Most every substance on WADA's list has existed for decades. Which are the new substances in the supershoe era that can explain these massive jumps in improvement, over and above the EPO era?
Again -- I asked if you had data, and you said you did. I am not persuaded by your meandering rationalizations of things that must be because you don't know it's not.
If doping had ceased to be a factor in the sport and was having no effect on elite performances or records you don't think that WADA would be openly triumphing in that achievement? Strangely - they aren't.
Who's talking about "doping had ceased to be a factor in the sport"?
You were talking about alleged "advances in doping" to explain supershoe era performances, and you said you had data.
And WADA did just publish a report that concluded increased testing is a deterrent to doping. WADA openly "triumphed" that achievement.
If doping had ceased to be a factor in the sport and was having no effect on elite performances or records you don't think that WADA would be openly triumphing in that achievement? Strangely - they aren't.
Who's talking about "doping had ceased to be a factor in the sport"?
You were talking about alleged "advances in doping" to explain supershoe era performances, and you said you had data.
And WADA did just publish a report that concluded increased testing is a deterrent to doping. WADA openly "triumphed" that achievement.
It is only a "deterrent" to the extent that doping isn't flagrantly and openly being pursued at every level. But it isn't far from it.
The "data" is that doping has continued in the super shoe era. WADA does not suggest otherwise. The nature of doping is that it makes use of drugs that are constantly being developed. It hasn't stagnated since 1970. So, along with every other kind of significant and widely used technology, it will continue to make advances. The fact it can't be anywhere near eradicated is proof of that. It remains well ahead of the game.
This post was edited 57 seconds after it was posted.
It is only a "deterrent" to the extent that doping isn't flagrantly and openly being pursued at every level. But it isn't far from it.
The "data" is that doping has continued in the super shoe era. WADA does not suggest otherwise. The nature of doping is that it makes use of drugs that are constantly being developed. It hasn't stagnated since 1970. So, along with every other kind of significant and widely used technology, it will continue to make advances. The fact it can't be anywhere near eradicated is proof of that. It remains well ahead of the game.
Once again -- you said you had data, and I asked you to provide it. I am not too interested in your factless rationalizations you are trying to palm off as proofs.
Doping has continued, but you have provided no data showing it increased or decreased, and you have provided no data linking the alleged increases and/or advances in doping to the improved elite performances in the supershoe era, or for that matter, since the 1970's, with the potential exceptions of Russian and Eastern Bloc women of the 1970's and Chinese women in two Chinese meets, in the shorter distance events.
In fact, if increased doping (e.g. ADAK and AIU testing of Kenyans) is acting as a deterrent, as WADA recently "triumphed", one might being to wonder at the counter-intuitive result of a reduction of doping among the more frequently tested coinciding with a significant increase in performances, across the spectrum of distance events, for both men and women, in the supershoe era.
This post was edited 32 seconds after it was posted.
Reason provided:
Proof
It is only a "deterrent" to the extent that doping isn't flagrantly and openly being pursued at every level. But it isn't far from it.
The "data" is that doping has continued in the super shoe era. WADA does not suggest otherwise. The nature of doping is that it makes use of drugs that are constantly being developed. It hasn't stagnated since 1970. So, along with every other kind of significant and widely used technology, it will continue to make advances. The fact it can't be anywhere near eradicated is proof of that. It remains well ahead of the game.
Once again -- you said you had data, and I asked you to provide it. I am not too interested in your factless rationalizations you are trying to palm off as proofs.
Doping has continued, but you have provided no data showing it increased or decreased, and you have provided no data linking the alleged increases and/or advances in doping to the improved elite performances in the supershoe era, or for that matter, since the 1970's, with the potential exceptions of Russian and Eastern Bloc women of the 1970's and Chinese women in two Chinese meets, in the shorter distance events.
In fact, if increased doping (e.g. ADAK and AIU testing of Kenyans) is acting as a deterrent, as WADA recently "triumphed", one might being to wonder at the counter-intuitive result of a reduction of doping among the more frequently tested coinciding with a significant increase in performances, across the spectrum of distance events, for both men and women, in the supershoe era.
Since it is fact that doping hasn't been eradicated you cannot discount it from contributing to performance advancements in the super shoe era.
This post was edited 20 seconds after it was posted.
Since it is fact that doping hasn't been eradicated you cannot discount it from contributing to performance advancements in the super shoe era.
I don't discount it. You said you had data. I asked you to provide the data you have.
This started the merry-go-round.
You said data isn't numbers. I didn't ask for numbers, but I asked for your data.
You said Kenyan busts were data. Unfortunately not data of "advances in doping", nor elite performance.
You have even said advances in doping helps more than advances in shoes during the supershoe era.
I have shoe data. But I have no doping data for comparison.
Do you have anything that doesn't pre-date the supershoe era?
"Data" is what you say would persuade you against your unswerving opinions. Hence, no such "data" exists. Facts, on the other hand, you blithely ignore.
"Data" is what you say would persuade you against your unswerving opinions. Hence, no such "data" exists. Facts, on the other hand, you blithely ignore.
"Data" is what you said you had. Do you have any data?