No, if the evidence is inconclusive regarding guilt and non-guilt, it is illogical to conclude regarding guilt.
You haven't understood what I was saying. If we cannot safely conclude that any top performance is clean then we are left with the alternative, that the performance is doped. We are not trying to prove doping but can assume doping unless it can be shown otherwise. It can't. This thread proves it. No one can mount an argument that, of a range of given performances since the '90's, we can determine what is the true clean record beyond dispute. Hence, all could be doped. We can therefore assume that.
For any given top performance it's impossible to safely conclude that this performance is clean. With Armstrong's logic, we can assume all top performances are doped.
Here is a statement from our beloved Armstrong from today:
"It suggests most distance runners from other countries (non Kenya) try to run faster legitimately."
But if you had a million dollars (house money) to bet, who would you put your money on? You can pick anyone you want. Some runners are clean, who do you think is the fastest?
Josh Kerr.
I'd bet against any Algerian, Kenyan, Moroccan (because of their sad history), pre-2009 runner (because of lax testing), anyone with a likely doping history or suspicious or banned teammate or coach.
Then (note the original list was cut short) I get the following who actually might be clean:
None of the above. 3:30 is not achievable naturally. They run 3:34-3:35 naturally and then start doping. If you think I’m crazy you don’t know the sport and human body well.
In the removed post #143 a terrible post from another thread was claimed to be mine.
This post from the other thread was not from me and I'm almost certain that the post itself and the claim it to be mine was from Coevett. This is some new level of perversity.
Putting a white guy who isn't Nick Willis at the top of your "clean list" is sacrilegious
I never got the Nick is the greatest specimen ever notion. Why would the guy who trained 6 days a week, eschewed altitude until he was 28 or something, did almost no threshold training and wasn’t blessed with preternatural endurance OR speed be the best that could be accomplished? Nick to his credit got the most out of his fitness a bunch (tactically and timing his peak), and also had great longevity, but do you really think he was more talented than Webb, Jakob or whoever? Nick also set his PB at age 32, which certainly isn’t most 1500 runners’ physical peak. So to me if anything 32-year-old Nick running 3:29.66 gives me belief someone who trained possibly too hard, employed altitude, and so on could run 3:27-3:28 at age 20-27 when most runners are physically at their absolute peak.
Might go all the way back to Cram. Every record since has been set by an athlete linked to PEDs or set during the era when there was no reliable EPO test.
Everyone is suspect. It is easy to make arguments as to why Country X is particularly suspicious but note that the most suspicious country has changed many times in the past 30 years. And the one constant reality is that athletes--no matter where they are from, how much money they have, how talented they are--cheat. Half of the major league in the 1990s cheated. The entire peloton in the Tour De France cheated. Probably Lasse, Mary Slaney, Dieter Baumann, Ma's Army, Regina Jacobs, numerous Kenyan runners recently, probably all sorts of 50 year old triathletes and runners, all the folks who cut courses. . . .
What is sad is that probably a lot of the good 1500 runners are clean. Jim Ryun ran 3:33/3:51 on a dirt track in obsolete spikes. Probably clean (or at least he was not on EPO because it just wasn't available). Super spikes and nice track and he is under 3:30 and that was over 50 years ago! I have no doubt that there are people who can run 3:28 or faster clean but there are more people who can run 3:32 clean and will take drugs to get to 3:28 or faster.
[No, Lagat's 3:26.34 (when he was a Kenyan in 2001) should absolutely not count as the American record.]
Maree (South Africa) and Lagat (Kenya) are US citizens, yes, of course. And immigrants like them are a huge part of what America is.
But if we are talking about where and how Maree and Lagat became and developed as runners, their home countries should get the credit for that, not the USA. Maree didn't become an American until he was 27. Lagat was already an established Olympian for Kenya, racing at the top of the sport for years before he became an American. America can't "claim their success" sorry...
Luckily, that has nothing to do with the question since I don't care about the race or nationality of the runner, I just want to know who you think the clean 1500m holder is.
almost every elite Moroccan since mid to late 1980s and of course they have a horribly dirty record.
You need to wash your brain because you don't seem to be in a good state. There no more horrible dirtiness that dosen't comes from your lands.
Ask why they becomes thieves when put there legs in your land.
L'innoculateur makes a good point about the source of the problem.
Europeans invented the PEDs we are talking about and incentivized the sport with prize money (thus perverting the motivations to run in the first place). The economic imbalances between Europe and Africa also create powerful incentives to dope.
He is right that these incentives are strongest for athletes in poverty. Good point. But that means these athletes in Africa would have more reason to dope, not less.
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
But OP that posted this thread had this central idea in his mind or subconscient.
The title himself of the tread is quite subjective.
I am the OP and I am not claiming anything about who the correct answer to this question is. Honestly, I am more interested in the criteria you use to find the "clean WR holder" than the answer itself. I am just curious how you came to your choice.
I, personally, would rule out the following runners:
a) have already been busted for doping b) peaked in the height of the pre-testing EPO era (1990-2000) c) suddenly became very good after years of competing at a “normal” elite level d) worked directly with a coach (or national federation) who has been known to use drugs with other athletes or e) got much slower after testing protocols were introduced.
But this is just me. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, obviously. Who would you pick?
You haven't understood what I was saying. If we cannot safely conclude that any top performance is clean then we are left with the alternative, that the performance is doped. We are not trying to prove doping but can assume doping unless it can be shown otherwise. It can't. This thread proves it. No one can mount an argument that, of a range of given performances since the '90's, we can determine what is the true clean record beyond dispute. Hence, all could be doped. We can therefore assume that.
For any given top performance it's impossible to safely conclude that this performance is clean. With Armstrong's logic, we can assume all top performances are doped.
Here is a statement from our beloved Armstrong from today:
"It suggests most distance runners from other countries (non Kenya) try to run faster legitimately."
I can always rely on you. To not have a clue what the discussion is about.
Everyone is suspect. It is easy to make arguments as to why Country X is particularly suspicious but note that the most suspicious country has changed many times in the past 30 years. And the one constant reality is that athletes--no matter where they are from, how much money they have, how talented they are--cheat. Half of the major league in the 1990s cheated. The entire peloton in the Tour De France cheated. Probably Lasse, Mary Slaney, Dieter Baumann, Ma's Army, Regina Jacobs, numerous Kenyan runners recently, probably all sorts of 50 year old triathletes and runners, all the folks who cut courses. . . .
What is sad is that probably a lot of the good 1500 runners are clean. Jim Ryun ran 3:33/3:51 on a dirt track in obsolete spikes. Probably clean (or at least he was not on EPO because it just wasn't available). Super spikes and nice track and he is under 3:30 and that was over 50 years ago! I have no doubt that there are people who can run 3:28 or faster clean but there are more people who can run 3:32 clean and will take drugs to get to 3:28 or faster.
Careful. There are those who will accuse you of being me.
For any given top performance it's impossible to safely conclude that this performance is clean. With Armstrong's logic, we can assume all top performances are doped.
Here is a statement from our beloved Armstrong from today:
"It suggests most distance runners from other countries (non Kenya) try to run faster legitimately."
I can always rely on you. To not have a clue what the discussion is about.
Yes. as in "13.16" > "13.24" (Milburn v. Davenport?) implies "faster". As in your surprisingly missing of 8 Kenyan world records. As in the fact that you are completely unable to find the most easy results. And so on in the long list of Armstrong stupidities. Your totally self contradiction in your point of view regarding doping is obvious for anyone to see.
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.