jamese wrote:
It's the ones with both, talent and skills, who reach pinnacles. Some luck helps.
No skills without talent.
jamese wrote:
It's the ones with both, talent and skills, who reach pinnacles. Some luck helps.
No skills without talent.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
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.
Au contraire. Buried underneath all that subjectivity, there are facts, but neither have any direct evidence of doping.
Ross Tucker's scale of suspicion is virtually meaningless, assigning arbitrary weight to fallacies, arriving as a destination at a level of suspicion -- again a virtually meaningless opinion lacking actual evidence, i.e. real world facts, of doping.
As for 43.6% I can offer, and have offered, the survey study itself, particularly its "Key Points" and "Limitations", as well as a subsequent study by one of the same authors which questioned whether the anonymity from this kind of survey technique is sufficient to produce accurate estimates for sensitive questions like doping.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
Au contraire. Buried underneath all that subjectivity, there are facts, but neither have any direct evidence of doping.
Ross Tucker's scale of suspicion is virtually meaningless, assigning arbitrary weight to fallacies, arriving as a destination at a level of suspicion -- again a virtually meaningless opinion lacking actual evidence, i.e. real world facts, of doping.
As for 43.6% I can offer, and have offered, the survey study itself, particularly its "Key Points" and "Limitations", as well as a subsequent study by one of the same authors which questioned whether the anonymity from this kind of survey technique is sufficient to produce accurate estimates for sensitive questions like doping.
Speaking of subjectivity. You haven't done anything - except talk about what you think you have done. That is all you ever do.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Au contraire. Buried underneath all that subjectivity, there are facts, but neither have any direct evidence of doping.
Ross Tucker's scale of suspicion is virtually meaningless, assigning arbitrary weight to fallacies, arriving as a destination at a level of suspicion -- again a virtually meaningless opinion lacking actual evidence, i.e. real world facts, of doping.
As for 43.6% I can offer, and have offered, the survey study itself, particularly its "Key Points" and "Limitations", as well as a subsequent study by one of the same authors which questioned whether the anonymity from this kind of survey technique is sufficient to produce accurate estimates for sensitive questions like doping.
Speaking of subjectivity. You haven't done anything - except talk about what you think you have done. That is all you ever do.
Maybe it is because I have consistently done what you consistently have not?
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
Au contraire. Buried underneath all that subjectivity, there are facts, but neither have any direct evidence of doping.
Ross Tucker's scale of suspicion is virtually meaningless, assigning arbitrary weight to fallacies, arriving as a destination at a level of suspicion -- again a virtually meaningless opinion lacking actual evidence, i.e. real world facts, of doping.
As for 43.6% I can offer, and have offered, the survey study itself, particularly its "Key Points" and "Limitations", as well as a subsequent study by one of the same authors which questioned whether the anonymity from this kind of survey technique is sufficient to produce accurate estimates for sensitive questions like doping.
I actually agree partially with doping apologist Rekrunner here, Tucker believes the chances that WvN (a fav of mine) is only a low risk of being a drug cheat. Yet he broke a record of MJs and he trained with Bolt in Jamaica, this is a massive red flag.
Armstronglivs wrote:
that kenyan kicker wrote:
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.
This is a lovely bit of trolling Armstronglivs, but it's both unsupportable and irrelevant as you're surely aware.
After all this time posting (and presumably reading), are you still unable to understand that he limits of human performance, and the distribution of talent in a population are different things?
Yes, elite middle distance men generally run 1500m in about three and a half minutes and appear to bump up against the limits of what's humanly possible as they approach 3:25, and no, there won't be a human that emerges naturally to take twenty seconds off the world record. Yes, it is also perfectly plausible and acceptable for certain individuals to be born with characteristics that make them more significantly more naturally able than the rest of the world at a given point.
Take a deep breath before you fire back with something about doping - I haven't said anything about doping! - and try to get a hold of the basics here.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Speaking of subjectivity. You haven't done anything - except talk about what you think you have done. That is all you ever do.
Maybe it is because I have consistently done what you consistently have not?
Yep. Gaslight.
iron chic wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
There is no dominance in a doped sport without doping. That is sport today. Feel patronized if you wish.
This is a lovely bit of trolling Armstronglivs, but it's both unsupportable and irrelevant as you're surely aware.
After all this time posting (and presumably reading), are you still unable to understand that he limits of human performance, and the distribution of talent in a population are different things?
Yes, elite middle distance men generally run 1500m in about three and a half minutes and appear to bump up against the limits of what's humanly possible as they approach 3:25, and no, there won't be a human that emerges naturally to take twenty seconds off the world record. Yes, it is also perfectly plausible and acceptable for certain individuals to be born with characteristics that make them more significantly more naturally able than the rest of the world at a given point.
Take a deep breath before you fire back with something about doping - I haven't said anything about doping! - and try to get a hold of the basics here.
You are quite missing the point. The issue is not what are the possible limits to human achievement - that is irrelevant here - or whether some individuals are more naturally talented or better than others (at anything and not just running - yes, they are) but that those differences in ability become smaller the closer we get to the top. I mentioned doping because it can exaggerate those differences and thereby explain individual dominance. Further, if an activity, a sport like running, has become permeated by doping it is simply not possible to achieve dominance without also doping.
Armstronglivs wrote:
You are quite missing the point. The issue is not what are the possible limits to human achievement - that is irrelevant here - or whether some individuals are more naturally talented or better than others (at anything and not just running - yes, they are) but that those differences in ability become smaller the closer we get to the top. I mentioned doping because it can exaggerate those differences and thereby explain individual dominance. Further, if an activity, a sport like running, has become permeated by doping it is simply not possible to achieve dominance without also doping.
what a small, sad take on things
everythread wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You are quite missing the point. The issue is not what are the possible limits to human achievement - that is irrelevant here - or whether some individuals are more naturally talented or better than others (at anything and not just running - yes, they are) but that those differences in ability become smaller the closer we get to the top. I mentioned doping because it can exaggerate those differences and thereby explain individual dominance. Further, if an activity, a sport like running, has become permeated by doping it is simply not possible to achieve dominance without also doping.
what a small, sad take on things
It also appears to be shared by half of the commenters on this site. Shelby has encouraged them. Speaking of small and sad.
What is the clean limit?
everybody knows wrote:
What is the clean limit?
Less than the doped limit.
Armstronglivs wrote:
It also appears to be shared by half of the commenters on this site. Shelby has encouraged them. Speaking of small and sad.
Are you conceding that the other half of commenters find it small and sad?
Nearly half of the Americans voted for Trump -- popularity doesn't make something true.
Armstronglivs wrote:
iron chic wrote:
Take a deep breath before you fire back with something about doping - I haven't said anything about doping! - and try to get a hold of the basics here.
... I mentioned doping because it can exaggerate those differences and thereby explain individual dominance. Further, if an activity, a sport like running, has become permeated by doping it is simply not possible to achieve dominance without also doping.
This is widely believed. The wide belief explains the "permeation".
everybody knows wrote:
What is the clean limit?
Apparently 2 ng/L.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
It also appears to be shared by half of the commenters on this site. Shelby has encouraged them. Speaking of small and sad.
Are you conceding that the other half of commenters find it small and sad?
Nearly half of the Americans voted for Trump -- popularity doesn't make something true.
Your views are neither popular nor true.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
... I mentioned doping because it can exaggerate those differences and thereby explain individual dominance. Further, if an activity, a sport like running, has become permeated by doping it is simply not possible to achieve dominance without also doping.
This is widely believed. The wide belief explains the "permeation".
Which is merely your belief.
rekrunner wrote:
everybody knows wrote:
What is the clean limit?
Apparently 2 ng/L.
Literalism is a feature of the thinking of a 5 year old.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Literalism is a feature of the thinking of a 5 year old.
Still over your head? It's hard for me to dumb it down any more.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
This is widely believed. The wide belief explains the "permeation".
Which is merely your belief.
Are you arguing that doping permeates the sport, but this is NOT widely believed?
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
Strava thinks the London Marathon times improved 12 minutes last year thanks to supershoes
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
Clayton Murphy is giving some great insight into his training.
NAU women have no excuse - they should win it all at 2024 NCAA XC
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion