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.
Of course you do, because you are easily persuaded by fallacies. This is a classic example of the fallacy of appealing to authority. It is superior to appeal to the objective data.
You place a great deal of faith in what you believe must be the experts' views, which they haven't expressed, but WADA doesn't have or consult with elite performance experts, and the performance data required to support what you believe are their views doesn't exist.
Heuberger didn't cherry-pick exceptions, but conducted a broad literature review, looking for the required performance data in the forest of cherry trees, picking the trees of the highest quality rather than based on any exceptional outcome. To refute his results requires selecting a study that would contradict the outcome that no study exists.
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.
It's an assertion that the performance data to support these views doesn't exist.
I don't think they are idiots, because they are not the ones here expressing the views you believe they must hold.
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.
Ithought it was 2017. I read on Letsrun
2017 for supershoes for the road, and 2021 for superspikes on the track.
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.
It doesn't wash because there was no 5-year delay. Results were immediate when you consider 2017 for the widespread use of supershoes and 2021 for superspikes.
Back on page 5, I referenced a study which modeled a stepwise jump in the marathon (number of sub-2:08 performances) in 2017, and back on page 4, "zzzz" indirectly referenced another study which looked at track times from 800m-10000m over 2001-2023, comparing the pre-2020 times to 2021-2023. (2020 was excluded due to Covid).
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.
It doesn't wash because there was no 5-year delay. Results were immediate when you consider 2017 for the widespread use of supershoes and 2021 for superspikes.
Back on page 5, I referenced a study which modeled a stepwise jump in the marathon (number of sub-2:08 performances) in 2017, and back on page 4, "zzzz" indirectly referenced another study which looked at track times from 800m-10000m over 2001-2023, comparing the pre-2020 times to 2021-2023. (2020 was excluded due to Covid).
Results weren't immediate. They mostly occurred after the COVID interruption to the sport. It's easy to see why. Athletes could dope with impunity. The greatest surge in performances has mainly been in the last couple of years. Drugs have kept developing in all this time. Howman says the dopers are getting away with it. If the shoes were doing what is claimed here doping would have completely fallen away. It hasn't. It has increased. The shoes are just an excuse.
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.
It's an assertion that the performance data to support these views doesn't exist.
I don't think they are idiots, because they are not the ones here expressing the views you believe they must hold.
You think they are idiots because they believe in something you dismiss as a superstition, that doesn't actually help them. So they must be idiots. Yet you have no experience of doping. They do - in their thousands over decades.
It's an assertion that the performance data to support these views doesn't exist.
I don't think they are idiots, because they are not the ones here expressing the views you believe they must hold.
You think they are idiots because they believe in something you dismiss as a superstition, that doesn't actually help them. So they must be idiots. Yet you have no experience of doping. They do - in their thousands over decades.
I do think "they believe in something". Note that "believe" is how you describe "faith".
Results weren't immediate. They mostly occurred after the COVID interruption to the sport. It's easy to see why. Athletes could dope with impunity. The greatest surge in performances has mainly been in the last couple of years. Drugs have kept developing in all this time. Howman says the dopers are getting away with it. If the shoes were doing what is claimed here doping would have completely fallen away. It hasn't. It has increased. The shoes are just an excuse.
On the road and the track, the results were immediate, ever since a few Nike athletes, like Kipchoge and Rupp, wore prototypes of the shoes in 2016, and started setting new world records and national records and personal bests.
Nike released the Vaporflys to the general public in March 2017, and this site, along with the rest of the running world, has been talking about the immediate improvements across the board ever since.
I guarantee you a runner running 3:54 today will run faster than 3:59 in victories or some other old spike. You're acting like people haven't been getting faster the past 15 years BEFORE the new spikes. When the 2009 NCAA indoor season started the NCAA RECORD was 3:57, then German Fernandez ran 3:55 and that was a big deal. Flash forward to the 2019 a decade later still before 'super spikes' and 10 guys ran 3:57 or faster in the same season (what was the record barely a decade before) and the new record keeps getting lowered. Then in 2020 still before super spikes there were 14 guys at 3:57 or faster. The depth had been getting deeper and deeper for a long time, yet you are attributing all of the improvements to new shoes and ignoring the fact that the times had been dropping long before the shoes? A 3:59 in 2010 is what a 3:57 in 2020 was which is a 3:55 of today, and will be a 3:53 of 2032. Times will keep dropping with or without any new shoes being made. The top end will barely get faster, but the numbers of people at some arbitrary threshold will skyrocket as we approach the maximum speed that humans can go.
Tony Waldrop ran 3:55.0 on a board track in San Diego, February of 1974; GF didn’t advance much of anything from that time. The shoes and tracks are much, much better now than they were between 1960 - 2000.
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.
You can't name a drug, but claim it MUST be drugs and NOT shoes. I (and several others) provided data that you can’t dispute. Please present some evidence of your hypothesis.
Name the new drug and the date when it came out and became available to 100s of thousands of runners including high school and middle school runners. The shoes fit that description and the timeline matches the performance increase. All you need to do is name the drug that fits this description to prove your point. We'll be anxiously anticipating your response.
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?
Your argument about relying on experts is bizarre.
The experts agree that bicarbonate is a potent ergogenic aid to middle distance performance. It's not controversial. It's been established for 50 years. But you don't believe those experts. Instead, you want to believe in some fictional experts who exist in your head. According to you, there are a bunch of experts at WADA who must have decided that bicarb doesn't work. You don't know who these experts are. They've never said anything about bicarb. Yet your confidence that they exist and that they agree with you is somehow a reason to conclude that a longstanding scientific consensus supported by studies going back decades is wrong.
5-seconds!!!! WOW!!! No wonder there's so many 3:42 miler's now days. Considering the world record was 3:47 back in 1981, 3:42 guys should be everywhere by now with our shoes!
Oh wait...
What does the world record have to do with it?
Certainly way more 3:43-3:45 milers in past 4 years.
Need to hop back and reply on this thread from all the slander from these morans.
Here some statistics for you Moran, and for all you super spike deniers
D3 track marks from early 2000s to present.
Almost all of the top marks are from the past 4 years. Men and women. You could clearly see the consistency in marks across the board until we get to 2021… then it progressively gets faster as more and more people buy into the products and companies release their own versions.
I guess everyones just doping then and consuming baking soda. Just stop calling it bicarb like its some hip new product, its not… you know whats a hip new product? MAX flys.
Stupidity and denial at its finest. Proof of massive effects in timing marks can never be more clear, obvious and correlated to super spikes.
But I guess Im just a simpleton who cant provide any statistical analyses right?
You people need to wake up from your super spike COMA. All these performances need big ASTERISKS.