Sorry -- this thread was not about the mile.
Sorry -- this thread was not about the mile.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Your own words - which you have just denied using - as you do. You are as chronic a liar as your fellow narcissist Donald.
I know *what* better? Your response was completely unconnected to my previous reply (which simply asked you to provide the foundation you said you had), so I thought it was just an open-ended assessment that I agreed with, but felt was beside the point.
Basic reading comprehension seems beyond you.
I had said you were still maintaining that you knew better than thousands of athletes, coaches, and physicians. Your response was "that goes without saying". In other words - yes.
Renato Canova wrote:
Armstrong, you use two different weights and two different measures, when say that Rekrunner
can't proof some top athlete is clean, and at the same time you can't prove he is not clean.
For which reason, for example, I (who well know clean athletes were able to better WR and to win WCh and Olympics) have to think athletes SLOWER than runners whom I know clean, had to take some PED, when there is no evidence ?
The difference is that I know doping exists, I know some doping can give big advantage (steroids in throwing, jumping and sprinting), BUT I ALSO KNOW WHERE ATHLETES ARRIVED TILL NOW WITHOUT ANY EXTERNAL HELP, LEGAL OR ILLEGAL.
This is my World on the ground, you are a lyon in fron of your computer, and your experience is based on what you THINK, not in what you KNOW.
So said, I'm the first asking to ban runners using EPO, not only, but also I ask to cancel ALL their results from the beginning of their career. But this not because the advantages they had with EPO (in some case, especially for short distances, good advantage, in other cases, connected with long distances, NO REAL ADVANTAGE, if not in their mind and their sel-confidence…), but because in their mind THEY WANTED TO CHEAT, and this is against the ethic not only in every sport, but also in the normal life.
So doping works everywhere except in distance running? You have rekrunner's disease.
rekrunner wrote:
physics defiant wrote:
Boulami, Ramzi, Armstrong, Jebet, Jeptoo, etc.
Almost there. This thread was about the mile, but for each athlete, can you provide 1) performance data, and 2) magnitude of effect of confounders?
Only then can we start an analysis.
No, we don't need to start an analysis. The effect of doping on performance has been long-established, with billions spent world-wide on doping, and anti-doping trying to prevent cheating. Bringing flat-earthers like yourself out of the Middle Ages is unnecessary.
rekrunner wrote:
physics defiant wrote:
Boulami, Ramzi, Armstrong, Jebet, Jeptoo, etc.
Almost there. This thread was about the mile, but for each athlete, can you provide 1) performance data, and 2) magnitude of effect of confounders?
Only then can we start an analysis.
Sure. WR, Doiuble Gold, 7Tours, WR, Multiple Major wins. All doped.
What does it take to prove it to you? You'll just say, it doesn't work and improvements came from elsewhere.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Basic reading comprehension seems beyond you.
I had said you were still maintaining that you knew better than thousands of athletes, coaches, and physicians. Your response was "that goes without saying". In other words - yes.
Yes these were your words: "you knew better than thousands of athletes, coaches, and physicians".
I agreed with your words -- most of these athletes, coaches, and physicians likely have not done the historical performance and trend analysis that I have done.
Armstronglivs wrote:
No, we don't need to start an analysis. The effect of doping on performance has been long-established, with billions spent world-wide on doping, and anti-doping trying to prevent cheating. Bringing flat-earthers like yourself out of the Middle Ages is unnecessary.
And yet we are seeing these meta-studies, that are revisiting this long established effect and concluding over-estimations among non-elites, and re-emphasizing that they were not done on elite athletes.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Renato Canova wrote:
Armstrong, you use two different weights and two different measures, when say that Rekrunner
can't proof some top athlete is clean, and at the same time you can't prove he is not clean.
For which reason, for example, I (who well know clean athletes were able to better WR and to win WCh and Olympics) have to think athletes SLOWER than runners whom I know clean, had to take some PED, when there is no evidence ?
The difference is that I know doping exists, I know some doping can give big advantage (steroids in throwing, jumping and sprinting), BUT I ALSO KNOW WHERE ATHLETES ARRIVED TILL NOW WITHOUT ANY EXTERNAL HELP, LEGAL OR ILLEGAL.
This is my World on the ground, you are a lyon in fron of your computer, and your experience is based on what you THINK, not in what you KNOW.
So said, I'm the first asking to ban runners using EPO, not only, but also I ask to cancel ALL their results from the beginning of their career. But this not because the advantages they had with EPO (in some case, especially for short distances, good advantage, in other cases, connected with long distances, NO REAL ADVANTAGE, if not in their mind and their sel-confidence…), but because in their mind THEY WANTED TO CHEAT, and this is against the ethic not only in every sport, but also in the normal life.
So doping works everywhere except in distance running? You have rekrunner's disease.
You are nothing, you have done nothing in/for competitive athletics.
And now you insult one of the best coaches ever?
At least have the decency to post under your real name when addressing Renato, you coward piece of shi.t.
Armstronglivs wrote:
lololololol wrote:
More insults from the old peabrain.
You know nothing about training and racing so all you do is cry DOPING and insult those who disagree with you.
Sad, sad little old man.
So you're ok with lying as well as doping. Figures.
You are weak. Your posts are lame. You are a coward.
Figures.
lololololol wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So you're ok with lying as well as doping. Figures.
You are weak. Your posts are lame. You are a coward.
Figures.
Post under your real name then.
physics defiant wrote:
Sure. WR, Doiuble Gold, 7Tours, WR, Multiple Major wins. All doped.
What does it take to prove it to you? You'll just say, it doesn't work and improvements came from elsewhere.
I have often said what I would find persuasive: 1) Perfomance data, and 2) a discussion of confounders.
If doping prevalence is significant, dopers will be distributed at all levels of talent.
Armstronglivs wrote:
So doping works everywhere except in distance running? You have rekrunner's disease.
Now who thinks he knows better than a coach with real experience?
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
No, we don't need to start an analysis. The effect of doping on performance has been long-established, with billions spent world-wide on doping, and anti-doping trying to prevent cheating. Bringing flat-earthers like yourself out of the Middle Ages is unnecessary.
And yet we are seeing these meta-studies, that are revisiting this long established effect and concluding over-estimations among non-elites, and re-emphasizing that they were not done on elite athletes.
Lack of studies with elite athletes doesn't mean doping has not been effective with athletes.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So doping works everywhere except in distance running? You have rekrunner's disease.
Now who thinks he knows better than a coach with real experience?
Does Renato coach throwers and weightlifters and dope them?
Barrel of Laughs wrote:
Lack of studies with elite athletes doesn't mean doping has not been effective with athletes.
This is true, and I have never ruled out this possibility that doping might be effective.
However, I do not find logical fallacies very persuasive, and this one is called "argument from ignorance".
One conclusion I have agreed with is that we need better studies than have been done to date.
physics defiant wrote:
Does Renato coach throwers and weightlifters and dope them?
He probably knows someone who has.
rekrunner wrote:
physics defiant wrote:
Does Renato coach throwers and weightlifters and dope them?
He probably knows someone who has.
That's a strong argument you just made.
It was not an argument, but an answer to your question.
It's the best answer I can give without knowing the answer.
rekrunner wrote:
Barrel of Laughs wrote:
Lack of studies with elite athletes doesn't mean doping has not been effective with athletes.
This is true, and I have never ruled out this possibility that doping might be effective.
However, I do not find logical fallacies very persuasive, and this one is called "argument from ignorance".
One conclusion I have agreed with is that we need better studies than have been done to date.
Tired of your logical fallacies BS. Let's see what one of your favorite world-renowned coaches, and someone who you feverishly ran damage control for, has to say on this matter:
"Alberto Salazar: Locating the Line Between Acceptable Performance Enhancement and Cheating:"
https://www.sweatelite.co/alberto-salazar-locating-line-acceptable-performance-enhancement-cheating/"I believe that it is currently difficult to be among the top 5 in the world in any of the distance events without using EPO or Human Growth Hormone. While some of the top athletes may be clean, so many athletes are running so fast that their performances are suspect. This is compounded for me by the fact that the times these athletes are running just happen to coincide exactly with what top exercise physiologists have calculated taking EPO would produce."
Too freaking funny - you're all over these threads bashing some of us for stating doping is very effective with elites, as well as discrediting top excercise physiologists & anti-doping experts, but yet your idol clearly states that it's difficult to be in the top 5 in the world for any distance event without doping.
Too funny - the coach you ran so much damage control for on those Salazar threads "tells it like it is."
rekrunner wrote:
It was not an argument, but an answer to your question.
It's the best answer I can give without knowing the answer.
You should just say you don't know.