El Guerrouj 2k WR - Incredible 3:49 Mile pace

Ramzi's 9-second improvement is a predictable and highly probable outcome of changes of improved training.

Many coaches will tell you that.

We've discussed Malm and Schumacher many many times. You do not follow them, but surpass them. They themselves have surpassed the experts who have made the observations, by ignoring the cautions against projecting these observations onto elite performances.

My suspicions, based on national prevalence indicating distribution among fast, medium, and slow runners, would include faster runners like Ramzi, and slower runners like #37 all time, Selsouli.

We've also talked about Morocco still being the champions of doping today, while no longer being champions of running. High doping prevalence only becomes interesting when you can demonstrate a strong correlation to high performance. Some events, like women's events requiring strength, are easier to demonstrate.

Armstronglivs wrote:

So why Kratochvilova and not El Guerrouj, Komen, Bekele or Cheptegei? Their records are arguably better.

Still, it is surprising that you argue from prevalence that some world records are likely to be doped - a point many of us have often made that you have rejected, because you have previously argued that prevalence doesn't establish that doping improves performance - except in inferior or "weak" athletes. But now it seems doping can help some athletes achieve world records. Quelled surprise. Better late than never.

Of course that means that all of the names I listed above could be subject to the same suspicions that you entertain for Kratochvilova. Since you refer to "some" athletes, it also seems reasonable to ask if you have others in mind.

My suspicions are not based on quality of records, since the cause and effect link between doping and world record performances has not been established yet.

What have I rejected exactly? I accept general existence and distribution across the global population, but sometimes claim specific allegations are unsupported. When I "reject" unproven notions about elite performance, I generally talk about blood doping and distance running, and not steroids for women in shorter distance events requiring strength.

The existence of doping among champions is not a concession that doping helped them become a champion in a way not possible without. When prevalence among champions matches overall prevalence, my conclusion is that doping hasn't improved the odds. For doping to help, prevalence at the top must be significantly higher.

"Quelled surprise"? What language is that supposed to be? Do you mean "Quelle surprise?"

Armstronglivs wrote:

A question is only "off topic" when you choose to move the goal posts - as you always do - and determine the parameters of discussion, as you also do.

The subject of the thread is simply that El G ran 3.49 for the 1600 en route to his 4.44 for 2k. The "topic" is whatever any commenter chooses to make of that and to see where it goes. But you set the "rules" - and so avoid answering what you cannot answer.

However, I would encourage you to decline answering questions as often as possible. Always would also be fine. We would get more sense out of you if you said nothing.

"High Octane" constructed the goal post of anonymous opinions of suspicion of WRs, and I respectfully declined any attempts to score those goals of irrelevance.

It would be unintelligent, if not dishonest, to interpret this as an inability to answer, particularly since the question is what I think about a topic.

I would encourage you to practice what you preach.

rekrunner wrote:

"Quelled surprise"? What language is that supposed to be? Do you mean "Quelle surprise?"

English. He quelled his surprise.

Word manipulation is fun.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The experts who all say and agree that a higher RBC - which is what EPO contributes to - enables greater oxygen transfer to the muscles. If this increased aerobic capacity required a commensurate increase in the rate of breathing then elite (let alone doped) athletes would be gasping for air like an out-of-condition hobby jogger. (Like you, maybe?) But you never studied basic biology in school. Your "data" never included an education.

It's funny you still say that after the paper we discussed which said that higher RBC and higher VO2max did not mean more oxygen transfer to the muscles.

This demonstrates why my goal was to completely remove you and your biased unknowledgeable interpretations from the equation. I asked you for the name of experts, or the names of their papers, of which you said you have read many. I did not ask for you to draw me another cartoon of the Flintstones. I put your cartoons straight to the recycle bin, where apparently you just pick them back out and recycle them.

Tom Cochrane. wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

"Quelled surprise"? What language is that supposed to be? Do you mean "Quelle surprise?"

English. He quelled his surprise.

Word manipulation is fun.

He quelled his surprise? How? Autoincorrect?

More like improved training because of doping. Don't you understand that doping allows an athlete to train harder above and beyond what they could do naturally. Take anabolic steroids and testosterone that we see distance runners, race walkers and other endurance athletes test positive for all the time (especially the Kenyans lately). Anabolic steroids are very potent androgens that improve & accelerate protein synthesis, reduce cortisol levels and prevent injuries that are the result of stress placed on the muscles from training/overtraining. And injuries run high with distance runners/walkers.

Elite runners/walkers are known for brutal workouts & high mileage which breaks them down over time. Low-dose steroids aid in protein synthesis and recovery. The massive bodybuilders out there use multiple exceptionally high-dose steroids and do nothing but lift therefore creating the massive bulk we see. Endurance athletes who are doping with steroids would use only very low doses and generally just one steroid as part of their regularly training program. The human body has limitations on the amount of physical stress placed on muscles, tendons, ligaments, etc. - elite athletes aren't superhuman. Why do you think there's a history of androgen use with runners starting as early

the 60s when steroids were first synthesized.

Yes...we have discussed Malm and especially Schumacher "many many times." So let's set the record straight for once: Schumacher has testified at CAS hearings on the performance benefit an athlete can receive from doping. This has been accepted on the record from an expert witness. This is used in ABP cases to dismiss ccompetitive results obtained by the athlete over a period of time from the doping - neutralizing the illegal advantage obtained by an athlete over the competition.

What you theorize here is meaningless rhetoric. You're not an expert in this field and you wouldn't be allowed to testify as such in any hearing. Schumacher is an expert and is qualified to testify as such in these hearings. What he says goes from my perspective and I follow his expert opinion on these matters.

And all these other experts who "caution against projecting these observations onto elite performances" - why aren't they testifying on behalf of the accused at these CAS hearings? In any of CAS hearings that I've read, not one expert has provided any rebuttal testimony on the performance benefits seen with blood doping. In fact, not even the counsel for the accused is challenging the expert testimony from Schumacher and other experts! The counsel for the accused are also not challenging the dismissal of competitive results over the period of time of the doping under the unfair advantage premise. So, the counsels for the accused must agree with Schumacher's expert testimony of the performance benefits seen with doping or they would object to it.

Correction on this: When adjusted for "performers "and not "performances," Selsouli is tied with Russian Zaytseva for 22nd all-time fastest. 22nd is very fast considering this is one of the most hotly contested events for the women. Think of it as a top-25 ranking like with end of the season football & basketball polls.

The ABP has had a lot to do with that. It's like the restrictor plates NASCAR uses on the cars to slow them down at the super speedways - the ABP has slowed down the Moroccans. If they micro-dose to avoid detection they won't be getting the big results they got back in the day when you could macro-dope and have a lesser chance of getting caught. And if an athlete macro-dopes these days and they are subjected to the ABP - and the ABP is being applied and used correctly by the anti-doping authorities - the doper has a high probability of being caught. You saw this occur with Kiptum - no ABP and Kiptum gets away with doping (and you woukd be defending him against any accusations. Lol).

I understand that, but it only raises the question: Did Ramzi train harder above and beyond what he could do naturally?

You are arguing a "maybe" against my response "maybe not".

Yes let's.

Schumacher is not testifying as an expert on elite performance.

His testimony in a CAS hearing is not peer reviewed.

CAS doesn't decide, or need to decide, if a benefit occurred, or could have occurred, and counsel doesn't oppose it because it is not a point that can change the verdict.

To properly evaluate the worth of Schumacher's (and Malm's) statements requires understanding the bases of these statements, and their limitations.

Once you do that, we can set the record straight.

Your best example is only 22nd. Hardly a showing of a trend, versus random distribution.

Again -- more non-expert speculation. Explaining why high prevalence of doping doesn't lead to high performance does nothing to establish the relation to high doping prevalence and high performance.

Perhaps the issue is more relevant when the positive is caused accidentally by a tainted supplement etc.

Here is the non-botched quotation from the WADA-code:

...the classification of a substance as prohibited at all times or In-Competition only, is final and shall not be subject to challenge by an Athlete or other Person based on an argument that the substance or method was not a masking agent or did not have the potential to enhance performance, represent a health risk or violate the spirit of sport.

how does that work? wrote:

Tom Cochrane. wrote:

English. He quelled his surprise.

Word manipulation is fun.

He quelled his surprise? How? Autoincorrect?

Well you managed to quell any possible intellect you may have.

how does that work? wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I'm not saying that, but I do know a bit about basic human physiology - which you apparently don't.

So you know more about oxygen saturation than JD?

Brain damage is a tragic malady. My commiserations to your family.

A typo is all you've got.

So from saying prevalence suggests some world records will be doped (but you can only think of one - dear old easy mark, Jarma) you then say that doping hasn't helped champions become champions. So doping helps - but it also doesn't help? Sheesh. I guess some of these "champions" weren't good enough to become world record holders - or world record holders aren't "champions". Your ability to contradict yourself is likely watching a snake somehow contriving to swallow itself.

"Doping hasn't improved the odds" - a bald unsubstantiated assertion that also shows you clearly don't know how it affects the physiology of an athlete - and then a further false claim that "for doping to help prevalence at the top must be higher". Tell that to the cycling peloton. Or the estimated 30-40% of championship athletes who dope. So how high does prevalence have to be before someone benefits?

Debating these things with you is like facing a past-it brain -damaged boxer in the ring. The only blows of yours that connect are those that hit your own skull. Pitiable.

Aragon wrote:

Here is the non-botched quotation from the WADA-code:

...the classification of a substance as prohibited at all times or In-Competition only, is final and shall not be subject to challenge by an Athlete or other Person based on an argument that the substance or method was not a masking agent or did not have the potential to enhance performance, represent a health risk or violate the spirit of sport.

Is that at issue here? As it is expressed in that provision, all of those criteria resulting in a ban can be read singly and do not require combination with any other.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Here is the non-botched quotation from the WADA-code:

Is that at issue here? As it is expressed in that provision, all of those criteria resulting in a ban can be read singly and do not require combination with any other.

"High Octane" raised that issue, arguing that opposing counsel never challenges Schumacher on the possibility of performance enhancement.

Armstronglivs wrote:

how does that work? wrote:

So you know more about oxygen saturation than JD?

Brain damage is a tragic malady. My commiserations to your family.

So how does a non anemic doped runner extract more oxygen from the same volume of oxygen?

And why do you think you know more about oxygen kinetics than Jack Daniels?

I've got way more than pointing out your bad French as well as your bad English.

There is no contradiction, except in your mind. To be a contradiction, I would have to say both "helped" and "not helped". I said neither, but said: "The existence of doping among champions is not a concession that doping helped".

"Doping hasn't improved the odds" wasn't a "bald unsubstantiated assertion", but a conclusion given a certain hypothetical assumptions about the distribution of prevalence among the winners compared to the overall average.

I know you are on the ropes, when you pull out yet another weird analogy, like a brain-damaged boxer, after fabricating a contradiction in your own mind, and not comprehending the expected consequence of your 30-40% estimated doping, combined with significant effect, super-saturating the podium.

You are not a boxer fighting me, but fighting your shadow in your own boxing ring of straw.

how does that work? wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Brain damage is a tragic malady. My commiserations to your family.

So how does a non anemic doped runner extract more oxygen from the same volume of oxygen?

With more blood cells.