What an amazing athlete!! SIfan Hassan 3:53.63 just 4 days after setting 10,000 WR!!!

Not much interest to go into this part of the discussion from douchouk. Pointing on "not a trace of distress or tiredness on the faces of the first 2" here and keeping calm like a sleeping hamster about the same thing from his hero - says a lot about his character.

Love Hassan. She gives the best interviews, is so upbeat and cheerful and honest. Her IG is great as well. Heck of an athlete. Her form work and strength work with NOP is what changed her trajectory same with Mo. Went from being weak to all forces going in the right direction. Can’t wait to see the Olympics!

"False accusations of clean athletes are bad for the sport."(quote)

No, they aren't. It is doping that is bad for the sport. And there is an awful lot of it. False accusations are an occupational hazard of participating in a dirty sport.

fnhriel wrote:

Love Hassan. She gives the best interviews, is so upbeat and cheerful and honest. Her IG is great as well. Heck of an athlete. Her form work and strength work with NOP is what changed her trajectory same with Mo. Went from being weak to all forces going in the right direction. Can’t wait to see the Olympics!

She sure did. You could almost believe it was the juice.

"The power of rampant and undetected doping hasn't resulted in very many fast performances in the last 35 years"(quote)

They are all fast if they are faster than what those athletes would have achieved clean. And you know what is a clean level and a doped performance. But it fits with your philosophy that doping isn't performance enhancing.

No juice. Juice doesn’t help with form and mechanics. You should try both and get back to us.

Armstronglivs wrote:

fnhriel wrote:

Love Hassan. She gives the best interviews, is so upbeat and cheerful and honest. Her IG is great as well. Heck of an athlete. Her form work and strength work with NOP is what changed her trajectory same with Mo. Went from being weak to all forces going in the right direction. Can’t wait to see the Olympics!

She sure did. You could almost believe it was the juice.

sbab wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Maybe "they train harder"? All top athletes train hard - you don't get near the top without it. Many "Western folks" are also professionals trying to make a living from sport just the same as anyone else - or are just motivated to be the best out there. Sadly, the "best" are now completely doped, as we see.

You don't know that. Your opinion is that. Or at least you said 50/50. Now it's all the best ones that are doped.

With a 50/50 prevalence it stands to reason that amongst all those super-talented athletes the doped ones have the advantage. They will be the "best". If it werent so, then doping wouldn't make any difference.

Armstronglivs wrote:

"False accusations of clean athletes are bad for the sport."(quote)

No, they aren't. It is doping that is bad for the sport. And there is an awful lot of it. False accusations are an occupational hazard of participating in a dirty sport.

Both are bad for the sport.

When a doper "cheats", this harms the clean athlete.

When fans accuse clean athletes of "cheating", this also harms the clean athlete.

This is not the behavior of a fan of the sport.

Daffy wrote:

I don't blame you. It's sickening how successful athletes are slandered and maligned. This woman has been performing for years and is leaner than ever. Now that her hard work has paid off, here comes the nay-sayers with wild doping accusations. It's just sickening.

Some of us think that blatant doping is sickening.

The tiresome assumption being made here is that the fastest athletes work harder than others - as though other professionals are either lazy or haven't figured out that hard work brings success. Nor is it understood that doping enables doped athletes to work harder than clean athletes.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"False accusations of clean athletes are bad for the sport."(quote)

No, they aren't. It is doping that is bad for the sport. And there is an awful lot of it. False accusations are an occupational hazard of participating in a dirty sport.

Both are bad for the sport.

When a doper "cheats", this harms the clean athlete.

When fans accuse clean athletes of "cheating", this also harms the clean athlete.

This is not the behavior of a fan of the sport.

Fans believe what they wish. Like you do. They don't want to know about doping.

Armstronglivs wrote:

"The power of rampant and undetected doping hasn't resulted in very many fast performances in the last 35 years"(quote)

They are all fast if they are faster than what those athletes would have achieved clean. And you know what is a clean level and a doped performance. But it fits with your philosophy that doping isn't performance enhancing.

*If" they are faster?

It would be more credible if you could form a conclusion that wasn't also your assumption.

My philosophy is to follow the science.

fnhriel wrote:

No juice. Juice doesn’t help with form and mechanics. You should try both and get back to us.

Armstronglivs wrote:

She sure did. You could almost believe it was the juice.

Juice will help you to run faster, whatever your form or mechanics. She is also far from being the smoothest runner out there. There is a jerkiness in her style. But it doesn't matter if you are doped. Flojo had great form. So I suppose that proves she was clean - and her success was all due to hard work.

Armstronglivs wrote:

With a 50/50 prevalence it stands to reason that amongst all those super-talented athletes the doped ones have the advantage. They will be the "best". If it werent so, then doping wouldn't make any difference.

50/50 prevalence among the best is also your assumption.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Fans believe what they wish. Like you do. They don't want to know about doping.

I wouldn't call them "fans" of the sport, if they demonize all of its winners.

I would say they are bad for the sport, causing unnecessary and undeserved damage to its reputation.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"The power of rampant and undetected doping hasn't resulted in very many fast performances in the last 35 years"(quote)

They are all fast if they are faster than what those athletes would have achieved clean. And you know what is a clean level and a doped performance. But it fits with your philosophy that doping isn't performance enhancing.

*If" they are faster?

It would be more credible if you could form a conclusion that wasn't also your assumption.

My philosophy is to follow the science.

Your own statement above, that suggests doping hasn't had an affect on times, is an assumption, Einstein. "If" athletes are not faster than what they would have run clean then doping has no effect. Another assumption. But that conclusion is consistent with your delusions, that you pretentiously label a "philosophy". The doping equivalent of a Covid denier.

You can all believe that doing helps if you want or you can watch Icarus, listen to Canova, or interview the thousands of dopers who have never won Olympic Gold.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Fans believe what they wish. Like you do. They don't want to know about doping.

I wouldn't call them "fans" of the sport, if they demonize all of its winners.

I would say they are bad for the sport, causing unnecessary and undeserved damage to its reputation.

So it's the fans who are damaging the sport's reputation, not the dopers? I see that the image of the sport matters more to you than the truth about what it has become.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

With a 50/50 prevalence it stands to reason that amongst all those super-talented athletes the doped ones have the advantage. They will be the "best". If it werent so, then doping wouldn't make any difference.

50/50 prevalence among the best is also your assumption.

It isn't my assumption; it is an estimate by those involved in antidoping. But your own risible estimates aren't supported by any credible antidoping source, and your minimizing it doesn't reduce its actual incidence, except in your mind.

rekrunner: Talking about doping is bad for the sport.

Also rekrunner: Most prolific poster in doping threads in Lrc history.