This week's podcast is here . We look back at Rome and ahead to Doha, discuss John Capriotti leaving Nike and his legacy, Lamine Diack going to jail, and a lot more before being join by Russian doping whistleblowers the Stepanovs (Yuliya (Rusanova) and Vitaly) for a fascinating talk.
https://www.letsrun.com/news/2020/09/stepanov-doping-capriotti/
Come on wejo please, do something really useful with your life. Stop playing this holier than thou game and learn why athletes will go faster without drugs.
All you are doing is endorsing doping and reinforcing ignorance. No one is going to win in this stupid cold war. Why point the finger at others if everyone is in some way complicit?
Didn't you just say on your recent podcast "There are no magic bullets."
Well extend the philosophy to understand why people believe that drugs can magically enhance energy kinetics?
It's a fantasy. A delusion born out of ignorance. Please don't drag yourself and the sport down with this inane ignorant bar room banter. Educate yourself and move forward or stay in the same place for another 20 years while others move ahead.
Let me ask you one vital question; are you really interested in exposing corruption or exploitation?
Because from where I stand, you aren't doing the right thing. If you and rojo are really as brave and concerned as you want us to believe you will stop endorsing these old beliefs. If you don't believe me, talk to some of the best young cyclists about their power outputs going uphill and you will see they are higher than they were than the dope fiends of 20 years ago. You figure out why and give me the right answer?
Sounds like a good one. I really enjoy your podcasts.
blah blah blah drugs drugs drugs wrote:
Come on wejo please, do something really useful with your life. Stop playing this holier than thou game and learn why athletes will go faster without drugs.
What are you saying?
If athletes can go faster without drugs than there is no need for anti-doping and we should get your message out.
However, I think it is obvious to see that especially in women's sport an athlete who took testosterone would be stronger than an athlete who does not and could perform better.
But I'm not really sure what you are saying. If you are saying along the lines of Renato Canova that the top athletes don't need drugs then we need to get that message out. Feel free to email me
wejo@letsrun.comMaster in Asia wrote:
Note that there is conflicting information on the World Athletics website regarding the venue for the Diamond League meet in Doha this Friday.
The header on the page at the link below shows the venue as the Khalifa International Stadium which was of course used for the World Champs last year and has trackside air conditioning.
The body of the report at the linked page below states that the meet will be hosted at the Qatar Sports Club.
At least one entrant in the women's 3000m has stated that she does not expect to be running at the stadium that was used for the World Champs last year and does not expect trackside air conditioning for the event this Friday.
https://www.worldathletics.org/competitions/diamond-league/news/duplantis-kendricks-lisek-lavillenie-doha-dia
So the meet is NOT going to be at the World Champs stadium. It will be at the Qatari Sports Club, which hosted the Doha DL in years past (except for 2019). So there will NOT be air conditioning for the races.
I'll blame myself here for not double-checking, but I do remember seeing somewhere that the meet was going to be at the Khalifa Stadium. That article you shared probably explains why -- I saw it somewhere on the World Athletics website. Apologies for the mistake.
wejo wrote:
blah blah blah drugs drugs drugs wrote:
Come on wejo please, do something really useful with your life. Stop playing this holier than thou game and learn why athletes will go faster without drugs.
What are you saying?
1, If athletes can go faster without drugs than there is no need for anti-doping and we should get your message out.
2, However, I think it is obvious to see that especially in women's sport an athlete who took testosterone would be stronger than an athlete who does not and could perform better.
3, But I'm not really sure what you are saying. If you are saying along the lines of Renato Canova that the top athletes don't need drugs then we need to get that message out. Feel free to email me
wejo@letsrun.com
Yes that's what I'm saying. And yes we do need to get this message out, but it will be difficult to educate people who have a fixed agenda or a vested interest in the old school dictum.
2, Well do you really think that Marion Jones wasn't as naturally talented as her times suggest?
I say she was, because that kind of speed is genetic 11 meters per second and it is noticeable at a young age. With or without drugs the time scale is about 10 years of speed endurance and tecnique training to reach a peak.
3, I agree with Renato to some degree, but he is stil old school with regards to his beliefs about anabolic steroids. I know and he knows that quick recovery from huge training loads comes from the training itself, the fitness level, the efficiency. Why mess with natural hormones, when they do the job perfectly well?
If I email you to discus this, what can I achieve, when it goes against what your friend Paula Radcliffe is saying? You will be torn between her rhetoric and mine. But I would like to talk to her about this too. Because the anti doping message simply endorses doping, it is effectively saying; "Don't take drugs kids, they will make you faster, but it's cheating" It's completely the wrong message. But the hubris involved in that mindset it a major obstacle. How to get around this?
My message is simple; almost everyone believes that drugs can make you faster or stronger, but they can't explain this in real physiolgical terms because they simply don't know anything about caloric energy kinetics which is the rate of energy supply from food sources, and thermodynamics, which determine the limits of that energy supply. So your true maximum speed and maximum oxygen uptake are both genetically limited.
Running is a skill and this aspect has been overlooked by most exercise phsysiologists. When I confront them with this information they react like politicans, which is effectively what they are. Ross Tucker for example will understand exactly what I am saying here, but he has to couch his words in a certain way to avoid being seen as a troublemaker. And if you asked Tinman for another example, he would have to be careful also or he could get into trouble also. This is a sensitive subject and whatever one says is bound to upset a lot of people.
posting on a PC this time... wrote:
wejo wrote:
What are you saying?
1, If athletes can go faster without drugs than there is no need for anti-doping and we should get your message out.
2, However, I think it is obvious to see that especially in women's sport an athlete who took testosterone would be stronger than an athlete who does not and could perform better.
3, But I'm not really sure what you are saying. If you are saying along the lines of Renato Canova that the top athletes don't need drugs then we need to get that message out. Feel free to email me
wejo@letsrun.comYes that's what I'm saying. And yes we do need to get this message out, but it will be difficult to educate people who have a fixed agenda or a vested interest in the old school dictum.
2, Well do you really think that Marion Jones wasn't as naturally talented as her times suggest?
I say she was, because that kind of speed is genetic 11 meters per second and it is noticeable at a young age. With or without drugs the time scale is about 10 years of speed endurance and tecnique training to reach a peak.
3, I agree with Renato to some degree, but he is stil old school with regards to his beliefs about anabolic steroids. I know and he knows that quick recovery from huge training loads comes from the training itself, the fitness level, the efficiency. Why mess with natural hormones, when they do the job perfectly well?
If I email you to discus this, what can I achieve, when it goes against what your friend Paula Radcliffe is saying? You will be torn between her rhetoric and mine. But I would like to talk to her about this too. Because the anti doping message simply endorses doping, it is effectively saying; "Don't take drugs kids, they will make you faster, but it's cheating" It's completely the wrong message. But the hubris involved in that mindset it a major obstacle. How to get around this?
My message is simple; almost everyone believes that drugs can make you faster or stronger, but they can't explain this in real physiolgical terms because they simply don't know anything about caloric energy kinetics which is the rate of energy supply from food sources, and thermodynamics, which determine the limits of that energy supply. So your true maximum speed and maximum oxygen uptake are both genetically limited.
Running is a skill and this aspect has been overlooked by most exercise phsysiologists. When I confront them with this information they react like politicans, which is effectively what they are. Ross Tucker for example will understand exactly what I am saying here, but he has to couch his words in a certain way to avoid being seen as a troublemaker. And if you asked Tinman for another example, he would have to be careful also or he could get into trouble also. This is a sensitive subject and whatever one says is bound to upset a lot of people.
My understanding is that "drugs" shorten the recovery time and allow a greater workload. What am I missing?
You also act like DNA is the final arbiter - why try to do anything then? If we can't escape our predestination?
There's elite runners with low vo2max and extremely high efficiency. Is that efficiency genetic? Or did they have to create that by training?
Sounds like you know 1 thing and you beat everyone over the head with it. Who's the real unreasonable one?
babushka_lady wrote:
posting on a PC this time... wrote:
Yes that's what I'm saying. And yes we do need to get this message out, but it will be difficult to educate people who have a fixed agenda or a vested interest in the old school dictum.
2, Well do you really think that Marion Jones wasn't as naturally talented as her times suggest?
I say she was, because that kind of speed is genetic 11 meters per second and it is noticeable at a young age. With or without drugs the time scale is about 10 years of speed endurance and tecnique training to reach a peak.
3, I agree with Renato to some degree, but he is stil old school with regards to his beliefs about anabolic steroids. I know and he knows that quick recovery from huge training loads comes from the training itself, the fitness level, the efficiency. Why mess with natural hormones, when they do the job perfectly well?
If I email you to discus this, what can I achieve, when it goes against what your friend Paula Radcliffe is saying? You will be torn between her rhetoric and mine. But I would like to talk to her about this too. Because the anti doping message simply endorses doping, it is effectively saying; "Don't take drugs kids, they will make you faster, but it's cheating" It's completely the wrong message. But the hubris involved in that mindset it a major obstacle. How to get around this?
My message is simple; almost everyone believes that drugs can make you faster or stronger, but they can't explain this in real physiolgical terms because they simply don't know anything about caloric energy kinetics which is the rate of energy supply from food sources, and thermodynamics, which determine the limits of that energy supply. So your true maximum speed and maximum oxygen uptake are both genetically limited.
Running is a skill and this aspect has been overlooked by most exercise phsysiologists. When I confront them with this information they react like politicans, which is effectively what they are. Ross Tucker for example will understand exactly what I am saying here, but he has to couch his words in a certain way to avoid being seen as a troublemaker. And if you asked Tinman for another example, he would have to be careful also or he could get into trouble also. This is a sensitive subject and whatever one says is bound to upset a lot of people.
1, My understanding is that "drugs" shorten the recovery time and allow a greater workload. What am I missing?
2, You also act like DNA is the final arbiter - why try to do anything then? If we can't escape our predestination?
3, There's elite runners with low vo2max and extremely high efficiency. Is that efficiency genetic? Or did they have to create that by training?
4, Sounds like you know 1 thing and you beat everyone over the head with it. Who's the real unreasonable one?
1, What you are missing is that both fitness and regular training help shorten the recovery time. Why do you believe drugs will do what natural hormones won't?
2, Why bother testing your natural limits through 20 years of training and racing? I dunno, it's fun I guess?
3, That efficiency is partly genetic and partly training? Don't you think so?
4, You have got the wrong idea. I want to write about a lot of things. How long have you got?
But thanks for giving me the opportunity to explain. My point on the other thread about calorimetry is a sensitive one. Calories consumed by an individual is not something that can be easily discussed here. I hope you understand?
blah blah blah drugs drugs drugs wrote:
babushka_lady wrote:
1, My understanding is that "drugs" shorten the recovery time and allow a greater workload. What am I missing?
2, You also act like DNA is the final arbiter - why try to do anything then? If we can't escape our predestination?
3, There's elite runners with low vo2max and extremely high efficiency. Is that efficiency genetic? Or did they have to create that by training?
4, Sounds like you know 1 thing and you beat everyone over the head with it. Who's the real unreasonable one?
1, What you are missing is that both fitness and regular training help shorten the recovery time. Why do you believe drugs will do what natural hormones won't?
2, Why bother testing your natural limits through 20 years of training and racing? I dunno, it's fun I guess?
3, That efficiency is partly genetic and partly training? Don't you think so?
4, You have got the wrong idea. I want to write about a lot of things. How long have you got?
But thanks for giving me the opportunity to explain. My point on the other thread about calorimetry is a sensitive one. Calories consumed by an individual is not something that can be easily discussed here. I hope you understand?
Let's get through one point at a time, because this appears to be escaping you -
If you are supplementing your body's hormone response with additional horomones, then YES athletes will go faster because they are ensuring an over-exaggerated response to the training they are doing. You speed up the timeline and minimize injury risk that clean athletes have to deal with.
What you claim, fitness and regular training helps shorten the recovery time, is true in reference to older, lower amounts of training stimulus. I can recover just fine from 15 minutes of easy running, but that's not what a "normal" easy run is for me anymore because I have adapted to that stress. Since nearly everyone increases their training load to match increases in fitness, recovery time remains approximately the same for most athletes