You have continually defended dopers. Houlihan is such an example. You have conceded only one runner was a likely doper - Kratochvilova - and she was forty years ago.
I don't suspect runners "solely based on fast times", as you falsely claim: I suspect world record-level times previously recorded by dopers, and those running them - like Kipyegon - who come from a sports culture with significant doping issues.
But you suspect no one. And if runners were to dope you also hold the view that the drugs they take are not performance enhancing outside a placebo effect.
I can only conclude from this that you yourself think your basis for suspicion is so weak, you need to import your failed misconceptions and lies from other threads.
The right answer is that my looking at the top-426 performances to see if Kenyan performance is "rife", is doping neutral and defending no one.
Posted above. From "Athletics Illustrated", this year. But don't let facts get in the way of your wishful thinking.
"Next to Russia, who has a blanket ban, Kenya has the most suspended athletes in the sport of athletics in the world. There are approximately 80 Kenyan athletes coming out of or, entering or somewhere in the middle of two to four-year provisional or unappealable bans."
Next to Russia, who has a blanket ban, Kenya has the most suspended athletes in the sport of athletics in the world. There are approximately 80 Kenyan athletes coming out of or, entering or somewhere in the middle of two to four-year provisional or unappealable bans.
Russia is not weighting in Athletics since the fall of Berlin wall.
Russia competed at every edition of the IAAF World Championships in Athletics 1993 to the 2017 World Championships, from which its athletes have been banned from competing as Russian. In order for Russian nationals to compete...
This was an incredible performance, three tenths of a second off the world record despite suicidal splits. Going out sub 60 and 2:01.6 made it scarcely credible she would come that close. 62s would have put her in range. And as a result of going out insanely fast, the pacers couldn't stick past 900. Surely a 62/2:04 opening would have led to a 3:49.
+1
That's what I was thinking. The pacing wasn't optimal, shown by Faith allowing a gap early in the first lap. What was the split at 200? 30 point then 31 point would have seen the WR broken.
Also, this may sound trivial but these Monaco bibs are huge on the women and someone as small as Kipyegon. Watching a replay and there's just a lot of flapping on the front and on the back. Think she could've made up .20 seconds with a tidy iron-on. The fastest track in the world needs aerodynamic bibs to match.
I can only conclude from this that you yourself think your basis for suspicion is so weak, you need to import your failed misconceptions and lies from other threads.
The right answer is that my looking at the top-426 performances to see if Kenyan performance is "rife", is doping neutral and defending no one.
Posted above. From "Athletics Illustrated", this year. But don't let facts get in the way of your wishful thinking.
"Next to Russia, who has a blanket ban, Kenya has the most suspended athletes in the sport of athletics in the world. There are approximately 80 Kenyan athletes coming out of or, entering or somewhere in the middle of two to four-year provisional or unappealable bans."
What do you think I wish for by looking for Kenyans in the top-426 performances? None of these AIU banned athletes are from the half dozen Kenyan women who ran sub-4:00 for 1500m.
The AIU data is not a complete source of the number of bans, and they do not test all athletes from all countries with a uniform distribution. In order to make an apples-to-apples comparison between countries, you would need to:
- remove whereabouts failures, as these are not performance enhancing doping violations, per se
- factor in national bans
- normalize the absolute number of bans to reflect the size of the athlete population (e.g. as a percentage)
Posted above. From "Athletics Illustrated", this year. But don't let facts get in the way of your wishful thinking.
"Next to Russia, who has a blanket ban, Kenya has the most suspended athletes in the sport of athletics in the world. There are approximately 80 Kenyan athletes coming out of or, entering or somewhere in the middle of two to four-year provisional or unappealable bans."
What do you think I wish for by looking for Kenyans in the top-426 performances? None of these AIU banned athletes are from the half dozen Kenyan women who ran sub-4:00 for 1500m.
The AIU data is not a complete source of the number of bans, and they do not test all athletes from all countries with a uniform distribution. In order to make an apples-to-apples comparison between countries, you would need to:
- remove whereabouts failures, as these are not performance enhancing doping violations, per se
- factor in national bans
- normalize the absolute number of bans to reflect the size of the athlete population (e.g. as a percentage)
- test athletes from all countries uniformly
Another ridiculous response. Those with bans have included Olympic and world championship medallists - yet you know for a fact that the Kenyan women's 1500m runners won't have doped. How odd, when you have argued that athletes dope because they believe that it will help them (even though you say it doesn't). But Kenya's women's 1500m runners appear an incongruous exception to that belief. (It doesn't stop the 1500m guys - as we have seen with Kiprop).
But I don't know why you bother defending the Kenyans - or any other dopers - because you have long maintained doping doesn't help distance runners. To be consistent you should be arguing that there should be no penalty for any of them. It's what you truly believe.
What do you think I wish for by looking for Kenyans in the top-426 performances? None of these AIU banned athletes are from the half dozen Kenyan women who ran sub-4:00 for 1500m.
The AIU data is not a complete source of the number of bans, and they do not test all athletes from all countries with a uniform distribution. In order to make an apples-to-apples comparison between countries, you would need to:
- remove whereabouts failures, as these are not performance enhancing doping violations, per se
- factor in national bans
- normalize the absolute number of bans to reflect the size of the athlete population (e.g. as a percentage)
- test athletes from all countries uniformly
Another ridiculous response. Those with bans have included Olympic and world championship medallists - yet you know for a fact that the Kenyan women's 1500m runners won't have doped. How odd, when you have argued that athletes dope because they believe that it will help them (even though you say it doesn't). But Kenya's women's 1500m runners appear an incongruous exception to that belief. (It doesn't stop the 1500m guys - as we have seen with Kiprop).
But I don't know why you bother defending the Kenyans - or any other dopers - because you have long maintained doping doesn't help distance runners. To be consistent you should be arguing that there should be no penalty for any of them. It's what you truly believe.
Once again I have to ask -- who do you allege I am "defending" by looking for "rife" performances among Kenyan women in the top 426 fastest performances?
I do know for a fact that the bans referenced in the Economist, in the AIU database, in the WADA reports, and in Athletics Illustrated, do not include the half-dozen women Kenyans who have run sub-4:00.
Of course dopers believe doping will help. What would be ridiculous is to argue that athletes dope because they don't believe it will help. I have long said that steroids and male hormones can help women in the shorter distance events by giving them superior muscular strength.
Another ridiculous response. Those with bans have included Olympic and world championship medallists - yet you know for a fact that the Kenyan women's 1500m runners won't have doped. How odd, when you have argued that athletes dope because they believe that it will help them (even though you say it doesn't). But Kenya's women's 1500m runners appear an incongruous exception to that belief. (It doesn't stop the 1500m guys - as we have seen with Kiprop).
But I don't know why you bother defending the Kenyans - or any other dopers - because you have long maintained doping doesn't help distance runners. To be consistent you should be arguing that there should be no penalty for any of them. It's what you truly believe.
Once again I have to ask -- who do you allege I am "defending" by looking for "rife" performances among Kenyan women in the top 426 fastest performances?
I do know for a fact that the bans referenced in the Economist, in the AIU database, in the WADA reports, and in Athletics Illustrated, do not include the half-dozen women Kenyans who have run sub-4:00.
Of course dopers believe doping will help. What would be ridiculous is to argue that athletes dope because they don't believe it will help. I have long said that steroids and male hormones can help women in the shorter distance events by giving them superior muscular strength.
But you don't believe doping helps distance runners - they must be the only athletes that doping doesn't help - outside a "placebo" effect. You should therefore not wish to see them penalised for their "doping" as they only misguidedly believe it will help them. They aren't really "doping" - in your basement world. You are absurd as well as ignorant about doping.
Then because the Economist article doesn't specifically identify female 1500m runners you somehow exempt them from the fact that they arise from a sporting culture that has serious doping issues. Athletes all around them are doping - but they aren't. Sure - they alone don't "believe" doping will help them. You practice self-delusion harder than anyone I've seen here.
Once again I have to ask -- who do you allege I am "defending" by looking for "rife" performances among Kenyan women in the top 426 fastest performances?
I do know for a fact that the bans referenced in the Economist, in the AIU database, in the WADA reports, and in Athletics Illustrated, do not include the half-dozen women Kenyans who have run sub-4:00.
Of course dopers believe doping will help. What would be ridiculous is to argue that athletes dope because they don't believe it will help. I have long said that steroids and male hormones can help women in the shorter distance events by giving them superior muscular strength.
But you don't believe doping helps distance runners - they must be the only athletes that doping doesn't help - outside a "placebo" effect. You should therefore not wish to see them penalised for their "doping" as they only misguidedly believe it will help them. They aren't really "doping" - in your basement world. You are absurd as well as ignorant about doping.
Then because the Economist article doesn't specifically identify female 1500m runners you somehow exempt them from the fact that they arise from a sporting culture that has serious doping issues. Athletes all around them are doping - but they aren't. Sure - they alone don't "believe" doping will help them. You practice self-delusion harder than anyone I've seen here.
And once again, you cannot answer. Besides "Houlihan" (wrong thread), you still cannot say who it is you allege I "defend" by looking at the top performances.
Sorry for the length, but your list of misconceptions are too many to rebut in fewer words.
When you start the discussion with "believe" or "don't believe" you are starting the wrong discussion about faith -- and only further confirming my point that your suspicions and ideas are largely founded in beliefs, mythology, and religion, held together by a stream of fallacies.
Because you fail to make any convincing arguments firmly rooted in fact and logic, you then need to invent a series of positions that I do not hold, attempting to shift the discussion (that has often lasted for pages) to debating what I really "believe", as one of your avoidance techniques to hide your deficiencies. What I believe, or not, does nothing to support your allegations and suspicions.
For example, contrary to your suggestion, I would also wish to see athletes punished for "potential to harm" and acting "against the spirit of the sport". And I do not wish to burden anti-doping authorities with proving "effect" on a case by case basis -- drugs that can potentially "help" other events, like sprints, or other sports, like cycling, should be reasonably banned for all Olympic events. I also consider "placebo" effect a real performance benefit.
The issues I raised, and you have not rebutted, with the Economist is that it explicitly relies on AIU data, and the issues I raised with the AIU, which you have not rebutted, is that it is neither complete (e.g. lacking national bans) nor is it uniform, disproportionately focusing on Category A and B countries while largely ignoring Category C countries composed mostly of low performers (e.g. New Zealand), nor are the absolute values normalized (e.g. would be better to compare percentages to demonstrate "doping culture"), allowing country to country comparisons. WADA reports also show that many positive tests, both in and out of Kenya, are accidental or no-fault, or valid reasons, no case to answer, giving us more differences between the various countries, and we should consider how different factors can lead to higher number of busts on a country by country basis before talking about national "culture".
It is not the AIU, but you who explicitly relies on Kenya as having "rife" doping (and fallacies by association) in order to suspect doping produced a fast performer in the women's 1500m , while I juxtapose these "facts" with a showing that Kenya's "rife" doping has not correlationally produced a set of "rife" fast performances.
Note the elephant in the room is Russia, who despite their "rife" doping, has not been able to replicate their own "rife" success from the '80s. If we accept that Russia in the '80s, and China in the '90s, were a product of massive doping, what is telling then is that for the next two to three to four decades, women's performances were not nearly as fast, until a few East Africans in recent years.
But you don't believe doping helps distance runners - they must be the only athletes that doping doesn't help - outside a "placebo" effect. You should therefore not wish to see them penalised for their "doping" as they only misguidedly believe it will help them. They aren't really "doping" - in your basement world. You are absurd as well as ignorant about doping.
Then because the Economist article doesn't specifically identify female 1500m runners you somehow exempt them from the fact that they arise from a sporting culture that has serious doping issues. Athletes all around them are doping - but they aren't. Sure - they alone don't "believe" doping will help them. You practice self-delusion harder than anyone I've seen here.
And once again, you cannot answer. Besides "Houlihan" (wrong thread), you still cannot say who it is you allege I "defend" by looking at the top performances.
Sorry for the length, but your list of misconceptions are too many to rebut in fewer words.
When you start the discussion with "believe" or "don't believe" you are starting the wrong discussion about faith -- and only further confirming my point that your suspicions and ideas are largely founded in beliefs, mythology, and religion, held together by a stream of fallacies.
Because you fail to make any convincing arguments firmly rooted in fact and logic, you then need to invent a series of positions that I do not hold, attempting to shift the discussion (that has often lasted for pages) to debating what I really "believe", as one of your avoidance techniques to hide your deficiencies. What I believe, or not, does nothing to support your allegations and suspicions.
For example, contrary to your suggestion, I would also wish to see athletes punished for "potential to harm" and acting "against the spirit of the sport". And I do not wish to burden anti-doping authorities with proving "effect" on a case by case basis -- drugs that can potentially "help" other events, like sprints, or other sports, like cycling, should be reasonably banned for all Olympic events. I also consider "placebo" effect a real performance benefit.
The issues I raised, and you have not rebutted, with the Economist is that it explicitly relies on AIU data, and the issues I raised with the AIU, which you have not rebutted, is that it is neither complete (e.g. lacking national bans) nor is it uniform, disproportionately focusing on Category A and B countries while largely ignoring Category C countries composed mostly of low performers (e.g. New Zealand), nor are the absolute values normalized (e.g. would be better to compare percentages to demonstrate "doping culture"), allowing country to country comparisons. WADA reports also show that many positive tests, both in and out of Kenya, are accidental or no-fault, or valid reasons, no case to answer, giving us more differences between the various countries, and we should consider how different factors can lead to higher number of busts on a country by country basis before talking about national "culture".
It is not the AIU, but you who explicitly relies on Kenya as having "rife" doping (and fallacies by association) in order to suspect doping produced a fast performer in the women's 1500m , while I juxtapose these "facts" with a showing that Kenya's "rife" doping has not correlationally produced a set of "rife" fast performances.
Note the elephant in the room is Russia, who despite their "rife" doping, has not been able to replicate their own "rife" success from the '80s. If we accept that Russia in the '80s, and China in the '90s, were a product of massive doping, what is telling then is that for the next two to three to four decades, women's performances were not nearly as fast, until a few East Africans in recent years.
I don't think anyone would read this except you. And maybe even you didn't - you just evacuated your bowels.
In 1996 the BBC documentary "Panorama" reported that up to 80% of Olympic athletes in many disciplines were doping. Doped athletes and the coaches who were interviewed said doping was simply another option for maximizing their advantages. In the words of one - "if you aren't doping you are a local athlete in a club".
That was 26 years ago. Doping has become immeasurably more sophisticated since then. Athletes will still do whatever it takes to succeed - as people do in all walks of life. But the wilful blindness of fans - aided by a media and sports governance bodies that refuse to face reality - shows that professional athletes and their devoted public live in completely unrelated worlds. The deniers here continue to prove that - and will no doubt do so to their dying breath.
In 1996 the BBC documentary "Panorama" reported that up to 80% of Olympic athletes in many disciplines were doping. Doped athletes and the coaches who were interviewed said doping was simply another option for maximizing their advantages. In the words of one - "if you aren't doping you are a local athlete in a club".
That was 26 years ago. Doping has become immeasurably more sophisticated since then. Athletes will still do whatever it takes to succeed - as people do in all walks of life. But the wilful blindness of fans - aided by a media and sports governance bodies that refuse to face reality - shows that professional athletes and their devoted public live in completely unrelated worlds. The deniers here continue to prove that - and will no doubt do so to their dying breath.
Once again, quite loose with the facts.
Sure, the BBC/Panorama reported in 1996, about the 1988 Olympics, and specifically the "power events". The 80% estimate for "power sports" came from a lawyer (Robert Armstrong) involved in the Dubin Inquiry. The documentary was full of examples and testimonies from sprinting, field events, and weightlifting, focusing in East Germany, a British power-lifting training, a few Canadian athletes, and Chinese swimmers. No mention of distance events or East Africans, although one doctor amazingly claimed EPO could produce a 35% benefit from 1 day to the next with no extra training.
I wonder what data they based these prevelance estimates and performance benefits on. But it sure makes for great TV.
Indeed in 26 years, a lot has also happened in anti-doping -- for example the creation of WADA and the involvement of governments as stakeholders in anti-doping.
And none of this establishes the correlation between "rife" doping and "rife" performances.
In 1996 the BBC documentary "Panorama" reported that up to 80% of Olympic athletes in many disciplines were doping. Doped athletes and the coaches who were interviewed said doping was simply another option for maximizing their advantages. In the words of one - "if you aren't doping you are a local athlete in a club".
That was 26 years ago. Doping has become immeasurably more sophisticated since then. Athletes will still do whatever it takes to succeed - as people do in all walks of life. But the wilful blindness of fans - aided by a media and sports governance bodies that refuse to face reality - shows that professional athletes and their devoted public live in completely unrelated worlds. The deniers here continue to prove that - and will no doubt do so to their dying breath.
Once again, quite loose with the facts.
Sure, the BBC/Panorama reported in 1996, about the 1988 Olympics, and specifically the "power events". The 80% estimate for "power sports" came from a lawyer (Robert Armstrong) involved in the Dubin Inquiry. The documentary was full of examples and testimonies from sprinting, field events, and weightlifting, focusing in East Germany, a British power-lifting training, a few Canadian athletes, and Chinese swimmers. No mention of distance events or East Africans, although one doctor amazingly claimed EPO could produce a 35% benefit from 1 day to the next with no extra training.
I wonder what data they based these prevelance estimates and performance benefits on. But it sure makes for great TV.
Indeed in 26 years, a lot has also happened in anti-doping -- for example the creation of WADA and the involvement of governments as stakeholders in anti-doping.
And none of this establishes the correlation between "rife" doping and "rife" performances.
You certainly prove my last point, about those - like you - who do everything you can to deny the extent of doping in sports. The key thing you missed in the documentary was the express attitude by coaches and athletes (that included runners) that doping was a legitimate path to success - and maybe the only path. It worked for them. When athletes don't see doping as cheating, but necessary, it will be everywhere - as it is now known to be. As one athlete remarked, the only athletes that don't dope are club athletes. The incentives for athletes to dope are there in all sports. The main difference between 1996 and 2022 is not WADA but that the dopers have gotten even better at doping. They make use of the most sophisticated advances in sports science and pharmacology. With so much on the line in sports - the rewards of money and fame can be enormous - it was inevitable. The reality is that antidoping enforcement can't prevent this - David Howman has conceded this - so it is an absurdity to expect to find "data" proving (or disproving) the efficacy of what mostly can't be detected but is known to be ubiquitous.
As I said a while back in this thread, chauvinistic fans constantly being apologists or denialists for doping has killed the sport. That list I posted does not lie. It is damning. It is not beating one doper, but a legion of them. The idea that people responded by claiming that she was allegedly some sort of "freak athlete", a variation of the ever entertaining "East African running gene", was frankly sad. No one buys it. No one should. I doubt they buy it.
As I said a while back in this thread, chauvinistic fans constantly being apologists or denialists for doping has killed the sport. That list I posted does not lie. It is damning. It is not beating one doper, but a legion of them. The idea that people responded by claiming that she was allegedly some sort of "freak athlete", a variation of the ever entertaining "East African running gene", was frankly sad. No one buys it. No one should. I doubt they buy it.
No one who knows anything about doping buys it. But fans work very hard not to know anything about doping. They couldn't be fans if they did. They do have the excuse that the sports media and governance bodies do everything they can not to disturb their illusions.
You certainly prove my last point, about those - like you - who do everything you can to deny the extent of doping in sports. The key thing you missed in the documentary was the express attitude by coaches and athletes (that included runners) that doping was a legitimate path to success - and maybe the only path. It worked for them. When athletes don't see doping as cheating, but necessary, it will be everywhere - as it is now known to be. As one athlete remarked, the only athletes that don't dope are club athletes. The incentives for athletes to dope are there in all sports. The main difference between 1996 and 2022 is not WADA but that the dopers have gotten even better at doping. They make use of the most sophisticated advances in sports science and pharmacology. With so much on the line in sports - the rewards of money and fame can be enormous - it was inevitable. The reality is that antidoping enforcement can't prevent this - David Howman has conceded this - so it is an absurdity to expect to find "data" proving (or disproving) the efficacy of what mostly can't be detected but is known to be ubiquitous.
I'm not so gullible as to believe everything I see on TV, just because some BBC reporters found someone willing to say what they wanted to hear, and you cherry-picked a documentary that was 26 years old, before anti-doping was organized globally, about sprinting and swimming and weightlifting and power events, to find the quotes you wanted.
I never deny some extent of doping exists, and existed, but the questions I have are: What does "extensive" mean to you, and why? 10%? 43.6%? 80%? What is the data behind it? Is it reliable? Since historical performances are fixed, the more "extensive" you want to argue doping is, the less signficant the "benefit" there must be. You can argue "extent" or "benefit" but hardly both. As always the source of my scepticism is the lack of "rife" performances in the real world, and the lack of any established correlation between the "rife" doping and the fastest performances. If doping extent is 80%, and athletes are only getting better at doping, it boggles the mind that the Chinese records were untouchable world-wide for more than two decades. And similarly that only 2 Kenyans are in the top-100 performances, and only a half dozen have run sub-4 in the top-426 performances.
I never doubted that some athletes and coaches have a strong belief that doping is a path to success, and some might even believe it is the only path. Expressing a belief doesn't make it fact, no matter how charismatic the expresser, or how strong the belief.
As I said a while back in this thread, chauvinistic fans constantly being apologists or denialists for doping has killed the sport. That list I posted does not lie. It is damning. It is not beating one doper, but a legion of them. The idea that people responded by claiming that she was allegedly some sort of "freak athlete", a variation of the ever entertaining "East African running gene", was frankly sad. No one buys it. No one should. I doubt they buy it.
No one is apologizing for doping or arguing for the elusive East African running gene.
How does it help the sport to mindlessly make baseless accusations about all runners with the audacity to actually possess the talent, and the training, to succeed in their goals that they have dedicated years and decades of their life towards? In this mythological world, every winner of the sport simulataneously becomes a loser.
Since the "Scientific Revolution", and the "Age of Enlightment", mankind has made rapid gains in their knowledge of the world on the basis of carefully measured observations. Unfortunately, almost every facet of enlightment is being challenged by an increasing minority of the unlightened with beliefs and mythology, threatening to throw mankind back into the Dark Ages.
You certainly prove my last point, about those - like you - who do everything you can to deny the extent of doping in sports. The key thing you missed in the documentary was the express attitude by coaches and athletes (that included runners) that doping was a legitimate path to success - and maybe the only path. It worked for them. When athletes don't see doping as cheating, but necessary, it will be everywhere - as it is now known to be. As one athlete remarked, the only athletes that don't dope are club athletes. The incentives for athletes to dope are there in all sports. The main difference between 1996 and 2022 is not WADA but that the dopers have gotten even better at doping. They make use of the most sophisticated advances in sports science and pharmacology. With so much on the line in sports - the rewards of money and fame can be enormous - it was inevitable. The reality is that antidoping enforcement can't prevent this - David Howman has conceded this - so it is an absurdity to expect to find "data" proving (or disproving) the efficacy of what mostly can't be detected but is known to be ubiquitous.
I'm not so gullible as to believe everything I see on TV, just because some BBC reporters found someone willing to say what they wanted to hear, and you cherry-picked a documentary that was 26 years old, before anti-doping was organized globally, about sprinting and swimming and weightlifting and power events, to find the quotes you wanted.
I never deny some extent of doping exists, and existed, but the questions I have are: What does "extensive" mean to you, and why? 10%? 43.6%? 80%? What is the data behind it? Is it reliable? Since historical performances are fixed, the more "extensive" you want to argue doping is, the less signficant the "benefit" there must be. You can argue "extent" or "benefit" but hardly both. As always the source of my scepticism is the lack of "rife" performances in the real world, and the lack of any established correlation between the "rife" doping and the fastest performances. If doping extent is 80%, and athletes are only getting better at doping, it boggles the mind that the Chinese records were untouchable world-wide for more than two decades. And similarly that only 2 Kenyans are in the top-100 performances, and only a half dozen have run sub-4 in the top-426 performances.
I never doubted that some athletes and coaches have a strong belief that doping is a path to success, and some might even believe it is the only path. Expressing a belief doesn't make it fact, no matter how charismatic the expresser, or how strong the belief.
As I have said, you insist on "data" to show the true extent of doping, when such data cannot exist unless all dopers are caught. Most aren't; most doping is invisible. Only 1-2% tests return a positive - essentially "the dumb and the careless", according to Richard Pound. So many more are doping than are caught.
You also say athletes merely "believe" doping will help them - by which you absurdly insist that it won't when you have no "data" on this, since no athletes who are doping participate in studies to measure its performance enhancing effects. Without that data you cannot state as a fact that they only suppose it will help them. You have no evidence to make that claim.
But if athletes believe doping will help them they will dope - in considerable numbers, as has been made clear by athletes and coaches; to them it's simply another tool to success.
Like most doping deniers the only thing you have any expertise in is fooling yourselves. But no one else.
As I said a while back in this thread, chauvinistic fans constantly being apologists or denialists for doping has killed the sport. That list I posted does not lie. It is damning. It is not beating one doper, but a legion of them. The idea that people responded by claiming that she was allegedly some sort of "freak athlete", a variation of the ever entertaining "East African running gene", was frankly sad. No one buys it. No one should. I doubt they buy it.
No one is apologizing for doping or arguing for the elusive East African running gene.
How does it help the sport to mindlessly make baseless accusations about all runners with the audacity to actually possess the talent, and the training, to succeed in their goals that they have dedicated years and decades of their life towards? In this mythological world, every winner of the sport simulataneously becomes a loser.
Since the "Scientific Revolution", and the "Age of Enlightment", mankind has made rapid gains in their knowledge of the world on the basis of carefully measured observations. Unfortunately, almost every facet of enlightment is being challenged by an increasing minority of the unlightened with beliefs and mythology, threatening to throw mankind back into the Dark Ages.
You preach the virtues of science while showing no capacity for applying its methods. You simply ignore what athletes, coaches and anti-doping experts say if doesn't fit with your narrative, that doping is not widespread, is not at the top of sports and you even suggest it doesn't actually help them. Your reference to the Dark Ages was apt. It's where you reside.
No one is apologizing for doping or arguing for the elusive East African running gene.
How does it help the sport to mindlessly make baseless accusations about all runners with the audacity to actually possess the talent, and the training, to succeed in their goals that they have dedicated years and decades of their life towards? In this mythological world, every winner of the sport simulataneously becomes a loser.
Since the "Scientific Revolution", and the "Age of Enlightment", mankind has made rapid gains in their knowledge of the world on the basis of carefully measured observations. Unfortunately, almost every facet of enlightment is being challenged by an increasing minority of the unlightened with beliefs and mythology, threatening to throw mankind back into the Dark Ages.
You preach the virtues of science while showing no capacity for applying its methods. You simply ignore what athletes, coaches and anti-doping experts say if doesn't fit with your narrative, that doping is not widespread, is not at the top of sports and you even suggest it doesn't actually help them. Your reference to the Dark Ages was apt. It's where you reside.
The two of you are incapable of staying on-topic. Morons ruining threads.
I'm not so gullible as to believe everything I see on TV, ...
I never deny some extent of doping exists, and existed, ...
I never doubted that some athletes and coaches have a strong belief that doping is a path to success, and some might even believe it is the only path. Expressing a belief doesn't make it fact, no matter how charismatic the expresser, or how strong the belief.
As I have said, you insist on "data" to show the true extent of doping, when such data cannot exist unless all dopers are caught. Most aren't; most doping is invisible. Only 1-2% tests return a positive - essentially "the dumb and the careless", according to Richard Pound. So many more are doping than are caught.
You also say athletes merely "believe" doping will help them - by which you absurdly insist that it won't when you have no "data" on this, since no athletes who are doping participate in studies to measure its performance enhancing effects. Without that data you cannot state as a fact that they only suppose it will help them. You have no evidence to make that claim.
But if athletes believe doping will help them they will dope - in considerable numbers, as has been made clear by athletes and coaches; to them it's simply another tool to success.
Like most doping deniers the only thing you have any expertise in is fooling yourselves. But no one else.
We don't need data for you to answer what "extensive" means to you -- can you give me a ballpark range between 10% and 80%, and then explain why the Chinese records were untouchable for two decades, e.g. with 80% doping reported in 1996. Using non-quantitative words like "extent" and "rife" and "widespread" lend itself to a wide spectrum of interpretations -- some which support and some which contradict you.
You should insist on data too. If the data doesn't exist you simply cannot draw your conclusions, only baseless suppositions exposing your gullibilty.
I do have all-time performance data, and anti-doping report data, and several dozen studies, which support the claims I make (as opposed to the claims you say I make).
I agree with you that if many athletes believe in doping, many will dope in considerable numbers.
