Duplantis would say your opinion is irrelevant. He would be right.
I accept your resignation.
When that’s what you post in what has otherwise been an intelligent discussion, I can accept this as nothing but your white flag.
Then you haven't understood the argument. Duplantis would not accept your view his event is weak - he is right, it isn't - just as he wouldn't accept mine that you need to dope to be the best. I remain unconvinced by your argument as I don't consider pole-vaulting to be "soft" (and nor would Duplantis). The tradition of athletes like Bubka shows that. You are unconvinced by my argument but the problem you have is that doping is known to be present in every kind of competitive activity. It is utterly implausible that it will not be found in a longstanding world championship and Olympic sport. If it is present the difficulty is to argue that the dopers won't be the best, when we know that doping is performance enhancing and will make a crucial difference at the top of sport or it would not be the massive industry that it is.
I don't agree that the pool of participants in the pole vault means the event doesn't have depth. It is an argument that could be made of any field event - the hammer, the javelin, the discus, shot and triple jump etc. All would benefit from doping - and like any other event, doping will be present. As it will be in the pole vault.
For sure this same argument can be made for other events as well - and is there true too.
Do you think the depth in the men's hammer or the women's shot put is as deep as in the men's Marathon?
20 meters in women's shot are worth probably around 2:30 - 2:35 in the women's Marathon.
How many women seriously train for the shot? 1000? 5000? On a really professional level (like Ingebrigtsen or Kipchoge) I tend to believe zero.
Doping was rife in the field events long before track succumbed to it. The E Bloc showed that.
When that’s what you post in what has otherwise been an intelligent discussion, I can accept this as nothing but your white flag.
Army often has claimed that the longevity of some record is 100% indication for an extremely strong record. He contradicts himself regularly.
Longevity is an argument that a record or an event is not "soft". But an event isn't soft simply because an individual athlete has dominated - as Elliott did, as Snell did, as Coe did (he and Ovett went on a record breaking spree in the late seventies - did that mean md was "soft"?) and El G did. As Bolt did. And Bubka and Duplantis have.
This post was edited 11 minutes after it was posted.
In Russia it was claimed by whistleblowers that "99%" of their elite and pro athletes doped. We see a stream of doping violations coming from Kenya. No antidoping expert says doping is confined to those countries. In fact the accepted view is that doping is present at the top level in all sports and all countries. While only 1% of tests return a positive confidential athlete surveys have indicated that at the championship level doping could be as high on average as 1 in 2 athletes. Official estimates are that doping is far greater than the numbers caught. That clearly enables the conclusion that many more athletes do not answer the antidoping forms truthfully than those who do. Your friends may be amongst the exception.
I haven’t a clue what your line of work is, but could you imagine me, as an outside observer, telling you that your impression of your industry is the wrong way around? That’s what you’re doing here on this thread.
It’s not that I have a few mates who are athletes. It’s that my career keeps me in close contact with more top athletes than I can count. And when you know the athlete, you know their coach and you know their manager and you spend enough time with the whole lot you end up with a good read on who’s legitimate and genuine and who is not.
Not considering the more nefarious states in athletics, a solid majority of the very best in our sport are trying to do this the right way. I know this because I’ve known too many of them too well and for too long. And between long term testing, retesting and investigations, the noose has tightened around those clusters of athletes, coaches and managers who have been trying to cheat their peers. More than anything, the expulsion of Russia and Belarus have done wonders to clean up the sport.
Your "industry" isn't doping. It may have helped the sport to expel some of the worst offenders, like Russia (Kenya should arguably be next) but my understanding of how doping works does not encourage me that the sport - or any sport - is largely clean. I have observed sport for nigh in 60 years and seen how it has changed. When doping is as pervasive in pro sport as it is, that is where I see the greatest improvements in the last 40-50 years. Athletes know how to dope and not get caught. The incentives to dope are enormous. The incredible performances we have seen in recent times only confirms for me that doping is as much a feature in the sport as it always has been.
To put things in context: this thread asks if there is one wr that is clean what would it be. One, just one! That says everything about where the sport is and how it is perceived by fans.
I would add, the question here is not whether everyone is doping - they aren't - but whether it is possible that the very best performances for the very best athletes, a wr in other words, can be achieved clean. In this era, I don't think it can.
I think the wrong question is being asked here. I reckon the more pertinent question is why do we assign more trust to some athletes and not others? let’s take the lady of the summer Faith Kipyegon. She has blown through three world records in three months, - one of them she hadn’t event targeted for a victory let alone a WR (5000m). As you saw in all the post celebratory pictures her competitions are holding her aloft in joyous support and celebration. From this we can pretty much assume that Faith is a lovely person and is universally liked by her peers. Compare her with her antithesis Genzebe Dibaba who receives no love at all from her fellow athletes (outside of Ethiopia) and broke less records than Faith in a less eye popping fashion. At this point you will bring up the coach - but several have been busted under the tutelage of Patrick Sang also and we conveniently leave that out of the Faith assessment -even though she can now walk on water it seems after joining the Sang stable.
Doping suspicion is essentially predicated upon personal attachment and cultural relatability. Additionally there is also an individual bias involved. For example Im no lavish fan of the Dibabas who I find to be secretive and not accessible. But Im a huge fan of Letesenbet Gidey who by all accounts is a very humble and hard working athlete who I hold a fondness for. - If Gidey got popped for PED’s I would be shocked, but if the Dibabas got popped I wouldn’t!! - This isnt a logical process, it a process based upon personal preference and fandom. I think deep down we all operate this way to some degree where our “favourites” are concerned.
Army often has claimed that the longevity of some record is 100% indication for an extremely strong record. He contradicts himself regularly.
Longevity is an argument that a record or an event is not "soft". But an event isn't soft simply because an individual athlete has dominated - as Elliott did, as Snell did, as Coe did (he and Ovett went on a record breaking spree in the late seventies - did that mean md was "soft"?) and El G did. As Bolt did. And Bubka and Duplantis have.
Long standing record, in many posts this was synonymous for you for extremely strong.
Now you agree that a record which stood just shortly also could have been strong.
For sure also true is, that a record which after decades still stands must not be strong ANYMORE.
Komen's 7:20.67 is ready for to be bettered by several athletes (you had Ingebrigtsen at - what - 8:03?). Well, you were completely wrong, as so often.
You still think the Pole Vault WR is on the same level as the running records? Despite only relatively few people try the event compared to running?
Maybe you try to explain this? Maybe without the use of your beloved d-word?
I would say Mondo's PV record. I'm not going to read this entire thread to see if he has been mentioned but I would not be surprised if he got a lot of votes.
There is not much of a chance of Yelena Isinbaeva's women's PV record being clean, IMHO. I just don't trust a record from a Russian athlete even if it isn't from the time period of the rampant Eastern Block state-sponsored doping.
I would say Mondo's PV record. I'm not going to read this entire thread to see if he has been mentioned but I would not be surprised if he got a lot of votes.
There is not much of a chance of Yelena Isinbaeva's women's PV record being clean, IMHO. I just don't trust a record from a Russian athlete even if it isn't from the time period of the rampant Eastern Block state-sponsored doping.
"If he has been mentioned" - pardon my amusement.
If you think Isinbayeva was doping that shows the pole vault would benefit from doping just like any other event.
I think the wrong question is being asked here. I reckon the more pertinent question is why do we assign more trust to some athletes and not others? let’s take the lady of the summer Faith Kipyegon. She has blown through three world records in three months, - one of them she hadn’t event targeted for a victory let alone a WR (5000m). As you saw in all the post celebratory pictures her competitions are holding her aloft in joyous support and celebration. From this we can pretty much assume that Faith is a lovely person and is universally liked by her peers. Compare her with her antithesis Genzebe Dibaba who receives no love at all from her fellow athletes (outside of Ethiopia) and broke less records than Faith in a less eye popping fashion. At this point you will bring up the coach - but several have been busted under the tutelage of Patrick Sang also and we conveniently leave that out of the Faith assessment -even though she can now walk on water it seems after joining the Sang stable.
Doping suspicion is essentially predicated upon personal attachment and cultural relatability. Additionally there is also an individual bias involved. For example Im no lavish fan of the Dibabas who I find to be secretive and not accessible. But Im a huge fan of Letesenbet Gidey who by all accounts is a very humble and hard working athlete who I hold a fondness for. - If Gidey got popped for PED’s I would be shocked, but if the Dibabas got popped I wouldn’t!! - This isnt a logical process, it a process based upon personal preference and fandom. I think deep down we all operate this way to some degree where our “favourites” are concerned.
You are quite right. Our partialities have a strong influence on how we think about this issue. Fans don't want to think the athletes they like could be doping. Unfortunately, many of them will be.
Longevity is an argument that a record or an event is not "soft". But an event isn't soft simply because an individual athlete has dominated - as Elliott did, as Snell did, as Coe did (he and Ovett went on a record breaking spree in the late seventies - did that mean md was "soft"?) and El G did. As Bolt did. And Bubka and Duplantis have.
Long standing record, in many posts this was synonymous for you for extremely strong.
Now you agree that a record which stood just shortly also could have been strong.
For sure also true is, that a record which after decades still stands must not be strong ANYMORE.
Komen's 7:20.67 is ready for to be bettered by several athletes (you had Ingebrigtsen at - what - 8:03?). Well, you were completely wrong, as so often.
You still think the Pole Vault WR is on the same level as the running records? Despite only relatively few people try the event compared to running?
Maybe you try to explain this? Maybe without the use of your beloved d-word?
I never said Ingebrigtsen was an 8.03 runner in a 7.20 event.
I do think Komen's records are strong and one of the reasons has been how long they have lasted. Same with El G's records. However, I think Komen and El G were doping.
If there is a queue of runners lining up to beat those records - as you suggest - then that simply reinforces my view that runners are finding ways to dope still.
I believe after his breaking Komen's 2 mile mark that Ingebrigtsen is definitely doping.
The pole vault records are as good as any other. The best exponents in that discipline have created those records over the decades that it has been held. Bubka was phenomenal. Now Duplantis has taken it to new levels. Nothing phenomenal in T and F is clean.
My view is quite simple: none of the records in T and F today are clean because of the extent of doping in the sport, the incentives to dope and that most athletes that dope aren't caught, and the best clean athlete will not beat an athlete of equivalent or near equivalent ability who dopes. That doesn't mean everyone is doping - they aren't - but the very best, the world record holders, have to be.
"If he has been mentioned" - pardon my amusement. - Why the amusement?
If you think Isinbayeva was doping that shows the pole vault would benefit from doping just like any other event. - Not necessarily. I don't trust any record or athletic achievement of any athlete from any of the former Eastern Block countries. Do you? It has nothing to do with the event.
Whatever you write, whatever you ask. his response is just: doping, doping, DOPING.
Its to balance deny, deny, deny.
You don't get it so clearly very often:
regardless the topic, regardless the content of the post you are answering to, regardles the poster you are replying to, your answer will be mainly "doping" because you want to give a balance to some denying. Hard to believe.
Btw., I have never denied doping in any way.
But also true: you never answer a concrete question when the answer could question your view a little. You don't even know the meaning of a discussion.
Long standing record, in many posts this was synonymous for you for extremely strong.
Now you agree that a record which stood just shortly also could have been strong.
For sure also true is, that a record which after decades still stands must not be strong ANYMORE.
Komen's 7:20.67 is ready for to be bettered by several athletes (you had Ingebrigtsen at - what - 8:03?). Well, you were completely wrong, as so often.
You still think the Pole Vault WR is on the same level as the running records? Despite only relatively few people try the event compared to running?
Maybe you try to explain this? Maybe without the use of your beloved d-word?
I never said Ingebrigtsen was an 8.03 runner in a 7.20 event.
Even when knowing your big problems in understanding the most simple hings, I'm sometimes surprised that your problems are so deep. You said 8:03 - 8:05 before his 7:53.10, correct?
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.