Mu is running the 1500m

Armstronglivs wrote:

restrunner wrote:

Armstrong in another thread:

"From the few athletes who have run sub-1:55 (like Jelimo) I would reckon that is also clearly doped territory as well."

1:55.04 at age 19 doesn't suggest doping to him, sub 1:55 (1:54.99?) does. So, where does this clearly doped territory start: 1:55.03 or 1:55.02 or 1:55.01 or 1:55.00?

1:54.44 from Quirot at age 26 (or 1:54.94 from Kazankina at age 24) must be doped, but 1:55.04 from Mu at age 19 not necessary.

This summarizes his contribution to this forum quite well I think.

And shows yours. Drivel. There will be a line between what is considered possible "clean" and what is probably a doped performance. If it were not so then any level can be performed clean - like Kratochvilova's world mark? Or 1:52, 1:51? - and hence doping confers no actual advantage, because you can say no performance will be the result of doping but will just as likely be clean. You are as thick as pigsh*te. I have suggested 1:55 is that "line", but it isn't a line drawn in hundredths or even tenths of seconds - it is an estimation, you jerk, based on my understanding of the sport and what doping can enable. It may be just above 1:55 or just below; but I am sceptical of anything faster - hence my scepticism of Jelimo's time (including her off-the-charts improvement - and that she comes from a country rife with doping).

All you have demonstrated is that you don't have a clue what would be a doped performance. That is your contribution.

restrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

And shows yours. Drivel. There will be a line between what is considered possible "clean" and what is probably a doped performance. If it were not so then any level can be performed clean - like Kratochvilova's world mark? Or 1:52, 1:51? - and hence doping confers no actual advantage, because you can say no performance will be the result of doping but will just as likely be clean. You are as thick as pigsh*te. I have suggested 1:55 is that "line", but it isn't a line drawn in hundredths or even tenths of seconds - it is an estimation, you jerk, based on my understanding of the sport and what doping can enable. It may be just above 1:55 or just below; but I am sceptical of anything faster - hence my scepticism of Jelimo's time (including her off-the-charts improvement - and that she comes from a country rife with doping).

All you have demonstrated is that you don't have a clue what would be a doped performance. That is your contribution.

For you, sub 1:55 is clearly doped territory. For you, Mu with a PB of 1:55.04, set at age 19, is most likely clean.

Again: this summarizes your contribution to this forum quite well.

restrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Reasoning is quite a struggle for you, isn't it? I am essentially saying that Mu is running what I would consider the clean limit for the event. Is that hard to grasp? Faster than 1:55 in my view requires doping. You can't prove that I am wrong because we can't be sure any athlete is doped unless they fail a test and most don't.

But since you think you know best here, what is the likely clean limit for this event?

No, reasoning is not quite a struggle for me.

Exactly, you are saying that Mu at 19 years and 2 months has achieved the ultimate limit of the event. You don't know if she was clean, but you say it's possible to run 1:55.04 clean. You also say it's impossible to run 1:54.99 clean.

Reasoning like this is your contribution to the forum.

The clean limit? No idea - but, like in any event, definitely much faster than the best clean time so far .

restrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Reasoning is quite a struggle for you, isn't it? I am essentially saying that Mu is running what I would consider the clean limit for the event. Is that hard to grasp? Faster than 1:55 in my view requires doping. You can't prove that I am wrong because we can't be sure any athlete is doped unless they fail a test and most don't.

But since you think you know best here, what is the likely clean limit for this event?

No, reasoning is not quite a struggle for me.

Exactly, you are saying that Mu at 19 years and 2 months has achieved the ultimate limit of the event. You don't know if she was clean, but you say it's possible to run 1:55.04 clean. You also say it's impossible to run 1:54.99 clean.

Reasoning like this is your contribution to the forum.

The clean limit? No idea - but, like in any event, definitely much faster than the best clean time so far .

restrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"You also say it's impossible to run 1:54.99 clean."(quote)

I didn't say that, you moron. I didn't define 1:55 to the hundredths of second but as a ballpark figure for what I estimate is the clean limit. But then, as you have just admitted, you have "no idea what is the clean limit".

You did.

I have not said that you gave a limit of clean performances to the hundredths of second you dummy.

You stated that sub 1:55 is clearly doped territory. 1:54.99 is sub 1:55 (OK, for you this might be not obvious).

With stating sub 1:55 is clearly doped territory you don't give a limit to the hundredths. (anytime logic comes up you fail deeply)

When you also say you are not sure for Mu with a PB of 1:55.04 it seems your limit is 1:55.00, 1:55.01, 1:55.02 or 1:55.03. What is it?

I stated that I don't where "the clean limit is" for a simple reason: because I - like you and anybody else - don't know where the clean limit is. Different to you, I don't pretend to know the answer, you dummy.

You falsely claimed Mu has not set a PB in the last to years (she did it two times).

In all your replys you never say a single word to the comparison at all (1:55.04 to 1:53.04 for Mu is the same as 1:40.91 to 1:38.91 from Rudisha).

Rudisha was 23 when he set his mark, Mu was 19.

1:40.91 is a much stronger mark than 1:55.04.

1:38.91 currently is very close to impossible, 1:53.04 at least seems possible to me, also very unlikely. Will Mu do it? I don't think so. Someone else? Not now, but for the next 20 years I expect it.

And my example with the lottery was so far beyond your limit of understanding that any other attempt to explain it again will also fail deeply.

Not happening is not proof of not possible, you dummy.