Of course you don't get it. It is the dopers who show what doping does, not the opinions of posters here like yourself. The dopers are throughout the sport. You are also brain-dead if you think they would have doped without getting a performance improvement from it.
Like you said, the opinions of posters here, like myself (sic), and yourself (sic), (what is reflexive here?) are not relevant. What I think shouldn't be part of the decision making process.
To show what doping does, actually requires someone measuring what doping does. Not before and after, as you often see in anti-doping research, but with and without, all other things kept equal. None of your doped athletes, their coaches, nor your authorities, have done that.
Lacking that, we are just arguing within the realm of speculation and imagination and faith.
That is my view which you cannot accept -- you do not have the facts and evidence and observations to lift your set of strongly held, yet simple and naive and ignorant, beliefs out of the realm of imagination and allegation and faith.
Recall that doping works on East Africans *the same way* it works on everyone else.
You keep forgetting that most of the world, athletes ethnically originating from 5 continents representing 85% of the world, has virtually stopped improving (*) in the last 3-4 decades, across the board, during the time you believe the power of doping has advanced, and despite what you allege doping can do and/or has done, and how much more powerful it has become since the days of Lydiard.
(*) (Women are a different story, with some exceptions due to both the recent maturity of the events, and their response to male hormones in events which benefit from increased strength.)
Remind me again, which of your authorities are elite East Africans, or have coached East Africans to elite performances, or are otherwise qualifed to explain all the causes of elite East African performances? By default, I will assume that a non-answer from you is a tacit concession that you cannot establish their authority, lacking both information and knowledge.
A non-answer isn't a tacit admission of anything you claim; it is that your post is devoid of anything worth responding to.
You pay me the unintended compliment of hanging on every word I say. I've got you like a performing dog that jumps on my signal.
But the upshot of this thread is that we are left with the unrefuted claim by Kiptum's coach that doping is throughout Kenyan sport - is "everywhere" - but only the incompetent ("clumsy") are caught.
The rekrunner/doping-denier response is that doping is found in other countries, too, which is utterly irrelevant to the coach's point about the pervasiveness of doping in Kenyan sport and overlooks the fact that few countries dope to the extent Kenya does. Unable to say the coach is wrong he then reverts to his fallback position, that even if they do dope there is no proof it helps them - which means Kenyan athletes must be doubly stupid, by risking their careers while getting no tangible benefit from breaking the rules.
Intended or unintended, only you can see a compliment, and that's because of your incurable narcissism.
I am a performing dog jumping on your signal??? 😂😂😂 Oh, the irony. You are the performing dog jumping on the signal of any thread on African athletes. You spend countless hours a day here!
You are pathetic, Fido.
If I spend "countless hours" here the one who responds to every post I make must do the same. You always find a way to put your foot in your gob.
Your word salads never amount to anything. You maintain the absurd position that there is no proof doping aids performance when countless athletes have doped for generations. As I have said - it means they are either idiots or you are. There is no doubt who is the fool. If you can't see something then it doesn't exist.
It might seem like word salad to you, but that says more about your capacity than my words.
You maintain the absurd position that "countless athletes have doped for generations" constitutes "proof doping aids performance".
And you left out one obvious candidate for idiot and fool -- you.
Intended or unintended, only you can see a compliment, and that's because of your incurable narcissism.
I am a performing dog jumping on your signal??? 😂😂😂 Oh, the irony. You are the performing dog jumping on the signal of any thread on African athletes. You spend countless hours a day here!
You are pathetic, Fido.
If I spend "countless hours" here the one who responds to every post I make must do the same. You always find a way to put your foot in your gob.
I do not, you ignorant moron. I come to letsrun 2 or 3 times a day. I rarely spend one hour a day here. During the last World Championships you were regularly here more than 12 hours a day.
You always find a wat to put your foot in your gob, Fido.
A non-answer isn't a tacit admission of anything you claim; it is that your post is devoid of anything worth responding to.
In this domain of faith, I'm free to adopt any assumption which has not been disproved, and free to disregard anything which cannot be supported with evidence.
Your word salads never amount to anything. You maintain the absurd position that there is no proof doping aids performance when countless athletes have doped for generations. As I have said - it means they are either idiots or you are. There is no doubt who is the fool. If you can't see something then it doesn't exist.
It might seem like word salad to you, but that says more about your capacity than my words.
You maintain the absurd position that "countless athletes have doped for generations" constitutes "proof doping aids performance".
And you left out one obvious candidate for idiot and fool -- you.
You keep ducking your own necessary conclusion, that it is the countless athletes who dope who must be fools, because you say it doesn't help them.
A non-answer isn't a tacit admission of anything you claim; it is that your post is devoid of anything worth responding to.
In this domain of faith, I'm free to adopt any assumption which has not been disproved, and free to disregard anything which cannot be supported with evidence.
You adopt whatever you want to think. That's how you do it.
If I spend "countless hours" here the one who responds to every post I make must do the same. You always find a way to put your foot in your gob.
I do not, you ignorant moron. I come to letsrun 2 or 3 times a day. I rarely spend one hour a day here. During the last World Championships you were regularly here more than 12 hours a day.
You always find a wat to put your foot in your gob, Fido.
You are here as many times as I post, because you respond to every one of them. I am the only thing that interests you on these threads.
If doping didn't have an effect upon performance it wouldn't be an issue. Indeed, it wouldn't exist. A billion dollar industry, as doping is, would not have been built on a fiction. That you keep trying to argue doping doesn't do what its users know it does verges on deranged. Kiptum's coach knows what doping does, which is why he made no mention of performance. It would have been redundant.
You are sadly mistaken. Anti-doping first came about as a concern for the health of athletes who would try anything in dangerous quantities based on the "suck it and see" method. Even in the 1990s, according to the CIRC report, the UCI was more concerned about the health of the cyclists than performance.
How much is the industry of religion worth? Estimates vary widely, but all of them are significantly larger than 1 billion. One source says "Religion annually contributes nearly $1.2 trillion of socio-economic value to the U.S. economy, ..."
That's 1200x more than 1 billion. Is that built on fact or fiction?
Your billion dollar (sic) estimate includes all athletes, amateur and professional, and all sports. Nothing says that this supports effectiveness for doping distance runners.
Contrary to your belief that collective belief becomes truth if it is popular enough, the doping industry is only as big as it is, precisely because of the fiction. Your belief that "users *know* it does" remains an unfounded belief in the existance of such knowledge.
As you acknowledge Kiptum's coach didn't talk about Kenyan performance -- that only comes from non-experts like you. You ignore the bits you don't want to believe, but he only talked about negligence during medical treatments, and a lack of education and information -- the same thing anti-doping experts from WADA, the AIU, and the ADAK said in 2017 in a written report investigating the topic of Kenyan doping.
It only proves that a much respected coach called you donkey, Assstronglivs.
He is no Lydiard. He isn't respected by those who see him as a denier and apologist for Kenyan doping.
All the great coaches today stand on Lydiard's shoulders.
Didn't Lydiard's athletes beat all the dopers before him, and by a lot? According to "History of Doping" sources, doping in sport has existed since the ancient Greeks and ancient Romans, and was predominant in the early 20th century, especially after WWII.
Here is a prophetic quote I found from Dr. Otto Reiser in 1933:
"The use of artificial means [to improve performance] has long been considered wholly incompatible with the spirit of sport and has therefore been condemned. Nevertheless, we all know that this rule is continually being broken, and that sportive competitions are often more a matter of doping than of training. It is highly regrettable that those who are in charge of supervising sport seem to lack the energy for the campaign against this evil, and that a lax, and fateful, attitude is spreading. Nor are the physicians without blame for this state of affairs, in part on account of their ignorance, and in part because they are prescribing strong drugs for the purpose of doping which are not available to athletes without prescriptions."
And yet, Lydiard was able, presumably just with new training and new shoes (and lacing), to train his athletes to beat all the dopers before him that Dr. Otto feared were unfairly advantaged.
What makes you think that that doesn't apply to coaches today, like Canova, who is not known to have ever doped any athlete?
Besides you, who -- preferably some "authority" with a name -- sees Canova as a "denier" (whatever that means) and an apologist for Kenyan doping? He is always very clear that dopers should be punished severely -- even stripped of lifetime achievements -- for intentional doping.
Can't you separate your personal fantasy from reality, and keep the fantasy in your own mind?
It might seem like word salad to you, but that says more about your capacity than my words.
You maintain the absurd position that "countless athletes have doped for generations" constitutes "proof doping aids performance".
And you left out one obvious candidate for idiot and fool -- you.
You keep ducking your own necessary conclusion, that it is the countless athletes who dope who must be fools, because you say it doesn't help them.
Does countless mean a lot, or just an admission you don't really know how many?
But once again, you are wrong, I never ducked that, but smacked it on the head repeatedly. It is you ducking the original question -- which "authorities" support your many stated mythological beliefs?
I have no doubt that countless athletes are fools, as are countless fans, as are countless researchers and countless armchair pundits. Nothing is proven for distance athletes to be better than long term training at altitude -- which is WADA legal. Why take the risk when there is a legal option with the same proven rewards?
The countless few athletes who decide to dope do so based, not on past knowledge, but on a future hope that they will improve, often as a last resort when all else fails. (Or as in the case of this thread, as Kiptum's coach re-iterated, many are victims of their own negligence during medical treatment, or a lack of information and education.)
Sometimes athletes will improve. Sometimes they will fail. You will hear very little from the failures. How many improve, and by how much, and the root cause, of any observed improvements, is not something that is known, either by past and future athletes. But this uncertainty doesn't prevent new athletes from trying as a last resort when all else fails (or again the inadvertent negligence due to lack of information and education).
Psychologically, it gets messy, but post-hoc, athletes will be reluctant to admit it was all risk for no reward (after discounting non-blinded placebo effect), and they will fool themselves, as well as anyone who listens and wants to believe.
The countless few athletes who decide to dope do so based, not on past knowledge, but on a future hope that they will improve, often as a last resort when all else fails. (Or as in the case of this thread, as Kiptum's coach re-iterated, many are victims of their own negligence during medical treatment, or a lack of information and education.)
Countless few? hahah, what in the world?
You have zero evidence that athletes only dope as a last resort and there's "countless" evidence that suggests doping is rampant in elite sport regardless of current fitness. There's been dopers caught at the height of their powers and dopers caught on the downside of their career and everywhere in between. And.....most dopers don't get caught.
In this domain of faith, I'm free to adopt any assumption which has not been disproved, and free to disregard anything which cannot be supported with evidence.
You adopt whatever you want to think. That's how you do it.
It would be a simple task for you to disprove it, if you actually had any evidence, or information, or knowledge. Instead you fail to choose this simple path, in favor of an even easier path of simulating ignorance and arrogance.
The countless few athletes who decide to dope do so based, not on past knowledge, but on a future hope that they will improve, often as a last resort when all else fails. (Or as in the case of this thread, as Kiptum's coach re-iterated, many are victims of their own negligence during medical treatment, or a lack of information and education.)
Countless few? hahah, what in the world?
You have zero evidence that athletes only dope as a last resort and there's "countless" evidence that suggests doping is rampant in elite sport regardless of current fitness. There's been dopers caught at the height of their powers and dopers caught on the downside of their career and everywhere in between. And.....most dopers don't get caught.
Zero evidence? Oh no. Good thing I didn't say "athletes only dope as a last resort" then.
I don't know what you want to say by "rampant", or for that matter, "elite sport". My interest is just distance running, and not so much prevalence, but rather performance. I don't really contest that doping is "rampant", nor that most dopers don't get caught.
If doping didn't have an effect upon performance it wouldn't be an issue. Indeed, it wouldn't exist. A billion dollar industry, as doping is, would not have been built on a fiction. That you keep trying to argue doping doesn't do what its users know it does verges on deranged. Kiptum's coach knows what doping does, which is why he made no mention of performance. It would have been redundant.
You are sadly mistaken. Anti-doping first came about as a concern for the health of athletes who would try anything in dangerous quantities based on the "suck it and see" method. Even in the 1990s, according to the CIRC report, the UCI was more concerned about the health of the cyclists than performance.
How much is the industry of religion worth? Estimates vary widely, but all of them are significantly larger than 1 billion. One source says "Religion annually contributes nearly $1.2 trillion of socio-economic value to the U.S. economy, ..."
That's 1200x more than 1 billion. Is that built on fact or fiction?
Your billion dollar (sic) estimate includes all athletes, amateur and professional, and all sports. Nothing says that this supports effectiveness for doping distance runners.
Contrary to your belief that collective belief becomes truth if it is popular enough, the doping industry is only as big as it is, precisely because of the fiction. Your belief that "users *know* it does" remains an unfounded belief in the existance of such knowledge.
As you acknowledge Kiptum's coach didn't talk about Kenyan performance -- that only comes from non-experts like you. You ignore the bits you don't want to believe, but he only talked about negligence during medical treatments, and a lack of education and information -- the same thing anti-doping experts from WADA, the AIU, and the ADAK said in 2017 in a written report investigating the topic of Kenyan doping.
What a load of evasive garbage. Antidoping is not based mainly on health concerns for athletes - most have no health issues arising from doping. Adverse effects on health are only a possible side effect and for those who don't know what they are doing. The main sports concern about doping is that it confers unfair advantage - WADA is a sports body, not a medical body - and gaining advantage is the reason why athletes choose to dope. They don't do it to improve (let alone harm) their health. Only someone who has been asleep for the last half century is unaware of that.
So you compare doping with religion - that is as moronic as it is possible to get. Religion is based on incorporeal beliefs; there is nothing incorporeal about drugs. They are as real as anything that is of a material nature in this world - they exist as fact not belief. The only "belief" is yours, that drugs that are known to affect human physiology nonetheless do not do so when it comes to altitude-trained Kenyan marathon runners. Such a view is against all reason. Because you cannot identify the extent that those drugs aid performance you choose to argue they therefore don't aid performance; a conclusion based entirely on your own ignorance. But that is the basis of everything you argue; what you can't see or measure doesn't exist. Such is a bean-counter, not a sportsman with any experience of what it is that you claim to know. The fact that innumerable athletes - in all sports - have doped for generations and continue to do so is irrefutable evidence that athletes gain improvements from doping, or the practice would never have persisted as it has. There is nothing except your ignorance that suggest doping will have no effect on distance athletes - who nonetheless continue to dope.
You arguments are neither factually sound or to the point; you are quite the most misguided contributor on this subject in this site. Oh, but Sage has already said that.
This post was edited 13 minutes after it was posted.
He is no Lydiard. He isn't respected by those who see him as a denier and apologist for Kenyan doping.
All the great coaches today stand on Lydiard's shoulders.
Didn't Lydiard's athletes beat all the dopers before him, and by a lot? According to "History of Doping" sources, doping in sport has existed since the ancient Greeks and ancient Romans, and was predominant in the early 20th century, especially after WWII.
Here is a prophetic quote I found from Dr. Otto Reiser in 1933:
"The use of artificial means [to improve performance] has long been considered wholly incompatible with the spirit of sport and has therefore been condemned. Nevertheless, we all know that this rule is continually being broken, and that sportive competitions are often more a matter of doping than of training. It is highly regrettable that those who are in charge of supervising sport seem to lack the energy for the campaign against this evil, and that a lax, and fateful, attitude is spreading. Nor are the physicians without blame for this state of affairs, in part on account of their ignorance, and in part because they are prescribing strong drugs for the purpose of doping which are not available to athletes without prescriptions."
And yet, Lydiard was able, presumably just with new training and new shoes (and lacing), to train his athletes to beat all the dopers before him that Dr. Otto feared were unfairly advantaged.
What makes you think that that doesn't apply to coaches today, like Canova, who is not known to have ever doped any athlete?
Besides you, who -- preferably some "authority" with a name -- sees Canova as a "denier" (whatever that means) and an apologist for Kenyan doping? He is always very clear that dopers should be punished severely -- even stripped of lifetime achievements -- for intentional doping.
Can't you separate your personal fantasy from reality, and keep the fantasy in your own mind?
The drivel continues. You speak as though sport in history - pursued by a few amateurs - was the same as it has become today, a global professional enterprise. Doping was amateur in the past and a rarity, there is no evidence of it being a regular practice, and it was nothing like what it has become in this era, a huge international enterprise conducted according to some of the most expert levels of scientific and medical knowledge. Lydiard's athletes were not competing against any known to be dopers; Canova's athletes are always competing against dopers - or have you not followed the stream of doping busts coming out of Kenya? Every time you open your mouth on this subject you show yourself to be the biggest fool on this site.
I do not, you ignorant moron. I come to letsrun 2 or 3 times a day. I rarely spend one hour a day here. During the last World Championships you were regularly here more than 12 hours a day.
You always find a wat to put your foot in your gob, Fido.
You are here as many times as I post, because you respond to every one of them. I am the only thing that interests you on these threads.
Don't you get tired of being wrong, Fido? I have just come to letsrun now, 15 hours later. Unsurprisingly, you have posted several times in those 15 hours. How does that foot taste?