I have not said that you gave a limit of clean performances to the hundredths of second you dummy.
You stated that sub 1:55 is clearly doped territory. 1:54.99 is sub 1:55 (OK, for you this might be not obvious).
With stating sub 1:55 is clearly doped territory you don't give a limit to the hundredths. (anytime logic comes up you fail deeply)
When you also say you are not sure for Mu with a PB of 1:55.04 it seems your limit is 1:55.00, 1:55.01, 1:55.02 or 1:55.03. What is it?
I stated that I don't where "the clean limit is" for a simple reason: because I - like you and anybody else - don't know where the clean limit is. Different to you, I don't pretend to know the answer, you dummy.
You falsely claimed Mu has not set a PB in the last to years (she did it two times).
In all your replys you never say a single word to the comparison at all (1:55.04 to 1:53.04 for Mu is the same as 1:40.91 to 1:38.91 from Rudisha).
Rudisha was 23 when he set his mark, Mu was 19.
1:40.91 is a much stronger mark than 1:55.04.
1:38.91 currently is very close to impossible, 1:53.04 at least seems possible to me, also very unlikely. Will Mu do it? I don't think so. Someone else? Not now, but for the next 20 years I expect it.
And my example with the lottery was so far beyond your limit of understanding that any other attempt to explain it again will also fail deeply.
Not happening is not proof of not possible, you dummy.
The only dummy here is the one in your mouth. No woman will run 1:53 unless they dope to the gills. It is far beyond the capacity of any woman to run clean. But as you have said, you have no idea what might be the clean limit for a woman, so you have no idea what you are arguing about.
Like me, you also don't have any idea what might be the clean limit for a woman.
Still not a single word to the comparison at all: improving from 1:55.04 at age 19 to 1:53.04 is the same to you as from 1:40.91 at age 23 to 1:38.91. It definitely is not.
The only dummy here is the one in your mouth. No woman will run 1:53 unless they dope to the gills. It is far beyond the capacity of any woman to run clean. But as you have said, you have no idea what might be the clean limit for a woman, so you have no idea what you are arguing about.
Like me, you also don't have any idea what might be the clean limit for a woman.
Still not a single word to the comparison at all: improving from 1:55.04 at age 19 to 1:53.04 is the same to you as from 1:40.91 at age 23 to 1:38.91. It definitely is not.
You are dazzled by your own little games with numbers. No one else is. 1:53 is as out of reach for Mu as 1:39 was to Rudisha. But since you understand nothing of this the argument is out of your reach, too. You are a clod.
The only dummy here is the one in your mouth. No woman will run 1:53 unless they dope to the gills. It is far beyond the capacity of any woman to run clean. But as you have said, you have no idea what might be the clean limit for a woman, so you have no idea what you are arguing about.
Like me, you also don't have any idea what might be the clean limit for a woman.
Still not a single word to the comparison at all: improving from 1:55.04 at age 19 to 1:53.04 is the same to you as from 1:40.91 at age 23 to 1:38.91. It definitely is not.
"Like me, you also don't have any idea what might be the clean limit for a woman."(quote)
Since you admit your own ignorance on this you have no means of assessing whether I - or anyone - have a better understanding on this than you do. Because you are ignorant you think others must be, too. A feature of a narcissistic world view.
Like me, you also don't have any idea what might be the clean limit for a woman.
Still not a single word to the comparison at all: improving from 1:55.04 at age 19 to 1:53.04 is the same to you as from 1:40.91 at age 23 to 1:38.91. It definitely is not.
"Like me, you also don't have any idea what might be the clean limit for a woman."(quote)
Since you admit your own ignorance on this you have no means of assessing whether I - or anyone - have a better understanding on this than you do. Because you are ignorant you think others must be, too. A feature of a narcissistic world view.
You can't know where the clean limit is, it's impossible to know, dummy.
"Like me, you also don't have any idea what might be the clean limit for a woman."(quote)
Since you admit your own ignorance on this you have no means of assessing whether I - or anyone - have a better understanding on this than you do. Because you are ignorant you think others must be, too. A feature of a narcissistic world view.
You can't know where the clean limit is, it's impossible to know, dummy.
It could be 1:57. Or 1:50. Or...
It is impossible to know if you don't know anything about the sport and human athletic capacity. That appears to be you.
You can't know where the clean limit is, it's impossible to know, dummy.
It could be 1:57. Or 1:50. Or...
It is impossible to know if you don't know anything about the sport and human athletic capacity. That appears to be you.
No, dummy, in general it is impossible to know. "Experts" have stated what is possible for humans since 100 years. All those predictions have proved wrong - in long distance running by minutes.
It is impossible to know if you don't know anything about the sport and human athletic capacity. That appears to be you.
No, dummy, in general it is impossible to know. "Experts" have stated what is possible for humans since 100 years. All those predictions have proved wrong - in long distance running by minutes.
You have missed the fact that doping will have played a part in improving times for at least half a century. But as a 12 year-old you won't be aware of that.
1:53 is undoubtedly doped for a woman so the logic follows there will be a point before that that a time could conceivably be run clean. But that is logic beyond your 12 year-old brain.
Well, let's hope she's mentally prepared for it unlike in the Millrose Games mile when she dropped out. That was pathetic.
Don't expect much this time either, my guess is back of the pack and eliminated in heat 1. Minimum effort expended.
I was wrong on this, but happy to be wrong. Mu made a nice 6 sec PR to 4:10 and made final. I now think Mu makes sincere effort in final improving to 4:08. The 4 min girls know they have to run with Mu and Wiley lurking.
Don't expect much this time either, my guess is back of the pack and eliminated in heat 1. Minimum effort expended.
I was wrong on this, but happy to be wrong. Mu made a nice 6 sec PR to 4:10 and made final. I now think Mu makes sincere effort in final improving to 4:08. The 4 min girls know they have to run with Mu and Wiley lurking.
No, dummy, in general it is impossible to know. "Experts" have stated what is possible for humans since 100 years. All those predictions have proved wrong - in long distance running by minutes.
You have missed the fact that doping will have played a part in improving times for at least half a century. But as a 12 year-old you won't be aware of that.
1:53 is undoubtedly doped for a woman so the logic follows there will be a point before that that a time could conceivably be run clean. But that is logic beyond your 12 year-old brain.
No, I have not missed this fact. So, Ron Clarke was doped, right?
In 1960 you would have stated as fact, the clean limit for women is 2:00.
From your unproved claim that 1:53 is impossible to be run clean by a women, you conclude here that 800m can be run clean by a women. Your stupidity really hurts.
Nike's Athing Mu runs 4:10.33 in the 1500m prelim at the 2023 USATF Outdoor Championships to place third in the first heat and advance to the final on Saturd...
You have missed the fact that doping will have played a part in improving times for at least half a century. But as a 12 year-old you won't be aware of that.
1:53 is undoubtedly doped for a woman so the logic follows there will be a point before that that a time could conceivably be run clean. But that is logic beyond your 12 year-old brain.
No, I have not missed this fact. So, Ron Clarke was doped, right?
In 1960 you would have stated as fact, the clean limit for women is 2:00.
From your unproved claim that 1:53 is impossible to be run clean by a women, you conclude here that 800m can be run clean by a women. Your stupidity really hurts.
No one has gotten near breaking Kratochvilova's world mark in nearly forty years, and yet you think a woman could run 1:53 clean. It's your own stupidity that should be hurting you.
You moronic comments about what I would have said about women's times in 1960 are just that - moronic. I didn't say them and wouldn't. The same applies to your comment about what you think I would have said about Ron Clarke - but didn't say and wouldn't. He was setting his records in the mid-60's, not the '70's, which was when I indicated doping was becoming a feature in the sport. But you can be relied upon to get everything wrong - especially the facts. You argue like a drunk in a bar, incoherent and unaware of it. But at least your limited intelligence - indeed, very limited - saves you the embarrassment of realizing it, as you continue to show by persisting with your fatuous "arguments".
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
I was wrong on this, but happy to be wrong. Mu made a nice 6 sec PR to 4:10 and made final. I now think Mu makes sincere effort in final improving to 4:08. The 4 min girls know they have to run with Mu and Wiley lurking.
Your team: Johnson, McGee, MacLean all at 3:59.
The Mu prediction contest is on!
4:04 for top 5.
I can understand people thinking the 1500 was out of her ideal distance range, but not all the chatter that she would not show up or take the race seriously. She may have a (refreshingly) pleasant, bubbly personality, but she has always been a fierce, fearless and serious competitor on the track.
No, I have not missed this fact. So, Ron Clarke was doped, right?
In 1960 you would have stated as fact, the clean limit for women is 2:00.
From your unproved claim that 1:53 is impossible to be run clean by a women, you conclude here that 800m can be run clean by a women. Your stupidity really hurts.
No one has gotten near breaking Kratochvilova's world mark in nearly forty years, and yet you think a woman could run 1:53 clean. It's your own stupidity that should be hurting you.
You moronic comments about what I would have said about women's times in 1960 are just that - moronic. I didn't say them and wouldn't. The same applies to your comment about what you think I would have said about Ron Clarke - but didn't say and wouldn't. He was setting his records in the mid-60's, not the '70's, which was when I indicated doping was becoming a feature in the sport. But you can be relied upon to get everything wrong - especially the facts. You argue like a drunk in a bar, incoherent and unaware of it. But at least your limited intelligence - indeed, very limited - saves you the embarrassment of realizing it, as you continue to show by persisting with your fatuous "arguments".
I havn't said anything wheather 1:53 is possible clean or not. At a time in history with slower world records you would have given slower clean limits, definitely.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.