Jakob Ingebrigtsen runs European record 12:48.45!!!!

Armstronglivs wrote:

Your certainly practise your stupidity. A 50/50 chance of doping isn't saying we "don't know one way or the other" - which it would be if doping were a rarity - but an estimation of 1 in 2 athletes doping is saying there is a very high chance of doping with any individual athlete on that basis alone. But that bare statistical estimation is not the only reason for inferring an athlete may be doping. Numerous other factors have been adduced over 20 years of threads to suggest a higher likelihood of doping in any individual case yet you cherrypick from amongst them only one bare and isolated argument, which is the estimation of prevalence, as though that is the entirety of the case. You should really be on the Suzy Favor Hamilton threads; they are more your intellectual level.

Again, a vague reference to "numerous factors" without specificity.

Each time I ask you to substantiate the link to any of these "numerous factors" and elite distance running, like the men's 5000m, you change the subject.

So besides your inflated doping estimates, numerous other factors suggest that *you* "don't know one way or the other".

i believe about 90% of A level olympic class athletes use drugs.They have to take drugs to reach the steep qualifying standards.Less would need to dope for B level,and less again for athletes who dont make A or B standard.Of course i actually dont care all that much.If you want to dope,knock yourself out,i say.

I have read all the posts and I am what I found out is that Armstronglives for sure did not find a drug to enhance his brain power.

Just because your hero did it, not everyone else have to, and you should not spam every post with your nonsense.

abraham chebii wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

What can widen the gaps between them are their dedication, coaching, quality of training, and management of injury. And doping.

JFC what an asinine contribution. Athlete preparation affects athlete performance - bravo, a brilliant insight.

The insight you fail to achieve is that at professional level the differences in natural ability are small.

SprintTriathlon wrote:

I have read all the posts and I am what I found out is that Armstronglives for sure did not find a drug to enhance his brain power.

Just because your hero did it, not everyone else have to, and you should not spam every post with your nonsense.

My brainpower doesn't need enhancing. Sadly, yours does.

KaareV wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Amazing logic. You ought to get the money back from your teacher in logic. It goes like this: If you're not talented you can't be a elite athlete. And if you are talented you can be. Armstronnglivs, how is it possible to falsify your statement?

You are quite confused about an obvious point. Top athletes are talented. If you aren't talented you can't be a top athlete - and indeed it applies to any field of human excellence. No one of average ability excels at anything. It isn't an argument of logic but empirical observation.

You proved my point again. How on earth can that be an empirical observation? You just repeat your statement, which is by any standars not logical. But you don't understand it. A runner, some days ago, at the 4th of June said after running 5000 at 13.16, said: I was totally talentless.[/quote]

Since you are unaware of what it is like to possess any kind of natural ability you have no idea that it is necessary to exceptional achievement. It is a banal observation that excellence at anything requires ability and not just application. A "talentless" runner does not run 13.16. That is someone who doesn't understand what the word means. Like you.

A good number will be doped. I would expect all medallists will be.

Rekrunner cannot grasp any of this. It's against his religion.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Rekrunner cannot grasp any of this. It's against his religion.

This looks like more self-projection of your inner-most fears.

"Grasping" this doesn't make an anonymized random-response survey, or Ross Tucker's "scale" any more accurate at estimating "true" doping prevalence.

Both scales are subjective.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Since you are unaware of what it is like to possess any kind of natural ability you have no idea that it is necessary to exceptional achievement.

What is your natural ability? Insulting people who disagree with you?

Armstronglivs wrote:

A good number will be doped. I would expect all medallists will be.

What a bitter way to see things. Every medalist is doped, every rich person is a thief, every good looking woman is a whore, every politician is a liar.

Just arbitrarily.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The insight you fail to achieve is that at professional level the differences in natural ability are small.

Except all the times they're not. There are many, many cases of athletes utterly dominating their professional peers. You think that all of these cases are due to some decisively superior doping regimen or tactical insight or whatever? Wrong.

Using patronising language when you don't understand what you're talking about makes you look a real idiot.

that kenyan kicker wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The insight you fail to achieve is that at professional level the differences in natural ability are small.

Except all the times they're not. There are many, many cases of athletes utterly dominati

Utronising language when you don't understand what you're talking about makes you look a real idiot.

Armstrong has shown many times to be an idiot.

reheh wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Since you are unaware of what it is like to possess any kind of natural ability you have no idea that it is necessary to exceptional achievement.

What is your natural ability? Insulting people who disagree with you?

Actually, I am an acknowledged world class exponent at something I do professionally - so I know something about the role played by talent in success. If you lack giftedness you dont know what it is like to have it. There is no exceptional achievement without it.

think first wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

A good number will be doped. I would expect all medallists will be.

What a bitter way to see things. Every medalist is doped, every rich person is a thief, every good looking woman is a whore, every politician is a liar.

Just arbitrarily.

False argument. What applies to 'A' is not automatically the same for 'B' or 'C'. Doping is widespread in sports. It is particularly so at the elite and professional level. Amongst the super-talented, the dopers will have the advantage. The facts of life.

that kenyan kicker wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The insight you fail to achieve is that at professional level the differences in natural ability are small.

Except all the times they're not. There are many, many cases of athletes utterly dominating their professional peers. You think that all of these cases are due to some decisively superior doping regimen or tactical insight or whatever? Wrong.

Using patronising language when you don't understand what you're talking about makes you look a real idiot.

There is no dominance in a doped sport without doping. That is sport today. Feel patronized if you wish.

restrunner wrote:

that kenyan kicker wrote:

Except all the times they're not. There are many, many cases of athletes utterly dominati

Utronising language when you don't understand what you're talking about makes you look a real idiot.

Armstrong has shown many times to be an idiot.

Now being an idiot is something you do know something about.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Rekrunner cannot grasp any of this. It's against his religion.

This looks like more self-projection of your inner-most fears.

"Grasping" this doesn't make an anonymized random-response survey, or Ross Tucker's "scale" any more accurate at estimating "true" doping prevalence.

Both scales are subjective.

They are not; they are based on real world facts - something you purport to be guided by. But only when it suits. You can offer nothing that refutes them.

It's the ones with both, talent and skills, who reach pinnacles. Some luck helps.