His "demonstrably poor performance" in 1960 was a world's best as well as being an Olympic gold medal performance. You are truly ridiculous. But what you avoid is addressing the point of why he was so much slower - even 4 years later at Tokyo - than the fastest women today, when he easily trained as hard and when we know many of the best runners today are doping, including the present women's world record-holder.
The simple answer is that the East African women runners of today are using much better peds than were likely available to Bilike. He didn't have access to EPO, and he might not have had access to blood doping, at least not in 1960 (his much faster performance in 1964 could be explained by him having started blood doping).
And of course, you deny the difference that shoes, nutrition, training refinements make. The fact that he could run faster than everybody else in 1960 barefoot, shows how little advantage the shoes back then gave, and may even have been a disadvantage.
Even in the unlikely event that he wasn't being given the best peds available in 1960, it was well-known back then that all the East African distance runners were consuming a herbal plant called the Ethiopian Yam, which is now classified as a ped.
Other runners who wore shoes showed a similar improvement in times over that period. We saw this continue into the late sixties, when Derek Clayton ran 2:08 - 4 minutes faster than Bikila. They both wore shoes. Was he doping?
The shoes argument assumes every record is the result of improvements in shoes. We know that isn't so since the technology change wasn't continuous and wasn't dramatic. That is certainly the case in the '60's and '70s. There are world records still on the books set decades ago in shoes that have supposedly been surpassed.
This post was edited 9 minutes after it was posted.
You are the one who brought seconds into the game - but then discounted them to say "5 minutes" - but are too dim to realize that. But you mostly show how petty you are when you avoid the point being addressed that as an Olympic champion Bikila was much slower than the fastest doped women today. You avoid uncomfortable fact or are simply to thick to grasp anything more complex than mere numbers.
I just check the respective times and see that your 6 minutes are wrong. 5 minutes is correct.
For you 2:03:59 is a minute faster than 2:04:00. This is the level of all your "calculations".
If a number is involved, you fail. Always, ALWAYS. Do you know why?
Not saying you are much better when no number is involved...
The stuck record continues. Nor do I say what you claim.
So why don't you post under your registered handle? Too embarrassing for you?
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
So why are runners not using strychnine (a poison) today? Care to explain the drugs being used by marathon runners in 1960? EPO hadn't been developed as a drug and there are no known examples of blood-doping by distance runners then. And if they were using drugs why were they so much slower than women runners today? Were they so lacking in talent or did drugs have no effect (as you usually argue). I think you've had your 3 strikes.
The world mile record improved 4 seconds between 1954 and 1958. It wasn't shoes or drugs. Yet the marathon record couldn't improve 3 minutes in 4 years unless it was shoes or drugs. Bikila wasn't the only runner who improved by that degree in those years - and they all wore shoes. So what drugs were they on - and why would their supposed doping make them far slower than the fastest women today, despite training as hard? Your doping denial makes you reason like an idiot.
Who says runners are not taking strychnine today? You told me that doping is clandestine, so it is normal that you might not know any examples. But this is just a measure of how little you know, and your ignorance is not an excuse.
In the 1960s, doping existed in sport, except to doping deniers like you. Athletes were taking amphetimines. Tom Simpson was still using strychnine. There was no testing. Coevett told us it is accepted that athletes were already blood-doping in the 1960s.
You have still failed to suggest any other reasons for Bikila's 3-minute improvement between Rome 1960 and Tokyo 1964. That's three strikes. You are creating so many diversions to avoid explaining other reasons for performance.
The idea that it wasn't drugs in the 1960s is yours. The idea that it wasn't shoes is also yours. I asked you for other reasons, and your silence is tacit confirmation of how little you know about creating performance.
The idea that drugs are the usual reasons is also yours, creating an intellectual conflict you seem unable to resolve. Apparently you don't always agree that what is usual is usual.
And the idea that drugs could make a distance runner faster in the marathon is also yours. I have yet to see any correlated performance data to suggest that better marathon performance can be connected to drug use.
You keep asking me why, why why, and I already gave you my answers. My idea was that there are at least half a dozen, if not a dozen, or more, reasons, runners are faster today. These reasons also apply to milers in the 1950s.
And again, you are repeatedly chosing to compare the women of today to Bikila's slower Rome performance. Why? Do you compare milers today to Gunder Hagg? Who would chose Banister's British record of 4:03.6, or his failed attempts of 4:02s to attempt to make a point?
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.
I just check the respective times and see that your 6 minutes are wrong. 5 minutes is correct.
For you 2:03:59 is a minute faster than 2:04:00. This is the level of all your "calculations".
If a number is involved, you fail. Always, ALWAYS. Do you know why?
Not saying you are much better when no number is involved...
Nor do I say what you claim.
That's what you even have explained: you don't look at the seconds, that's how you got your - wrong - 6 minutes. When I correct you (5 minutes) you mention that it is more than 5 minutes (then the seconds are getting important). Laughable.
For you, Gebrselassie (2:03:59) has a 1 minute faster PB than Geremew (2:04:00).
Yet one is faster than the other and has the record the other doesn't have. How can you tell the difference if they are both "3:26 men"?
They ARE both 3:26 men. From this info you can't conclude that EL G is the faster one and the WR holder.
From the correct info that you are stupid it's not possible to conclude that you are one of the 1% most stupid ones. To get this some has to read 2 or 3 of your posts in letsrun.
So why are runners not using strychnine (a poison) today? Care to explain the drugs being used by marathon runners in 1960? EPO hadn't been developed as a drug and there are no known examples of blood-doping by distance runners then. And if they were using drugs why were they so much slower than women runners today? Were they so lacking in talent or did drugs have no effect (as you usually argue). I think you've had your 3 strikes.
The world mile record improved 4 seconds between 1954 and 1958. It wasn't shoes or drugs. Yet the marathon record couldn't improve 3 minutes in 4 years unless it was shoes or drugs. Bikila wasn't the only runner who improved by that degree in those years - and they all wore shoes. So what drugs were they on - and why would their supposed doping make them far slower than the fastest women today, despite training as hard? Your doping denial makes you reason like an idiot.
Who says runners are not taking strychnine today? You told me that doping is clandestine, so it is normal that you might not know any examples. But this is just a measure of how little you know, and your ignorance is not an excuse.
In the 1960s, doping existed in sport, except to doping deniers like you. Athletes were taking amphetimines. Tom Simpson was still using strychnine. There was no testing. Coevett told us it is accepted that athletes were already blood-doping in the 1960s.
You have still failed to suggest any other reasons for Bikila's 3-minute improvement between Rome 1960 and Tokyo 1964. That's three strikes. You are creating so many diversions to avoid explaining other reasons for performance.
The idea that it wasn't drugs in the 1960s is yours. The idea that it wasn't shoes is also yours. I asked you for other reasons, and your silence is tacit confirmation of how little you know about creating performance.
The idea that drugs are the usual reasons is also yours, creating an intellectual conflict you seem unable to resolve. Apparently you don't always agree that what is usual is usual.
And the idea that drugs could make a distance runner faster in the marathon is also yours. I have yet to see any correlated performance data to suggest that better marathon performance can be connected to drug use.
You keep asking me why, why why, and I already gave you my answers. My idea was that there are at least half a dozen, if not a dozen, or more, reasons, runners are faster today. These reasons also apply to milers in the 1950s.
And again, you are repeatedly chosing to compare the women of today to Bikila's slower Rome performance. Why? Do you compare milers today to Gunder Hagg? Who would chose Banister's British record of 4:03.6, or his failed attempts of 4:02s to attempt to make a point?
I see you have posted yet again. I will know what it will say so I passed on reading it. You prattle on like a madman from a religious cult.
That's what you even have explained: you don't look at the seconds, that's how you got your - wrong - 6 minutes. When I correct you (5 minutes) you mention that it is more than 5 minutes (then the seconds are getting important). Laughable.
For you, Gebrselassie (2:03:59) has a 1 minute faster PB than Geremew (2:04:00).
Yet one is faster than the other and has the record the other doesn't have. How can you tell the difference if they are both "3:26 men"?
They ARE both 3:26 men. From this info you can't conclude that EL G is the faster one and the WR holder.
From the correct info that you are stupid it's not possible to conclude that you are one of the 1% most stupid ones. To get this some has to read 2 or 3 of your posts in letsrun.
So you still don't know if El G was faster than Ingebrigtsen. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
What you have no clue about is the thread subject. Nothing to say about it. Grok says you're an idiot.
They ARE both 3:26 men. From this info you can't conclude that EL G is the faster one and the WR holder.
From the correct info that you are stupid it's not possible to conclude that you are one of the 1% most stupid ones. To get this some has to read 2 or 3 of your posts in letsrun.
So you still don't know if El G was faster than Ingebrigtsen. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
What you have no clue about is the thread subject. Nothing to say about it. Grok says you're an idiot.
Another wrong conclusion from you. The correct info that both JI and EL G are 3:26 men is not my only source.
That's what you even have explained: you don't look at the seconds, that's how you got your - wrong - 6 minutes. When I correct you (5 minutes) you mention that it is more than 5 minutes (then the seconds are getting important). Laughable.
For you, Gebrselassie (2:03:59) has a 1 minute faster PB than Geremew (2:04:00).
Still more delirium.
Call it like you want - what I have written is true.
Yup. 41537 posts and counting, repeating the same things no one wants to read, day after day after day.
Good thing the brojos provide this platform for mentally unstable people like you to spend hours of your days. We wouldn't want you outside near our children.
They ARE both 3:26 men. From this info you can't conclude that EL G is the faster one and the WR holder.
From the correct info that you are stupid it's not possible to conclude that you are one of the 1% most stupid ones. To get this some has to read 2 or 3 of your posts in letsrun.
So you still don't know if El G was faster than Ingebrigtsen. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
What you have no clue about is the thread subject. Nothing to say about it. Grok says you're an idiot.
