In response to the thread question, there doesn't need to be a single "new ped" to explain any recent performances, there are plenty to go around - and not be caught. At the same time, like any area of science, doping doesn't stand still.
In response to the thread question, there doesn't need to be a single "new ped" to explain any recent performances, there are plenty to go around - and not be caught. At the same time, like any area of science, doping doesn't stand still.
Armstronglivs wrote:
In response to the thread question, there doesn't need to be a single "new ped" to explain any recent performances, there are plenty to go around - and not be caught. At the same time, like any area of science, doping doesn't stand still.
In this thread, any reference to "doping" would necessarily have to be limited to "performance enhancing" doping. Your endless speculation about fantastic possibilities founded on how little you really know, tends to blur this difference by conflating the broad existence of "doping", with its more narrow subset of effective "PEDs" for elite runners.
This thread was not just about "doping" but the subset of "doping" that is "performance enhancing". And furthermore, it was not just "doping that is performance enhancing", but this thread implies the existence of a new, novel PED whose benefits were not available previously, that purports to explain today's "monster drops in times and performances that used to be considered extraordinary", comparing the jumps to an old "PED" alleged to have caused it the last time.
While doping science may not have stood still, what has virtually stood still are the performance improvements world-wide of non-Africans, since their hey days of the '80s, until the introduction of new shoes.
Another thread speculating reasons for Kenyan dominance in the marathon, resorts to highlighting Eastern Bloc (women) and Chinese (women) as examples of non-African performance (in non-marathons). That these are the best examples highlights two things: 1) steroids likely work for women in shorter distances, and 2) there has been no new PED of significance for distance running.
Armstronglivs wrote:
In response to the thread question, there doesn't need to be a single "new ped" to explain any recent performances, there are plenty to go around - and not be caught. At the same time, like any area of science, doping doesn't stand still.
It looks like someone is struggling to stay on topic.
Building on this idea, there doesn't need to be a single "old PED" either, to explain old performances. This makes the most logical sense, given the lack of significant improvements in countries wherever track is popular, like the USA, Britain, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Russia, since their heydays in the 1980s, and general human nature to try everything at all costs, and the global nature of doping in athletics, and the ability to remain many several steps ahead of ineffective anti-doping.
The science of doping may not stand still, but apparently non-African performances pretty much did, until the new shoes.
17 posts were removed from this page.