El Guerrouj 2k WR - Incredible 3:49 Mile pace

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

No, you won't. You have demonstrated that arguments of substance are not part of your intellectual equipment. And despite your pretence of being open to persuasion, you have never changed your mind - about anything - on the basis of what anyone else has said.

Of course you won't know until you try.

I didn't say "on the basis of what anyone else has said", but "arguments of substance" -- use the scientific method as your guide, but generally means data, controlled real world observations, and avoiding logical fallacies.

Generally, but not only.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

No, you won't. You have demonstrated that arguments of substance are not part of your intellectual equipment. And despite your pretence of being open to persuasion, you have never changed your mind - about anything - on the basis of what anyone else has said.

Of course you won't know until you try.

I didn't say "on the basis of what anyone else has said", but "arguments of substance" -- use the scientific method as your guide, but generally means data, controlled real world observations, and avoiding logical fallacies.

You dont know what the real world is. Yours is a fictional creation intended to maintain your honed narrative. There wouldn't be an antidoping expert or anti doping official that would recognize your reality.

Furthermore, in innumerable threads many have tried with you but all have failed. In the years you have presented your opinions here no one has presented "an argument of substance" - because you have never changed your views on the basis of what they have said. You will only see what you wish to see.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You dont know what the real world is. Yours is a fictional creation intended to maintain your honed narrative. There wouldn't be an antidoping expert or anti doping official that would recognize your reality.

Furthermore, in innumerable threads many have tried with you but all have failed. In the years you have presented your opinions here no one has presented "an argument of substance" - because you have never changed your views on the basis of what they have said. You will only see what you wish to see.

Yes many have failed. This is not my fault, nor my problem.

Many anti-doping experts would recognize my reality because they often publish it themselves in their papers, in the "limitations" section. My opinion is that knowledge on the topic is limited.

Sometimes people try to interpret their understanding, their beliefs, and their rationalizations, in their own words -- this is a waste of their time.

You are correct that I will not change my views because anonymous people say things -- I would rather they provide their basis for what they say, rather than their digested, filtered, and biased pre-judgements.

You are immune to understanding anything you don't already believe. Fortunately, no one in any position of responsibility in trying to clean up the sport holds to your views. And, unfortunately, there isn't a doper - and there are so many - who agrees with you. But they would be grateful for your support.

Because expert opinions are so much respected here, here is one from Dr. Jim Stray-Gundersen, who has researched blood doplng detection and reviewed blood data of clean and doper skiers and skaters since the late 1980s: (from Runner's World)

“What doping does is allow you a greater margin for error in your training and preparation for competition,” says Stray-Gundersen. “You can be much more aggressive and not worry about overtraining, about errors in having a consistent program over time, and about getting recovery therapy right, because these sorts of errors can be mitigated by the doping. Without doping, top performances are still possible, but they are a lot harder to get.”

Aragon wrote:

Because expert opinions are so much respected here, here is one from Dr. Jim Stray-Gundersen, who has researched blood doplng detection and reviewed blood data of clean and doper skiers and skaters since the late 1980s: (from Runner's World)

“What doping does is allow you a greater margin for error in your training and preparation for competition,” says Stray-Gundersen. “You can be much more aggressive and not worry about overtraining, about errors in having a consistent program over time, and about getting recovery therapy right, because these sorts of errors can be mitigated by the doping. Without doping, top performances are still possible, but they are a lot harder to get.”

I'm a big fan of Dr. Stray-Gundersen (and Levine), and would tend to agree that this greater margin of error can be an advantage, and that top performances are still possible clean.

... and Stray-Gundersen has also testified at some CAS hearings, IIRC as an expert witness against Claudia Pechstein. Widely known that he also researched rHuEPO in order to curtail its detection in the late 1990s and introduced the first proto-bio passport in 1999 in speed skating (so-called "SAFE"-program).

A guy with a very deep anti-doping attitude, who sees the "extra" boost of blood doping close to zero vs. well-coordinated training.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You are immune to understanding anything you don't already believe. Fortunately, no one in any position of responsibility in trying to clean up the sport holds to your views. And, unfortunately, there isn't a doper - and there are so many - who agrees with you. But they would be grateful for your support.

Au contraire.

I understand both the doping myths and the doping science, and how to tell them apart.

You keep conflating discussions of performance with anti-doping.

I support anti-dopers anti-doping, but that is an unrelated goalpost in another field.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You are immune to understanding anything you don't already believe. Fortunately, no one in any position of responsibility in trying to clean up the sport holds to your views. And, unfortunately, there isn't a doper - and there are so many - who agrees with you. But they would be grateful for your support.

It's also curious that you portray yourself as possessing extensive knowledge of the views of anti-dopers and dopers, yet when asked which experts share your views, you jump into acrobatic, gymnastic, self-defense mode.

Aragon wrote:

... and Stray-Gundersen has also testified at some CAS hearings, IIRC as an expert witness against Claudia Pechstein. Widely known that he also researched rHuEPO in order to curtail its detection in the late 1990s and introduced the first proto-bio passport in 1999 in speed skating (so-called "SAFE"-program).

A guy with a very deep anti-doping attitude, who sees the "extra" boost of blood doping close to zero vs. well-coordinated training.

A shortcut in the time it takes to achieve your best is also an advantage.

The difference between Tour de France winners and elite ditance runners in oxygen uptake is that the cyclists have VO2max of 80 ml/kg/min @ 12% body fat and the runners are around 70. Middle ditance runners can be higher or lower than these numbers.

Could Primož Roglič run a sub 13 5k with years of training? No! Could he run a sub 4 mile? Probably yes.

To investigate what is possible in the Tour de France with or without EPO, look at old videos of the Alpe d'huez climb 1994, 1995, 1997, 2001

The stage is decided more or less in the first 2.5 km averaging alomost 10%. They were doing this in around 7.30 which is 20kmh. They will be close to VO2max for this early and super tough part of the climb. As they continue they are at 22kmh on the 8% sections, slightly over 90% VO2max.

Forget about power numbers because the power meters vary greatly in calibration. Just look at the stats I've given you and analyse them.

The belief that this is only possible with blood manipulation is a sad indictment of the sport, worse than the doping itself.