You're being downvoted but the track was actually harder than average. Femke Bol also commented on this. Harder track means more recovery, but it's good for faster times.
There was lots of research done to make the track faster. See the comments in of the Maurizio Stroppiana, the vice president of Mondo, an Italian company that produces synthetic athletics tracks:
> “What we noticed in the previous track (Tokyo) is that, depending on where the athlete stepped (with the foot), you get different results. We modified the shape to provide a more uniform response and to increase the area of depression of the track. This makes the track better because they will not feel any difference, the elastic response is exactly the same throughout the track to guarantee that the rhythm of the athlete (will) be maintained. It took us about two years to fine-tune this new solution. We developed this mathematical model at the University of Milan”. It lets them run simulations and test new combinations faster. The four-year Olympic cycle gives ideal preparation time."
Hmm according to Stroppiana it's actually not harder, but it is faster:
> "These narratives started in the 1996 (Atlanta) Olympic Games because they had some great record times. They started saying, ‘Yes it’s fast, it’s fast because it’s hard’. And since then we haven’t been able to change that point of view. The track in Paris is softer than before, We really came to realise that is not a good solution making the track hard. And also, (it) doesn’t necessarily translate into faster times. In fact, it can actually lead to injury. So we have changed that in the last, six, seven years."
Thanks. I can see that the voting is sometimes an algorithm, but I don't mind if it leads to a truer interpretation of the science. I haven't asked AI to explain the PED concept in Bioenergetics terms because
Cycling is the same way. There's something like Ketones or whatever, or combo with Maurten, or addition of something else borderline that's everywhere. We just don't know what it is.
UAE Team Emirates, Visma-Lease a Bike and Israel-Premier Tech have confirmed that their riders occasionally inhale carbon monoxide for the purpose of optimising altitude training
They spend over a billion dollars a year in their "gullible zealotry". But you know they are merely succumbing to magical thinking while never having used peds or known anyone who has.
We were talking about "this place".
You perfectly demonstrate your "gullible zealotry wanting for evidence of the existence of powerful magical potions" with the statement "They spend over a billion dollars a year".
You keep referring to Al Jazeera, who provided no evidence (i.e. we are still wanting evidence), who did not define "they", and who did not describe what the money was spent on as limited to WADA banned substances. This thread is about Olympians who performed well, not about aging men taking Nugenix Total T (for the wife), or your local gym rats taking Muscle Boost 5000.
It is the broad ambiguity and lack of specificity that the gullible zealots find most persuasive, because they saw it on TV.
Armstrong, I know him well enough despite being on the board for far less time than you, dear Mr Pro-Doping!!!! He has a good head on his shoulders, reasonable ethics and morals even though an atheist, fiercely protective of clean sport and knows when and where and why to place the stress on doping or dopers if any in space and time!!!!!! Armstrong also has exceptional cognition for objective facts and data and doesn't need to be policed by you on how to do his business, you feeling me rekrunner????????
Armstrong places enough stress and emphasis on objective facts and data, not too much and not too little, whereas for you Mr Pro-Doper, you place UNREASONABLE AND EVEN EGREGIOUS STRESS AND DEMANDS for objective facts and data which becomes off-balanced, immoral, lacking in ethical and behavioral propriety!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You claim you have a good deal of subjectivity to balance your objective data stance but according to my 1st hand experience and observation with you, I see only a grossly skewed and imbalanced bias towards objective data and almost zero subjective perception.
Cycling is the same way. There's something like Ketones or whatever, or combo with Maurten, or addition of something else borderline that's everywhere. We just don't know what it is.
Runners are taking ketones as well, which, like sodium bi-carbonate, are perfectly within the rules.
I don't doubt their sincerity, just their statements. You should trust data, not people. You do yourself a disservice by trusting Armstronglivs and Coevett, and you do them a disservice by vouching for them. Armstronglivs can't support his Al Jazeera quote, and Coevett still can't even spell Wanyonyi.
I fight substituting faith and fallacy for facts. You can't fight doping by building fake scarecrows and setting them on fire.
You support nothing that you claim. You merely select "data" that will confirm your bias.
LOL, what a pithy and hard-hitting truth you spoke of our eloquent pro-doper rekrunner!!!!!! He is so obviously willfully blind to 'data' that doesn't support his subjective bias and so subjective all the same!!!!!!! He intentionally doesn't know that he is one of us subjective folks and intentionally pretends to put distance between him up there and we down below LOL!!!!!!!! And so I'm trying to show him that we are higher than him instead as we are at least honest and sincere and responsible antidoping advocates but he is insincere and dishonest!!!!
So curious isn't it!!!!!!! I'm just laughing out loud seriously.........
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
The company-funded study showing a 4% improvement was rigged to show that improvement and is about as scientifically sound as a poll of 100 meth addicts on the popularity of meth.
Like everyone else who bought them, your observed improvement was a confirmation bias fueled placebo effect. You wanted to believe the shoes would work. Your $300 investment couldn't in your mind be a failure. You ran better because your mind pushed you to do it when the shoes were on.
PEDs are 100% behind why elite runners wearing them run faster. All have been duped.
You realise that they tested these supershoes vs. traditional flat, right? I think it was Asics Hyperspeed or something like that. I am fairly confident every type of supershoe with somewhat substatinal thickness of foam will beat an old school flat. There is no racing flat in my rotation that can get anywhere close to my Metaspeed Sky v.01 for example. Yeah, it's a sample of one - me, but I am confident that many other people can say the same.
We know that supershoe is beating old school flat in most cases (unless you are no responder, which is rare). The real muddy area is supershoes vs. other supershoes. Differences between brands in terms of pure performance are marginal and up to individual runner's mechanics.
Years 2010-2019 there is zero improvement in times on both the world and US top 100 average for track distance events. Zero. Some years are faster than others but, if you average them out, there is no improvement. Especially on US times. From 2021-current the improvement is night and day. On world level, 2021-2024 are fastest years ever. The US improvements are insane. What happened in 2019?
More athletes are using PEDs than ever before. But I don’t necessarily think it’s more than what it was in 2018. Cheat shoes have single-handedly inflated times more than anything else ever. Yes, more than PEDs. Because they are legal and anyone can get them. If cheat shoes were banned tomorrow we would see 2018 era times overnight.
The Al Jazeera investigation referred to doping in elite sport, not the irrelevant alternatives you raise. Their estimate has not been refuted. If it was incorrect it would have been challenged - it wasn't - by those with expert knowledge of the sport. That, obviously, doesn't include you.
When did "no one has refuted my non-expert interpretation" become a standard?
While Al Jazeera also looked at doping in elite sports in more detail, the "black market" statement wasn't explained nor clarified nor supported with any real data or definitions. There simply wasn't enough detail provided for anyone to interpret or contradict. In the introduction, an unnamed narrator spoke passively of an estimate for a lucrative black market for doping. It's not that that statement, to the extent it is not too vague, is wrong, but simply that it doesn't mean the one thing you want to believe it does. It is your non-expert interpretation -- expressed by no experts -- that has been challenged.
Such a world-wide lucrative black market would not only include Olympians in 32 WADA sports (one of which is track and field, which includes long and middle distance, sprints, and field events), but many more athletes in non-WADA sports, like baseball, US football, basketball, non-Olympic soccer, cricket, rugby, etc., as well as high school and college and any other non-elite athletes who may or may not be subject to anti-doping rules, as well as non-athletes simply looking for personal enhancement.
I suppose I should first address the main question of the thread. What is different are the new superspikes and the new track. The new superspikes produced a bunch of improved performances already in 2021, and continued to do so in 2024. If you don't believe me, ask Sean Ingle about seismic shifts with epicenters around Nike and New Balance, and Nick Willis about what he newly believes in:
But doping hasn't continued to develop in those years? Oh, of course - it has no effect on performance.
I don't know. That is your unsupported claim. Note this thread is about the scenario "if it isn't PEDs", not about what you find credible (i.e. not what a gullible zealot finds "believable").
Athletes like Nick Willis and journalists like Sean Ingle say the superspikes have been making a measurable difference since at least 2021.
... If the new superspikes produced a bunch of improved performances already in 2020 (not 2021 by the way) as 5k/10k WRs were set in 2020, then why were the 800m times in 2020, 2021 so darn slow as tortoise huh???????? And still slower in 2022 and 2023?????????
Why only 2024 when the times were not only faster, but EGREGIOUSLY FAST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...
Please learn to do proper reason and persuasion in a well-balanced manner like me your RF King!!!
Note I said both superspikes and track. Someone else above explained how the Paris track has been improved.
Applying your "reason and persuasion in a well-balanced manner", you should equally dismiss doping. Doping has existed long before Coe ran his 1:41.73 PB in 1981. Yet, in the 43 years before 2024, only 2 Kenyans had ran faster, while in 2024, we have 1 Kenyan, 1 Canadian, 1 American, 1 Algerian, and 1 Frenchman.
So your majesty, why only 2024 when the times were not only faster, but EGREGIOUSLY FAST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Look we just had a conversation recently that many people found you quite the pro-doping character on LRC. And your defence didn't live up to your claimed antidoping stance. Many inconsistencies and indeed lies were identifed by rational persons Armstrong, Coevett and me the most important of them all!!!!!!!
So now you are bringing in supershoes to justify improved performances but not doping which improves performances just as well if not much better than supershoes????? You suddenly seem very questionably reluctant about doping as compared to supershoes isn't it Mr???????? And I put it to you that your questionable reluctance is down to you hiding and concealing a pro-doping agenda on LRC.
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.
