Too many World Records being set —- not happy

But he does know that there is nothing that suggests 3:23 for the 1500 in the new shoes and 3:40 for the mile will be doped (the conversion times for El G's records) because there is "no correlation" between "doping and time". Which means doping doesn't help athletes to run faster. Unbelievable - in every sense.

Amidst all this waffle, your conclusion that 3:23 and 3:40 in the new shoes aren't doped somehow remains intact. Of course it does. You do realise that the best doped athletes using the modern shoes have so far not even surpassed 3:26 and 3:43? So in your books the records of a "clean" athlete remain far far beyond anything any doper has achieved or possibly ever can achieve. But that will be further proof to you that doping doesn't enhance performance in top athletes. Yes - it probably makes them worse.

You seen to say a million words,in multiple sentances without actually saying much.Take a chill pill.

Of course, another necessary conclusion that follows from the conversion of El G's records because of the new shoes is that Jakob is not in the same class - and nor will he ever be. He won't ever run 3:23 for the 1500 or 3:40 for the mile. His fans won't be pleased to hear that.

If it is "abundant" even amongst faster amateurs what does that suggest about its use amongst professionals, for whom the stakes are so much higher? How about that it is a virtual norm?

It was a math question, I guess, but I saw no math in any solution, including mine. I did write a small program to exhaustively search many variations of optimal stacking (there is math behind optimal stacking, but not for a finite number of small spheres that would not be truncated within a bigger sphere) to come up with my best answer, and I didn't see any better one.

Can you be more specific about "mountains of circumstantial and scientific evidence that doping is very effective" for elite men's distance running events -- specifically the 1500m/mile?

I'm not ignoring any mountains, but actively looking for them, and only finding scattered disconnected ant-hills here and there. All I get are amateur judgements that my "grasp is mediocre".

The doping performance effectiveness scientific evidence I've seen so far did not involve elite athletes, did not involve elite performances, did not even establish personal maximum performances for the amateurs, did not look at the shorter 1500m/mile distances, and were not signficantly better than legal altitude training methods. Conclusion: fast times could be legal (e.g. from altitude training) or doped. Most of that scientific evidence cautions against projecting limited findings onto the performances of elite athletes -- advice which I am heeding.

With respect to circumstantial evidence -- can you provide anything more? Not sure what you mean here.

With respect to top elites doping, I cannot deduce that those who are winning at the very top are "most likely" doping. I've seen expert estimates range from 10% to 44% for world class athletes, but even then some of the estimates mix up men and women and sprints and jumping and throwing with distance. None of the evidence shows that in men's distance running events, doping is more likely at the top. In fact, one could reasonably speculate/infer/deduce that it is not most likely the winners at the top, but it is more likely the slower athletes, with less to lose, hoping to break into the top, who are doping more, or alternatively aging athletes looking to hang on to the top, or in some cases athletes who are simply unaware that routine hospital treatments for legitimate issues, or unlabled contaminated supplements and medication, or even USDA approved food, can cause doping positives.

What is absent is not only the evidence that doping produces faster elite times for the men's distance events, but more specifically for the men's 1500m/mile, a proven history over decades of such faster elite times that worldwide widespread effective doping is predicted to bring.

Yes I agree, it will be almost impossible for Jakob to run 3:26 and 3:43:13. If he went back to Gjert and lead the monastic lifestyle then maybe yes. He cannot be with elisabeth for 11 straight months of the year just like El G. He needs to be enclosed in a mountain hole like Sierra Nevada Spain or something and be surrounded with nourishing elements of air, food, water and good old pen and paper and zero screen time.

Another unpleasant trait of some old people is that they think since they have been here for a while, they know it all / better. In reality a lot of people just stay average or even below average for a long time and that's it.

Also, Armstronglivs, there is no such thing as wisdom. Only different perspectives and approaches to life. What was right for one person long time ago might not be right for another person now. Therefore it is wrong to measure everything and everyone by the same standards.

Therefore it also makes no sense to compare Jim Ryun to Jakob Ingebrigtsen. It only causes a hypothetical argument along the lines "Batman vs. Superman". Different times, different circumstances, different people.

If you want to suggest a cause and effect relation between two variables, namely doping and men's 1500m/mile performance, someone has to do that homework.

Unlike you, I don't assume that dopers are necessarily faster than the fastest clean athletes, even if I assumed doping helped the doper for the sake of argument.

So far, in my book, Ramzi, has the fastest doped 1500m peformance, currently the 70th fastest performance all time, and the 69 faster performances could all be clean.

The book could be updated, but only with better evidence that doesn't exist today.

To be honest with you:

1) the top guys born and bred at altitude and trained there their entire life should reap both advantages and disadvantages of said altitude.

2) the top guys born and bred at sea level and train there their entire life should reap their own set of advantages and disadvantages of said sea level.

3) Low or non-existent levels of pollutants such as anthropogenic pesticides and many other toxins in food crop and water supply, and, the same for anthropogenic electromagnetic fields at all radiofrequencies.

Both clause 1 and 2 are equally true only if clause 3 is true for both. This would mean that the earth and its atmosphere/environment would have been fair (equally beneficial) to both the altitude born and bred athlete as well as the sea level one if no or very little pollution existed.

This may sound like a hypothesis that needs to be proven, but I urge that it isn't because the weight of evidence pointing to such relationship above and their probable mechanisms are over a century's old by now in 2023.

Most people over here know that world records aren’t really “soft” or “weak”.

It’s just a shortcut to distinguish all these strong world records.

Harsh truths may be unpleasant for fans.

At one point in time, El G held 33 of the top 100 all time 1500m performances (sub-3:30), as well as the 101st. The next athlete (Ngeny) held 8. Nobody was or is in El G's class, clean or doped.

Even if we ignore the 2+ seconds effect of the new shoes, Jakob has a lot more races to run before he accumulates 30+ sub-3:30s.

I don't form any conclusions based on what other fans are pleased with thinking, but on substantial facts and evidence.

3 seconds in the 1500m because of the shoes? Havn't you stated that the improvement is almost nothing (or 1 second at most)?

You need to learn to follow an argument. It wasn't me who suggested that kind of improvement due to the new shoes - it came from rekrunner, who was purporting to apply a measure estimated by Nick Willis. I don't happen to agree with it. The new shoes might add a fraction of a second over the mile at the top of the sport. But doping will add several seconds. That is why records and times are falling today like confetti - doping that isn't being detected.

We are talking about WR's and that was not broken. Alan Webb record was soft compared to the 1500 AR

LOL

Mens 100 and 200 set in 2009

400 I believe in 2016

800 in 2012

1500, Mile and 3000 in the 1990's

110 Hurdles Airies Merritt probably over 10 Years

100 and 200 in 1988

400 in 1985

800 in 1983

3000 in either 1993 or 1997

If you look at the 100, 200, 400 and 800 The Women who breaks any of these Records may not have been born when those World Records were set

That's from you, imby:

If Willis is correct that means the 1500 record is actually worth 3:23x
in the new spikes - and the mile record sub-3:40. (Of course Willis
doesn't say that). That means these records were doped beyond our
comprehension (not to mention Komen's records and those who ran close
like Ngeny, Lagat and Kiprop). Only a lunatic would believe 3:23x and
3:40 respectively could be clean.

You use this 2+ seconds improvement in the 1500m (even bigger for the Mile - you or your doped friend (according to you) might know why) as part of your "argumentation" - even when you don't think the shoes give such an improvement.

Typical behaviour of a notorious liar (many examples) which you are.

Also from you, dumbo:

"Of course, another necessary conclusion that follows from the conversion
of El G's records because of the new shoes is that Jakob is not in the
same class - and nor will he ever be. He won't ever run 3:23 for the
1500 or 3:40 for the mile. His fans won't be pleased to hear that."

For putting down your most beloved runner, using a "fact" which you think is not true seems appropriate to you. To just call you a liar is friendly.

Which positive impact have you ever had in this forum?