think first wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You're joking. Or effectively admitting he, too, is a doper.
So what is the arbitrary 5000m time of a clean runner by Mr. Armstronglivs?
You should creat a table which shows how fast runners are allowed to go to be considered clean. Ant then dissolve WADA and just ban runners that are going faster than the times in table.
They aren't going to run 3.24 for the 1500 and 12.30 for the 5k - as the poster predicted Ingebrigsten will do.
Armstronglivs wrote:
think first wrote:
So what is the arbitrary 5000m time of a clean runner by Mr. Armstronglivs?
You should creat a table which shows how fast runners are allowed to go to be considered clean. Ant then dissolve WADA and just ban runners that are going faster than the times in table.
They aren't going to run 3.24 for the 1500 and 12.30 for the 5k - as the poster predicted Ingebrigsten will do.
*Ingebrigtsen
revgreen wrote:
Doesn't it get exhausting just accusing every runner of doping? Literally every thread is just about shoes or doping. Jesus.
Jesus was clean. Only wine. And wore sandals.
Armstronglivs wrote:
think first wrote:
So what is the arbitrary 5000m time of a clean runner by Mr. Armstronglivs?
You should creat a table which shows how fast runners are allowed to go to be considered clean. Ant then dissolve WADA and just ban runners that are going faster than the times in table.
They aren't going to run 3.24 for the 1500 and 12.30 for the 5k - as the poster predicted Ingebrigsten will do.
While I agree on that, I'm still gonna pose the same question:
What is the arbitrary 5000m time of a clean runner by Mr. Armstronglivs?
Hot take: I think Jakob is clean. I think Barega is clean. Both guys were teen phenoms who seem completely committed to running from a young age and have great heads on their shoulders. They both have ups and downs and limitations to their running skillsets. They both race consistently at big meets and don't seem to be doing anything to avoid tests. Neither has a dirty coach/training group.
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
Hot take: I think Jakob is clean. I think Barega is clean. Both guys were teen phenoms who seem completely committed to running from a young age and have great heads on their shoulders. They both have ups and downs and limitations to their running skillsets. They both race consistently at big meets and don't seem to be doing anything to avoid tests. Neither has a dirty coach/training group.
+1
The voice of reason.
Jakob Ingebrigtsen, a unique talent:
"Jakob, the youngest of the Ingebrigtsen brothers, is only 11 years old and ran the 8.2 km long Siddisløpet in 29.56. How is that possible, the researchers ask themselves.
Leif Inge Tjelta and Eystein Enoksen have tested both the maximum O2 and the threshold speed of the young Sandnes runner. The threshold speed was 15.6 km / h while the maximum oxygen uptake was 68 ml / kg / min. Jakob managed to run at 20 km / h with a 1 percent increase on the mill for a couple of minutes.
- Jakob is very special. It is the first time I see such qualities in such a young, Norwegian athlete, says Leif Inge Tjelta to Aftenposten ."
https://www.kondis.no/hvordan-kan-en-11-aaring-loepe-saa-fort.5030754-127145.html
norway and switzerland are not better per capita at sport,than australia and new zealand.not even close.better at what,exactly?winter sports,which australia and new zealand dont take seriously.take a look at the 2016 olympic tally,then see who's better.apart from perhaps one or two sportspeople,switzerland cannot match the aussies in anything.
Pre pandemic and New Zealand was number 3 with Norway on top. There are tiny sports in the summer olympics as well. It aint unique for the winter games. Its simple impossible to difference and the the following can be said to be the objective truth; Norway and New Zealand are both truly impressive sportswise.
think first wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
They aren't going to run 3.24 for the 1500 and 12.30 for the 5k - as the poster predicted Ingebrigsten will do.
While I agree on that, I'm still gonna pose the same question:
What is the arbitrary 5000m time of a clean runner by Mr. Armstronglivs?
I doubt that anything faster than 12.50 would be clean. Athletes today aren't better than athletes were 40 years ago - but they are better doped, which enables them to train much harder and so run faster times.
Armstronglivs wrote:
think first wrote:
While I agree on that, I'm still gonna pose the same question:
What is the arbitrary 5000m time of a clean runner by Mr. Armstronglivs?
I doubt that anything faster than 12.50 would be clean. Athletes today aren't better than athletes were 40 years ago - but they are better doped, which enables them to train much harder and so run faster times.
That really shows your one-sided agenda. Ofc the science has taken giant leaps alltogether compared to 40 years ago. Training-wise, diet, the quality of the running track, shoe technology.. all that combined obviously makes a real difference compared to 40 years ago.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Athletes today aren't better than athletes were 40 years ago - but they are better doped, which enables them to train much harder and so run faster times.
Sure, ignore the evolution in training methods, in access to better nutrition, physiotherapy, etc.
Aaleby wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I doubt that anything faster than 12.50 would be clean. Athletes today aren't better than athletes were 40 years ago - but they are better doped, which enables them to train much harder and so run faster times.
That really shows your one-sided agenda. Ofc the science has taken giant leaps alltogether compared to 40 years ago. Training-wise, diet, the quality of the running track, shoe technology.. all that combined obviously makes a real difference compared to 40 years ago.
+1
Aaleby wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I doubt that anything faster than 12.50 would be clean. Athletes today aren't better than athletes were 40 years ago - but they are better doped, which enables them to train much harder and so run faster times.
That really shows your one-sided agenda. Ofc the science has taken giant leaps alltogether compared to 40 years ago. Training-wise, diet, the quality of the running track, shoe technology.. all that combined obviously makes a real difference compared to 40 years ago.
Not as much as doping has. That's the biggest part of science.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I doubt that anything faster than 12.50 would be clean. Athletes today aren't better than athletes were 40 years ago - but they are better doped, which enables them to train much harder and so run faster times.
12:50. Why not 12:55 or 13:00? Or 13:20?
Athletes were dop
reheh wrote:
Pikachoo wrote:
Most of the world does have great conditions for winter sports. What are you talking about? Much of winter sports are indoors so theres no excuse there, but most of the world has access to skiing. USA, Canada, EU, Russia, China, Korea, Japan, India, Argentina, Chile, etc. 4 billion people.
Your ignorance of what goes on in the world is astounding.
Lol. Talk about irony.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Athletes today aren't better than athletes were 40 years ago - but they are better doped, which enables them to train much harder and so run faster times.
Athletes were much more doped 40 years ago.
Today they are better trained, have better nutrition, recovery methods and resources. And better shoes.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Aaleby wrote:
That really shows your one-sided agenda. Ofc the science has taken giant leaps alltogether compared to 40 years ago. Training-wise, diet, the quality of the running track, shoe technology.. all that combined obviously makes a real difference compared to 40 years ago.
Not as much as doping has. That's the biggest part of science.
You know what you are? An endless repeatbutton in human form. The following was your claim: "Athletes today aren't better than athletes were 40 years ago." Has nothing to do with doping. Human being havent learned anything in 40 years if anyoone was to listen to you. Thats truly a piece of rubbish.
Your only motivation is to turn anything into a shape that matches your agenda.
Sure. Let’s include rugby, yachting, rowing, board sailing, equestrian, half pipe (whatever the f**k that is). Those are the real powerhouse sports that everyone cares about.
reheh wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Athletes today aren't better than athletes were 40 years ago - but they are better doped, which enables them to train much harder and so run faster times.
Sure, ignore the evolution in training methods, in access to better nutrition, physiotherapy, etc.
What "evolution" in training? Do you think the Kenyans coming down from the highlands have PhD's in training, so they can run super fast? Do their coaches? Or are they still putting in the miles and the work on the track? What special diets do runners have that don't include the usual carbs, fats and proteins? Physio is fine for when you are injured, but how does it make you run faster?
You observe that runners are recording faster times so you assume there are these extraordinary innovations in the sport that enable it (and don't give me a load of guff about "shoes" when the untouchable records of El G and Komen were run in the footwear of the '90's).
One thing athletes do have the benefit of today is a billion dollar industry dedicated to the chemical enhancement of sport.