non-African athletes are the main beneficiaries of African testing anyway. Could be a global fund, managed by an independent global organization directing intelligent testing.)

But let’s recall we are in a thread where the OP laments: “After this morning’s result I’m struggling to find enjoyment in following this sport”.

This is one “fan’s” reaction, not based on any shred of evidence of doping, but simply on an outstanding performance. Many “fans” have gotten it into their head, that “doping” can be the only explanation. Gidey is just one in a long line of successful athletes who are bombarded with suspicions and accusations from “fans” of the sport, simply for the crime of having her training all coming together on race day, in the right conditions. When such negativity exists from many “fans” of the sport, simply for succeeding at what every athlete tries to do, this is not healthy for the sport, and is a lose-lose situation for the athletes, as whenever they win, they lose. It would be better for the sport for all of these negative fans to get up and follow Anne Audain out the door, and never come back.

Perhaps the problem is best illustrated by this extract from a peer-reviewed journal, rather than the crazy ramblings of an anonymous skeptic “rekrunner”:

"It is tempting to attribute outstanding performances to the alleged use of doping. The main problem with such a line of thinking is that the athlete will always lose in any such discussion: no matter how much he trains without the use of any prohibited substance, as soon as he excels he is, by default, a doping suspect. The essence of sport is to excel, and if excelling becomes synonymous with suspicions of cheating, each and every sport performance turns into an attack on the essence of sport itself. If such reasoning persists, this will seriously jeopardise the credibility of sport."

"It can be concluded that, on the basis of performances alone, an individual assessment on possible doping is simply not possible, and, in addition, any attempt to try to do this will violate the essence of sport. Linking extraordinary athletic performances to doping use is highly insulting to clean champions. Both scientifically and morally it is not recommended to try and link performance levels to doping use; at best performances can be used to identify general influences of anti-doping measures on the entire population of elite athletes."

Reference:

Prevalence of Doping Use in Elite Sports: A Review of Numbers and Methods

Olivier de Hon • Harm Kuipers • Maarten van Bottenburg

Sports Med (2015) 45:57–69 DOI 10.1007/s40279-014-0247-x

I'm 69. If I tell you that we have a certified half marathon course in town, which we do, and I just got back from time trialing it in 1:55 you might think that was a decent performance for a fat old man. You might think the same if I said I did 1:50, maybe even at 1:45. But if I get that number low enough, 1:40, 1:35, whatever, at some point you're going to think I cut the course, biked some or all of it, or am just plain lying. Is that fair to me even if I actually ran the time I claimed? I don't know but I'd understand your skepticism.

I'm not saying Gibey has doped her way to the times she's been running. I don't know. But knocking almost a half minute off of a 10,000 record that was confirmed as doped and that almost no one else ever got close to would be like me telling you I'd done 1:20 in that example above and it raises legitimate questions that look even more legitimate when she's from a place where she pretty much had a free hand to use anything she could get and where getting that anything is evidently pretty easy. And she does herself no favors having Hermans as her agent.

I disagree that an athlete turning in an outstanding performance automatically "loses" when a discussion of potential doping turns up. Nick Willis has been turning in those sorts of performances for upwards of fifteen years and there are very, very, few questions raised here about the legitimacy of those performances. When Japan has several guys under 2:08 in a particular marathon the reaction here is usually something like, "Wow! why can't the US do that?" and almost no one answers by saying "We don't dope like they do." There have been questions here about the Ingebretsons but not many.

I think one big reason is they're westerners. They're like us and we like them. (Despite being in the East, Japan began westernizing when Peary sailed into Yokohama Bay.) Another is that we know they're subjected to reasonably frequent testing. A country whose federation conducts such testing is protecting the reputations of their athletes as much as is possible now. Countries whose federations do not conduct such testing are not protecting the reputations of their athletes nor are they looking out for the interests of their clean athletes. It's these federations that are damaging the credibility of the sport, along with World Athletics which does not require more stringent testing from these federations, and not people questioning "too good to be true" performances.

HRE wrote:

I see, Let's start with "Drugs don't give you a longer stride." Agreed but a longer stride does not automatically make you faster than someone with a shorter stride. A short lever can turn over faster than a long one.

As you get fitter, your stride gets longer. Stride rate also increases slightly.

You are producing more power for the same effort. The net calorie burn for the same distance is less.

HRE wrote:

Now let's go to "Drugs don't give you more energy." Well, some do. Amphetamines do. And EPO allows your blood to carry more oxygen throughout your system and with oxygen being a major source of energy, EPO does give you more energy. It was synthesized for people like cancer patients whose energy was depleted by chemotherapy.

Amphetamines don't give you more energy, it's an illusion. This has been known since the 60s. I've known this since 1977. I wanted to know why a local hero died in the Tour de France 10 years before that, when Amphetamine doping was the norm.

Oxygen isn't a source of energy, it's a reactant in the production of aerobic cellular respiration.

Having more red blood cells than you need doesn’t give you more oxidative capacity because we are limited in that regard by genetics and thermodynamics. Lance Armstrong had a naturally high Aerobic Capacity. All if the Tour de France winners did, whether they doped or not. My lower Aerobic capacity actually made me a better distance runner than a cyclist. I did both.

This stuff has been studied by good Oxygen Kinetics researchers like Jack Daniels since before the blood doping hype started gathering attention in the early 70s. There is much more bad science out there than good.

HRE wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Well you are talking to Jon Orange here. He keeps switching his username every couple of weeks to minimize getting banned all over again.

"Homeostasis! Oxygen kinetics! Thermoregulation! Energy kinetics! Drugs don't give you more energy! The scientists have no clue!" LOL

Do you think so? Maybe. Jon's writing is usually a lot more clear at least when I can recognize it. I've actually been interested in his ideas. I've even told him now and again that he could be onto something but if he wants to convince people he really needs to do some major work in terms of supporting what he's arguing. Well, if it is Jon I'll just say again that a few "drugs don't work" posts are just not going to have much affect.

Well what is a suitable platform for promoting good science over bad? It's not twitter is it?

Neither is it this place, unless brojos want to exploit me financially. I'm up for that. I don't understand how journalism works in 2021. I don't blog or vlog and don't want to. 30 years ago I got paid for delivering good copy to my local newspaper. Is everything about advertising revenue these days?

WADA is exploiting this paranoia to make money whilst endorsing the PED concept.

They can't "clean up the sport" if they are simultaneously promoting the belief that drugs make you a better athlete.

The best solution is education. But I know from experience that there are Elite athletes who have no interest in doping and sub elites who are obsessed with the subject. That's human nature.

In case you are Jon, as I've said before, I respect your ideas here but you aren't just swimming upstream, you're swimming up Niagara Falls and for now at least, I'm inclined to believe the water. I won't argue about there being a lot of bad science out there but I'm only qualified to evaluate a very small bit of it and can't identify it here. Journals were traditional way of establishing credibility but from what I can tell few are receptive to non mainstream ideas. I can't answer your first question but I believe the answer to the second one is yes.

It's really quite easy to explain why you hold on to your beliefs. But I know you won't change because your mind has been prejudiced for too long.

I learned the basics way back in the late 70s as a teenager so my susceptibility to misinformation about Bioenergetics is very much lower than others.

But you have to want to learn. I can't make you want it.

I was 14 years old when I started learning this stuff. You were 51 when I first started posting here. Your mind was already made up.

However for for what it's worth:

This is about energy input versus energy output.

Let me put it simply. Gidey running sub 63 is using a lot less calories than a runner with the same metabolism running much slower.

Running is a skill. And this aspect is the opposite of your belief. Your 'Aerobic Development' concept is a belief in higher metabolic rate, which is not Bioenergetically feasible.

For example, the widespread belief is that the power outputs of cyclists in the Tour de France in the peak EPO/Steroids era are unattainable today. This demonstrably false. So the cynics insist today's riders must be microdosing.

That is your mindset and it sells. I can't change your mindset. Maybe you're too old, maybe you were always this way. But it's not a healthy way to be and it's not the Lydiard way. I am very disappointed that you, Nobby Hashizume and Chris Kelsall foster this belief, but you are set in your ways. It's unsporting and unscientific and it does way more harm than good.

As a 69 year old, you have surely experienced age-related changes and reduced hormone production. If you took drugs to replace these hormone deficiencies, you would likely see significant improvements, because these drugs artificially strengthen the weaknesses that have creeped in due to aging, and reverses some of the performance loss you experienced with age. If you took them as an 18-25 year old in your physical prime, after 10 years of high-volume training with Lydiard, these hormonal deficiencies causing weakness do not exist, and (surely) weaknesses in your training do not exist. The potential for any performance enhancement artificially from drugs is drastically reduced if not non-existent or counter-productive.

I don’t read too much into beating women’s distance records, even highly suspected doped ones from the ‘90s. Women’s fields are not deep, they don’t go for records often, and they don’t usually need to run their fastest to win a race. In some cultures, women were historically not encouraged to become athletes. In terms of maturity of distance events and realizing their potential for record times, the women are decades behind the men.

I don’t read too much into lack of testing either. How many times do I read that tests are easy to beat because dopers are always ahead of the testers, and use techniques like micro-dosing, and can avoid up to 3 tests if they are glowing? Russia has been doping their athletes continuously since the ‘70s, protected by their federation and their nation, and it was only the ABP that they had difficulty with. There was no blood testing for blood doping for anyone, until 2009. If we roll back to the ‘90s, when no test existed for EPO or blood transfusions or HGH, and no uniform WADA standards, and cyclists world-wide (notably all non-African) were reaching new heights of drug abuse, non-African distance running performances began to plateau in all distance events from the 1500m to the marathon. Besides Willis and Ingebrigtsen, who you hint are probably both clean, or at least largely escape doping allegations, non-Africans still cannot beat Coe, 35 years of drugs later. Just like only the non-Africans Paula (downhill) and Hitomi Niiya (Japan) have beaten Ingrid Kristiansen, 34 years of drugs later.

The sport is continuously damaged, not just by suspecting Gidey, but by suspecting everyone who does something outstanding, based on no direct evidence of doping, but simply fast performances. Suspicion is not limited to non-Westerners, as we saw with athletes like Paula Radcliffe and Galen Rupp and even dating as far back as Coe and toxoplasmosis. It is damaged by yellow journalism which caters to a population addicted to scandals, effectively pouring salt in the wounds and making the problems seem worse than they really are.

You mention Hermens in passing — why? What did Hermens do? Hermens is one casualty of the damage to the sport. There is a long list of such casualties of accusations against agents and coaches and doctors based on a spectrum of no evidence to ambiguous evidence at best.

While education for athletes and better testing will help address the athlete doping problem, education for the “fans” will help the sport too. The fans need to learn that there are a dozen factors, if not more, to consider, besides doping and testing, before jumping to damaging allegations.