If it isn't PEDS, what were the reasons for the incredible performances in Paris?

Oh really huh?????

Well ever heard of the axiom "TOTAL KNOWLEDGE"??????????????

It's not about SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE (INSIGHT), IT'S ABOUT TOTAL KNOWLEDGE!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's no use to specialize knowledge when you inadvertently lose sight of the aim of knowledge which is to cohere with the universe and with God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Drink that up Mr Servant and learn from the best in the business!!!!!!!!!!

The most intelligent comment on this thread.

3:50.

Many people? You have a strong tendency for self-delusion. I have been called pro-doping by the Larry, Moe, and Shemp of letsrun, for not blindly believing in its unproven power, and asking for objective evidence for the many expressed beliefs from some of the most devout.

On the contrary, if athletes thought like me and followed my questioning and arguments and reasoning, and believed in themselves and their training, rather than gullibly believing in unsupported rumors and myths, the consequence is that no athletes would dope.

If you want to hypothesize a relation between two things, my agenda is to let the objective facts and evidence speak for itself.

"Well balanced reason and persuasion"?

So are you suggesting that, at least in the men's 800m, doping didn't work before Coe, and didn't work for the next 43 years, until 2024 when it finally became "intricate/targeted/sophisticated/intelligent/smart doping"?

I remind you that this thread is about non-doping reasons: "If it isn't PEDS, what were the reasons ..."

Your unsupported doping myths are unasked for in this thread.

MANY!!!!! I once saw at least 50 downvotes for one of your defensive piece concerning doping. Yes 50 you heard that right!!!! And it wasn't the first 50 I ever saw. Throughout my time on LRC I frequently saw gargantuan amount of downvotes for all your defensive pieces. So I'm not the only 1!!!!!!!! You make it too obvious that you are a pro-doper. I suggest trying to conceal it better by blaming doping every opportunity you get you feeling me?????

The more you run away from doping and its 'myth' the more people are alarmed at your intentions!!!! Try to befriend doping a little yeah???????????

Your agenda is to let objective facts and evidence speak for itself to a way too AFFECTED extent you feeling me Mr???????????

If today I approach a man or woman on the street and start suddenly flattering them so slavishly in all my voice and manner they will flee from my presence you feeling me Mr??????

That's called AFFECTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can expect an RF King to be able to detect AFFECTATION in human beings and even some animals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So it can be possible to defer to objective facts and evidence in an affected hence pernicious manner!!!!!!!!!! You need to let go sometimes and let the devout persons like Coevett, Armstrong and me the RF King exercise their subjective expertise!!!!!!

Just like the Finns pioneered blood doping in the 1970s, I suspect there is something new.

Maybe New masking techniques have been discovered.

These are just downvotes, provided without any explanation. I understand that many of my posts are unpopular, especially among the devout, because I ask questions about myths that many others have long taken for granted as effectively established or proved, either scientifically or anecdotally.

I was never able to follow this mobius strip logic which says that my asking for objective facts, data, and evidence, of specific doping, or of doping "working", is somehow perversely attempting to promote the exclusive opposite of my expressed doubts and scepticism.

I'm curious. Do you believe anyone reading any of my posts in all of letsrun's history has ever been persuaded to dope, or persuaded to accept that doping is OK, because I managed to tip their scales with my imbalanced "reason and persuasion"? Do you believe that I believe, or anyone believes, that asking for evidence, or expressing doubts about something, or the existence of something, is a persuasive approach to promoting that something?

These are just downvotes, provided without any explanation. I understand that many of my posts are unpopular, especially among the devout, because I ask questions about myths that many others have long taken for granted as effectively established or proved, either scientifically or anecdotally.

I was never able to follow this mobius strip logic which says that my asking for objective facts, data, and evidence, of specific doping, or of doping "working", is somehow perversely attempting to promote the exclusive opposite of my expressed doubts and scepticism.

I'm curious. Do you believe anyone reading any of my posts in all of letsrun's history has ever been persuaded to dope, or persuaded to accept that doping is OK, because I managed to tip their scales with my imbalanced "reason and persuasion"? Do you believe that I believe, or anyone believes, that asking for evidence, or expressing doubts about something, or the existence of something, is a persuasive approach to promoting that something?

(Sorry for the duplicates. Board seems to be intermittent.)

Seems to me that the only rational and logical consequence of me expressing doubts and scepticism, is the opposite: that some fraction of those reading my doubts and scepticisms may also begin to doubt and become sceptical.

Oh yes yes yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I truly believe that you Mr PD indeed intentionally wants the very exact opposite of clean sport and that is dirty sport!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whenever I read your posts, all of it, I'm extremely persuaded that you want me to dope to the greatest extent possible without being caught. You want me to be a sophisticated doper and to find loopholes and game the system. I truly believe all these Mr!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I believe that you have been shockingly persuasive to the very opposite effect you thought you were trying to indoctrinate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is one of many reasons to doubt your expertise and judgements.

I would have everyone believe in the scientific method. All things are unproven, until they are proved, or disproved, based on objectively observable evidence, facts, and data.

When things are unproven, we rightfully call them hypothesis, speculation, and myth.

You are mistaking me for someone else. I am the one who says the "level of its truth" cannot be decided by popular vote, but rather objective evidence, facts, and data. Upvotes and downvotes are the last thing I would say to look at, if at all.

I judge the merits of an argument by the extent there is objective evidence, facts, and data supporting it, and there are no objective evidence, facts, and data contradicting it.

I see Khamis' long post has been deleted, but since it touched on the scientific method, I will add:

Just because "Big Pharma", "RF", and "Big Tech" (allegedly) falsified science, this is not a reason or justification for you to fail to apply the scientific method to support your own ideas, claims and beliefs. The failure of others does not excuse your own personal failure.

If false data exists, or no data exists, these are not reasons to stop the search for objective data, or to replace superior methods with inferior substitutes, and it does not relieve you of your burden to support your own claims to the best of your ability with objective facts, evidence, and data.

Sorry - it is peds.

But what if it isn't? Surely "PEDs" are nothing new and were widely used throughout all sports at all levels before Paris Olympics in July 2024.

This thread expressly asked to consider the alternative scenario "If it isn't PEDS" and was directed to "those who think that the performances over last week were clean" to suggest "the reasons for the incredible performances in Paris".