Cherry-picking your own statements - and mine - to change the meaning of the exchange is pretty desperate. The essential point is no one has persuaded you against your predetermined views in twenty years on this site. Nor has any understanding of the world away from this site. That is not a mind open to persuasion. But it can't be; your life depends on adhering to the lies you tell yourself, let alone endlessly spew here.
Don't blame me for your cherry picking and poor choice of words -- you cherry picked my statement, and provided a response:
Armstronglivs wrote: "If you were right, and I was wrong, it should be a simple matter to provide evidence to support your beliefs, or alternatively evidence that contradicts mine."(quote) As I said - no one has done that in twenty years.
In that context, "that" can only mean one thing, and "that" alone explains why no one has persuaded me.
Recall that my main view is that you have no evidence to support your strongly held beliefs about elite performance.
There is at least one on this thread - and any other thread connected with doping - who will maintain his delusions to the death.
Speaking for myself, I have no doubts that many athletes are taking drugs. Drugs in sport date back to ancient times in nearly all cultures. Humans like drugs, and always have. Judging by popular opinion here, I would say that the the belief in drugs is strong, widespread, deep, and goes to the top.
But also according to you, drugs don't enhance performance (except, for some reason, in the solitary example of Russian women md runners who take steroids).
So the inference is that you alone are the one with sufficient wisdom to realise that drugs don't help athletes to run faster, and the generations of athletes who have doped are deluded idiots, risking their careers for nothing. What you possess is known as a "Napoleon complex".
Maybe you can jog my memory. In the rare cases that "evidence" was provided, I can only recall evidence that included one or more assumptions and/or fallacies to reach conclusions not supported by the evidence, or evidence that simply didn't say what was purported to be said.
What are the top-5 strongest pieces of evidence, that either proves your beliefs, or disproves mine, or both?
Recall, if you were right, and I was wrong, it should be a simple matter to provide evidence to support your beliefs, or alternatively evidence that contradicts mine.
The ball has been in your court. Let's see how you handle it.
Speaking for myself, I have no doubts that many athletes are taking drugs. Drugs in sport date back to ancient times in nearly all cultures. Humans like drugs, and always have. Judging by popular opinion here, I would say that the the belief in drugs is strong, widespread, deep, and goes to the top.
But also according to you, drugs don't enhance performance (except, for some reason, in the solitary example of Russian women md runners who take steroids).
So the inference is that you alone are the one with sufficient wisdom to realise that drugs don't help athletes to run faster, and the generations of athletes who have doped are deluded idiots, risking their careers for nothing. What you possess is known as a "Napoleon complex".
This is not according to me. With respect to performance, I simply follow the evidence of performance.
The anomaly you and others fail to reconcile is where we can see evidence of the enhanced performance from sea-level non-Africans for the last four decades? It's hard to fathom how you can tell me that doping is widespread, effective, and easily undetectable, and yet historical performances says that sea-level athletes worldwide have virtually stagnated across the board since the mid-1980s (until the new shoes).
Cherry-picking your own statements - and mine - to change the meaning of the exchange is pretty desperate. The essential point is no one has persuaded you against your predetermined views in twenty years on this site. Nor has any understanding of the world away from this site. That is not a mind open to persuasion. But it can't be; your life depends on adhering to the lies you tell yourself, let alone endlessly spew here.
Don't blame me for your cherry picking and poor choice of words -- you cherry picked my statement, and provided a response:
Armstronglivs wrote: "If you were right, and I was wrong, it should be a simple matter to provide evidence to support your beliefs, or alternatively evidence that contradicts mine."(quote) As I said - no one has done that in twenty years.
In that context, "that" can only mean one thing, and "that" alone explains why no one has persuaded me.
Recall that my main view is that you have no evidence to support your strongly held beliefs about elite performance.
The only thing that is referred to in this exchange is that no one can ever present evidence that you will accept. You have shown that in twenty years. So the problem isn't evidence but a mind closed to what it says.
Maybe you can jog my memory. In the rare cases that "evidence" was provided, I can only recall evidence that included one or more assumptions and/or fallacies to reach conclusions not supported by the evidence, or evidence that simply didn't say what was purported to be said.
What are the top-5 strongest pieces of evidence, that either proves your beliefs, or disproves mine, or both?
Recall, if you were right, and I was wrong, it should be a simple matter to provide evidence to support your beliefs, or alternatively evidence that contradicts mine.
The ball has been in your court. Let's see how you handle it.
It is apparent the mods look after you. You need all the help you can get.
But also according to you, drugs don't enhance performance (except, for some reason, in the solitary example of Russian women md runners who take steroids).
So the inference is that you alone are the one with sufficient wisdom to realise that drugs don't help athletes to run faster, and the generations of athletes who have doped are deluded idiots, risking their careers for nothing. What you possess is known as a "Napoleon complex".
This is not according to me. With respect to performance, I simply follow the evidence of performance.
The anomaly you and others fail to reconcile is where we can see evidence of the enhanced performance from sea-level non-Africans for the last four decades? It's hard to fathom how you can tell me that doping is widespread, effective, and easily undetectable, and yet historical performances says that sea-level athletes worldwide have virtually stagnated across the board since the mid-1980s (until the new shoes).
They haven't stagnated. There have been continuous improvements in even sea-level athletes from the sprints to the marathon in the last 4 decades (with a spike during the 90's amongst African athletes, when there was then no effective test for EPO). But the greatest improvements have come where doping has been most prevalent and least controlled - Jamaica and Africa. Those improvements continue today - and it isn't the shoes, because not all athletes are using the same models and many of the latest surges in performance come well after the introduction of the new shoes.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
They haven't stagnated. There have been continuous improvements in even sea-level athletes from the sprints to the marathon in the last 4 decades (with a spike during the 90's amongst African athletes, when there was then no effective test for EPO). But the greatest improvements have come where doping has been most prevalent and least controlled - Jamaica and Africa. Those improvements continue today - and it isn't the shoes, because not all athletes are using the same models and many of the latest surges in performance come well after the introduction of the new shoes.
Au contraire faithful one. If you actually followed the facts about doping and the sport, over the last five decades, doping was most prevalent, and least controlled, in Russia, up until around 2012.
With respect to virtual stagnation, across the board, according to historically recorded all time top performances:
- Using a "top-5 time average" metric (borrowed from well-respected "authority" Olaf Schumacher), from 1500m to the marathon, the best 5 sea-level non-African men in a 28 year period from 1990-2017 made relatively minor progress from the 1980s, from between 0.3-0.77%.
- When using a similar metric, for each 4-year Olympic cycle, for these sea-level non-African men: 1) the 1500m men regressed after 1988; 2) the 5000m men did steadily improve by 9 seconds from 1984 until 2012 and then regressed until 2018; and 3) the marathon improved by 54 seconds, between 1988 and 2000, then plateaued, until 2018.
Only after 2018, did we begin to see improvements not seen in the previous ~30 years, despite all the alleged improvements in doping and the certain widespread use of doping.
Similarly, there was no spike from the East Africans as you say, but a rapid improvement on the track in the '90s, which was foreshadowed by Kenya and Ethiopia domination in World Cross Country in the 1980s, to a level they have pretty much managed to either maintain or improve on for the next three decades, while the doped and non-doped non-African men virtually stagnated, in all distances from 1500m to the marathon.
Keep in mind that non-Africans represent about 80-85% of the world, and they were left far behind, in both measures of quality (factor of 3-4) and quantity (factor of 10, uncorrected for population), for three to four decades, despite their wealth, their doping, and their ability to hide doping, and their success in other sports, like cycling.
They haven't stagnated. There have been continuous improvements in even sea-level athletes from the sprints to the marathon in the last 4 decades (with a spike during the 90's amongst African athletes, when there was then no effective test for EPO). But the greatest improvements have come where doping has been most prevalent and least controlled - Jamaica and Africa. Those improvements continue today - and it isn't the shoes, because not all athletes are using the same models and many of the latest surges in performance come well after the introduction of the new shoes.
Au contraire faithful one. If you actually followed the facts about doping and the sport, over the last five decades, doping was most prevalent, and least controlled, in Russia, up until around 2012.
With respect to virtual stagnation, across the board, according to historically recorded all time top performances:
- Using a "top-5 time average" metric (borrowed from well-respected "authority" Olaf Schumacher), from 1500m to the marathon, the best 5 sea-level non-African men in a 28 year period from 1990-2017 made relatively minor progress from the 1980s, from between 0.3-0.77%.
- When using a similar metric, for each 4-year Olympic cycle, for these sea-level non-African men: 1) the 1500m men regressed after 1988; 2) the 5000m men did steadily improve by 9 seconds from 1984 until 2012 and then regressed until 2018; and 3) the marathon improved by 54 seconds, between 1988 and 2000, then plateaued, until 2018.
Only after 2018, did we begin to see improvements not seen in the previous ~30 years, despite all the alleged improvements in doping and the certain widespread use of doping.
Similarly, there was no spike from the East Africans as you say, but a rapid improvement on the track in the '90s, which was foreshadowed by Kenya and Ethiopia domination in World Cross Country in the 1980s, to a level they have pretty much managed to either maintain or improve on for the next three decades, while the doped and non-doped non-African men virtually stagnated, in all distances from 1500m to the marathon.
Keep in mind that non-Africans represent about 80-85% of the world, and they were left far behind, in both measures of quality (factor of 3-4) and quantity (factor of 10, uncorrected for population), for three to four decades, despite their wealth, their doping, and their ability to hide doping, and their success in other sports, like cycling.
The only thing that is referred to in this exchange is that no one can ever present evidence that you will accept. You have shown that in twenty years. So the problem isn't evidence but a mind closed to what it says.
This is both wrong, and an unintellectual cop-out. I have accepted as evidence the past 60+ years of all-time performances, the past 40+ years of many research articles that I have found and that others have linked me to, all the anecdotal testimony of coaches/athletes/researchers/anti-doping chiefs/etc. that has been made public, all the sensational "doping documentaries" from the last few decades, and many of the novel hypotheses presented by anonymous posters here as non-qualified "answers" to some of the questions I have posed.
I would be pleasantly surprised if you were able to give me new information or knowledge you pretend to be privy too, that I don't already possess -- in fact, that is all I ask of you, and what you systematically refuse to respond to -- but based in the past three years, you don't really possess any such information and knowledge, and I very much doubt that any of your false authorities possess any significant or substantial information and knowledge I have not already seen or considered.
And you go both too far, and not far enough. I have not been on this forum (founded in the spring of 2000) for 20 years, yet the totality of all the evidence combined, dating back 40-60 years, if not more, does not support much of the mythology you've been led to believe, for distance running (except possibly for a few events for women on steroids and male hormones), without the very assumptions you want to conclude.
Based on the last few, years, this response accurately demonstrates the depth of your information and knowledge.
Of course you don't get it. It demonstrates yours. So slow.
Yes -- you are on another plain -- in another world -- so fast -- so high -- so much wit -- a torrent of information and knowledge -- it's too much for us mere mortals.
Of course you don't get it. It demonstrates yours. So slow.
Yes -- you are on another plain -- in another world -- so fast -- so high -- so much wit -- a torrent of information and knowledge -- it's too much for us mere mortals.
You aren't a mere mortal. You're a doping denier. No one comes close.
Yes -- you are on another plain -- in another world -- so fast -- so high -- so much wit -- a torrent of information and knowledge -- it's too much for us mere mortals.
You aren't a mere mortal. You're a doping denier. No one comes close.
Yes -- you are on another plain -- in another world -- so fast -- so high -- so much wit -- a torrent of information and knowledge -- it's too much for us mere mortals.
You aren't a mere mortal. You're a doping denier. No one comes close.
Can you give an accurate explanation of what your invented term "doping denier" means to you? I have already conceded many times and do not deny that doping use can be found everywhere in 4 dimensions: wide and far and near and deep and all the way to the top, going as far back in time as the ancient Romans and Greeks.
You aren't a mere mortal. You're a doping denier. No one comes close.
Can you give an accurate explanation of what your invented term "doping denier" means to you? I have already conceded many times and do not deny that doping use can be found everywhere in 4 dimensions: wide and far and near and deep and all the way to the top, going as far back in time as the ancient Romans and Greeks.
But it doesn't work on Kenyan distance runners, and in fact there is no proof it aids performance for anyone. It is all just a matter of "faith", like religious belief. Doping may be prevalent but athletes only "believe" it helps them. I suppose heroin junkies only imagine they are getting high. Yup - a doping denier.
Can you give an accurate explanation of what your invented term "doping denier" means to you? I have already conceded many times and do not deny that doping use can be found everywhere in 4 dimensions: wide and far and near and deep and all the way to the top, going as far back in time as the ancient Romans and Greeks.
But it doesn't work on Kenyan distance runners, and in fact there is no proof it aids performance for anyone. It is all just a matter of "faith", like religious belief. Doping may be prevalent but athletes only "believe" it helps them. I suppose heroin junkies only imagine they are getting high. Yup - a doping denier.
Nope - not a doping denier. It's just you who are stupid and can't read.