But what if it isn't? Surely "PEDs" are nothing new and were widely used throughout all sports at all levels before Paris Olympics in July 2024.
This thread expressly asked to consider the alternative scenario "If it isn't PEDS" and was directed to "those who think that the performances over last week were clean" to suggest "the reasons for the incredible performances in Paris".
What "if it isn't" peds? What if it wasn't a bullet that grazed Trump's ear? The question posed by the thread sought the least likely explanation. Nothing argued in pages of this thread makes "what if it wasn't peds" any more convincing than the explanation that fits, which if that performances lifted across the board were the result of doping applied to talent and training to peak at the Olympics.
The tedious length of your posts show how difficult it is for you to make a succinct point. So I will make one for you. Yes - shoe technology will have aided performances (marginally, because many of the extant records were accomplished in the old shoes) but not especially at Paris, because athletes at the Olympics have enjoyed the new technology for several years. As this thread notes, there has been a surge in performances at Paris above what has been typical at the level for the period the new shoes have been a factor. That sudden performance lift for athletes across the board is attributable to something other than shoes. It is the technology that is developing continuously, which is peds. Please - go back to the fake moon landing threads, where you belong.
This post was edited 39 seconds after it was posted.
Why do you always try to prove me right? Can't help yourself.
Why do you have to post 50 times a day to prove me right? Can't help yourself. You always respond, even when I am not talking to you. Like the well-trained puppy you are.
So you're not talking to me now? How long have you had these cognitive issues?
I suppose for the intended target audience, "those who think that the performances over last week were clean", PEDs are neither likely, nor an explanation that fits.
What fits well are the new shoes, and a new track.
This thread did not ask for yet again the predictable baseless opinions of PED zealots who have long shown that that they cannot be convinced otherwise, despite being unable to establish, show, or measure likelihoods and fit, before concluding them.
Actually it wasn’t just for the Olympics week though…
If you can recall there were a number of notable performances in the meets leading up to the Games, as athletes appeared to be ramping up and peaking.
So the “track” can be dismissed as one of the variables. As the same shoes have been around for a while, they can be struck off the list of suspects also.
So as Sherlock Holmes stated ( and I paraphrase slightly here…)
If you eliminate the possibles, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer…
Correct. But Sherlock Holmes didn't anticipate this level of denial.
This post was edited 23 seconds after it was posted.
Actually it wasn’t just for the Olympics week though…
If you can recall there were a number of notable performances in the meets leading up to the Games, as athletes appeared to be ramping up and peaking.
So the “track” can be dismissed as one of the variables. As the same shoes have been around for a while, they can be struck off the list of suspects also.
So as Sherlock Holmes stated ( and I paraphrase slightly here…)
If you eliminate the possibles, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer…
Well doping has also been around a while, so I guess we're gonna strike that off the list of suspects too. Fair is fair.
But have you really eliminated tracks and shoes? Paris is not the only new track in recent years. According to World Athletics, who chose Mondo as their official supplier: "Track surfaces, much like footwear, are in a constant state of evolution." And for the shoes, the Paris Olympics only continues a trend that started around 2018 on the roads, and 2020 on the track, when the "advanced footwear technology" started being used widely among elite runners and the masses alike.
More research on the economy of the new shoes:
"The energetic benefits of these "postmodern" shoes in running have been robustly demonstrated in laboratory studies."
References 1. Hoogkamer W, Kipp S, Frank JH, Farina EM, Luo G, Kram R. A comparison of the energetic cost of running in marathon racing shoes. Sports Med. 2018;48(4):1009–1019. PubMed ID: 29143929
2. Barnes KR, Kilding AE. A randomized crossover study investigating the running economy of highly-trained male and female distance runners in marathon racing shoes versus track spikes. Sports Med. 2019;49(2):331–342. PubMed ID: 30374945
3. Hunter I, McLeod A, Valentine D, Low T, Ward J, Hager R. Running economy, mechanics, and marathon racing shoes. J Sports Sci. 2019;37(20):2367–2373. PubMed ID: 31223054
4. Joubert DP, Jones GP. A comparison of running economy across seven highly cushioned racing shoes with carbon-fibre plates. Footwear Sci. 2022;14(2):71–83.
Some links and testimonies for the track:
Tokyo:
"That track is crazy," said Karsten Warholm.
"You can feel the bounce," said Sydney McLaughlin.
"It’s a phenomenal track," said Rai Benjamin.
"I can feel that energy return," said Dalilah Muhammad.
Doping has been around for quite awhile - you do at least get that - but it changes continually, as medicine and pharmaceuticals do, and far beyond anything as crude as the equipment on a runner's feet, which can only be modified by degrees. Just how much performance is going to be increased by altering the sole of a shoe - because that's the essence of it. But if you increase the physical strength or cardio efficiency of an athlete through drugs the whole machine has been changed.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Actually it wasn’t just for the Olympics week though…
If you can recall there were a number of notable performances in the meets leading up to the Games, as athletes appeared to be ramping up and peaking.
So the “track” can be dismissed as one of the variables. As the same shoes have been around for a while, they can be struck off the list of suspects also.
So as Sherlock Holmes stated ( and I paraphrase slightly here…)
If you eliminate the possibles, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer…
Well doping has also been around a while, so I guess we're gonna strike that off the list of suspects too. Fair is fair.
But have you really eliminated tracks and shoes? Paris is not the only new track in recent years. According to World Athletics, who chose Mondo as their official supplier: "Track surfaces, much like footwear, are in a constant state of evolution." And for the shoes, the Paris Olympics only continues a trend that started around 2018 on the roads, and 2020 on the track, when the "advanced footwear technology" started being used widely among elite runners and the masses alike.
More research on the economy of the new shoes:
"The energetic benefits of these "postmodern" shoes in running have been robustly demonstrated in laboratory studies."
References 1. Hoogkamer W, Kipp S, Frank JH, Farina EM, Luo G, Kram R. A comparison of the energetic cost of running in marathon racing shoes. Sports Med. 2018;48(4):1009–1019. PubMed ID: 29143929
2. Barnes KR, Kilding AE. A randomized crossover study investigating the running economy of highly-trained male and female distance runners in marathon racing shoes versus track spikes. Sports Med. 2019;49(2):331–342. PubMed ID: 30374945
3. Hunter I, McLeod A, Valentine D, Low T, Ward J, Hager R. Running economy, mechanics, and marathon racing shoes. J Sports Sci. 2019;37(20):2367–2373. PubMed ID: 31223054
4. Joubert DP, Jones GP. A comparison of running economy across seven highly cushioned racing shoes with carbon-fibre plates. Footwear Sci. 2022;14(2):71–83.
Some links and testimonies for the track:
Tokyo:
"That track is crazy," said Karsten Warholm.
"You can feel the bounce," said Sydney McLaughlin.
"It’s a phenomenal track," said Rai Benjamin.
"I can feel that energy return," said Dalilah Muhammad.
Notice how times and performances were getting better leading right up to the games. One could say that the coaches or athletes had timed their training right to lead into the games, and this showed in the performances in the meets just prior.
However, as you rightly stated, doping has been around for a long while, and administration of drug dosages has also been timed correctly in the past, in order to maximise performance and escape detection. No reason to think that anything would differ this year, apart from protocols, masking agents and actual drugs possibly being different than years gone by.
Of course athletes will cite the track and the shoes…it’s called deflection. No athlete is going to come out and praise or cite his chemist, or the pharmaceuticals are they?
You allude to the notion that drugs do little if nothing to improve performance. Any street level gym rat will tell you otherwise. To think differently your head must be in the clouds…or up your *ss.
The tedious length of your posts show how difficult it is for you to make a succinct point. So I will make one for you. Yes - shoe technology will have aided performances (marginally, because many of the extant records were accomplished in the old shoes) but not especially at Paris, because athletes at the Olympics have enjoyed the new technology for several years. As this thread notes, there has been a surge in performances at Paris above what has been typical at the level for the period the new shoes have been a factor. That sudden performance lift for athletes across the board is attributable to something other than shoes. It is the technology that is developing continuously, which is peds. Please - go back to the fake moon landing threads, where you belong.
As I explained, there was something at Paris besides the advances attributable to the latest iteration of super spikes -- the new track.
Doping has been around for quite awhile - you do at least get that - but it changes continually, as medicine and pharmaceuticals do, and far beyond anything as crude as the equipment on a runner's feet, which can only be modified by degrees. Just how much performance is going to be increased by altering the sole of a shoe - because that's the essence of it. But if you increase the physical strength or cardio efficiency of an athlete through drugs the whole machine has been changed.
If you had read some of these studies, you would know how much performance was increased by altering the sole of the shoe, by using lightweight materials that add resilience, compliance, and increasing stiffness.
Notice how times and performances were getting better leading right up to the games. One could say that the coaches or athletes had timed their training right to lead into the games, and this showed in the performances in the meets just prior.
However, as you rightly stated, doping has been around for a long while, and administration of drug dosages has also been timed correctly in the past, in order to maximise performance and escape detection. No reason to think that anything would differ this year, apart from protocols, masking agents and actual drugs possibly being different than years gone by.
Of course athletes will cite the track and the shoes…it’s called deflection. No athlete is going to come out and praise or cite his chemist, or the pharmaceuticals are they?
You allude to the notion that drugs do little if nothing to improve performance. Any street level gym rat will tell you otherwise. To think differently your head must be in the clouds…or up your *ss.
I don't allude to any notion so much as ask where this "knowledge" of allegedly new PEDs for 2024 is coming from. I'm open to thinking further, but I need something more substantial than gossip and rumors. I'm sure any street level gym rat will tell me many things, but here we are talking about Olympians with incredible performances.
Doping has been around for quite awhile - you do at least get that - but it changes continually, as medicine and pharmaceuticals do, and far beyond anything as crude as the equipment on a runner's feet, which can only be modified by degrees. Just how much performance is going to be increased by altering the sole of a shoe - because that's the essence of it. But if you increase the physical strength or cardio efficiency of an athlete through drugs the whole machine has been changed.
If you had read some of these studies, you would know how much performance was increased by altering the sole of the shoe, by using lightweight materials that add resilience, compliance, and increasing stiffness.
You do understand that the essence of the shoe argument is simply the construction of the sole? What have the designers done - put a motor in it? Do you really think part of a shoe is going to improve performance more than drugs that increase strength, speed and endurance? Yes - you obviously do.
If you had read some of these studies, you would know how much performance was increased by altering the sole of the shoe, by using lightweight materials that add resilience, compliance, and increasing stiffness.
You do understand that the essence of the shoe argument is simply the construction of the sole? What have the designers done - put a motor in it? Do you really think part of a shoe is going to improve performance more than drugs that increase strength, speed and endurance? Yes - you obviously do.
Of course I understand because I am informed. The shoes improve running economy at a broad range of speeds for both amateur and national class runners.
You do understand that the essence of the shoe argument is simply the construction of the sole? What have the designers done - put a motor in it? Do you really think part of a shoe is going to improve performance more than drugs that increase strength, speed and endurance? Yes - you obviously do.
Of course I understand because I am informed. The shoes improve running economy at a broad range of speeds for both amateur and national class runners.
That isn't the point. The advantages they give aren't a fraction of what doping enables. El G is still faster than everyone else with their modern shoes. And so was Kratochvilova over 40 years ago.
Of course I understand because I am informed. The shoes improve running economy at a broad range of speeds for both amateur and national class runners.
El G is still faster than everyone else with their modern shoes. And so was Kratochvilova over 40 years ago.
They were faster because of doping. The current 800m guys are faster because of doping. Makes sense.
El G is still faster than everyone else with their modern shoes. And so was Kratochvilova over 40 years ago.
They were faster because of doping. The current 800m guys are faster because of doping. Makes sense.
It makes sense because dopers now know how to beat antidoping. They are ahead in the game - so it's back to the 80's and 90's again. Ingebrigtsen's ridiculous 3k record shows that. The 800 will soon follow. It isn't shoes.
This post was edited 43 seconds after it was posted.
Of course I understand because I am informed. The shoes improve running economy at a broad range of speeds for both amateur and national class runners.
That isn't the point. The advantages they give aren't a fraction of what doping enables. El G is still faster than everyone else with their modern shoes. And so was Kratochvilova over 40 years ago.
Of course it is precisely the point -- you specifically asked me if I understood "that the essence of the shoe argument is simply the construction of the sole".
You keep wanting to compare the proven shoe performance (see for example the 8 studies I linked) with your fantastic speculation of drug performance (see your imagination, and/or deep up your backside), but again, where is your quantitative drug performance data? You cannot compare two quantities to create a fraction when only one is known. Note that fractions can also be greater than 1. Maybe the fraction you seek is 10/1, or the undefined fraction 1/0, or a negative fraction.
Without any real data, your comparisons are speculative nonsense. A declaration of personal faith. Gossip. Rumor. Conspiracy. Myth.
And what about El G and Kratochvilova? Are you now trying to argue that drugs haven't been continuously developed and/or drugs haven't worked any better since El G and Kratochvilova? That drugs from 1980 and 2000 are still better than drugs of 2024?
In the spirit of this thread, what if it wasn't PEDs? I won't debate steroid performance for women in shorter events requiring muscular strength, but what if El G's records and career are clean? That's not such an extreme consideration. As recent as 2014, in a letsrun poll, nearly half (43%) of letsrun poll responders believed his records were clean. Beliefs have become more sceptical since then, but still in 2023, more than one in four (26%) believe El G's records were clean.
They were faster because of doping. The current 800m guys are faster because of doping. Makes sense.
It makes sense because dopers now know how to beat antidoping. They are ahead in the game - so it's back to the 80's and 90's again. Ingebrigtsen's ridiculous 3k record shows that. The 800 will soon follow. It isn't shoes.
The ultimate goal isn't to beat anti-doping, but to improve performance.
Regarding Ingebrigtsen, again, what if it isn't PEDs? Extensive research and athlete anecdotes (e.g., see Nick Willis) suggest he would be a +/- 7:23 runner in older spikes.
That isn't the point. The advantages they give aren't a fraction of what doping enables. El G is still faster than everyone else with their modern shoes. And so was Kratochvilova over 40 years ago.
Of course it is precisely the point -- you specifically asked me if I understood "that the essence of the shoe argument is simply the construction of the sole".
You keep wanting to compare the proven shoe performance (see for example the 8 studies I linked) with your fantastic speculation of drug performance (see your imagination, and/or deep up your backside), but again, where is your quantitative drug performance data? You cannot compare two quantities to create a fraction when only one is known. Note that fractions can also be greater than 1. Maybe the fraction you seek is 10/1, or the undefined fraction 1/0, or a negative fraction.
Without any real data, your comparisons are speculative nonsense. A declaration of personal faith. Gossip. Rumor. Conspiracy. Myth.
And what about El G and Kratochvilova? Are you now trying to argue that drugs haven't been continuously developed and/or drugs haven't worked any better since El G and Kratochvilova? That drugs from 1980 and 2000 are still better than drugs of 2024?
In the spirit of this thread, what if it wasn't PEDs? I won't debate steroid performance for women in shorter events requiring muscular strength, but what if El G's records and career are clean? That's not such an extreme consideration. As recent as 2014, in a letsrun poll, nearly half (43%) of letsrun poll responders believed his records were clean. Beliefs have become more sceptical since then, but still in 2023, more than one in four (26%) believe El G's records were clean.
You are asking a ridiculous question. Of course he can’t provide that evidence. Doping by its very nature is an underground, clandestine activity. Even if it were to be studied, those studying it would be a step or two behind current methodologies, as are the testers.
As for older records, remember the testing wasn’t as rigorous as it is now (even though they are still behind) so practices have had to adapt. Microdosing would not have initially provided the same boost as the open season out of competition use of the past. However, I suspect over time, chemists, coaches and athletes have learnt to refine that practice in order to improve results and still escape detection. Of course the rise of new shoes and new tracks has helped provide a nice smoke screen for this to go on, while explaining a glut of vastly improved performances in recent years. I think there were EIGHT meet records and one world record ( by a ridiculous margin) in the last Diamond league event in Poland…
Do you honestly believe that drug free athletes, even with super shoes and faster tracks, could improve on times set in a widely believed drug era? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.
Of course it is precisely the point -- you specifically asked me if I understood "that the essence of the shoe argument is simply the construction of the sole".
You keep wanting to compare the proven shoe performance (see for example the 8 studies I linked) with your fantastic speculation of drug performance (see your imagination, and/or deep up your backside), but again, where is your quantitative drug performance data? You cannot compare two quantities to create a fraction when only one is known. Note that fractions can also be greater than 1. Maybe the fraction you seek is 10/1, or the undefined fraction 1/0, or a negative fraction.
Without any real data, your comparisons are speculative nonsense. A declaration of personal faith. Gossip. Rumor. Conspiracy. Myth.
And what about El G and Kratochvilova? Are you now trying to argue that drugs haven't been continuously developed and/or drugs haven't worked any better since El G and Kratochvilova? That drugs from 1980 and 2000 are still better than drugs of 2024?
In the spirit of this thread, what if it wasn't PEDs? I won't debate steroid performance for women in shorter events requiring muscular strength, but what if El G's records and career are clean? That's not such an extreme consideration. As recent as 2014, in a letsrun poll, nearly half (43%) of letsrun poll responders believed his records were clean. Beliefs have become more sceptical since then, but still in 2023, more than one in four (26%) believe El G's records were clean.
You are asking a ridiculous question. Of course he can’t provide that evidence. Doping by its very nature is an underground, clandestine activity. Even if it were to be studied, those studying it would be a step or two behind current methodologies, as are the testers.
As for older records, remember the testing wasn’t as rigorous as it is now (even though they are still behind) so practices have had to adapt. Microdosing would not have initially provided the same boost as the open season out of competition use of the past. However, I suspect over time, chemists, coaches and athletes have learnt to refine that practice in order to improve results and still escape detection. Of course the rise of new shoes and new tracks has helped provide a nice smoke screen for this to go on, while explaining a glut of vastly improved performances in recent years. I think there were EIGHT meet records and one world record ( by a ridiculous margin) in the last Diamond league event in Poland…
Do you honestly believe that drug free athletes, even with super shoes and faster tracks, could improve on times set in a widely believed drug era? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.
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.