But what if it isn't? Surely "PEDs" are nothing new and were widely used throughout all sports at all levels before Paris Olympics in July 2024.
This thread expressly asked to consider the alternative scenario "If it isn't PEDS" and was directed to "those who think that the performances over last week were clean" to suggest "the reasons for the incredible performances in Paris".
What "if it isn't" peds? What if it wasn't a bullet that grazed Trump's ear? The question posed by the thread sought the least likely explanation. Nothing argued in pages of this thread makes "what if it wasn't peds" any more convincing than the explanation that fits, which if that performances lifted across the board were the result of doping applied to talent and training to peak at the Olympics.
Nothing argued in pages of this thread makes "what if it wasn't peds" any more convincing than the explanation that fits, which if that performances lifted across the board were the result of doping applied to talent and training to peak at the Olympics.
GreatDane wrote: Uummm it’s called the Olympics. Athletes train for 4 years to reach their full peak for the games. Name an Olympics where you haven’t seen incredible performances.
Nothing argued in pages of this thread makes "what if it wasn't peds" any more convincing than the explanation that fits, which if that performances lifted across the board were the result of doping applied to talent and training to peak at the Olympics.
That fits because you are ignorant.
You are certainly the expert on ignorance on these boards.
Not all performances at the Olympics are top drawer in their event. It's who wins on the day. But since you probably haven't seen many Olympics you won't know that.
Not all performances at the Olympics are top drawer in their event. It's who wins on the day. But since you probably haven't seen many Olympics you won't know that.
You have seen so many Olympics and you still can't write times. Dumb.
What "if it isn't" peds? What if it wasn't a bullet that grazed Trump's ear? The question posed by the thread sought the least likely explanation. Nothing argued in pages of this thread makes "what if it wasn't peds" any more convincing than the explanation that fits, which if that performances lifted across the board were the result of doping applied to talent and training to peak at the Olympics.
I suppose for the intended target audience, "those who think that the performances over last week were clean", PEDs are neither likely, nor an explanation that fits.
What fits well are the new shoes, and a new track.
This thread did not ask for yet again the predictable baseless opinions of PED zealots who have long shown that that they cannot be convinced otherwise, despite being unable to establish, show, or measure likelihoods and fit, before concluding them.
Not all performances at the Olympics are top drawer in their event. It's who wins on the day. But since you probably haven't seen many Olympics you won't know that.
You have seen so many Olympics and you still can't write times. Dumb.
I would expect a better comeback from a grade schooler.
What "if it isn't" peds? What if it wasn't a bullet that grazed Trump's ear? The question posed by the thread sought the least likely explanation. Nothing argued in pages of this thread makes "what if it wasn't peds" any more convincing than the explanation that fits, which if that performances lifted across the board were the result of doping applied to talent and training to peak at the Olympics.
I suppose for the intended target audience, "those who think that the performances over last week were clean", PEDs are neither likely, nor an explanation that fits.
What fits well are the new shoes, and a new track.
This thread did not ask for yet again the predictable baseless opinions of PED zealots who have long shown that that they cannot be convinced otherwise, despite being unable to establish, show, or measure likelihoods and fit, before concluding them.
Those explanations that you approve of don't fit. The track was not unusually fast, as the short sprint times showed. The "new shoes" are the same shoes that have been used for several years now. Drugs, on the other hand, are developing continuously. But you wouldn't know that - with your head buried in the sand.
Not all performances at the Olympics are top drawer in their event. It's who wins on the day. But since you probably haven't seen many Olympics you won't know that.
Name an OLYMPICS, and you came up with a slow distance race. It's not to top in it's pure dumbness.
Those explanations that you approve of don't fit. The track was not unusually fast, as the short sprint times showed. The "new shoes" are the same shoes that have been used for several years now. Drugs, on the other hand, are developing continuously. But you wouldn't know that - with your head buried in the sand.
The thing is, you wouldn't know that either, because your head is in the clouds.
Looking at the short sprints is equally misguided.
Of course the shoes fit the track, and the runners.
The "new shoes" are certainly not the same as just a few years ago, but rather they are being developed continuously, thanks to fierce competition among several shoe companies. The superspikes help by improving running economy -- something that helps distance runners more than the short sprints. Nick Willis is a big believer, himself gaining about 2 seconds over 1200m.
According to the "new track" maker: "Andena said he expects it to benefit 200m and 400m runners as well as those doing longer distances." -- again something that might not help the shortest sprints.
Just the same, looking at 100m and 200m and 400m, for both men and women, I see a lot of PBs, ARs, NRs, and WLs. I even see an OR and a WR for 400m hurdles (W). And improvements in 2024 just continue the trend we saw in Tokyo in 2021.
But maybe I'm wrong about your "knowledge". Where does your "knowledge" about drug developments come from? Are you doing developing the drugs yourself personally? Do you know personally anyone at Paris Olympics who performed incredibly thanks to the new drug developments? If neither, do you have any links or references that explain 1) how drugs are being "continually developed", and 2) how, if at all, that impacts elite performance? If not how did you develop this "knowledge"?
Thanks in advance for sharing the source of your knowledge.
Here are some links that I found which explain more about the shoes and the track:
Since athletes in the 2020 Tokyo Olympics smashed multiple records in track and field, running enthusiasts and exercise physiologists have speculated on what role new-generation high-tech running spikes—sometimes called super...
This year’s purple Olympic track features a new geometric design in its bottom layer, intended to boost athletes' performances. Euronews Next spoke with the scientist who worked on the numerical modeling that led to the creat...
Not all performances at the Olympics are top drawer in their event. It's who wins on the day. But since you probably haven't seen many Olympics you won't know that.
Name an OLYMPICS, and you came up with a slow distance race. It's not to top in it's pure dumbness.
43.03
29:17.45
That simply shows that some events produce records at the Olympics but they mostly don't. They aren't time-trials. But in Paris a lot of runners excelled themselves, which is the reason why this thread was posted. But you never noticed. You never do.
Those explanations that you approve of don't fit. The track was not unusually fast, as the short sprint times showed. The "new shoes" are the same shoes that have been used for several years now. Drugs, on the other hand, are developing continuously. But you wouldn't know that - with your head buried in the sand.
The thing is, you wouldn't know that either, because your head is in the clouds.
Looking at the short sprints is equally misguided.
Of course the shoes fit the track, and the runners.
The "new shoes" are certainly not the same as just a few years ago, but rather they are being developed continuously, thanks to fierce competition among several shoe companies. The superspikes help by improving running economy -- something that helps distance runners more than the short sprints. Nick Willis is a big believer, himself gaining about 2 seconds over 1200m.
According to the "new track" maker: "Andena said he expects it to benefit 200m and 400m runners as well as those doing longer distances." -- again something that might not help the shortest sprints.
Just the same, looking at 100m and 200m and 400m, for both men and women, I see a lot of PBs, ARs, NRs, and WLs. I even see an OR and a WR for 400m hurdles (W). And improvements in 2024 just continue the trend we saw in Tokyo in 2021.
But maybe I'm wrong about your "knowledge". Where does your "knowledge" about drug developments come from? Are you doing developing the drugs yourself personally? Do you know personally anyone at Paris Olympics who performed incredibly thanks to the new drug developments? If neither, do you have any links or references that explain 1) how drugs are being "continually developed", and 2) how, if at all, that impacts elite performance? If not how did you develop this "knowledge"?
Thanks in advance for sharing the source of your knowledge.
Here are some links that I found which explain more about the shoes and the track:
There's always an article that says what you want it to say. Political threads are full of them - and your view on doping is merely a political opinion. But if the track was unusually fast at Paris we would have seen the shorter sprint times -100 to 400 - at the very top level for those events. They weren't. With the exception of the women's 400 they were like just another DL and no faster than any Olympics since 2008. The 1500 although quick was well clear of the world mark and only one distance event produced a fast time - the men's 10k - and Wanyonyi has just shown that the Paris track was no faster than Lausanne. That also suggests the spikes are not having the effect on performances that you think they are. But doping is always there - except to a flat-earther like yourself - so a lot of journeymen surpassed themselves at these Games. When you argue from your bias, as you always do, then there are facts - which you avoid - that render your conclusions false. Your true home is the fake moon landing threads, not doping.
There's always an article that says what you want it to say. Political threads are full of them - and your view on doping is merely a political opinion. But if the track was unusually fast at Paris we would have seen the shorter sprint times -100 to 400 - at the very top level for those events. They weren't. With the exception of the women's 400 they were like just another DL and no faster than any Olympics since 2008. The 1500 although quick was well clear of the world mark and only one distance event produced a fast time - the men's 10k - and Wanyonyi has just shown that the Paris track was no faster than Lausanne. That also suggests the spikes are not having the effect on performances that you think they are. But doping is always there - except to a flat-earther like yourself - so a lot of journeymen surpassed themselves at these Games. When you argue from your bias, as you always do, then there are facts - which you avoid - that render your conclusions false. Your true home is the fake moon landing threads, not doping.
Not only an article, but a peer-reviewed study on super-spikes and economy, showing "about a 2% increase in running economy, which could translate into a 1%-1.5% improvement in times", and the maker of the track who "has for years supervised research on numerical modelling to develop these running tracks and created a high-level model to simulate different geometries to best influence the athletes’ performance."
In the other corner, we have Armstronglivs, jack of no trades, and master of none, peddling myths while providing no data.
The shoes improve running economy, and the track improves running efficiency -- neither of these are expected to benefit the short sprints as much as distance running. It would be beyond ignorant, if not downright dishonest, to double down on this already debunked hypothesis that we would have seen shorter sprint times (which I suppose would equally debunk doping for sprints, in a apeculative scenario where doping is hypothetically continuously developed).
But now it looks like you are arguing the performances were not all that incredible in the first place, so the spikes aren't working like I think, but at the same time the new drugs are working like you think? Did you understand the scenario for this thread?
Which facts do you refer to? Why not bring the data here? Their never seems to be any article containing the facts you want to say. It's all gossip and rumors and conspiracy and fairy tales. I asked you to provide some of the sources of your alleged "knowledge". You've essentially got nothing but personal fantasy that presumes drugs were there, and that drugs were the cause of the incredible performances (which at the same time were not incredible?).
Some more scholarly articles on shoes and running economy:
AFT track spikes improved RE ∼2% relative to a traditional spike. Despite their heavier mass, AFT shoes resulted in similar RE as AFT spikes. This could make the AFT shoe an attractive option for longer track races, particula...
The modern era of running shoes began in the 1960s with the introduction of simple polymer midsole foams, and it ended in the late 2010s with the introduction of advanced footwear technology (AFT). AFT is characterized by hig...
This study aimed to address the effects of increased longitudinal bending stiffness (LBS) on running economy (RE) and running biomechanics. A systematic search on four electronic databases (Pubmed, WOS, Medline and Scopus) wa...
Increasing shoe LBS improved RE at slow and fast velocities in trained runners and only at fast velocity in national runners. However, the 3000 m TT test improved similarly in both levels of runners with increased LBS. The im...
Changes in LBS in AFT influences RE suggesting that moderately stiff shoes have the most effective LBS to improve RE in AFT compared to very stiff shoes and traditional, flexible shoe conditions while running at 13 km/h.
Why do you always try to prove me right? Can't help yourself.
Why do you have to post 50 times a day to prove me right? Can't help yourself. You always respond, even when I am not talking to you. Like the well-trained puppy you are.
Just the same, looking at 100m and 200m and 400m, for both men and women, I see a lot of PBs, ARs, NRs, and WLs. I even see an OR and a WR for 400m hurdles (W). And improvements in 2024 just continue the trend we saw in Tokyo in 2021.
But if the track was unusually fast at Paris we would have seen the shorter sprint times -100 to 400 - at the very top level for those events
You are a flat-earther. A science (and fact) denier.
What "if it isn't" peds? What if it wasn't a bullet that grazed Trump's ear? The question posed by the thread sought the least likely explanation. Nothing argued in pages of this thread makes "what if it wasn't peds" any more convincing than the explanation that fits, which if that performances lifted across the board were the result of doping applied to talent and training to peak at the Olympics.
I suppose for the intended target audience, "those who think that the performances over last week were clean", PEDs are neither likely, nor an explanation that fits.
What fits well are the new shoes, and a new track.
This thread did not ask for yet again the predictable baseless opinions of PED zealots who have long shown that that they cannot be convinced otherwise, despite being unable to establish, show, or measure likelihoods and fit, before concluding them.
Actually it wasn’t just for the Olympics week though…
If you can recall there were a number of notable performances in the meets leading up to the Games, as athletes appeared to be ramping up and peaking.
So the “track” can be dismissed as one of the variables. As the same shoes have been around for a while, they can be struck off the list of suspects also.
So as Sherlock Holmes stated ( and I paraphrase slightly here…)
If you eliminate the possibles, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer…
Actually it wasn’t just for the Olympics week though…
If you can recall there were a number of notable performances in the meets leading up to the Games, as athletes appeared to be ramping up and peaking.
So the “track” can be dismissed as one of the variables. As the same shoes have been around for a while, they can be struck off the list of suspects also.
So as Sherlock Holmes stated ( and I paraphrase slightly here…)
If you eliminate the possibles, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer…
Well doping has also been around a while, so I guess we're gonna strike that off the list of suspects too. Fair is fair.
But have you really eliminated tracks and shoes? Paris is not the only new track in recent years. According to World Athletics, who chose Mondo as their official supplier: "Track surfaces, much like footwear, are in a constant state of evolution." And for the shoes, the Paris Olympics only continues a trend that started around 2018 on the roads, and 2020 on the track, when the "advanced footwear technology" started being used widely among elite runners and the masses alike.
More research on the economy of the new shoes:
"The energetic benefits of these "postmodern" shoes in running have been robustly demonstrated in laboratory studies."
References 1. Hoogkamer W, Kipp S, Frank JH, Farina EM, Luo G, Kram R. A comparison of the energetic cost of running in marathon racing shoes. Sports Med. 2018;48(4):1009–1019. PubMed ID: 29143929
2. Barnes KR, Kilding AE. A randomized crossover study investigating the running economy of highly-trained male and female distance runners in marathon racing shoes versus track spikes. Sports Med. 2019;49(2):331–342. PubMed ID: 30374945
3. Hunter I, McLeod A, Valentine D, Low T, Ward J, Hager R. Running economy, mechanics, and marathon racing shoes. J Sports Sci. 2019;37(20):2367–2373. PubMed ID: 31223054
4. Joubert DP, Jones GP. A comparison of running economy across seven highly cushioned racing shoes with carbon-fibre plates. Footwear Sci. 2022;14(2):71–83.
Some links and testimonies for the track:
Tokyo:
"That track is crazy," said Karsten Warholm.
"You can feel the bounce," said Sydney McLaughlin.
"It’s a phenomenal track," said Rai Benjamin.
"I can feel that energy return," said Dalilah Muhammad.
MONDO has been named the Official Supplier of athletics equipment for the World Athletics Championships Oregon 22 that will take place in Eugene, Oregon, July 15–24. Read the news.
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.
