There is no “genetic superiority” when it comes to distance running. Literally everyone sub 2:09 is just doping.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The point about your "research" never finding its way into publication is that it therefore has no more weight or credibility or substance than any other opinion expressed here - including those you dismiss. You strike a pose of intellectual rigor through your "studies" - but that is all it is, a pose. And a rather empty one at that, as it merely reflects your unending obsession with denying the obvious about doping. If your researches had any significance they would have been published and been welcomed by experts in the field. But no chance of that. And you know it.

Alll wrote:

Every sub 20min 5k is doping

Armstronglivs wrote:

I take it then that we won't hear any more about your historical "studies" and your "research", that has never been subject to peer review.

Armstronglivs wrote:

"More and more people in letsrun get it which kind of person you are and that any discussion with you is totally useless."(quote)

It is useless when you have nothing of any value to contribute.

Hurd Ler wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"More and more people in letsrun get it which kind of person you are and that any discussion with you is totally useless."(quote)

It is useless when you have nothing of any value to contribute.

What have you ever contributed with any value?

All you do is call fast athletes dopers and insult posters who disagree with you.

You are not liked here. You are a cancer. Go away.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I take it then that we won't hear any more about your historical "studies" and your "research", that has never been subject to peer review.

Wouldn't "any more" require as a prerequisite that you heard it in the first place? Did you just forget that these were your fabricated lies that you abandoned like dirty socks when challenged?

In any case, your whole premise is wrong. Opinions are not equal just because they are not peer reviewed and published. Generally speaking, opinions derived from a fairly complete set of all-time real world data, without contradiction, carries more weight than opinions grounded firmly in fantasy and imagination and mythology and religion.

And once again, there is no barrier of peer review to post in this forum, otherwise, you should be the first volunteering to leave for your dismal failure to meet your own fabricated standard.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Since you are not my peer your opinion is quite irrelevant. You have spent years here spouting your "studies" of doping performance. That you now seek to deny it is totally consistent with one whose only consistent practice is of lying.

Likewise -- since you are not a peer, your opinion is quite irrelevant.

The whole discussion of peers and peer review is quite irrelevant, as it is not required to participate in this forum. Everyone can look at publicly available data and share their opinions and comments.

When I looked at all time performances, I called it "a closer look" and "a longer deeper look" at performances. I did not ever call it a "study" on "doping performance". These are your lies and your lies alone.

Armstronglivs wrote:

slowwer wrote:

So Keino was faster than Clarke! Wow, you got it, after something like 50 posts.

Sadly, the part you cannot grasp is that your claim that "no one was faster than Keino" is completely wrong. English must be a very difficult language for you.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Likewise -- since you are not a peer, your opinion is quite irrelevant.

The whole discussion of peers and peer review is quite irrelevant, as it is not required to participate in this forum. Everyone can look at publicly available data and share their opinions and comments.

When I looked at all time performances, I called it "a closer look" and "a longer deeper look" at performances. I did not ever call it a "study" on "doping performance". These are your lies and your lies alone.

A "long deep look" into what? The meaning of life? The bottom of a well? Your co-dependant's eyes? The effect of doping on historical performances isn't included? You are risible. I have looked deeply into your fanciful arguments and been overwhelmed by their shallowness.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You regularly claim to have done "research", based on your "data" looking at "historical studies" of performance, from which you have made claims about the effectiveness or otherwise of doping. None of your "studies" have been published by a credible source and none have been endorsed by any expert. As your research lacks any credibility that it might have obtained through expert review it is of no more value than a roll of toilet paper. Less - as toilet paper has its uses.

Just Said No wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You regularly claim to have done "research", based on your "data" looking at "historical studies" of performance, from which you have made claims about the effectiveness or otherwise of doping. None of your "studies" have been published by a credible source and none have been endorsed by any expert. As your research lacks any credibility that it might have obtained through expert review it is of no more value than a roll of toilet paper. Less - as toilet paper has its uses.

Rekrunner has definitively proven that EPO has no.performance enhancing effects, due to the 5K national record for Antartica not improving as much as Kenya's during the EPO era. There is no need for peer review, it is a matter of logic. If A (Antartica) does not = B (Kenya) then A does not equal C (EPO).

Will the line be drawn? wrote:

Is anyone else sick of hearing how these East Africans are just genetically superior? They are in area where getting drugs is way easier than other parts of the world and in areas where drug testing isn’t even a thing. It’s awfully funny people think these guys are just better athletes. The only thing they are doing that Americans aren’t is getting away with doping. These guys debuting at times faster than the world record times ten years ago makes zero sense, humans didn’t all of a sudden evolve to be faster in the last 10-20 years. The entire area needs banned from participating in the Olympics until they get good testing.

Just Said No wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You regularly claim to have done "research", based on your "data" looking at "historical studies" of performance, from which you have made claims about the effectiveness or otherwise of doping. None of your "studies" have been published by a credible source and none have been endorsed by any expert. As your research lacks any credibility that it might have obtained through expert review it is of no more value than a roll of toilet paper. Less - as toilet paper has its uses.

Rekrunner has definitively proven that EPO has no.performance enhancing effects, due to the 5K national record for Antartica not improving as much as Kenya's during the EPO era. There is no need for peer review, it is a matter of logic. If A (Antartica) does not = B (Kenya) then A does not equal C (EPO).

Just Said No wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You regularly claim to have done "research", based on your "data" looking at "historical studies" of performance, from which you have made claims about the effectiveness or otherwise of doping. None of your "studies" have been published by a credible source and none have been endorsed by any expert. As your research lacks any credibility that it might have obtained through expert review it is of no more value than a roll of toilet paper. Less - as toilet paper has its uses.

Rekrunner has definitively proven that EPO has no.performance enhancing effects, due to the 5K national record for Antartica not improving as much as Kenya's during the EPO era. There is no need for peer review, it is a matter of logic. If A (Antartica) does not = B (Kenya) then A does not equal C (EPO).