I agree, any attempt to argue with you is idiotic since you are not interested in arguments, talking to a rhino could be more effective.
1:53.2 is - according to you - impossible without doping. On the other side, you say 1:55.7 is possible. When did it start to become impossible without doping? 1:55.5? 1:55.0? 1:54.5? 1:54.0? 1:53.5?
The fact that at some point it becomes difficult to make a judgment as to whether a given time can be accomplished clean does not negate the fact that some times will undoubtedly be doped - as 1.53 was - and times that are nowhere near as fast may conceivably be accomplished clean - which is my observation about 1.55-high. But you would need to know something about the sport and doping to understand that so I realise this falls on deaf ears.
From your knowledge about doping, you deduce that 1:55.77 is possible without doping, but 1:53.28 not?
Do you think 1:55.0 (better: do you know if...) is possible without doping?
The fact that at some point it becomes difficult to make a judgment as to whether a given time can be accomplished clean does not negate the fact that some times will undoubtedly be doped - as 1.53 was - and times that are nowhere near as fast may conceivably be accomplished clean - which is my observation about 1.55-high. But you would need to know something about the sport and doping to understand that so I realise this falls on deaf ears.
From your knowledge about doping, you deduce that 1:55.77 is possible without doping, but 1:53.28 not?
Do you think 1:55.0 (better: do you know if...) is possible without doping?
I:53.2 was a record from an E Bloc athlete. It has been untouchable for decades. In my view, and many other followers of the sport, there is little doubt that it is doped.
From the few athletes who have run sub-1:55 (like Jelimo) I would reckon that is also clearly doped territory as well. That is my opinion. However quite a few athletes have run 1:55-57. Some were doped (and busted - notably Russians) but looking at the careers of some of the athletes in the 1:55-57 territory it is harder to form a definite view that this region is beyond a highly-talented clean athlete. At this stage, I would give the benefit to both Mu and Hodgkinson. But that is a calculated guess.
Let me save your time. This Armstrong guy is nearly 100 years old and is permanently stuck in the "everybody fast is doping" loop. You would have better luck arguing with a pigeon.
The "loop" is how do clean athletes beat the most talented doped athletes in a sport regarded by WADA as one of the highest risk for doping at championship level?
Since the children in this thread have difficulty understanding a nuanced argument I will simplify it.
1. A woman who runs 3:49 for the 1500, beating previously doped times, is without doubt in my view a doped athlete. Her 5k record is a bonus that reinforces the same point.
2. A woman who runs 1:55-high for the 800m is less likely to be doped, since in my view that time can conceivably be achieved clean. 1:53 cannot.
Given they are competitive over the same distance, the 800 in this case, the doped athlete likely beats the one who probably isn't, since doping confers advantage over those who arent doped.
I believe Mu can run 1:53 clean.
That's two full seconds faster than she has run. It would be like saying Rudisha could run 1:39. It would also make her faster than the E Bloc athlete whose record has been untouchable for nearly 4 decades. She would have to be doped to do it.
You claimed Kipyegon has an advantage against Hodgkinson: you think (90%?) Kipyegon is doped, for Hodgkinson you are undecided (50%?).
Can you quantify this advantage compared to doped versus undopd? Is it the half?
Where is this advantage if in fact Kipyegon is not doped but Hodgkinson is doped?
You mislead yourself with your own statistics. That I believe Kipyegon is doped is not a percentage; I think she is doped - which means not clean, not partly doped or clean. That I also think Hodgkinson may not be doped is not a percentage estimation; she isn't "50% doped" (or clean); I am suggesting that in my view she is more likely clean than not.
With two talented athletes, who may be competitive over the same distance (and it is claimed here that Kipyegon would be competitive over the 800m), the doped athlete will have an advantage.
You suggest that Kipyegon may not be doped but Hodgkinson is. I don't agree with that view. However the only circumstances in which a clean athlete beats the doped athlete is when the clean athlete is vastly superior. That is not Kipyegon and Hodgkinson.
This post was edited 50 seconds after it was posted.
You claimed Kipyegon has an advantage against Hodgkinson: you think (90%?) Kipyegon is doped, for Hodgkinson you are undecided (50%?).
Can you quantify this advantage compared to doped versus undopd? Is it the half?
Where is this advantage if in fact Kipyegon is not doped but Hodgkinson is doped?
You mislead yourself with your own statistics. That I believe Kipyegon is doped is not a percentage; I think she is doped - which means not clean, not partly doped or clean. That I also think Hodgkinson may not be doped is not a percentage estimation; she isn't "50% doped" (or clean); I am suggesting that in my view she is more likely clean than not.
With two talented athletes, who may be competitive over the same distance (and it is claimed here that Kipyegon would be competitive over the 800m), the doped athlete will have an advantage.
You suggest that Kipyegon may not be doped but Hodgkinson is. I don't agree with that view. However the only circumstances in which a clean athlete beats the doped athlete is when the clean athlete is vastly superior. That is not Kipyegon and Hodgkinson.
You THINK Kipyegon is doped - you don't know it. Hodgkinson for you is more likely to be not doped (55%?). Exactly like me, you don't know the truth in eather case.
For sure it's also possible that Hodgkinson is doped and Kipyegon not - a fact.
You can't even explain what you mean by this claimed advantage of Kipyegon versus Hodgkinson.
That's two full seconds faster than she has run. It would be like saying Rudisha could run 1:39.
No, it wouldn't.
A few weeks ago Mu became 21 years old. Rudisha is 34 years old and has the WR since 13 years.
Do you ever just think before you write something?
I knew it was a waste of time responding to you. You are an ignoramus. Rudisha set his world record at age 23 and never ran faster. He is essentially retired. Mu may never run faster then she did at the last Olympics. There is no guarantee she will. Amos never ran faster than when he was 18, and Ryun set his wr at 19.
This post was edited 39 seconds after it was posted.
You mislead yourself with your own statistics. That I believe Kipyegon is doped is not a percentage; I think she is doped - which means not clean, not partly doped or clean. That I also think Hodgkinson may not be doped is not a percentage estimation; she isn't "50% doped" (or clean); I am suggesting that in my view she is more likely clean than not.
With two talented athletes, who may be competitive over the same distance (and it is claimed here that Kipyegon would be competitive over the 800m), the doped athlete will have an advantage.
You suggest that Kipyegon may not be doped but Hodgkinson is. I don't agree with that view. However the only circumstances in which a clean athlete beats the doped athlete is when the clean athlete is vastly superior. That is not Kipyegon and Hodgkinson.
You THINK Kipyegon is doped - you don't know it. Hodgkinson for you is more likely to be not doped (55%?). Exactly like me, you don't know the truth in eather case.
For sure it's also possible that Hodgkinson is doped and Kipyegon not - a fact.
You can't even explain what you mean by this claimed advantage of Kipyegon versus Hodgkinson.
You show by tossing your stupid percentages around on an issue like this - it has nothing to do with percentages - you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Nor can you understand the quite simple argument I have presented. It is quite fortunate that you post under a username because you would be outed as the complete moron you are if you posted under your real name.
A few weeks ago Mu became 21 years old. Rudisha is 34 years old and has the WR since 13 years.
Do you ever just think before you write something?
I knew it was a waste of time responding to you. You are an ignoramus. Rudisha set his world record at age 23 and never ran faster. He is essentially retired. Mu may never run faster then she did at the last Olympics. There is no guarantee she will. Amos never ran faster than when he was 18, and Ryun set his wr at 19.
And 95% of the athletes set their PB after age of 20.
You THINK Kipyegon is doped - you don't know it. Hodgkinson for you is more likely to be not doped (55%?). Exactly like me, you don't know the truth in eather case.
For sure it's also possible that Hodgkinson is doped and Kipyegon not - a fact.
You can't even explain what you mean by this claimed advantage of Kipyegon versus Hodgkinson.
You show by tossing your stupid percentages around on an issue like this - it has nothing to do with percentages - you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Nor can you understand the quite simple argument I have presented. It is quite fortunate that you post under a username because you would be outed as the complete moron you are if you posted under your real name.
All this is waay beyond your capabilities. You don't even understand your own statement.
I knew it was a waste of time responding to you. You are an ignoramus. Rudisha set his world record at age 23 and never ran faster. He is essentially retired. Mu may never run faster then she did at the last Olympics. There is no guarantee she will. Amos never ran faster than when he was 18, and Ryun set his wr at 19.
And 95% of the athletes set their PB after age of 20.
Which means that it isn't inevitable that all will. You think tossing percentages around is like looking into the future. But the odds are higher than 95% you are a clueless clod.
You show by tossing your stupid percentages around on an issue like this - it has nothing to do with percentages - you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Nor can you understand the quite simple argument I have presented. It is quite fortunate that you post under a username because you would be outed as the complete moron you are if you posted under your real name.
All this is waay beyond your capabilities. You don't even understand your own statement.
I find that observation reassuring. But you won't. It confirms what I have said about you.
You THINK Kipyegon is doped - you don't know it. Hodgkinson for you is more likely to be not doped (55%?). Exactly like me, you don't know the truth in eather case.
For sure it's also possible that Hodgkinson is doped and Kipyegon not - a fact.
You can't even explain what you mean by this claimed advantage of Kipyegon versus Hodgkinson.
You show by tossing your stupid percentages around on an issue like this - it has nothing to do with percentages - you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Nor can you understand the quite simple argument I have presented. It is quite fortunate that you post under a username because you would be outed as the complete moron you are if you posted under your real name.
If you posted under your real name people would spit in your face on the street.
You show by tossing your stupid percentages around on an issue like this - it has nothing to do with percentages - you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Nor can you understand the quite simple argument I have presented. It is quite fortunate that you post under a username because you would be outed as the complete moron you are if you posted under your real name.
If you posted under your real name people would spit in your face on the street.
I'm sure they already do.
So my comments mean a lot to the man in the street? Do yours? Perhaps you're more used to being completely ignored.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.