You can't show that is wrong while the facts suggest it is probably true.
Hard to say what is more probable.
Other facts suggest that changes and advancements in training, tracks, opportunities, incentives, event specialization, professionalization, and most recently shoes and wavelights, have all benefitted performances since the 1970s.
They will have but not as much as changing and enhancing an athlete's physiology, which is what doping can do.
Other facts suggest that changes and advancements in training, tracks, opportunities, incentives, event specialization, professionalization, and most recently shoes and wavelights, have all benefitted performances since the 1970s.
They will have but not as much as changing and enhancing an athlete's physiology, which is what doping can do.
I'm sure that is what you believe.
Your placement of the effects of these various factors on your sliding scale of performance benefits is not one based on facts or truths or relevant domain expertise, but rather the wishful and arbitrary placement from a non-expert in virtually every relevant domain.
Any suggestion coming from you that one is worth more than the other may be right, but is probably wrong.
In all cases, unless and until it can be substantiated, it can be filed under wishful speculation.
They will have but not as much as changing and enhancing an athlete's physiology, which is what doping can do.
I'm sure that is what you believe.
Your placement of the effects of these various factors on your sliding scale of performance benefits is not one based on facts or truths or relevant domain expertise, but rather the wishful and arbitrary placement from a non-expert in virtually every relevant domain.
Any suggestion coming from you that one is worth more than the other may be right, but is probably wrong.
In all cases, unless and until it can be substantiated, it can be filed under wishful speculation.
It isn't what I "believe", as though it has no factual basis and is mere speculation. All the evidence points to it. Above all, it wouldn't be the endemic practice it has become if it didn't produce results. Coaches, trainers, and athletes aren't idiots. Jeezus - it has even been state-sponsored for decades, as in E Germany and Russia. They, too, were indulging in "wishful speculation"? I think you're the only one here who does that.
Your placement of the effects of these various factors on your sliding scale of performance benefits is not one based on facts or truths or relevant domain expertise, but rather the wishful and arbitrary placement from a non-expert in virtually every relevant domain.
Any suggestion coming from you that one is worth more than the other may be right, but is probably wrong.
In all cases, unless and until it can be substantiated, it can be filed under wishful speculation.
It isn't what I "believe", as though it has no factual basis and is mere speculation. All the evidence points to it. Above all, it wouldn't be the endemic practice it has become if it didn't produce results. Coaches, trainers, and athletes aren't idiots. Jeezus - it has even been state-sponsored for decades, as in E Germany and Russia. They, too, were indulging in "wishful speculation"? I think you're the only one here who does that.
Doping was one of many factors for E German success.
It isn't what I "believe", as though it has no factual basis and is mere speculation. All the evidence points to it. Above all, it wouldn't be the endemic practice it has become if it didn't produce results. Coaches, trainers, and athletes aren't idiots. Jeezus - it has even been state-sponsored for decades, as in E Germany and Russia. They, too, were indulging in "wishful speculation"? I think you're the only one here who does that.
Doping was one of many factors for E German success.
'Talent + training + doping' are the factors in every kind of sporting success now. They were ahead of their time.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Your placement of the effects of these various factors on your sliding scale of performance benefits is not one based on facts or truths or relevant domain expertise, but rather the wishful and arbitrary placement from a non-expert in virtually every relevant domain.
Any suggestion coming from you that one is worth more than the other may be right, but is probably wrong.
In all cases, unless and until it can be substantiated, it can be filed under wishful speculation.
It isn't what I "believe", as though it has no factual basis and is mere speculation. All the evidence points to it. Above all, it wouldn't be the endemic practice it has become if it didn't produce results. Coaches, trainers, and athletes aren't idiots. Jeezus - it has even been state-sponsored for decades, as in E Germany and Russia. They, too, were indulging in "wishful speculation"? I think you're the only one here who does that.
I disagree. It pretty much is just what you believe, as you are never able to proved any factual basis on demand, just mere speculation. On the one hand, you repeatedly concede no doping/performance data exists, nor can exist, for the fastest elite performances from the fastest athletes, and on the other hand, without any figures, you say doping benefit in the last five decades is significantly greater than all other factors combined. It is basic first grade math that the less than operator requires two numbers, and you have provided none.
Despite appealing to "all the evidence", you do not provide any evidence here -- just another appeal to false authorities, as your "above all" starting point.
Decades of doping in E. Germany, Russia, and for a short while, China, could be used to argue steroids for women -- an argument I would concede, and have conceded many times -- but otherwise, decades of state sponsored doping (steroids and blood doping) produced no significant results for E. German or Russian men in distance events, and only produced results for women in sprints to middle distance events, and one marathon runner.