What will it take for a new mile WR?

rekrunner wrote:

I've noticed the same pattern in all threads you participate in.

It would seem that many posters find the sum of your contributions to any topic to be of little value, and your autonomous reflex is to personally attack their intelligence, which only reinforces this finding.

Meanwhile, while you play with words, I have grasped and mastered the meaning of numbers.

You ruin every single thread you participate in. Congratulations??

I can see why you think I should be the adult between the two of us.

These threads would be much shorter without all the personal attacks.

It is ironic that you compare yourself to Mitt Romney. He is a highly religious person, whose views on the impeachment were informed by his adherence to those beliefs - as yours are in respect of the doping issue. But Mitt can at least recognise credible argument. No, you are more Mitch MConnell.

Are there any running world records - male or female - that you would consider are doped, and by that I mean doping is not merely incidental but has contributed to the record?

Armstronglivs wrote:

It is ironic that you compare yourself to Mitt Romney. He is a highly religious person, whose views on the impeachment were informed by his adherence to those beliefs - as yours are in respect of the doping issue. But Mitt can at least recognise credible argument. No, you are more Mitch MConnell.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Are there any running world records - male or female - that you would consider are doped, and by that I mean doping is not merely incidental but has contributed to the record?

You are asking the wrong question. You are asking me what I believe.

Despite being a religious man, Romney made a judgement based on the presented facts -- something I respect.

The question here is whether the sum total of the presented facts are sufficient to draw certain conclusions about the "doping issue" and performance.

Coevett wrote:

RamboWarrior wrote:

It would take someone who really care.

American and British often don't realize that the mile and non metrics distance are non exsitant anywhere else in the world and nobody is interested in it.

Everybody run the 1500m.

Bad Wigs speaks the truth as usual..

Have I got inside your head somehow? That's not me, I rarely sock and never do it for no real reason.

But RW is right. They just don't have miles except in Britain and the US. The mile was already second to the 1500 when the 50s rolled around and the media started pretending everyone had thought sub 4 was impossible.

That hype machine died a long time ago and it's not coming back. Not even if someone approaches 3:40.

End of discussion.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It is ironic that you compare yourself to Mitt Romney. He is a highly religious person, whose views on the impeachment were informed by his adherence to those beliefs - as yours are in respect of the doping issue. But Mitt can at least recognise credible argument. No, you are more Mitch MConnell.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Are there any running world records - male or female - that you would consider are doped, and by that I mean doping is not merely incidental but has contributed to the record?

You are asking the wrong question. You are asking me what I believe.

Despite being a religious man, Romney made a judgement based on the presented facts -- something I respect.

The question here is whether the sum total of the presented facts are sufficient to draw certain conclusions about the "doping issue" and performance.

So your answer is no. As I expected. (I didn't ask what you "believed", but what you might consider be the case, which is an assessment you - or anyone - might reasonably make based on all the information available about doping, as you might respond to any question about the real world. I could ask you if the sky is blue and your response would be, "the question is whether the sum total of the presented facts are sufficient to draw certain conclusions", as you said above about doping. But don't trouble yourself. You ducked the question - as a denier would.)

Won’t have a clue who Kipchoge is?? That was a huge event...

Brazier uses standard victory elites

Millenials who have no memory of anything much before 2000 miss the point when they think no one cares about records for the mile. No one cares much about the records for any distance - whether metric or imperial. No one out there is eagerly debating whether the 1500 record will be broken - or the 5k, 10k or any other record. Runners today are not household names, as they typically were in the past. Many of the current records were set decades ago, by runners long-retired, and against the passage of easily forgotten championship performances is the litany of athletes being busted for doping. Cynicism is part of the sport now. (Thankyou, Alberto.) The non-running public will still know the name of Jesse Owens, but they won't know what the "sub-2" was or who accomplished it - or indeed any other record-holder, with the exception of the now retired Usain Bolt. The dominant news stories have been the controversial participation of males - and their domination - in women's track and the ongoing saga of the Russia ban. So tell me again that the mile is passe.

You are totally out if touch with reality.

Your reality.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Your reality.

The reality of 2020 is not your stuck-in-time-reality of 1950/60/70/80.

Armstronglivs wrote:

So your answer is no. As I expected. (I didn't ask what you "believed", but what you might consider be the case, which is an assessment you - or anyone - might reasonably make based on all the information available about doping, as you might respond to any question about the real world. I could ask you if the sky is blue and your response would be, "the question is whether the sum total of the presented facts are sufficient to draw certain conclusions", as you said above about doping. But don't trouble yourself. You ducked the question - as a denier would.)

I might consider what could be the case reasonably based on all the information available about doping.

Or I might not consider. That is what happened here.

The sky can be blue, gray, red, or black.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So your answer is no. As I expected. (I didn't ask what you "believed", but what you might consider be the case, which is an assessment you - or anyone - might reasonably make based on all the information available about doping, as you might respond to any question about the real world. I could ask you if the sky is blue and your response would be, "the question is whether the sum total of the presented facts are sufficient to draw certain conclusions", as you said above about doping. But don't trouble yourself. You ducked the question - as a denier would.)

I might consider what could be the case reasonably based on all the information available about doping.

Or I might not consider. That is what happened here.

The sky can be blue, gray, red, or black.

If you can't tell what color the sky is when you look at it your grasp of reality is even more tenuous than I had supposed.

Clearly, you can't - indeed won't - point to a single wr performance that you would consider (even suspect) is doped. That includes Flojo's 10.49, Kratochvilova's 47.6, Dibaba's 3.50, or maybe El G's 3.26, Komen's 7.24, and so on. This is despite the systemic state doping in the E Bloc in the 80's, the rampant steroid abuse in sprinting in that period, the unchecked use of EPO in the 90's, the parade of drug busts today in Kenya, the lack of doping controls in many countries like Ethiopia and lately the banning of Russia for systemic doping, taken in sum with official estimates that put doping today amongst elites at up to at least 40%.

In the light of the history of the sport and available knowledge of doping, that you can't contemplate a single doped wr suggests you are either monumentally ignorant or in terminal denial. I'll go for both in your case.

I can tell the color of the sky when I look at it, so your hypothetical condition is inapplicable.

You are half right. I can, but I won't, point to a single WR performance that I would consider or suspect is doped, despite all those factors. I can contemplate that some of them are doped, so again, your suggestion is inapplicable.

This thread is about the mile world record.

rekrunner wrote:

I can tell the color of the sky when I look at it, so your hypothetical condition is inapplicable.

You are half right. I can, but I won't, point to a single WR performance that I would consider or suspect is doped, despite all those factors. I can contemplate that some of them are doped, so again, your suggestion is inapplicable.

This thread is about the mile world record.

Which you refuse to consider is likely to be doped, and thus can probably only be surpassed by another doped performance.

The record - along with the 1500 record - is over 20 years old , set at the height of the EPO era and coming at the end of a period of continued and exponential improvements over the distance, of 11 seconds in 40 years, with no one getting within 3 seconds of the 1999 record since it was set.

Of course you choose not to point to a single wr that might be doped because your modus operandi is denial. That is the complete opposite of the scientific method you claim to follow.

You think you can tell the color of the sky when you look at it but the blinkered nature of your vision suggests otherwise.

3 pages ago, I said I considered the repeated suggestion that doping was necessary to beat the mile world record a statement of faith, not because it is true or false, but because it lacked relevant facts and references.

This can only be cured by providing such facts and references, something you have failed to do before and since.

I am prepared to be proved wrong only if you can provide direct facts and references.

Your serial list of petty personal attacks only shows me you are unable to do more.

You may find "over 20 years old, set at the height of the EPO era" persuasive, but I do not. As I have argued elsewhere in a performance thread, it is not obvious there ever was an EPO-era for running among the fastest performances. It may be more accurate to call it an African era.

The scientist in me isn't interested in one record, and whether it is doped, and whether such doping is necessary or incidental. To determine the answers, we need to look for larger trends across the whole population of athletes over the course of decades -- something I did in two other threads.

If we assume, as you do, "at least 40% doping prevalence", and 2 to 3 seconds improvement in the most talented high responders, "scientists" should predict large numbers of athletes, including large numbers of non-Africans, beating the 1980s times of Cram, Coe, Aouita and even Ovett, by significant margins.

If we assume, as many do here, that EPO is necessary to beat the world record, then training at high altitude would help. As I have shown elsewhere, in a 1997 study, one group of men "hi-lo" training was able to improve their 5K performance by more than 6% over the course of a 14 week study. Note that many Africans have lived at high-altitude, something comparable to micro-dosing EPO, all of their lives -- this makes me wonder what the lifelong effect of permanent and continuous EPO-microdosing would have on performance.

I deny that I am a denier.