Antarctica? Looks like Coevett inexplicably resurrecting a 1-year old thread, responding to Armstrongliv's fabricated strawman of claims I never made.
My questions about fast 5K performances in the EPO-era did not involve Antarctica, or Africa, but rather result from comparing the relative quantity and quality of performances from a supergroup of the remaining 5-continents, plus West and South Africa, to North Africa and East Africa. Only 8 non-Africans had run faster than Moorcroft's 1982 13:00.41 performance, in the EPO-era, until 2018.
Since 2018, in the new shoe era, we've now had four non-Africans up to almost 8 seconds faster than Baumann's 1997 non-African record 12:54.70, which had stood for 20+ years: Fisher, Ingebrigtsen, Kincaid, and Atkin, with honorable mentions from Teare, and Klecker, faster than Chris Solinsky's 12:55.53, not to mention Carribean/Barbadan descended Justyn Knight.
But sure, I'm always prepared to listen how EPO explains performance in small regional pockets of East and North Africa, because the rest of the world were too afraid of doping control, or the Africans (well, except in cycling).
None of your comparisons have academic credibility. They are just your opinions on a social media site.
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).
That I found amusing but rekrunner won't and chiefly for the reason that he has no sense of humour.
Unlike you, with your great sense of humor, telling pedophile jokes.
One of the reasons I took this user name (dating at least of 3 months) is the double face role played by some mods of this site.
From one part, these declare the "saint war" against doping while trashing African runners with drug accusations. In the other part, they take a American runner (from Ethiopian descendance), which from their subconscient think has "superior abilities" because of the EA tag and they are planing doing with it the saint war of anti-doping values.
Take a look at some arguments of one their "Japanese" intellect saying that Nuguse has the best natural abilities while Jakob is a fabrication of lactate microdosing. The same intellect attacked some years ago Cheptegei for his WR doubting about his implication in using drugs.
None of your comparisons have academic credibility. They are just your opinions on a social media site.
Credibilty is a synonym for believability, and you are merely expressing your personal belief, i.e. "your opinion on a social media site". The difference is that your opinions don't ever seem to have any factual support.
My comparisons of top-quality and quantity were not meant for academic publication, but as a foundation for discussion, and an effort to provide factual support for my opinions at a time when I was challenged to practice what I preach, in a discussion forum, where I asked a question about non-Africans: "why so few, and then by so little". I received a wide variety of responses, some of them conflicting with each other, but there was no consensus response, not to mention no compelling explanation, for this relative dearth of progress among all non-African Americans, Europeans, Russians, Asians, and Oceanians, for nearly 30 years in the EPO-era, with the exception of a rather small number or Russian and Chinese women. We can play around with different metrics, or try to create different groups, but there was never any counter-proposal that would have changed the discussion.
None of your comparisons have academic credibility. They are just your opinions on a social media site.
Credibilty is a synonym for believability, and you are merely expressing your personal belief, i.e. "your opinion on a social media site". The difference is that your opinions don't ever seem to have any factual support.
My comparisons of top-quality and quantity were not meant for academic publication, but as a foundation for discussion, and an effort to provide factual support for my opinions at a time when I was challenged to practice what I preach, in a discussion forum, where I asked a question about non-Africans: "why so few, and then by so little". I received a wide variety of responses, some of them conflicting with each other, but there was no consensus response, not to mention no compelling explanation, for this relative dearth of progress among all non-African Americans, Europeans, Russians, Asians, and Oceanians, for nearly 30 years in the EPO-era, with the exception of a rather small number or Russian and Chinese women. We can play around with different metrics, or try to create different groups, but there was never any counter-proposal that would have changed the discussion.
The more you say to justify yourself the less credible you become. The main point about your research is that none of it has been peer-reviewed or published in a reputable academic journal. You are just spouting your views here - like any other poster - with your long-winded arguments merely reflecting your bias as well as being unreadable.
You are just spouting your views here - like any other poster - with your long-winded arguments merely reflecting your bias as well as being unreadable.
He is not spouting his views. He is presenting facts. Apparently, you dislike facts. But hey! Whatever gets you to 30,000 posts before the Solstice, right?
The more you say to justify yourself the less credible you become. The main point about your research is that none of it has been peer-reviewed or published in a reputable academic journal. You are just spouting your views here - like any other poster - with your long-winded arguments merely reflecting your bias as well as being unreadable.
Again -- this is just you expressing your personal belief on a social media site.
You keep calling it "my research", only to deny that it is "research". I never called it "research". I performed a mathematical exercise. Mathematics is proven, and does not require peer review, before discussing the results. It just requires a little basic knowledge of Excel.
It's also not correct to say I am "just spouting (my) views here". I challenged posters like you to explain your own views in light of these mathematical results.
The more you say to justify yourself the less credible you become. The main point about your research is that none of it has been peer-reviewed or published in a reputable academic journal. You are just spouting your views here - like any other poster - with your long-winded arguments merely reflecting your bias as well as being unreadable.
Again -- this is just you expressing your personal belief on a social media site.
You keep calling it "my research", only to deny that it is "research". I never called it "research". I performed a mathematical exercise. Mathematics is proven, and does not require peer review, before discussing the results. It just requires a little basic knowledge of Excel.
It's also not correct to say I am "just spouting (my) views here". I challenged posters like you to explain your own views in light of these mathematical results.
Running is not mathematics. That false equation is enough - I can't be bothered addressing the rest of your nonsense.
You are just spouting your views here - like any other poster - with your long-winded arguments merely reflecting your bias as well as being unreadable.
He is not spouting his views. He is presenting facts. Apparently, you dislike facts. But hey! Whatever gets you to 30,000 posts before the Solstice, right?
Only an unsophisticated dupe sees his claims as factual or true.
Since you respond to all my posts you appear to be trying to get to 30,000 before me.
Come on rekrunner, the poster "Here's my Take" explained it to you again just a few days ago: adding Epo to the many drugs of the 80s used by the Europeans and Americans can't change that much (not to mention the increased testing including OOC starting in 85 and later founding WADA and creating ABP etc etc). This is not exactly news. And yet here you are, pretending again that no one ever made a compelling argument.
The opposite is true: you never made a compelling argument.
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.