Not everyone has to cheat for a sport to be dirty. If enough cheat - and they do - then no performances can be assumed to be clean. You only hope they are.
I have been coaching for many years. I seem to be the only person who uses some data to show that shoes make a difference. I can look at a particular workout at a particular time and then look at what time the guy ran in a race and then compare a race time for a guy running the same workout today. I agree that it is roughly 5 seconds per mile. I usually stick with 1 second per lap.
WADA's process isn't "highly subjective". It is based on expert advice about what the banned substances do. What else should they rely on? Your advice?
If WADA's judgment about a substance is either incorrect or unfair, and this was demonstrated by other experts, like athletes, we would see WADA remove a substance from the banned list. Remind me of when this has happened, and which experts and which athletes have said EPO shouldn't be on the banned list?
The expert advice is highly subjective, and is not made public for non-WADA experts and athletes to challenge.
These experts also look at potential health concerns in addition to potential performance concerns. EPO should be banned solely for health concerns -- see the early cases of Dutch cyclists dying mysteriously during the night, apparently attributed to EPO.
What these experts could rely on, if WADA commissioned them, is higher quality data from higher quality studies. We know from Heuberger, among others, that there are very few high quality doping performance studies available to WADA experts for most of the classes of substances banned by WADA, and the limited studies available mainly show the strength benefits of steroids and other drugs.
I'm not sure we would see WADA readily admit it got something wrong -- see WADA's response to Heuberger studies showing the lack of efficacy data from EPO; see also the recent spat between USADA and WADA about how the Chinese cases were handled. But WADA did recently review and raise thresholds for a whole host of drugs to reduce the number of false positives.
All of that is a waste of breath. We know drugs are rife in sport and certainly in running. We don't have to know the extent drugs may enhance performance - and we can assume there will be some gain or the practice wouldn't exist - for a conclusion that gains attributed to other means, such as shoes, tracks, bicarb, even training - may also be attributable to some degree to drugs. You can't rule it out because we know the sport has a serious doping problem. That means any claims about the gains achievable by other technologies can't be relied on. The attempted measure of accuracy - like the sport itself - has been contaminated.
Doping was "rife in sport" before the technological advances in the supershoe era, so does not readily explain why road performances improved in 2017 and track performances in 2021.
When you "assume their will be some gain", this is exactly what I mean by faith based argument from ignorance. But we are not just talking about your assumed enhancement of some unknown extent. You are piling on with a new assumption -- that a new endurance drug was introduced sometime around 2017-2021, that is substantially more powerful than EPO, for events from 800m to the marathon, and that this is confounding any conclusion about shoes.
And again, if it is so well known that even high school athletes are improving, at some point in the last 9 years, the secret would have been leaked to knowledgeable investigators or by whistleblowers. After all, didn't you just get done telling me that WADA follows "expert advice"? How can they be experts and know less than high school athletes?
I have been coaching for many years. I seem to be the only person who uses some data to show that shoes make a difference. I can look at a particular workout at a particular time and then look at what time the guy ran in a race and then compare a race time for a guy running the same workout today. I agree that it is roughly 5 seconds per mile. I usually stick with 1 second per lap.
Please look at my ncaa data post on page 6 of this thread.
All of that is a waste of breath. We know drugs are rife in sport and certainly in running. We don't have to know the extent drugs may enhance performance - and we can assume there will be some gain or the practice wouldn't exist - for a conclusion that gains attributed to other means, such as shoes, tracks, bicarb, even training - may also be attributable to some degree to drugs. You can't rule it out because we know the sport has a serious doping problem. That means any claims about the gains achievable by other technologies can't be relied on. The attempted measure of accuracy - like the sport itself - has been contaminated.
Doping was "rife in sport" before the technological advances in the supershoe era, so does not readily explain why road performances improved in 2017 and track performances in 2021.
When you "assume their will be some gain", this is exactly what I mean by faith based argument from ignorance. But we are not just talking about your assumed enhancement of some unknown extent. You are piling on with a new assumption -- that a new endurance drug was introduced sometime around 2017-2021, that is substantially more powerful than EPO, for events from 800m to the marathon, and that this is confounding any conclusion about shoes.
And again, if it is so well known that even high school athletes are improving, at some point in the last 9 years, the secret would have been leaked to knowledgeable investigators or by whistleblowers. After all, didn't you just get done telling me that WADA follows "expert advice"? How can they be experts and know less than high school athletes?
The data shows an exact time correlation with introduction of the shoes and improved performance. This is true for the road shoes starting ~2017 and spikes for track 2021. It has been true across every level, age, sex in the sport with immediate efficacy.
Nike has published treadmill studies showing how they evolved and tuned the shoes. Sub 2 was their proof project for the road shoes.
Every retort of the efficacy of the shoes is a hand waivy "it could be something else" with no specifics.
As a scientist, it is really hard to understand why people absolutely refuse to believe a proven technology can affect human performance while also claiming that it HAS to be some OTHER form of technology (drugs) that can't be identified. I guess we just live in a conspiracy theory world.
I have been coaching for many years. I seem to be the only person who uses some data to show that shoes make a difference. I can look at a particular workout at a particular time and then look at what time the guy ran in a race and then compare a race time for a guy running the same workout today. I agree that it is roughly 5 seconds per mile. I usually stick with 1 second per lap.
So El G would be running 3:21 for the 1500 today and 3:38 for the mile. And Ingebrigtsen and Hocker are only worth 3:31-32 for the 1500 (and Hocker only 3:51 for the mile) in the old shoes. You're a fantasist.
WADA's process isn't "highly subjective". It is based on expert advice about what the banned substances do. What else should they rely on? Your advice?
If WADA's judgment about a substance is either incorrect or unfair, and this was demonstrated by other experts, like athletes, we would see WADA remove a substance from the banned list. Remind me of when this has happened, and which experts and which athletes have said EPO shouldn't be on the banned list?
The expert advice is highly subjective, and is not made public for non-WADA experts and athletes to challenge.
These experts also look at potential health concerns in addition to potential performance concerns. EPO should be banned solely for health concerns -- see the early cases of Dutch cyclists dying mysteriously during the night, apparently attributed to EPO.
What these experts could rely on, if WADA commissioned them, is higher quality data from higher quality studies. We know from Heuberger, among others, that there are very few high quality doping performance studies available to WADA experts for most of the classes of substances banned by WADA, and the limited studies available mainly show the strength benefits of steroids and other drugs.
I'm not sure we would see WADA readily admit it got something wrong -- see WADA's response to Heuberger studies showing the lack of efficacy data from EPO; see also the recent spat between USADA and WADA about how the Chinese cases were handled. But WADA did recently review and raise thresholds for a whole host of drugs to reduce the number of false positives.
Expert advice is, by definition, not "highly subjective". But your opinions are, since you aren't an expert. That the advice given to WADA by experts is not made public does not make it subjective; it makes it confidential. Part of the reason for that is to protect reputations when no violation has been known to be committed.
WADA would likely admit it was wrong if this was shown to be the case. Its findings can also be challenged. So you're also wrong about that.
All of that is a waste of breath. We know drugs are rife in sport and certainly in running. We don't have to know the extent drugs may enhance performance - and we can assume there will be some gain or the practice wouldn't exist - for a conclusion that gains attributed to other means, such as shoes, tracks, bicarb, even training - may also be attributable to some degree to drugs. You can't rule it out because we know the sport has a serious doping problem. That means any claims about the gains achievable by other technologies can't be relied on. The attempted measure of accuracy - like the sport itself - has been contaminated.
Doping was "rife in sport" before the technological advances in the supershoe era, so does not readily explain why road performances improved in 2017 and track performances in 2021.
When you "assume their will be some gain", this is exactly what I mean by faith based argument from ignorance. But we are not just talking about your assumed enhancement of some unknown extent. You are piling on with a new assumption -- that a new endurance drug was introduced sometime around 2017-2021, that is substantially more powerful than EPO, for events from 800m to the marathon, and that this is confounding any conclusion about shoes.
And again, if it is so well known that even high school athletes are improving, at some point in the last 9 years, the secret would have been leaked to knowledgeable investigators or by whistleblowers. After all, didn't you just get done telling me that WADA follows "expert advice"? How can they be experts and know less than high school athletes?
Doping gains aren't "faith based argument from ignorance". It's a practice that involves countless athletes, coaches, trainers, physios and scientists, in every sport and in every country. As one who has no experience of doping your arrogance in discarding any rational basis for what they do and what they know is breathtaking. Your disputing gains in a longstanding world-wide practice that spends over a billion dollars annually is the only "faith-based ignorance" here.
This post was edited 44 seconds after it was posted.
Doping was "rife in sport" before the technological advances in the supershoe era, so does not readily explain why road performances improved in 2017 and track performances in 2021.
When you "assume their will be some gain", this is exactly what I mean by faith based argument from ignorance. But we are not just talking about your assumed enhancement of some unknown extent. You are piling on with a new assumption -- that a new endurance drug was introduced sometime around 2017-2021, that is substantially more powerful than EPO, for events from 800m to the marathon, and that this is confounding any conclusion about shoes.
And again, if it is so well known that even high school athletes are improving, at some point in the last 9 years, the secret would have been leaked to knowledgeable investigators or by whistleblowers. After all, didn't you just get done telling me that WADA follows "expert advice"? How can they be experts and know less than high school athletes?
The data shows an exact time correlation with introduction of the shoes and improved performance. This is true for the road shoes starting ~2017 and spikes for track 2021. It has been true across every level, age, sex in the sport with immediate efficacy.
Nike has published treadmill studies showing how they evolved and tuned the shoes. Sub 2 was their proof project for the road shoes.
Every retort of the efficacy of the shoes is a hand waivy "it could be something else" with no specifics.
As a scientist, it is really hard to understand why people absolutely refuse to believe a proven technology can affect human performance while also claiming that it HAS to be some OTHER form of technology (drugs) that can't be identified. I guess we just live in a conspiracy theory world.
You do know that drugs are throughout the sport? So how do you separate drugs from the shoes in assessing performance? There has also been a curious lag in performance increases following the introduction of the shoes. Either they would have an immediate effect or not. They didn't. So it's probably still drugs.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
The data shows an exact time correlation with introduction of the shoes and improved performance. This is true for the road shoes starting ~2017 and spikes for track 2021. It has been true across every level, age, sex in the sport with immediate efficacy.
Nike has published treadmill studies showing how they evolved and tuned the shoes. Sub 2 was their proof project for the road shoes.
Every retort of the efficacy of the shoes is a hand waivy "it could be something else" with no specifics.
As a scientist, it is really hard to understand why people absolutely refuse to believe a proven technology can affect human performance while also claiming that it HAS to be some OTHER form of technology (drugs) that can't be identified. I guess we just live in a conspiracy theory world.
You do know that drugs are throughout the sport? So how do you separate drugs from the shoes in assessing performance? There has also been a curious lag in performance increases following the introduction of the shoes. Either they would have an immediate effect or not. They didn't. So it's probably still drugs.
Look at the data I posted on page 6. There was an immediate increase in performance that corresponds exactly with introduction of the super spikes (2s 1500, 10s 5000, 15s 10000).
I have explained the subsequent performance gains due to training more in shoes that cause less injuries and increase efficiency. The universal adoption of the shoes also took some time due to availability and cost. The 2nd year after super spikes the performance gains were 3s 1500, 15s 5000, 30s 10000 from the previous decade of steady performances.
If you can name the new drug that was introduced in 2021 that pervaded every level of the sport, 100s of athletes deep, we would all appreciate that since NONE the 100s of thousands of runners using it are talking.
Otherwise, as a scientist, I'll go with the data that shows an exact correlation in time with a new technology that has multiple studies showing it's efficacy is in the range of the performance improvements we have seen. But you do you, conspiracy theory guy.
Expert advice is, by definition, not "highly subjective". But your opinions are, since you aren't an expert. That the advice given to WADA by experts is not made public does not make it subjective; it makes it confidential. Part of the reason for that is to protect reputations when no violation has been known to be committed.
WADA would likely admit it was wrong if this was shown to be the case. Its findings can also be challenged. So you're also wrong about that.
Sorry, but none of your waffle is true.
First, this is not how "subjective" is defined.
Second, it is highly questionable whether we can even consider it "expert advice". The medical experts WADA consults are not experts in the domain of elite sports performance. This renders any advice from medical experts with respect to elite performance as "non-expert advice". On the other hand, I might consider it expert advise if they are advising on potential harmful side effects detrimental to athletes' health.
Furthermore, their advice on performance cannot possible be objective if no objective performance data exists. According to Heuberger et al., after conducting a literature review of doping performance, only 5 classes of WADA banned substances, out of 24, have objective data showing elite performance improvement, and these are largely connected to increasing muscular strength. When we talk about the endurance sport of elite distance running, all of that objective strength performance data becomes irrelevant, except arguably for women in the shorter distance events.
Whether I have expertise is immaterial to the question whether WADA is getting materially relevant expert advice based on objective data. My opinions are formed on the basis of objective data, to the extent it exists and is known to the public. In order for you to refute my opinions, it requires pointing out the existence of objective data that contradicts my stated opinions, to the extent I have actually state my opinions.
I'm also not so convinced WADA would admit it was wrong, or if anyone or any organization is really in any position to challenge WADA. I think WADA relies on its maintaining a reputation for not making mistakes, so it is aggresively reluctant to admit them.
Your faith in WADA, and the experts they consult, is misplaced, and certainly not compelling to anyone who does not share your faith.
Doping gains aren't "faith based argument from ignorance". It's a practice that involves countless athletes, coaches, trainers, physios and scientists, in every sport and in every country. As one who has no experience of doping your arrogance in discarding any rational basis for what they do and what they know is breathtaking. Your disputing gains in a longstanding world-wide practice that spends over a billion dollars annually is the only "faith-based ignorance" here.
I don't dispute that the practice is longstanding and exceeding a billion dollars. We can also say the same for WADA legal supplements, but no one is arguing that they are universally effective.
But who is saying there are any doping related gains in elite distance running? It is not "athletes, coaches, trainers, physios and scientists", but faithful posters like you with no relevant knowledge.
And if the basis is not faith, then what is the non-faith basis for such alleged doping gains, in the sport of elite distance running?
The only way to show the basis is not rooted in ignorance is to provide the knowledge. The only way to show it is not faith based, is to provide objective performance data.
Again, my level of expertise does not help you establish knowledge based on performance data.
You are the one who presumes to know what they know, when they are completely silent about both their motivation and their observed results. This is you placing faith in the faith of "athletes, coaches, trainers, physios and scientists".
Once I completely remove faith from consideration, I am left with no reason to be persuaded by you, nor any reason to be persuaded that "athletes, coaches, trainers, physios and scientists" are recommending a practice based on anything more than hope, and their own personal gain.
You do know that drugs are throughout the sport? So how do you separate drugs from the shoes in assessing performance? There has also been a curious lag in performance increases following the introduction of the shoes. Either they would have an immediate effect or not. They didn't. So it's probably still drugs.
Look at the data I posted on page 6. There was an immediate increase in performance that corresponds exactly with introduction of the super spikes (2s 1500, 10s 5000, 15s 10000).
I have explained the subsequent performance gains due to training more in shoes that cause less injuries and increase efficiency. The universal adoption of the shoes also took some time due to availability and cost. The 2nd year after super spikes the performance gains were 3s 1500, 15s 5000, 30s 10000 from the previous decade of steady performances.
If you can name the new drug that was introduced in 2021 that pervaded every level of the sport, 100s of athletes deep, we would all appreciate that since NONE the 100s of thousands of runners using it are talking.
Otherwise, as a scientist, I'll go with the data that shows an exact correlation in time with a new technology that has multiple studies showing it's efficacy is in the range of the performance improvements we have seen. But you do you, conspiracy theory guy.
You haven't studied the effects of drugs in the sport. They are present and they are everywhere. So your study on shoes that doesn't take account of the effect of drugs is too partial to be reliable.
Expert advice is, by definition, not "highly subjective". But your opinions are, since you aren't an expert. That the advice given to WADA by experts is not made public does not make it subjective; it makes it confidential. Part of the reason for that is to protect reputations when no violation has been known to be committed.
WADA would likely admit it was wrong if this was shown to be the case. Its findings can also be challenged. So you're also wrong about that.
Sorry, but none of your waffle is true.
First, this is not how "subjective" is defined.
Second, it is highly questionable whether we can even consider it "expert advice". The medical experts WADA consults are not experts in the domain of elite sports performance. This renders any advice from medical experts with respect to elite performance as "non-expert advice". On the other hand, I might consider it expert advise if they are advising on potential harmful side effects detrimental to athletes' health.
Furthermore, their advice on performance cannot possible be objective if no objective performance data exists. According to Heuberger et al., after conducting a literature review of doping performance, only 5 classes of WADA banned substances, out of 24, have objective data showing elite performance improvement, and these are largely connected to increasing muscular strength. When we talk about the endurance sport of elite distance running, all of that objective strength performance data becomes irrelevant, except arguably for women in the shorter distance events.
Whether I have expertise is immaterial to the question whether WADA is getting materially relevant expert advice based on objective data. My opinions are formed on the basis of objective data, to the extent it exists and is known to the public. In order for you to refute my opinions, it requires pointing out the existence of objective data that contradicts my stated opinions, to the extent I have actually state my opinions.
I'm also not so convinced WADA would admit it was wrong, or if anyone or any organization is really in any position to challenge WADA. I think WADA relies on its maintaining a reputation for not making mistakes, so it is aggresively reluctant to admit them.
Your faith in WADA, and the experts they consult, is misplaced, and certainly not compelling to anyone who does not share your faith.
I rate WADA and the experts it uses higher than any opinion of yours. An occasional dissenting view of WADA and its experts does not prove them wrong, just as there are views disputing climate change yet it remains the predominant scientific view. The views you quote are cherry-picked unconvincing exceptions. If they weren't they would be the prevailing orthodoxy. They aren't.
Doping gains aren't "faith based argument from ignorance". It's a practice that involves countless athletes, coaches, trainers, physios and scientists, in every sport and in every country. As one who has no experience of doping your arrogance in discarding any rational basis for what they do and what they know is breathtaking. Your disputing gains in a longstanding world-wide practice that spends over a billion dollars annually is the only "faith-based ignorance" here.
I don't dispute that the practice is longstanding and exceeding a billion dollars. We can also say the same for WADA legal supplements, but no one is arguing that they are universally effective.
But who is saying there are any doping related gains in elite distance running? It is not "athletes, coaches, trainers, physios and scientists", but faithful posters like you with no relevant knowledge.
And if the basis is not faith, then what is the non-faith basis for such alleged doping gains, in the sport of elite distance running?
The only way to show the basis is not rooted in ignorance is to provide the knowledge. The only way to show it is not faith based, is to provide objective performance data.
Again, my level of expertise does not help you establish knowledge based on performance data.
You are the one who presumes to know what they know, when they are completely silent about both their motivation and their observed results. This is you placing faith in the faith of "athletes, coaches, trainers, physios and scientists".
Once I completely remove faith from consideration, I am left with no reason to be persuaded by you, nor any reason to be persuaded that "athletes, coaches, trainers, physios and scientists" are recommending a practice based on anything more than hope, and their own personal gain.
Your nonsense about "faith-based beliefs" is an effective assertion that all those who are involved in doping, from athletes to coaches, trainers, physios and doctors, are idiots to think doping makes a difference because you - who have never doped - are unconvinced a worldwide clandestine practice aids athletes. You redefine what idiocy means.
Just look at the stats from 2022-2026, to 2012-2016, to 2002-2006, to 1992-1996.
The last 4 years have been remarkable in comparison to other decades all together. You couldnt even combine all of the previous decades into a single list that equals todays lists.
Remarkably so, 2022-2026, thats when carbon plated shoes came along.
Looked it up, 2016 in fact the top 3 in the Olympics wore them, They becamed available for Purchase in 2017. Rupp was 2nd in the 2016 Olympics, Somehow he knew about them from the Very Beggining
Looked it up, 2016 in fact the top 3 in the Olympics wore them, They becamed available for Purchase in 2017. Rupp was 2nd in the 2016 Olympics, Somehow he knew about them from the Very Beggining
So it took about 5 years to see a spike (excuse the expression) in performances attributable to the shoes. If they aid performance, as it is claimed here, the effect should have been immediate. 5 years? Doesn't wash.