Looks like they're copied and pasted in above. I just clicked on the results and figured it out. Click on race analysis.
I see, I see....
The Neds had the top two legs:
Bol 48.75
Klaver 48.78
Kaz 48.80
All 3 Dutch trained by the same coach and all 3 with distinctively different physiques...Armstrong? Tell us which ones are doping based on their physiques.
At that level, they could all be doping. But when a woman shows highly pronounced physical development in the upper body especially, that can be a red flag. (It can also be so with men - like Ben Johnson). In a sport where doping has become a virtual necessity to succeed at the international level, nothing is less surprising than that a top athlete might be doping. But that is what fans find hard to accept.
Armstrong you know what I believe about athlete drug use.
But you have to be more careful and precise with your writing. My wife was a swimmer who also did rowing. She has always been clean, and makes Klaver look runner-small.
Yes she carried a bit of upper-body fat as most swimmers do in training, but when she tapered, look out. And she has no Y chromosome.
Also, I have known xxy women athletes, one a rower. Clean. Huge, and ripped in-comp.
But the most incredible I ever trained with was a woman with lipodystrophy. She was the single most ripped person I have ever seen, male or female. Big, too, and pretty fast. She was already older when I knew her, maybe 40-45. But never was a world-beater.
And there are spectra for all these things.
So, while very suggestive, especially when a quick change is seen, to me it is no “red flag”.
To me, otherworldly performances are that red flag.
Also, impossible combinations, like that huge and ripped British geezer marathon record holder. The performance is the red flag, the physique for that performance seals the deal. It is no less implausible than if some overweight fattie held the record.
Among these new performance levels we’re seeing, I can’t think of anybody who physiologically stands out as obvious, like for instance Kelli White did on the women’s side.
I agree that difficult-to-explain performances are more of an indicator of doping than physique alone. But that is partly because doping is so widespread that highly developed muscular extremes have become the norm in female sport. They are less noticeable than what would have been the case in the past. However, I stand by my point that unusual muscularity in the upper body can be an indicator of steroid use by a woman. If it were not so, steroids would have no effect. But they do.
It's unbelievable how badly informed some running fans are. Only 1% of tests return a positive yet it is known, from confidential athlete surveys among others, than many more athletes dope than are caught. The reason for this is that drugs are typically "masked" and are not detected through testing, which remains several steps behind doping. You might well ask why do we bother with testing when it catches so few, but to give it up is to concede that nothing substantial can be done to stop doping or even discourage it. That is probably where we are.
Oh my Gawd...it's you who is badly informed. As I stated, they not only test for PED's they test for blockers, diuretics, masking agents...anything that suggests they're trying to cheat gets a suspension. And they do get suspended. Also, no definitive numbers on if the testers are behind at all, that statement has been claimed for decades without proof unless you're claiming something like BALCO and they got caught too.
Again, you put up some kind of cryptic number that has no fact to it. Even if such a survey exists, which I believe doesn't because you made it up, what would be the hypothetical number that these apparitions claim are dopers? 10%...20%...etc? It doesn't prove how many are actually doping, only that it's higher than 1%.
And about that 'survey'...what was the sample size? Was this survey sent out to every single athlete, pro and amateur? Who is the target audience? How as this survey conducted? What's it's approximate error? Lastly who would even partake in such a survey? There is no confidentiality. You know when someone snitches on someone else to the IRA, the IRA will also track the whistleblower.
You're taking a beating on this and are trying to save face. Trying to create parameters that not only have never existed, but could never exist because humans are not clones.
It's unbelievable how badly informed some running fans are. Only 1% of tests return a positive yet it is known, from confidential athlete surveys among others, than many more athletes dope than are caught. The reason for this is that drugs are typically "masked" and are not detected through testing, which remains several steps behind doping. You might well ask why do we bother with testing when it catches so few, but to give it up is to concede that nothing substantial can be done to stop doping or even discourage it. That is probably where we are.
Oh my Gawd...it's you who is badly informed. As I stated, they not only test for PED's they test for blockers, diuretics, masking agents...anything that suggests they're trying to cheat gets a suspension. And they do get suspended. Also, no definitive numbers on if the testers are behind at all, that statement has been claimed for decades without proof unless you're claiming something like BALCO and they got caught too.
Again, you put up some kind of cryptic number that has no fact to it. Even if such a survey exists, which I believe doesn't because you made it up, what would be the hypothetical number that these apparitions claim are dopers? 10%...20%...etc? It doesn't prove how many are actually doping, only that it's higher than 1%.
And about that 'survey'...what was the sample size? Was this survey sent out to every single athlete, pro and amateur? Who is the target audience? How as this survey conducted? What's it's approximate error? Lastly who would even partake in such a survey? There is no confidentiality. You know when someone snitches on someone else to the IRA, the IRA will also track the whistleblower.
You're taking a beating on this and are trying to save face. Trying to create parameters that not only have never existed, but could never exist because humans are not clones.
You are embarrassing yourself. The figure of 1% test positives comes from WADA. The observation that doping is ahead of antidoping comes from its former head, David Howman. But what you are staggeringly unaware of, that has been discussed in this site for years, are the confidential athlete surveys done at the World Champs over a decade ago (as well as the Asian Games) that showed that at least 1 in 3 but possibly even 1 in 2 championship level athletes admitted to doping. Antidoping experts, such as the Jamaican whistleblower Renee Ann Shirley, have conceded that doping "is at the top level in every sport in every country with the collusion of many sports governance bodies". Finally WADA has included T and F with those dopers' festivals of bodybuilding, weightlifting and cycling for risk of doping.
It's unbelievable how badly informed some running fans are. Only 1% of tests return a positive yet it is known, from confidential athlete surveys among others, than many more athletes dope than are caught. The reason for this is that drugs are typically "masked" and are not detected through testing, which remains several steps behind doping. You might well ask why do we bother with testing when it catches so few, but to give it up is to concede that nothing substantial can be done to stop doping or even discourage it. That is probably where we are.
I've read a lot of your posts on this forum and what you think about doping. I can't recall if you feel that there are any T&F athletes or cyclists that you feel are clean. If there are any, who do you think that they are?
All 3 Dutch trained by the same coach and all 3 with distinctively different physiques...Armstrong? Tell us which ones are doping based on their physiques.
At that level, they could all be doping. But when a woman shows highly pronounced physical development in the upper body especially, that can be a red flag. (It can also be so with men - like Ben Johnson). In a sport where doping has become a virtual necessity to succeed at the international level, nothing is less surprising than that a top athlete might be doping. But that is what fans find hard to accept.
See, here in this case you've once again set yourself up for defeat. According to you, physique and progession are two red flags that say 'doper'. Yet you have 3 women; Klaver big and muscled, Bol gangly and all legs, Kaz who probably sports a more proportioned 400 runner physique....all 3 different body types. And none of the 3 has anything in their progression curves to suggest they've doped. And they all have the same coach. Plus they've been competing at a world class level for several years each.
Yet you still claim they're all dopers. Your red flags don't apply and you don't believe in testing so give us...the entire LRC and the free world...your evidence that any of them are doping, let alone all of them.
Oh my Gawd...it's you who is badly informed. As I stated, they not only test for PED's they test for blockers, diuretics, masking agents...anything that suggests they're trying to cheat gets a suspension. And they do get suspended. Also, no definitive numbers on if the testers are behind at all, that statement has been claimed for decades without proof unless you're claiming something like BALCO and they got caught too.
Again, you put up some kind of cryptic number that has no fact to it. Even if such a survey exists, which I believe doesn't because you made it up, what would be the hypothetical number that these apparitions claim are dopers? 10%...20%...etc? It doesn't prove how many are actually doping, only that it's higher than 1%.
And about that 'survey'...what was the sample size? Was this survey sent out to every single athlete, pro and amateur? Who is the target audience? How as this survey conducted? What's it's approximate error? Lastly who would even partake in such a survey? There is no confidentiality. You know when someone snitches on someone else to the IRA, the IRA will also track the whistleblower.
You're taking a beating on this and are trying to save face. Trying to create parameters that not only have never existed, but could never exist because humans are not clones.
You are embarrassing yourself. The figure of 1% test positives comes from WADA. The observation that doping is ahead of antidoping comes from its former head, David Howman. But what you are staggeringly unaware of, that has been discussed in this site for years, are the confidential athlete surveys done at the World Champs over a decade ago (as well as the Asian Games) that showed that at least 1 in 3 but possibly even 1 in 2 championship level athletes admitted to doping. Antidoping experts, such as the Jamaican whistleblower Renee Ann Shirley, have conceded that doping "is at the top level in every sport in every country with the collusion of many sports governance bodies". Finally WADA has included T and F with those dopers' festivals of bodybuilding, weightlifting and cycling for risk of doping.
You silly man...no one is disputing there is doping. The dispute is you using totally irrelevant evidence that someone is doping. You said it, you've been called on it and now you've changed the narrative to testing. And even those numbers are not fact, they're opinion that may include bias by competitors, if not outright disinformation.
Oh my Gawd...it's you who is badly informed. As I stated, they not only test for PED's they test for blockers, diuretics, masking agents...anything that suggests they're trying to cheat gets a suspension. And they do get suspended. Also, no definitive numbers on if the testers are behind at all, that statement has been claimed for decades without proof unless you're claiming something like BALCO and they got caught too.
Again, you put up some kind of cryptic number that has no fact to it. Even if such a survey exists, which I believe doesn't because you made it up, what would be the hypothetical number that these apparitions claim are dopers? 10%...20%...etc? It doesn't prove how many are actually doping, only that it's higher than 1%.
And about that 'survey'...what was the sample size? Was this survey sent out to every single athlete, pro and amateur? Who is the target audience? How as this survey conducted? What's it's approximate error? Lastly who would even partake in such a survey? There is no confidentiality. You know when someone snitches on someone else to the IRA, the IRA will also track the whistleblower.
You're taking a beating on this and are trying to save face. Trying to create parameters that not only have never existed, but could never exist because humans are not clones.
You are embarrassing yourself. The figure of 1% test positives comes from WADA. The observation that doping is ahead of antidoping comes from its former head, David Howman. But what you are staggeringly unaware of, that has been discussed in this site for years, are the confidential athlete surveys done at the World Champs over a decade ago (as well as the Asian Games) that showed that at least 1 in 3 but possibly even 1 in 2 championship level athletes admitted to doping. Antidoping experts, such as the Jamaican whistleblower Renee Ann Shirley, have conceded that doping "is at the top level in every sport in every country with the collusion of many sports governance bodies". Finally WADA has included T and F with those dopers' festivals of bodybuilding, weightlifting and cycling for risk of doping.
I'm curious about this survey. According to WADA it's implementation is evolving and relies on the athletes giving honest responses. It seems to be unsure of itself. This was written Jan 2022.
First it admits past surveys have been inaccurate. One unanswered question in the field of anti-doping is how prevalent doping actually is in competitive sport.
"Past attempts to quantify the extent of the problem have led to vastly differing figures due to the diversity in methods, population, definition of doping and timeframes involved. As a result, the figures are not representative, comparable, or even suitable to adequately inform anti-doping efforts."
Second the reliability is in question because of the uncertainly of truthful responses.
Motivating athletes to respond honestly
One of the most challenging aspects of the survey is convincing athletes who do dope or have doped to feel safe admitting to it.
Prof. Petróczi says the survey methodology the Prevalence Working Group developed was painstakingly created to ensure that the individual answers given by respondents are and will always be 100% unknown. “Taking an extreme example, even if I have the picture, the name and the response from an athlete, I still cannot tell how this athlete answered the prevalence question,” she explains. “It is absolutely safe to admit all kinds of performance-enhancing practices. (For more details on the methodology, click here.) But that does not mean that being safe motivates athletes to tell the truth. Motivation should come from the way the survey is implemented.” One way to encourage athletes to take part in such a survey is to convince them that their answers can help current and future generations of athletes by exposing the truth about doping in their sport or country. One response often given by doped athletes is that they use prohibited substances because everyone else is, and to not do so would mean losing their competitiveness. If the survey can help show that the prevalence of doping in their sport is not as high as it is perceived to be, it could result in a change of thinking and, hopefully, reduce the use of banned substances and methods. To help make athletes feel more involved in the process, the Working Group has included athletes from the beginning regarding the framing and development of the survey so that they could truly put their own mark on it. “Now it is down to the athletes to come forward,” Prof. Petróczi says. “If there is higher or lower prevalence than we believe, we need to know. Maybe it is not the answer that we want, but the community needs to know.”
In this latest edition of ‘Spotlight’, which keeps stakeholders up to date on the activities being carried out by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) team and its partners, we look at WADA’s efforts to provide tools to its st...
All 3 Dutch trained by the same coach and all 3 with distinctively different physiques...Armstrong? Tell us which ones are doping based on their physiques.
Bol 48.75 - NL Klaver 48.78 - NL
Kacz - Kaczmarek Natalia 48.80 - PL (Poland) - not under Meuwly (Kiełbasińska Anna is and possibly short-distance hurdler Pia Skrzyszowska as she trains at least sometimes with the Dutch).
Bol has 100% normal silhouette - as has also Kaczmarek - they are just tall with Bol very tall with 1.84 (Kaczmarek ~1.78 I think - no data available).
It's just Klaver who is athletically built while very tall too with 1.82 - but definitely nothing super special. She is just rather stocky by nature. For me it was Alexis Holmes who looked more massive than Bol and almost like Klaver. In fact it was Shaunae Miller-Uibo who has become super athletic with more visible muscles since ~2017-2018 - but she is not stocky by nature. This whole discussion about Klaver is absolutely pointless and even ridiculous.
You know, they have tests for excessive testosterone with definitive parameters and track probably has the toughest and stringent standards of all sports. They also have tests that show banned substances plus blockers and cleansers. And it's random, year round. And they do in fact catch dopers and in spite of such claims as toothpaste and burritos the results almost always stick. And not just marquee athletes, even the lane fillers get busted.
Guess what? Two of the test parameters NOT used are body size or progression because there is no definitive parameter. You can't even define it yourself. Show us numbers that say if you progress so much or weigh so much or how muscular one needs to be to get busted.
Let me ask this Mr. Doubtfire...if Klaver was doping based on her physique then why does she not show facial hair or a deep voice and only a 1.17 second progression in 4 years plus no individual medals and no DL wins? And she competes quite often.
Also prove factually that Klaver's physique is beyond what can normally be achieved while clean. You've provided nothing that tells us differently, it's just your own bias.
You don't understand the human body, you don't understand physiology, you don't understand training, you don't understand testing...in short, you don't understand sh*t.
You seem to think a masculine caricature is what would give away doping by a female athlete. Did you see that with Shelby Houlihan? Or Marion Jones?
What? You're the one saying body physique is a red flag. You said a woman cannot build muscle like a man and that's evidence.
All 3 Dutch trained by the same coach and all 3 with distinctively different physiques...Armstrong? Tell us which ones are doping based on their physiques.
Bol 48.75 - NL Klaver 48.78 - NL
Kacz - Kaczmarek Natalia 48.80 - PL (Poland) - not under Meuwly (Kiełbasińska Anna is and possibly short-distance hurdler Pia Skrzyszowska as she trains at least sometimes with the Dutch).
Bol has 100% normal silhouette - as has also Kaczmarek - they are just tall with Bol very tall with 1.84 (Kaczmarek ~1.78 I think - no data available).
It's just Klaver who is athletically built while very tall too with 1.82 - but definitely nothing super special. She is just rather stocky by nature. For me it was Alexis Holmes who looked more massive than Bol and almost like Klaver. In fact it was Shaunae Miller-Uibo who has become super athletic with more visible muscles since ~2017-2018 - but she is not stocky by nature. This whole discussion about Klaver is absolutely pointless and even ridiculous.
I agree, it's this Armstrong dude who accused Klaver.
One thing, someone said Kaz was training with Klaver and she trains with Bol under Meuwly, that's why she switched.
It's unbelievable how badly informed some running fans are. Only 1% of tests return a positive yet it is known, from confidential athlete surveys among others, than many more athletes dope than are caught. The reason for this is that drugs are typically "masked" and are not detected through testing, which remains several steps behind doping. You might well ask why do we bother with testing when it catches so few, but to give it up is to concede that nothing substantial can be done to stop doping or even discourage it. That is probably where we are.
I've read a lot of your posts on this forum and what you think about doping. I can't recall if you feel that there are any T&F athletes or cyclists that you feel are clean. If there are any, who do you think that they are?
I'm not trolling. I am genuinely curious.
I know that you're probably busy, Armstronglivs, but still interested in your answer on this.
What high-level T&F athletes or cyclists do you feel are clean?
You are embarrassing yourself. The figure of 1% test positives comes from WADA. The observation that doping is ahead of antidoping comes from its former head, David Howman. But what you are staggeringly unaware of, that has been discussed in this site for years, are the confidential athlete surveys done at the World Champs over a decade ago (as well as the Asian Games) that showed that at least 1 in 3 but possibly even 1 in 2 championship level athletes admitted to doping. Antidoping experts, such as the Jamaican whistleblower Renee Ann Shirley, have conceded that doping "is at the top level in every sport in every country with the collusion of many sports governance bodies". Finally WADA has included T and F with those dopers' festivals of bodybuilding, weightlifting and cycling for risk of doping.
You silly man...no one is disputing there is doping. The dispute is you using totally irrelevant evidence that someone is doping. You said it, you've been called on it and now you've changed the narrative to testing. And even those numbers are not fact, they're opinion that may include bias by competitors, if not outright disinformation.
I've been "called" on nothing. You haven't got an argument worth recognising as such.
I've been "called" on nothing. You haven't got an argument worth recognising as such.
I would like you to answer the question that I asked you yesterday, if you don’t mind. I’m not trolling you but am genuinely interested in your thoughts.
What top level T&F athletes or cyclists do you feel are clean?
You seem to think a masculine caricature is what would give away doping by a female athlete. Did you see that with Shelby Houlihan? Or Marion Jones?
What? You're the one saying body physique is a red flag. You said a woman cannot build muscle like a man and that's evidence.
You are really too dim to debate this with. Steroid produced muscular development in a woman - such as with female bodybuilders - does not have to be at a transparently masculine extreme, where you talk about "facial hair" etc, and they have to look like Kratochvilova or they aren't doping. If that were so the significant number of female athletes who use steroids would be as obvious as the "bearded lady in the circus".
All 3 Dutch trained by the same coach and all 3 with distinctively different physiques...Armstrong? Tell us which ones are doping based on their physiques.
Bol 48.75 - NL Klaver 48.78 - NL
Kacz - Kaczmarek Natalia 48.80 - PL (Poland) - not under Meuwly (Kiełbasińska Anna is and possibly short-distance hurdler Pia Skrzyszowska as she trains at least sometimes with the Dutch).
Bol has 100% normal silhouette - as has also Kaczmarek - they are just tall with Bol very tall with 1.84 (Kaczmarek ~1.78 I think - no data available).
It's just Klaver who is athletically built while very tall too with 1.82 - but definitely nothing super special. She is just rather stocky by nature. For me it was Alexis Holmes who looked more massive than Bol and almost like Klaver. In fact it was Shaunae Miller-Uibo who has become super athletic with more visible muscles since ~2017-2018 - but she is not stocky by nature. This whole discussion about Klaver is absolutely pointless and even ridiculous.
Just as it was about Marion Jones and Shelby Houlihan - and so many others. They couldn't have been doping, could they? But they were. When T and F is estimated to be as rife with doping as bodybuilding and weightlifting no one can confidently be pronounced clean. But you fans so want to believe it.
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.
