"If he has been mentioned" - pardon my amusement. - Why the amusement?
If you think Isinbayeva was doping that shows the pole vault would benefit from doping just like any other event. - Not necessarily. I don't trust any record or athletic achievement of any athlete from any of the former Eastern Block countries. Do you? It has nothing to do with the event.
1. Duplantis has been discussed at length over the last few pages of the thread. You missed that.
2. The reason athletes dope is to enhance their performance. It thus has everything to do with the event, as they wouldn't dope if it didn't improve their chances. If Isinbayeva doped, that is why she would have done so. Every competitive activity shows doping - like chess, darts and curling. E Bloc athletes doped to enhance performance - as any athlete does who dopes - and all countries dope to a greater or lesser extent.
regardless the topic, regardless the content of the post you are answering to, regardles the poster you are replying to, your answer will be mainly "doping" because you want to give a balance to some denying. Hard to believe.
Btw., I have never denied doping in any way.
But also true: you never answer a concrete question when the answer could question your view a little. You don't even know the meaning of a discussion.
The "meaning of a discussion" for some is that the other person has to agree. You appear to be one of them.
I never said Ingebrigtsen was an 8.03 runner in a 7.20 event.
Even when knowing your big problems in understanding the most simple hings, I'm sometimes surprised that your problems are so deep. You said 8:03 - 8:05 before his 7:53.10, correct?
I will read the rest of your nonsense later.
The comment I responded to was this.
"Komen's 7:20.67 is ready for to be bettered by several athletes (you had Ingebrigtsen at - what - 8:03?). Well, you were completely wrong, as so often."(copy)
You weren't referring to Komen's 2 mile mark but his 3k record.
As far as the 2m record is concerned, Ingebrigtsen exceeded my expectations. He beat an EPO record. He's doping.
This post was edited 57 seconds after it was posted.
It's to balance the hundreds of off-topic posts you write, ruining countless threads with your vacuous doping accusations.
So you have no ideas of your own on the thread topics, just your ineffectual personal attacks on me. The irony of course is this thread is absolutely about doping, as it asks if there is a clean wr. Your lack of self awareness is truly spectacular.
Even when knowing your big problems in understanding the most simple hings, I'm sometimes surprised that your problems are so deep. You said 8:03 - 8:05 before his 7:53.10, correct?
I will read the rest of your nonsense later.
The comment I responded to was this.
"Komen's 7:20.67 is ready for to be bettered by several athletes (you had Ingebrigtsen at - what - 8:03?). Well, you were completely wrong, as so often."(copy)
You weren't referring to Komen's 2 mile mark but his 3k record.
As far as the 2m record is concerned, Ingebrigtsen exceeded my expectations. He beat an EPO record. He's doping.
OK, I have to admit, I underestimated your problems in understanding the most easy subjects - I should have known better (knowing your problems to count above 2). But I will try my best in the future, Army.
When talking about Komen's 7:20.67 3000m WR and then mentioning a time of 8:03 of yours, any follower of athletics immediately will know it's connected to the 2 Miles. Any follower apart from you.
So, you were completely wrong when estimating Ingebrigtsen's level. For sure you have an excuse: doping. So, if Ingebrigtsen would have run 8:03 in Paris, you would say he was clean? But any other runner who runs 8:03 clearly is doping according to you.
Komen's 7:20.67 is not anymore as strong as you often have claimed. Currently some runners can better the mark, a few by a seconds.
For sure the no. of participants in an event has some influence on the level of the top performers.
Women's shot is extremely weak at the moment compared to any men's running event. Partly because just very few women are doing the event seriously.
Extremely likely that Duplantis' 6.21/6.22 are not as strong as Bolt's 9.58. If not, it would be a strange exception.
Even when knowing your big problems in understanding the most simple hings, I'm sometimes surprised that your problems are so deep. You said 8:03 - 8:05 before his 7:53.10, correct?
I will read the rest of your nonsense later.
The comment I responded to was this.
"Komen's 7:20.67 is ready for to be bettered by several athletes (you had Ingebrigtsen at - what - 8:03?). Well, you were completely wrong, as so often."(copy)
You weren't referring to Komen's 2 mile mark but his 3k record.
As far as the 2m record is concerned, Ingebrigtsen exceeded my expectations. He beat an EPO record. He's doping.
Any intelligent person (that excludes you, of course) could understand letsdrum meant the 2 mi world record when he said 8:03
regardless the topic, regardless the content of the post you are answering to, regardles the poster you are replying to, your answer will be mainly "doping" because you want to give a balance to some denying. Hard to believe.
Btw., I have never denied doping in any way.
But also true: you never answer a concrete question when the answer could question your view a little. You don't even know the meaning of a discussion.
The "meaning of a discussion" for some is that the other person has to agree. You appear to be one of them.
To have a discussion, it's important to stay on topic. Something you have a serious problem with.
"Komen's 7:20.67 is ready for to be bettered by several athletes (you had Ingebrigtsen at - what - 8:03?). Well, you were completely wrong, as so often."(copy)
You weren't referring to Komen's 2 mile mark but his 3k record.
As far as the 2m record is concerned, Ingebrigtsen exceeded my expectations. He beat an EPO record. He's doping.
OK, I have to admit, I underestimated your problems in understanding the most easy subjects - I should have known better (knowing your problems to count above 2). But I will try my best in the future, Army.
When talking about Komen's 7:20.67 3000m WR and then mentioning a time of 8:03 of yours, any follower of athletics immediately will know it's connected to the 2 Miles. Any follower apart from you.
So, you were completely wrong when estimating Ingebrigtsen's level. For sure you have an excuse: doping. So, if Ingebrigtsen would have run 8:03 in Paris, you would say he was clean? But any other runner who runs 8:03 clearly is doping according to you.
Komen's 7:20.67 is not anymore as strong as you often have claimed. Currently some runners can better the mark, a few by a seconds.
For sure the no. of participants in an event has some influence on the level of the top performers.
Women's shot is extremely weak at the moment compared to any men's running event. Partly because just very few women are doing the event seriously.
Extremely likely that Duplantis' 6.21/6.22 are not as strong as Bolt's 9.58. If not, it would be a strange exception.
OK, I have to admit, I underestimated your problems in understanding the most easy subjects - I should have known better (knowing your problems to count above 2). But I will try my best in the future, Army.
When talking about Komen's 7:20.67 3000m WR and then mentioning a time of 8:03 of yours, any follower of athletics immediately will know it's connected to the 2 Miles. Any follower apart from you.
So, you were completely wrong when estimating Ingebrigtsen's level. For sure you have an excuse: doping. So, if Ingebrigtsen would have run 8:03 in Paris, you would say he was clean? But any other runner who runs 8:03 clearly is doping according to you.
Komen's 7:20.67 is not anymore as strong as you often have claimed. Currently some runners can better the mark, a few by a seconds.
For sure the no. of participants in an event has some influence on the level of the top performers.
Women's shot is extremely weak at the moment compared to any men's running event. Partly because just very few women are doing the event seriously.
Extremely likely that Duplantis' 6.21/6.22 are not as strong as Bolt's 9.58. If not, it would be a strange exception.
It completely escapes you windbags who insist that Duplantis's records will be clean that the thread poses it only as a possibility that there may be one clean record in the sport. If the sport is therefore as dirty as the question implies then the chances are that there won't be a clean record to be found anywhere. There is nothing about either Duplantis or the pole vault that suggests the event credibly stands alone as a beacon for clean achievement in a sport where doping has been almost certainly been responsible for every other record. I can always count on the dumbest posters to reveal themselves.
This post was edited 41 seconds after it was posted.
"Komen's 7:20.67 is ready for to be bettered by several athletes (you had Ingebrigtsen at - what - 8:03?). Well, you were completely wrong, as so often."(copy)
You weren't referring to Komen's 2 mile mark but his 3k record.
As far as the 2m record is concerned, Ingebrigtsen exceeded my expectations. He beat an EPO record. He's doping.
OK, I have to admit, I underestimated your problems in understanding the most easy subjects - I should have known better (knowing your problems to count above 2). But I will try my best in the future, Army.
When talking about Komen's 7:20.67 3000m WR and then mentioning a time of 8:03 of yours, any follower of athletics immediately will know it's connected to the 2 Miles. Any follower apart from you.
So, you were completely wrong when estimating Ingebrigtsen's level. For sure you have an excuse: doping. So, if Ingebrigtsen would have run 8:03 in Paris, you would say he was clean? But any other runner who runs 8:03 clearly is doping according to you.
Komen's 7:20.67 is not anymore as strong as you often have claimed. Currently some runners can better the mark, a few by a seconds.
For sure the no. of participants in an event has some influence on the level of the top performers.
Women's shot is extremely weak at the moment compared to any men's running event. Partly because just very few women are doing the event seriously.
Extremely likely that Duplantis' 6.21/6.22 are not as strong as Bolt's 9.58. If not, it would be a strange exception.
I can't be bothered arguing with that twaddle. You neither understood what I was saying or the arguments involved.
It completely escapes you windbagIhs who insist that Duplantis's records will be clean that the thread poses it only as a possibility that there may be one clean record in the sport. If the sport is therefore as dirty as the question implies then the chances are that there won't be a clean record to be found anywhere. There is nothing about either Duplantis or the pole vault that suggests the event credibly stands alone as a beacon for clean achievement in a sport where doping has been almost certainly been responsible for every other record. I can always count on the dumbest posters to reveal themselves.
"Duplantis's" - and you are making fun of non native English speakers because of some mistakes.
I havn't said Duplantis' records are clean. Maybe, maybe not.
For sure the thread topic makes no sense at all.
I think it was meant something like: if you had one shot to name a clean WR (and it would be possible to check) and you will get some price if you are correct, which one would you say?
OK, I have to admit, I underestimated your problems in understanding the most easy subjects - I should have known better (knowing your problems to count above 2). But I will try my best in the future, Army.
When talking about Komen's 7:20.67 3000m WR and then mentioning a time of 8:03 of yours, any follower of athletics immediately will know it's connected to the 2 Miles. Any follower apart from you.
So, you were completely wrong when estimating Ingebrigtsen's level. For sure you have an excuse: doping. So, if Ingebrigtsen would have run 8:03 in Paris, you would say he was clean? But any other runner who runs 8:03 clearly is doping according to you.
Komen's 7:20.67 is not anymore as strong as you often have claimed. Currently some runners can better the mark, a few by a seconds.
For sure the no. of participants in an event has some influence on the level of the top performers.
Women's shot is extremely weak at the moment compared to any men's running event. Partly because just very few women are doing the event seriously.
Extremely likely that Duplantis' 6.21/6.22 are not as strong as Bolt's 9.58. If not, it would be a strange exception.
I can't be bothered arguing with that twaddle. You neither understood what I was saying or the arguments involved.
That's what he always does when an concrete answer would question his obvious nonsense.
It completely escapes you windbags who insist that Duplantis's records will be clean that the thread poses it only as a possibility that there may be one clean record in the sport. If the sport is therefore as dirty as the question implies then the chances are that there won't be a clean record to be found anywhere. There is nothing about either Duplantis or the pole vault that suggests the event credibly stands alone as a beacon for clean achievement in a sport where doping has been almost certainly been responsible for every other record. I can always count on the dumbest posters to reveal themselves.
Windbag - A person who communicates nothing of substance or interest.
That is clearly you. For years, your only contributions have been childish insults, and "doping, doper, dope, dope, doping, doper".