Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Avoidance of all that is presented.
His outstanding contribution is that “So it seems women can sometimes run as fast as men”. Wow!
Owt on you tautology?
It's really sad when cousins marry.
Another evasion or evasions followed by an insult.
So predictable.
Go away.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
This is a rather brave post, because it makes clear how much you have to ignore about all of the things that have really changed in the last 60 years, in order to prop up a set of unproven beliefs about the power of EPO for elite runners in the marathon. Since the ‘60s, besides training methods, the sport transitioned from amateur to professional; tracks have improved; shoes have improved. In the marathon, the athletes have changed from aged end of career athletes to young athletes going straight to the roads at their physical peak. Competition schedules have changed, and athletes have specialized. Racing tactics and pacing change with higher competition and pacemakers. All this, and training has also been greatly refined from the early pioneering days of Lydiard and Cerutty (and earlier greats like Igloi, and Arthur Newton, etc.).
Some questions:
What is the best conversion from the half to the marathon?
A common method is to look it up in tables like Purdy or VDOT or IAAF tables.
Purdy equates 1:02:51 to 2:11:58, while Daniel’s equates it to 2:11:42.
These look like they need modern updates, as it doesn’t really work for the men either:
57:32 gives 2:00:40 and 2:00:34 respectively, or predicts about a minute faster than the current records.
This suggests 2:12:45 to 2:13:00 is a better ballpark for the women, or about a minute slower than Bikila.
But such calculators must always be taken with a grain of salt, as individuals will vary.
The IAAF scoring tables are updated regularly, but the 2017 version (before fast shoes) gives curiously wide results for men versus women:
1:02:51 for a man scores the same as 2:14:52, but for a woman scores the same as 2:11:11.
Conclusion: a woman needs to run a 2:12:00 marathon first, rather than attempting to equate a woman’s half-marathon to a man’s marathon. The record is currently 2:14:01, in a marathon paced with men, and the predicted benefit of shoes.
Again. Why Bikila?
- Bikila’s 29:00 for 10K and 2:12 for the marathon are not particularly fast compared to today’s elite men.
- Do you believe “wejo” and Ritz are better than Bikila? What is more likely is that Bikila is better than his PBs.
- 2:12 isn’t even that fast for the ‘60s, as Derek Clayton ran a 2:09:37 just 3 years after 1964 Tokyo, and 2:08:34 by the end of the decade. Similarly Ron Clarke ran 27:39.
- In any case, no women has beaten either of Bikila’s times yet.
Why do you believe EPO is even an “explanation” for the marathon, let alone the better, simpler explanation?
- EPO and the marathon not studied by any researchers for any athlete, amateur or elite. No proof aerobic endurance translates to faster marathon times (which are limited by other factors like energy depletion).
- Sunday Times reports 2000-2012 blood results shows high blood values were not important for medalling in the marathon. (11% for the marathon, versus 28% for the 5000m/10000m, versus 54% for 1500m).
- Best confirmed cases are 2:05:xx for the men and 2:18:xx for the women.
- Distance events, from 1500m to the marathon, improved across the board between the ‘60s to the mid to late ‘80s, before EPO was prevalent.
- None of the EPO milestones make sense for the marathon. No improvement in the world record in the ‘90s, when no test existed, until the end of the decade. Slight improvement until 2007, when Geb moved to the marathon, then massive progression after the ABP was rolled out.
- Among non-Africans, the results are even worse, with very few results better than Carlos Lopes and Steve Jones from the mid-80s. How do words like “prevalent” and “endemic” make sense for the marathon if the very best times doesn’t include any elite non-Africans, with just a dozen or so men faster than Lopes and Jones?
Why EPO and not altitude?
- EPO research and training at altitude research show similar gains for non-elites.
- East Africans are born and raised at altitude, from ancestors born and raised at altitude.
If you want to believe EPO “works” for the marathon, with limited evidence after 4 decades of research, you should view living at altitude the same as continuous micro-dosing, which for East Africans, starts from the moment they are born.
To establish your credibility, you have a lot of work to do to connect the hypothetical “benefits of drugs like EPO, that greatly boost aerobic capacity” with the observed realities of elite marathon times.
No proof Gidey ever doped, or that she would be faster for it.
Such a long post to argue your unvarying position, that no one ever dopes. Gidey could run faster than a horse and you would still find no proof she ever doped.
Distortion again.
Do you understand that proof is not just having an opinion.
Go away.
letsdrum wrote:
Changing the subject, as so so often.
The OP thought that Gidey's performance deserves more attention, and you are the one who changed this thread in the third post into the doping direction. With only one single argument - she is too fast.
Go away.
Exactly.
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
There is a big difference from saying “may be doped “ to “ are doped” . You stated you position earlier as “ was doped” including supporting the position “ to the gils”.
By the way; for the n th time ; what is a doping apologist?
Someone who keeps asking that question for the nth time.
Another evasive answer.
Any chance of a reply?
If you do I have 100 or so other non answered awaiting.
Go far away.
Armstronglivs wrote:
letsdrum wrote:
What's the best reaction when asked why do you bring the same point again and again?
Bring this very same point again - at least for our friend Armstrong.
And he also still tries to made look Gideys performances even better than they are. Why?
Just for clarification: I'm not trying to defend Gidey. For sure she can be "doped to the g..." as the 10 to 15 years old on this board like to phrase.
I'm just pointing on the nonsense argumentation of Army who don't know what a serious discussion is and very easily goes into personal insults.
You aren't interested in Gidey or the subject of doping; your obsession is with me. As I am not the subject of the thread it shows your obsession is in fact with yourself.
Nonsense.
Go away.
Armstronglivs wrote:
It's really sad when cousins marry.
And you are wondering why in so many threads a lot of posters struggle with your behavior?
Just go away and stop destroying so many threads - as you also destroyed this one.
letsdrum wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
It's really sad when cousins marry.
And you are wondering why in so many threads a lot of posters struggle with your behavior?
Just go away and stop destroying so many threads - as you also destroyed this one.
He has appeared on the Trans swimmer thread and starts distorting, avoiding and insulting immediately.
letsdrum wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
It's really sad when cousins marry.
And you are wondering why in so many threads a lot of posters struggle with your behavior?
Just go away and stop destroying so many threads - as you also destroyed this one.
No, I don't wonder that. But I do wonder if there is any limit to your obsession with me, which is really an obsession with yourself. I don't matter. But you clearly believe you and your tedious opinions do.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Such a long post to argue your unvarying position, that no one ever dopes. Gidey could run faster than a horse and you would still find no proof she ever doped.
Distortion again.
Do you understand that proof is not just having an opinion.
Go away.
But tormenting you and your fellow idiots is too much fun.
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Distortion again.
Do you understand that proof is not just having an opinion.
Go away.
But tormenting you and your fellow idiots is too much fun.
Go away.
Armstronglivs wrote:
letsdrum wrote:
And you are wondering why in so many threads a lot of posters struggle with your behavior?
Just go away and stop destroying so many threads - as you also destroyed this one.
No, I don't wonder that. But I do wonder if there is any limit to your obsession with me, which is really an obsession with yourself. I don't matter. But you clearly believe you and your tedious opinions do.
Go away.
Armstronglivs wrote:
letsdrum wrote:
And you are wondering why in so many threads a lot of posters struggle with your behavior?
Just go away and stop destroying so many threads - as you also destroyed this one.
No, I don't wonder that. But I do wonder if there is any limit to your obsession with me, which is really an obsession with yourself. I don't matter. But you clearly believe you and your tedious opinions do.
You have never thought about the question why you constantly get such a lot of opposition? Pure arrogance and ignorance.
Only someone with no arguments always changes the subject, which is to see so often in your posts.
When you say all top performances are just the result of doping, then it's a must to give your limit for clean performances. Where is it? And is the fastest "clean" athlete not highly suspect to you?
letsdrum wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
No, I don't wonder that. But I do wonder if there is any limit to your obsession with me, which is really an obsession with yourself. I don't matter. But you clearly believe you and your tedious opinions do.
You have never thought about the question why you constantly get such a lot of opposition? Pure arrogance and ignorance.
Only someone with no arguments always changes the subject, which is to see so often in your posts.
When you say all top performances are just the result of doping, then it's a must to give your limit for clean performances. Where is it? And is the fastest "clean" athlete not highly suspect to you?
You aren't interested in the views of someone you label as arrogant and ignorant - so I won't bother to discuss mine with you. But you simply cannot stop making me the subject of your every post. There are no limits to your obsession. But it is all really about you.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
But tormenting you and your fellow idiots is too much fun.
Go away.
You keep saying that - as though I would have the slightest regard for what you would wish.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
No, I don't wonder that. But I do wonder if there is any limit to your obsession with me, which is really an obsession with yourself. I don't matter. But you clearly believe you and your tedious opinions do.
Go away.
I hear barking from a kennel.
Armstronglivs wrote:
letsdrum wrote:
You have never thought about the question why you constantly get such a lot of opposition? Pure arrogance and ignorance.
Only someone with no arguments always changes the subject, which is to see so often in your posts.
When you say all top performances are just the result of doping, then it's a must to give your limit for clean performances. Where is it? And is the fastest "clean" athlete not highly suspect to you?
You aren't interested in the views of someone you label as arrogant and ignorant - so I won't bother to discuss mine with you. But you simply cannot stop making me the subject of your every post. There are no limits to your obsession. But it is all really about you.
Go away.
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Go away.
I hear barking from a kennel.
Go away
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Go away.
You keep saying that - as though I would have the slightest regard for what you would wish.
Go away
Armstronglivs wrote:
letsdrum wrote:
You have never thought about the question why you constantly get such a lot of opposition? Pure arrogance and ignorance.
Only someone with no arguments always changes the subject, which is to see so often in your posts.
When you say all top performances are just the result of doping, then it's a must to give your limit for clean performances. Where is it? And is the fastest "clean" athlete not highly suspect to you?
You aren't interested in the views of someone you label as arrogant and ignorant - so I won't bother to discuss mine with you. But you simply cannot stop making me the subject of your every post. There are no limits to your obsession. But it is all really about you.
Go away
Armstronglivs wrote:
letsdrum wrote:
You have never thought about the question why you constantly get such a lot of opposition? Pure arrogance and ignorance.
Only someone with no arguments always changes the subject, which is to see so often in your posts.
When you say all top performances are just the result of doping, then it's a must to give your limit for clean performances. Where is it? And is the fastest "clean" athlete not highly suspect to you?
You aren't interested in the views of someone you label as arrogant and ignorant - so I won't bother to discuss mine with you. But you simply cannot stop making me the subject of your every post. There are no limits to your obsession. But it is all really about you.
That you don't give answers to such questions has nothing to do with my "obsession" .
You constantly claim that any great results are from doped athletes. But when confronted with concrete questions you just run away.
Very rarely you respond something substantial to points you were asked ("there are no points", "you are obsessed"...).
And by such an amount of opposition anybody should show some self-critisism.