Here's a fact, you can't live in the home of the Australian Institute of Sport, i.e. Canberra, and be a high profile athlete/sports person and get away with doping.
Many factors go in to making a top junior in comparison to back in the day, so hardly surprising there's always going to be one who comes along to be better to some degree.
Plenty of juniors fall by the wayside for one reason or another, just hope he can kick on with it and have a real crack as a senior.
FFS Armstrong, can you please stop it with your ad nauseum accusations of doping without proof, the moment someone runs an exceptional time? How about you wait until a person shows up positive and/or wait to see where his career ends up. There is no depth of field that makes junior running records at the same level as seniors, so it is no surprise that records get broken...same on other end of scale at masters level.
I wish someone accused by you sues you for all you have to teach you a lesson and shut you up. The 'annomity' of LRC ain't going to save you.
Cheers...your fellow antipodean who has gotten sick of your trolling
You must be aware that only a fraction of those doping actually get caught. Track and field are amongst the worst offenders for doping at the Olympics. If doping was confined to the numbers caught the sport wouldn't have a problem. But it does. That is so even in Australia - as much as that might be painful for you to hear.
I have essentially expressed the view that I am sceptical a 16 year old can run as fast as your local hero Elliott or Snell at their peak. He is also considerably faster at 16 than former greats like Coe, Ovett and Cram were at later ages - which adds to my scepticism. It is a legitimate view and as far as I am aware the board has a policy of allowing such views to be expressed because doping is known to be a major problem in running. What has kept the thread going are the howls of anger from those for whom such views are intolerable. As I said, if doping discussion were confined to those busted the problem of doping wouldn't exist. Yet it far exceeds the numbers caught and is known to occur at every level in the sport, from the recreational to professional and from schools to seniors. However, in the end my views are simply my opinions and others are free to disagree. But silencing views you don't like doesn't remove the problem from the sport.
Here's a fact, you can't live in the home of the Australian Institute of Sport, i.e. Canberra, and be a high profile athlete/sports person and get away with doping.
Many factors go in to making a top junior in comparison to back in the day, so hardly surprising there's always going to be one who comes along to be better to some degree.
Plenty of juniors fall by the wayside for one reason or another, just hope he can kick on with it and have a real crack as a senior.
If you know "for a fact" that you can't get away with doping in Canberra then you know those who have tried. Really? The fact is that you can get away with doping anywhere if you know how to do it. David Howman has acknowledged they can't catch most dopers. He says doping is "more sophisticated" than antidoping. And doping is what it takes now to get to the top.
FFS Armstrong, can you please stop it with your ad nauseum accusations of doping without proof, the moment someone runs an exceptional time? How about you wait until a person shows up positive and/or wait to see where his career ends up. There is no depth of field that makes junior running records at the same level as seniors, so it is no surprise that records get broken...same on other end of scale at masters level.
I wish someone accused by you sues you for all you have to teach you a lesson and shut you up. The 'annomity' of LRC ain't going to save you.
Cheers...your fellow antipodean who has gotten sick of your trolling
You must be aware that only a fraction of those doping actually get caught. Track and field are amongst the worst offenders for doping at the Olympics. If doping was confined to the numbers caught the sport wouldn't have a problem. But it does. That is so even in Australia - as much as that might be painful for you to hear.
I have essentially expressed the view that I am sceptical a 16 year old can run as fast as your local hero Elliott or Snell at their peak. He is also considerably faster at 16 than former greats like Coe, Ovett and Cram were at later ages - which adds to my scepticism. It is a legitimate view and as far as I am aware the board has a policy of allowing such views to be expressed because doping is known to be a major problem in running. What has kept the thread going are the howls of anger from those for whom such views are intolerable. As I said, if doping discussion were confined to those busted the problem of doping wouldn't exist. Yet it far exceeds the numbers caught and is known to occur at every level in the sport, from the recreational to professional and from schools to seniors. However, in the end my views are simply my opinions and others are free to disagree. But silencing views you don't like doesn't remove the problem from the sport.
The problem is not that you expose your view. Do it once and leave. The problem is that you never shut up and ruin good threads.
This thread is about Cameron's training. Some of us are interested in that.
Global human population (billions) by year (with name of runner born that year):
1947 (Jim Ryun): ~2.5
1955 (Steve Ovett): 2.8
1960 (Steve Cram): 3.0
2006 (Cameron Myers): 6.6
The human population more than doubled since the births of Jim Ryun, Steve Ovett, and Steve Cram to the birth of Cameron Myers. Even with the same-shaped normal distribution curve, shouldn't we expect more than twice as many outliers, because there is a bigger population represented by the curve?
That argument doesn't work. For example, the normal Bell curve of human intelligence applies regardless of the size of population. The same will apply to the upper limits of physical and athletic potential. The best will always be much the same as the best wherever and whenever they occur, even if there might be more of them in bigger populations. But my point is that we are not seeing youngsters coming through who show similar potential to the greats of the past; they are far better and at a much younger age. In sports where doping plays a dominant factor - which is athletics - the logical conclusion is obvious. There is likely much more at play today than natural talent and training.
You must be aware that only a fraction of those doping actually get caught. Track and field are amongst the worst offenders for doping at the Olympics. If doping was confined to the numbers caught the sport wouldn't have a problem. But it does. That is so even in Australia - as much as that might be painful for you to hear.
I have essentially expressed the view that I am sceptical a 16 year old can run as fast as your local hero Elliott or Snell at their peak. He is also considerably faster at 16 than former greats like Coe, Ovett and Cram were at later ages - which adds to my scepticism. It is a legitimate view and as far as I am aware the board has a policy of allowing such views to be expressed because doping is known to be a major problem in running. What has kept the thread going are the howls of anger from those for whom such views are intolerable. As I said, if doping discussion were confined to those busted the problem of doping wouldn't exist. Yet it far exceeds the numbers caught and is known to occur at every level in the sport, from the recreational to professional and from schools to seniors. However, in the end my views are simply my opinions and others are free to disagree. But silencing views you don't like doesn't remove the problem from the sport.
The problem is not that you expose your view. Do it once and leave. The problem is that you never shut up and ruin good threads.
This thread is about Cameron's training. Some of us are interested in that.
Start your own thread about your suspicions.
My comments are in response to those who choose to dispute my arguments. What advice would you give them?
You must be aware that only a fraction of those doping actually get caught. Track and field are amongst the worst offenders for doping at the Olympics. If doping was confined to the numbers caught the sport wouldn't have a problem. But it does. That is so even in Australia - as much as that might be painful for you to hear.
I have essentially expressed the view that I am sceptical a 16 year old can run as fast as your local hero Elliott or Snell at their peak. He is also considerably faster at 16 than former greats like Coe, Ovett and Cram were at later ages - which adds to my scepticism. It is a legitimate view and as far as I am aware the board has a policy of allowing such views to be expressed because doping is known to be a major problem in running. What has kept the thread going are the howls of anger from those for whom such views are intolerable. As I said, if doping discussion were confined to those busted the problem of doping wouldn't exist. Yet it far exceeds the numbers caught and is known to occur at every level in the sport, from the recreational to professional and from schools to seniors. However, in the end my views are simply my opinions and others are free to disagree. But silencing views you don't like doesn't remove the problem from the sport.
The problem is not that you expose your view. Do it once and leave. The problem is that you never shut up and ruin good threads.
This thread is about Cameron's training. Some of us are interested in that.
Start your own thread about your suspicions.
His training, btw, was described as fairly light - about 60mpw. I would expect 16 year olds all over Australia to be running 3.55.
Doping in Australian track and field is less of an issue than in many countries but as we have seen very recently it occurs. As we have also seen very recently it's bloody hard to nail the pwicks.
Elliott on modern tracks with the recent modern shoe technology probably runs sub 3.50. So not really fair to compare their times.
It is a freakish performance and I always worry about those.
P.S. The bloke down the road from me ran 3.42 1500 as an 18 year old mid 1970s. Didn't make it to international level think maybe 28 something for 10k his best effort.
The problem is not that you expose your view. Do it once and leave. The problem is that you never shut up and ruin good threads.
This thread is about Cameron's training. Some of us are interested in that.
Start your own thread about your suspicions.
My comments are in response to those who choose to dispute my arguments. What advice would you give them?
No. Most people have a different opinion to you. Your arguments are not facts, they are opinion and accusations without proof. You made you opinion, then leave it at thatb , others think differently
My comments are in response to those who choose to dispute my arguments. What advice would you give them?
No. Most people have a different opinion to you. Your arguments are not facts, they are opinion and accusations without proof. You made you opinion, then leave it at thatb , others think differently
There is no proof of doping without a confirmed violation. So that would end speculation if your views were to apply. But you have no answer to my question and no advice to those who take issue with what I say. Like you. I wouldn't be engaged in debate without opposition.