ThatAverageRunner wrote:
Brazier uses standard victory elites
I thought I remember reading/hearing that he was wearing the lastest pair of Nike (prototype?) spikes when winning the World title last summer!?!
It would seem strange that if Hassan and Muir were wearing the latest prototype at Worlds, Brazier would not have been wearing them too!
Armstronglivs wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
You keep saying this, but you would only have a point there IF the 1980s times were clean - despite the well-known Wild West of Cold War era doping on both sides.
Runners today are often matching times from the 80's, and sometimes better. But they are nowhere near the times of the 90's - the uncontrolled EPO era. It is as though the best times of the 70's were way slower than those in the 50's. Yet while times stagnate on the track they continue to race away, so to speak, on the road. And we see more road runners now being popped for EPO and other drugs. It can easily be surmised that stricter doping controls today and micro-dosing over industrial-scale doping has slowed the rate of progress in track and put the records out of reach - till better drugs come along.
+1. Totally agree. The decade from c. 94 to 2006, was an anomaly, for 1500m upwards.
casual obsever wrote:
I don't see any inconsistency or faith in my post. Try to read it neutrally.
From various experts, we learned the following (and yes, I have references for all points):
1) Blood doping became "widespread" in Europe already in the 60s.
I would like to know which 'experts' and data this assumption is based on?
When it was suggested that Viren was blood doping (never proven) to win the distance double in Munich, I seem to recall that it was considered a new and 'revolutionary' practice!
Moreover, the only athletes who have ever been caught or admitting to blood doping are a few Finns and a few Italians, all of whom were distance runners, primarily over 10k. This thread is about the mile and to my knowledge there are no historical precedents or incidents of middle distance runners 'blood doping' in the 70's and 80's, let alone it being 'widespread' in Europe in the 60's!
Deanouk wrote:
I would like to know which 'experts' and data this assumption is based on?
Here word for word from a 2004 review paper (doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2003.007195):
HISTORY
The first alleged use of blood boosting in sport was in the 1960s, when a French four times winner of the Tour de France (1961–1964) was named as one of the first cyclists to use the technique. Widespread use among endurance athletes (especially running, cycling, and cross country skiing) started after the 1968 Olympic Games...
rekrunner wrote:
Here I didn't do a comparison pre- and post-1990, but counted performers post-Cram.
Yet you specifically referred to the "1980s times". Ok, so more precisely, your comparison is 80 - 89 with post 89.
rekrunner wrote:
Your new element of faith is your implication that Cram could only achieve his time in 1985 if he doped. Armstronglivs supposed it was clean, and that doping providing 2-3 seconds sounds about right.
No. I factually pointed out a) that you don't know whether these 80s times were clean and b) how dirty the 80s were. Zero faith there, just knowledge of history. Hint: the Wild West comment isn't from me.
Similarly Armstronglivs explicitly wrote "if" they were clean...
rekrunner wrote:
While your 4 blood doping points may or may not be true, how is that connected to the mile WR?
Each one of them is backed by scientists. Of course you don't accept those facts.
rekrunner wrote:
Do you have facts or references establishing the relation of blood doping to the mile WR? Or is it just re-iterating the same faith that doping is necessary because it is obvious to those who believe.
Facts:
1) Remember the 4 doping points.
2) The Sunday Times 2105 review showed that the 1500 was even dirtier than race walking, specifically it was the dirtiest of all events listed (54% suspicious medals vs. 11% for the marathon.
3) 1+2 combined: we have a lot more blood dopers in the 1500 than the average of 18%.
More facts:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The mile and 1500 records have endured so long they are taking on the dimensions of the East German women's world records, as well as Flojo's records. Only a convicted doper - Kiprop - has come close to any one of those times in recent years.
Deanouk wrote:
The decade from c. 94 to 2006, was an anomaly, for 1500m upwards.
And finally, it is a fact that blood doping, including EPO, was not detectable when the mile record was set in 1999.
I specifically said "the 1980s times of Cram, Coe, Aouita and even Ovett".
Like Armstronglivs, I also explicitly wrote "if"; more specifically "If we assume, as you do, ..."
I don't need to know how clean the 1980s were, as the context was clearly conditioned by Armstronglivs' "if any of them (Coe, Cram, and Aouita) were clean, this suggests ..."
Your facts still fall far short of allowing us to connect blood doping, or any doping, to 1500m or mile, world record level performances, that would allow us to conclude "doping is necessary for a world record" without relying on elements of personal faith.
The 4 blood doping points may have been backed by scientists, but you, and they, have not linked blood doping to the mile, or 1500m, world record level performances.
The Sunday Times 2015 article was for medal winners between 2001-2012 -- none of those times were world 1500m or mile world records.
Furthermore, we know many of these blood doped 1500m medalists were Russian women on steroids (who also did not set any world records), which artificially inflates the blood doping suspicious percentages, and confounds any attempt to make a correlation of blood doping for the men.
Another fact about Kiprop -- he got 2.5 seconds slower in 2016 and slower again by 3 seconds in 2017. Was his 2015 performance doped? When we don't know, I call that faith.
Another fact which may or may not be connected to Kiprop's positive test: Erik Boye has written some disturbing things about EPO Urine test false positives, and the difficulty for athletes to fight against it.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Rekrunner continues to maintain his belief (which in his case is never "faith-based", despite the fact his view cannot be proven) that records like those in the mile and the 1500 will be clean.
Yet what he does not address is why those records came at the end of a 40 year period when the record had improved regularly by a total 11 seconds - and then suddenly stopped. No improvement since. How can that be? What's more, no one has gotten near those times in the last 20 years (with the exception of a doped Kiprop in the 1500). In 1979, the mile record was 3.49; 20 years later it was 3.43. In the 20 years since, the best has been 3.46. The picture is little different for the 1500.
If - as rekrunner maintains- the records are the result of talent and not doping then why did such talent apparently begin and end in the 90's? This is completely contrary to the continued progression in most track and field records in the history of the sport, although it is significant that quite a few records (women's) stopped in the 80's and (for men) in the 90' s and then early 2000's. If it is talent that has decided these things then the sport must be declining, because today's best runners, perforce, must have less talent than those 15-20 or more years ago. And yet, there is Kipchoge, still breaking records on the road.
But the core problem with maintaining records are clean absent direct or confirmed evidence of doping is that no performance can thereby be suspect. If 3.43 is clean, what about 3.42, 3.41 or 3.40, and so on? For those who think like rekrunner, no performance of itself can be suspicious (quite apart from all the indirect evidence of widespread doping in the sport. He even refuses to consider whether Flojo's records are credible, or those of Kratochvilova). But for anyone else the question is, what level of performance do you find believable? Or not.
The only thing I've maintained is that you have not provided supporting facts or references for something you find "obvious" that I've categorized as a belief. Instead, you have provide 3 pages of personal attacks on both my intelligence, and on my running performance.
Here are some Google definitions for belief:
"an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof."
"trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something)."
If you want me to stop calling it a belief -- and for some reason this offends you deeply, despite your own concessions that proofs are not possible -- it is not my burden to address new topics.
I also have beliefs, that are very different from yours, which lead me to many other conclusions and interpretations of historical facts and findings, but expressing my beliefs, or debunking my beliefs does not help you convert what you find "obvious" from a belief into something else.
You don't supply answer to a single substantive point. Of course.
rekrunner wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
I don't see any inconsistency or faith in my post. Try to read it neutrally.
From various experts, we learned the following (and yes, I have references for all points):
1) Blood doping became "widespread" in Europe already in the 60s.
2) Blood doping was virtually impossible pre-EPO in Africa.
3) Blood doping helps 1 - 4% at the top (depending on the expert).
4) Blood doping was used by 18% of endurance athletes ("minimal estimate") on average worldwide in the last two decades (based on two different sets of blood tests).
In conclusion, your comparison pre and post 1990 is pointless, unless you focus on Africa alone, or find data showing a different prevalence of doping in Europe/US pre and post 1990.
Here I didn't do a comparison pre- and post-1990, but counted performers post-Cram.
Your new element of faith is your implication that Cram could only achieve his time in 1985 if he doped. Armstronglivs supposed it was clean, and that doping providing 2-3 seconds sounds about right.
While your 4 blood doping points may or may not be true, how is that connected to the mile WR?
Do you have facts or references establishing the relation of blood doping to the mile WR? Or is it just re-iterating the same faith that doping is necessary because it is obvious to those who believe.
Sloppy, as usual. I didn't say that Cram's performance was clean. "If" is not a claim. There is evidence that Aouita wasn't clean, and he was in the same company as Cram, Coe and Ovett. But there isn't the same evidence for them.
A margin of 2-3 secs over the mile distance is less than a 1% gain from doping. Only deniers like yourself maintain there is no gain.
rekrunner wrote:
I specifically said "the 1980s times of Cram, Coe, Aouita and even Ovett".
Like Armstronglivs, I also explicitly wrote "if"; more specifically "If we assume, as you do, ..."
I don't need to know how clean the 1980s were, as the context was clearly conditioned by Armstronglivs' "if any of them (Coe, Cram, and Aouita) were clean, this suggests ..."
Your facts still fall far short of allowing us to connect blood doping, or any doping, to 1500m or mile, world record level performances, that would allow us to conclude "doping is necessary for a world record" without relying on elements of personal faith.
The 4 blood doping points may have been backed by scientists, but you, and they, have not linked blood doping to the mile, or 1500m, world record level performances.
The Sunday Times 2015 article was for medal winners between 2001-2012 -- none of those times were world 1500m or mile world records.
Furthermore, we know many of these blood doped 1500m medalists were Russian women on steroids (who also did not set any world records), which artificially inflates the blood doping suspicious percentages, and confounds any attempt to make a correlation of blood doping for the men.
Another fact about Kiprop -- he got 2.5 seconds slower in 2016 and slower again by 3 seconds in 2017. Was his 2015 performance doped? When we don't know, I call that faith.
Another fact which may or may not be connected to Kiprop's positive test: Erik Boye has written some disturbing things about EPO Urine test false positives, and the difficulty for athletes to fight against it.
You keep going on about faith. I am amazed that you have faith in your own intelligence. That is the flaw from which everything begins.
yes wrote:
rekrunner is pointing out that your beliefs are just that, beliefs. I agree and also point out that they are based on pseudosience. And the use of emotive words, clean and dirty imply good and bad personalities.
Just how many potential doping products could be available? If you consider molecular tweaking, not just of testosterone but many other drugs, then you have potentially thousands of products that would need to be added to your list of imaginary performance enhancers. An unwinnable war but a profitable one for testers and dealers alike.
In the case of sprinters, an athlete's maximum speed and power limited by genetics. A woman would need a maximum speed of 11 meters per second to run as fast or faster than Flojo. And no drug can improve on this, it's a genetic trait. How many women have this genetic trait? Probably thousands. How many will do the training to achieve 10.49 or quicker in the next 20 years?
But sprint coaches don't think like this. They think like you, old school doping belief. There's the problem. And anti doping dogma reinforces this drug belief. It actually endorses it, whilst pretending to hold the moral high ground.
According to Al Jazeera, the black market in doping exceeds a billion Euros each year. It reports that currently there are over a hundred undetectable peds available. The practice extends to every sport.
Before Flojo's record-breaking year in '88, when she ran 10.49 for the 100 and 21.34 for the 200, she was an 11 sec runner for the 100 and hadn't broken 22 secs for the 200.
Armstronglivs wrote:You don't supply answer to a single substantive point. Of course.
Your substantive points were all beside the point.
Armstronglivs wrote:Sloppy, as usual. I didn't say that Cram's performance was clean. "If" is not a claim. There is evidence that Aouita wasn't clean, and he was in the same company as Cram, Coe and Ovett. But there isn't the same evidence for them.
A margin of 2-3 secs over the mile distance is less than a 1% gain from doping. Only deniers like yourself maintain there is no gain.
You offered a suggestion, based on an "if". I offered an alternate suggestion based on YOUR "if". "casual" asked what I meant by "YOUR if" -- he should have asked you.
I don't deny that 2-3 secs is less than 1%. I don't deny gains unconditionally. Recall my repeated reference to the 1997 study that shows that WADA legal altitude training gains. Altitude training is also widespread among athletes, ever since Mexico City 1968. Altitude training has also been the default in East Africa for many generations, long before the 1960s.
Armstronglivs wrote:You keep going on about faith. I am amazed that you have faith in your own intelligence. That is the flaw from which everything begins.
These personal attacks, now for 4 pages, are a broken record.
Armstronglivs wrote:According to Al Jazeera, the black market in doping exceeds a billion Euros each year. It reports that currently there are over a hundred undetectable peds available. The practice extends to every sport.
The faith is widespread, especially among athletes who are not winning who want to go to the next level.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:You keep going on about faith. I am amazed that you have faith in your own intelligence. That is the flaw from which everything begins.
These personal attacks, now for 4 pages, are a broken record.
And it's not just you. He insults people whenever they disagree with him. Multiple times a day.
He is a rude man.
Yes -- I've noticed that pattern frequently and consistently.
rekrunner wrote:
That's speaking the truth wrote:
What? The difference is not dope with Morrocans? You're either a strange bird as in "naive" or a chronic Trollmeister.
3 out of Morroco's top 6 all-time fastest 1500 men have served bans for doping: (5 of those times are faster than your controls with Cram, Coe & Ovett).
3:26:00 El G
3:28.79 Iguider
3:29.14 Ramzi (CERA/2008)
3:29.46 Aouita
3:29.53 Laâlou (Furosemide/2012 & EPO/2016)
3:31.10 Kaouch (EPO/2007)
This is 50% of their top six (6) 1500 men that were just caught doping. What does that suggest for the other three? Clean or just got lucky and didn't get caught?
The Moroccan 1500m men turned the world upside down with some tremendous performances that matched up with their rivals the Kenyans.
What are you missing? If we assume Cram,Coe,Ovett,Aouita's times from the 1980s was doped, as "causal obsever" implies, that would make it "not different" as the Moroccans, assuming that they also doped. Are you suggest you believe El G was clean and Cram was doped, and that makes it "different"?
I'm not suggesting Cram, Coe & Ovett were doping. I am, however, suggesting that it's highly likely that Aouita's performances were influenced by PEDs (steroids, transfusions) based on some statements he made and the fact of the Moroccan culture of doping, and all that (that's been discussed many times before). Aouita ran the fastest 15 of that era. In the later EPO era, three (3) Moroccans ran faster and a total of five (5) Moroccans have gone sub-3:30, which is incredible for such a small country (how many Americans have gone sub-3:30? Or Germans? Or Scandinavians?, etc.). I'm suggesting their entire mid-d program is predicated on PEDs. That's too many guys running very fast times subsequent to the advent of EPO. They have both the WRs in the 15 & mile, which will, IMO, never be broken with the current advancement in anti-doping controls, particularly the ABP which doesn't allow any macro-doping without be detected. I suppose in the future sometime science could genetically engineered an athlete to run times never seen before in human history but I'm not holding my breath for that.
Thank you for once again sharing your beliefs that have already been discussed many times before.
rekrunner wrote:
Thank you for once again sharing your beliefs that have already been discussed many times before.
Pompous condescension exudes from every post you make. And you wonder why you invite scorn. There is no science in any of your arguments, despite your pretensions to such, but merely variations on dogma, to the effect that doping plays no significant role in the sport's achievements and the athletes and their retinues involved in doping are deluded into thinking it does. And this from someone who lives his life from behind a computer screen. To anyone concerned at the very real corruption of the sport your interminable apologias for cheating are truly nauseating.
rekrunner wrote:
Yes -- I've noticed that pattern frequently and consistently.
But that might only be "faith" or "belief" on your part. Can you cite research and references?
gggyyy wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
These personal attacks, now for 4 pages, are a broken record.
And it's not just you. He insults people whenever they disagree with him. Multiple times a day.
He is a rude man.
Do you feel left out? How rude of me.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:According to Al Jazeera, the black market in doping exceeds a billion Euros each year. It reports that currently there are over a hundred undetectable peds available. The practice extends to every sport.
The faith is widespread, especially among athletes who are not winning who want to go to the next level.
So doping doesn't actually work and is largely confined to the second-rate - who think it does? You really don't grasp how ludicrous that comment is.