If we were guaranteed one WR was clean, which one would it be

Armstronglivs wrote:

letsdrum wrote:

What a stupid thinking, it's just hurting to read something so nonsensical.
"Smaller populations don't preclude outstanding talent." - for sure not. Who has said it does?

But bigger populations have a higher chance to include the biggest, fastest, strongest, whatever person (given the overall conditions in the different populations are similar) - is this really beyond you?

Why consider the population of Snell's country? Why not the one of his real village? Or of his family? Or just the "population" of Snell himself? 1 person! Compared to the other group of maybe 500 Million relevant males at the time. And the group of just 1 contained the best middle distance runner of the early 60s - and not the group of those 500 Millions.
He will deny, but that's his point. Armstrong at his best.

I don't think you have understood what I was saying. The point is that you can take a talent from a small group of participants and find that they are still the best when you enlarge that pool. More isn't necessarily better.

RossiCheated wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The record that is "very breakable" is only being broken by Duplantis.

That's currently correct, and supports my point.

The 1500 record (broken 9 times since 1980) was broken by only 6 men. Even the men who break that record struggle to or cannot break it again. It is a very hard record to break. It is a record that results from literally millions of people pursuing it (everyone who has completed a competitive 1500).

The pole vault record has been broken 34 times since 1980 by 8 men, and once they break it many of them do so over and over gain, sometimes losing and reclaiming it. Because it is the result of a small population of people pursuing it, it is not as close to the limits of human potential and it can be added to, over and over.

The fact that Duplantis has added to the record six times shows that it is an easier record to achieve (for him) than the 1500 record was (for Hicham El Guerrouj or anyone else).

This should be self-evident:

A record that is broken over and over, regardless of who breaks it, is "softer" than a record that goes decades without being touched, by anyone.

RossiCheated wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

My view about doping is that it is found in every sport now at the top level. That is the view of antidoping experts. There is no reason to think that, alone amongst T and F events, doping would not be present in the pole vault.

I don't disagree.

And I certainly never made the case that pole vaulting is dope-free. I would never make that case. There almost definitely ARE competitors in high-level vaulting who are doping.

But the premise of the thread hinges on two words: IF and WHICH.

IF there is a clean record, WHICH could it be?

IF there is a clean record, I think it COULD be Mondo's vault record, for reasons listed a few times already (started young, great genetics, incredible coaching from age three, logical progression right back to age seven, the record is a "small population record" compared to other events, and I should add that he must be tested over and over because he wins so often (but I acknowledge that beating tests is not the be-all and end-all).

A QUESTION FOR YOU:

IF there is a clean record, WHICH do YOU think it is?

And if you think none of them are clean, why not post that once and then don't return to the thread?

letsdrum wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I don't think you have understood what I was saying. The point is that you can take a talent from a small group of participants and find that they are still the best when you enlarge that pool. More isn't necessarily better.

I completely understood it.

You mentioned the population of New Zealand and Australia to demonstrate that the best in something (Elliott, Snell in middle distance running 60 years ago) can come from a small group.
The population of the countriese for sure are completely irrelevant, don't you see this by yourself?
Have you even read what I wrote you before? If so, have you just thought a moment about it? It seems not.

The point from someone else was, a smaller pool of participants in an event makes it more unlikely that someone gets close to the limit than in an event with more participants.

For sure it's almost for certain that there is still more room for improvement in pole vaulting than in the 1500m. Because much more people have tried to excel in middle distance running than in pole vaulting. Don't you agree to this?

If there would be 50000 "professional" pole vaulters instead of maybe 1000, don't you think there would be someone at Duplantis' level or better? It's not for certain, but very likely.

Armstronglivs wrote:

letsdrum wrote:

I completely understood it.

You mentioned the population of New Zealand and Australia to demonstrate that the best in something (Elliott, Snell in middle distance running 60 years ago) can come from a small group.
The population of the countriese for sure are completely irrelevant, don't you see this by yourself?
Have you even read what I wrote you before? If so, have you just thought a moment about it? It seems not.

The point from someone else was, a smaller pool of participants in an event makes it more unlikely that someone gets close to the limit than in an event with more participants.

For sure it's almost for certain that there is still more room for improvement in pole vaulting than in the 1500m. Because much more people have tried to excel in middle distance running than in pole vaulting. Don't you agree to this?

If there would be 50000 "professional" pole vaulters instead of maybe 1000, don't you think there would be someone at Duplantis' level or better? It's not for certain, but very likely.

I don't agree that the pool of participants in the pole vault means the event doesn't have depth. It is an argument that could be made of any field event - the hammer, the javelin, the discus, shot and triple jump etc. All would benefit from doping - and like any other event, doping will be present. As it will be in the pole vault.

Armstronglivs wrote:

ShoeTubersHaveNoEthics wrote:

The Pole Vault record is probably clean. There's little incentive to bulk up with anabolic steroids and little incentive to use performance enhancing drugs like EPO because you have to be light enough for the pole to launch you over the bar. So using PEDs in that event might be a net negative. In some ways, same for the javelin. Part of the force behind the throw is the run up. If you bulk up too much, you slow your speed and therefore the force you put into the throw.

I think all running events are probably not clean to a degree, but if there is one running event where performance enhancing drugs have less of a return, it's probably the 800. You can bulk up with anabolic steroids and improve your speed but that weakens your endurance. You can add to your endurance with EPO, but that weakens your speed. Since it's a mix of speed and endurance, there's less of a payoff in it.

The range of listed banned drugs is considerable. There are many more that antidoping have yet to identify, because they are masked. Every competitive activity will benefit from the use of a drug to enhance performance. That is why doping can be found in every event and why it is a billion dollar industry.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Left Said Fred wrote:

You are calling them “deceitful and dishonest.” You’re claiming that they lie on every anti-doping form they’re made to fill out and lie whenever they’re asked about the subject. It’s as if you imagine that professional athletics is a massive secret club and that once an athlete reaches a certain age, they’re let in on the secret and they all comply and leave all integrity and honour behind them. It’s simply not the case.

Over the weekend, I was speaking with a pair of athletes, both of whom I’ve known well for some time and are also top-50 in the world. The name of this American who just demolished her 800m PB by several seconds came up in conversation and both remarked how dodgy they find the whole thing and what a sinking feeling that performance gave them both. Do you suppose their comments on her were an act given that they were speaking with me and that soon as we parted ways they could then openly discuss their doping programme in peace?

In Russia it was claimed by whistleblowers that "99%" of their elite and pro athletes doped. We see a stream of doping violations coming from Kenya. No antidoping expert says doping is confined to those countries. In fact the accepted view is that doping is present at the top level in all sports and all countries. While only 1% of tests return a positive confidential athlete surveys have indicated that at the championship level doping could be as high on average as 1 in 2 athletes. Official estimates are that doping is far greater than the numbers caught. That clearly enables the conclusion that many more athletes do not answer the antidoping forms truthfully than those who do. Your friends may be amongst the exception.