I think IAAF points comparisons are helpful here. Jacob Kiplimo's previously most impressive performance, in terms of IAAF points, was his 57:31 HM for 1288 points. This weekend's run was 1323 points. He jumped from a 1288 point performer to a 1323 point performer in one race.
Here's what similar jumps would look like:
800: 1:41.34 to 1:40.25
Mile: 3:43.44 to 3:40.85
5000m: 12:39.08 to 12:29.89
10,000m: 26:22.19 to 26:01.3
Although the 800 jump certainly makes many of last year's international performances seem suspect, these points comparisons show just how insanely huge a 1288 differs from a 1323. If Jakob, for example, broke 3:41 this summer, without preceding that performance with incremental improvements, I'd be just as suspicious about him as I am about Kiplimo. We should ask ourselves, not just for this performance, but for all performances, just how likely is this type of progression, compared with similar, elite athletes?
Every performance now raises the same questions. The debate is over. Nothing in the sport can now be trusted.
Do you mean questions like these:
Why is the faith in doping so strong in so many "fans", who are unable to provide any data or evidence?
What is the new drug alleged to exist that is bringing about all these record breaking performances in the "super shoe era"?
Do baseless allegations help, or hurt, the sport?
I outright disagree with you. In fact, forget opinions, you are laughably factually wrong.
Faith in ubiquitous doping is strong because of prodigious evidence of confirmed doping. Countless doping positive tests are prevalent in Kenya. Several former stars have been caught; such as Kiprop, Ramzi, Katir, Tyson Gay, Marion Jones, too many more to name. The data and evidence not only exists, but is readily available and findable for anyone who wants to verify it.
Your second point is bad too. There could very well be a new drug or drugs that are not widely known by the general public. It’s an explanation and absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence. However it’s a non relevant point, because we know of plenty of examples of athletes who were not caught for years, but when they finally did it was with a substance that is already well known. The better question is; how are athletes able to so easily evade positive tests? We know that until recently testing in Kenya was practically nonexistent and there is a lot of alleged corruption and cover up in Jamaica and Russia.
When you look at the facts, nobody is flinging baseless evidence. The naive take that you have is that the sport is clean despite mountains of evidence that it is not.
Even if Jacob and Ruth both are doping, I find it easier to root for Jacob than Ruth. Jacob is a real racer who races multiple distances often and at a high level. Ruth had one comically fast race and basically is a marathon specialist.
Joy Reid, go back to MSNBC where people are dumb enough to listen to you.
Can someone smart enough explain why Kiplimo and Ruth cannot be clean?
Here are some reasons.
- ~1.3% improvement on the previous world record.
- Track 10k pr twice in a row.
- Did not even look out of breath after finishing.
We have seen rapid improvements like this over the last couple years however at the moment, smashing the WR like this can not be explained by good training and new shoes. The shoes have not improved significantly from last year to this year. Furthermore at the same time we can see the same thing happening in cycling with Pogacar and Vingegaard breaking all time power and time records without even looking winded(same as Kiplimo here).
Can someone smart enough explain why Kiplimo and Ruth cannot be clean?
Here are some reasons.
- ~1.3% improvement on the previous world record.
- Track 10k pr twice in a row.
- Did not even look out of breath after finishing.
We have seen rapid improvements like this over the last couple years however at the moment, smashing the WR like this can not be explained by good training and new shoes. The shoes have not improved significantly from last year to this year. Furthermore at the same time we can see the same thing happening in cycling with Pogacar and Vingegaard breaking all time power and time records without even looking winded(same as Kiplimo here).
True. But....I will say tadej and Jonas do appear to be on death's door when they win. They are destroyed. But yes, they are doing it too much better than competition.
Why is the faith in doping so strong in so many "fans", who are unable to provide any data or evidence?
What is the new drug alleged to exist that is bringing about all these record breaking performances in the "super shoe era"?
Do baseless allegations help, or hurt, the sport?
I outright disagree with you. In fact, forget opinions, you are laughably factually wrong.
Faith in ubiquitous doping is strong because of prodigious evidence of confirmed doping. Countless doping positive tests are prevalent in Kenya. Several former stars have been caught; such as Kiprop, Ramzi, Katir, Tyson Gay, Marion Jones, too many more to name. The data and evidence not only exists, but is readily available and findable for anyone who wants to verify it.
Your second point is bad too. There could very well be a new drug or drugs that are not widely known by the general public. It’s an explanation and absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence. However it’s a non relevant point, because we know of plenty of examples of athletes who were not caught for years, but when they finally did it was with a substance that is already well known. The better question is; how are athletes able to so easily evade positive tests? We know that until recently testing in Kenya was practically nonexistent and there is a lot of alleged corruption and cover up in Jamaica and Russia.
When you look at the facts, nobody is flinging baseless evidence. The naive take that you have is that the sport is clean despite mountains of evidence that it is not.
Bear in mind that you're replying to someone who would concede the point that many athletes have tested positive, but counter with claims that: 1. Some of them weren't actually doping and were railroaded by the system (e.g. Shelby H.); or 2. Were not actually receiving a performance boost from the drugs they were taking.
The fact that athletes and their agents clearly want to continue using these drugs, believing that they can improve performance, counts for nothing according to him. They are willing to risk everything to use these drugs (02 vector drug in particular), but he thinks they, like the rest of us, are all wrong about their benefits. For him, the existence of overwhelming circumstantial evidence of illicit performance-boosting-- such as preposterous one-time improvements in already super fast world records-- counts for nothing.
You will never win this argument with him. He's a tendentious pettifogger who only accepts arguments that operate within the framework of assumptions he adduces. For him, 02 vector doping shouldn't work, based on the available science, so it therefore doesn't work. For him, the ongoing fact that athletes and agents continue to risk everything in order to use these drugs is NOT evidence that they probably DO work, despite what the existing science might say. The possibility that the science has not caught up with the reality does not exist for him, which is pretty insane when one considers the entire history of doping in sport. Doping always starts with trial and error by athletes and coaches, based on their rough hypotheses about what certain compounds might do in the body, with the more effective techniques being adopted and the less effective ones going by the wayside. Lab-based science only ever discovers what works, and how it actually works, after the fact, if at all (e.g. the first lab experiments on anabolics concluded that there were not effective in building strength
I outright disagree with you. In fact, forget opinions, you are laughably factually wrong.
Faith in ubiquitous doping is strong because of prodigious evidence of confirmed doping. Countless doping positive tests are prevalent in Kenya. Several former stars have been caught; such as Kiprop, Ramzi, Katir, Tyson Gay, Marion Jones, too many more to name. The data and evidence not only exists, but is readily available and findable for anyone who wants to verify it.
Your second point is bad too. There could very well be a new drug or drugs that are not widely known by the general public. It’s an explanation and absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence. However it’s a non relevant point, because we know of plenty of examples of athletes who were not caught for years, but when they finally did it was with a substance that is already well known. The better question is; how are athletes able to so easily evade positive tests? We know that until recently testing in Kenya was practically nonexistent and there is a lot of alleged corruption and cover up in Jamaica and Russia.
When you look at the facts, nobody is flinging baseless evidence. The naive take that you have is that the sport is clean despite mountains of evidence that it is not.
Bear in mind that you're replying to someone who would concede the point that many athletes have tested positive, but counter with claims that: 1. Some of them weren't actually doping and were railroaded by the system (e.g. Shelby H.); or 2. Were not actually receiving a performance boost from the drugs they were taking.
The fact that athletes and their agents clearly want to continue using these drugs, believing that they can improve performance, counts for nothing according to him. They are willing to risk everything to use these drugs (02 vector drug in particular), but he thinks they, like the rest of us, are all wrong about their benefits. For him, the existence of overwhelming circumstantial evidence of illicit performance-boosting-- such as preposterous one-time improvements in already super fast world records-- counts for nothing.
You will never win this argument with him. He's a tendentious pettifogger who only accepts arguments that operate within the framework of assumptions he adduces. For him, 02 vector doping shouldn't work, based on the available science, so it therefore doesn't work. For him, the ongoing fact that athletes and agents continue to risk everything in order to use these drugs is NOT evidence that they probably DO work, despite what the existing science might say. The possibility that the science has not caught up with the reality does not exist for him, which is pretty insane when one considers the entire history of doping in sport. Doping always starts with trial and error by athletes and coaches, based on their rough hypotheses about what certain compounds might do in the body, with the more effective techniques being adopted and the less effective ones going by the wayside. Lab-based science only ever discovers what works, and how it actually works, after the fact, if at all (e.g. the first lab experiments on anabolics concluded that there were not effective in building strength
I outright disagree with you. In fact, forget opinions, you are laughably factually wrong.
Faith in ubiquitous doping is strong because of prodigious evidence of confirmed doping. Countless doping positive tests are prevalent in Kenya. Several former stars have been caught; such as Kiprop, Ramzi, Katir, Tyson Gay, Marion Jones, too many more to name. The data and evidence not only exists, but is readily available and findable for anyone who wants to verify it.
Your second point is bad too. There could very well be a new drug or drugs that are not widely known by the general public. It’s an explanation and absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence. However it’s a non relevant point, because we know of plenty of examples of athletes who were not caught for years, but when they finally did it was with a substance that is already well known. The better question is; how are athletes able to so easily evade positive tests? We know that until recently testing in Kenya was practically nonexistent and there is a lot of alleged corruption and cover up in Jamaica and Russia.
When you look at the facts, nobody is flinging baseless evidence. The naive take that you have is that the sport is clean despite mountains of evidence that it is not.
You may disagree with me, but I am not factually wrong.
What is missing from your post is any reference to elite performance data that can be reliably attributed to doping that would be impossible without doping.
"prodigious evidence of confirmed doping" is evidence of "faith in doping", and not evidence of unnatural performance.
Selected examples of former stars being caught is evidence that former stars, or their coach/agent/doctor/husband/etc. had "faith" in doping. Both fast and slow athletes dope. But this doesn't establish that doping made them faster, or that other faster athletes are doping.
"not widely known" is another way of saying "faith".
It is irrelevant to me how athletes evade positive tests, as this will not provide the necessary performance data. Discussing testing at all is not relevant until it is established how relevant doping is to these elite distance performances. We take it on faith that the result of the best doping-performance studies, can be applied to the best performances of elite athletes. We take it on faith that athletes caught doping were unnaturally faster because of doping.
The premise of this whole thread, and many others, is that doping is necessary to produce fast performances like Kiplimo's and Ruth's -- this is a faith-based premise not based on any relevant performance data or evidence.
I'm happy to look at the facts, if you can provide some relevant ones.
- Did not even look out of breath after finishing.
We have seen rapid improvements like this over the last couple years however at the moment, smashing the WR like this can not be explained by good training and new shoes. The shoes have not improved significantly from last year to this year. Furthermore at the same time we can see the same thing happening in cycling with Pogacar and Vingegaard breaking all time power and time records without even looking winded(same as Kiplimo here).
These reasons are incomplete, and simply presume doping, in order to conclude it. I find these circular fallacies unpersuasive.
How are these reasons explained at all by doping? How are they only explained by doping?
Are Pogacar and Vingegaard doping? Can doping explain all time power and time records withotu even looking winded?
Kiplimo ran and won a classy commonwealth games 10000 in 2022. It has no prize money and isn't really worth anything on the remuneration cv. So maybe he has some "honour".
Perhaps more notable, he earned a big WR bonus yesterday but unless I'm reliably told otherwise, that WR bonus is the same whatever the margin. Therefore if we assume that athletes dope cynically to maximise income, surely with c 3k to go he would have dialled back the pace and left some margin for future WRs. Broadly a la Bubka/Isinbayeva tho obvs the details of HM vs pole vault not identical.
I'm not saying I would bet the farm on him being clean, far from it, but I don't simply equate amazing results with cheating.
He will have been in the ABP pool for, I'd guess, at least 4 years.
I outright disagree with you. In fact, forget opinions, you are laughably factually wrong.
Faith in ubiquitous doping is strong because of prodigious evidence of confirmed doping. Countless doping positive tests are prevalent in Kenya. Several former stars have been caught; such as Kiprop, Ramzi, Katir, Tyson Gay, Marion Jones, too many more to name. The data and evidence not only exists, but is readily available and findable for anyone who wants to verify it.
Your second point is bad too. There could very well be a new drug or drugs that are not widely known by the general public. It’s an explanation and absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence. However it’s a non relevant point, because we know of plenty of examples of athletes who were not caught for years, but when they finally did it was with a substance that is already well known. The better question is; how are athletes able to so easily evade positive tests? We know that until recently testing in Kenya was practically nonexistent and there is a lot of alleged corruption and cover up in Jamaica and Russia.
When you look at the facts, nobody is flinging baseless evidence. The naive take that you have is that the sport is clean despite mountains of evidence that it is not.
You may disagree with me, but I am not factually wrong.
What is missing from your post is any reference to elite performance data that can be reliably attributed to doping that would be impossible without doping.
"prodigious evidence of confirmed doping" is evidence of "faith in doping", and not evidence of unnatural performance.
Selected examples of former stars being caught is evidence that former stars, or their coach/agent/doctor/husband/etc. had "faith" in doping. Both fast and slow athletes dope. But this doesn't establish that doping made them faster, or that other faster athletes are doping.
"not widely known" is another way of saying "faith".
It is irrelevant to me how athletes evade positive tests, as this will not provide the necessary performance data. Discussing testing at all is not relevant until it is established how relevant doping is to these elite distance performances. We take it on faith that the result of the best doping-performance studies, can be applied to the best performances of elite athletes. We take it on faith that athletes caught doping were unnaturally faster because of doping.
The premise of this whole thread, and many others, is that doping is necessary to produce fast performances like Kiplimo's and Ruth's -- this is a faith-based premise not based on any relevant performance data or evidence.
I'm happy to look at the facts, if you can provide some relevant ones.
Thank you for promptly exemplifying everything I just claimed in my post above. This is a pristine example of your style of approach to this issue-- it's either statistical facts or its "faith". This is a false, self-serving dichotomy. Facts come in many forms. In this particular instance, they may not be conclusive, but they are compelling.
This post was edited 35 seconds after it was posted.
Thank you for promptly exemplifying everything I just claimed in my post above. This is a pristine example of your style of approach to this issue-- it's either statistical facts or its "faith". This is a false, self-serving dichotomy. Facts come in many forms. In this particular instance, they may not be conclusive, but they are compelling.
Where are the performance facts?
You got a great deal wrong about me and my arguments -- you are not alone.
I outright disagree with you. In fact, forget opinions, you are laughably factually wrong.
Faith in ubiquitous doping is strong because of prodigious evidence of confirmed doping. Countless doping positive tests are prevalent in Kenya. Several former stars have been caught; such as Kiprop, Ramzi, Katir, Tyson Gay, Marion Jones, too many more to name. The data and evidence not only exists, but is readily available and findable for anyone who wants to verify it.
Your second point is bad too. There could very well be a new drug or drugs that are not widely known by the general public. It’s an explanation and absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence. However it’s a non relevant point, because we know of plenty of examples of athletes who were not caught for years, but when they finally did it was with a substance that is already well known. The better question is; how are athletes able to so easily evade positive tests? We know that until recently testing in Kenya was practically nonexistent and there is a lot of alleged corruption and cover up in Jamaica and Russia.
When you look at the facts, nobody is flinging baseless evidence. The naive take that you have is that the sport is clean despite mountains of evidence that it is not.
Bear in mind that you're replying to someone who would concede the point that many athletes have tested positive, but counter with claims that: 1. Some of them weren't actually doping and were railroaded by the system (e.g. Shelby H.); or 2. Were not actually receiving a performance boost from the drugs they were taking.
The fact that athletes and their agents clearly want to continue using these drugs, believing that they can improve performance, counts for nothing according to him. They are willing to risk everything to use these drugs (02 vector drug in particular), but he thinks they, like the rest of us, are all wrong about their benefits. For him, the existence of overwhelming circumstantial evidence of illicit performance-boosting-- such as preposterous one-time improvements in already super fast world records-- counts for nothing.
You will never win this argument with him. He's a tendentious pettifogger who only accepts arguments that operate within the framework of assumptions he adduces. For him, 02 vector doping shouldn't work, based on the available science, so it therefore doesn't work. For him, the ongoing fact that athletes and agents continue to risk everything in order to use these drugs is NOT evidence that they probably DO work, despite what the existing science might say. The possibility that the science has not caught up with the reality does not exist for him, which is pretty insane when one considers the entire history of doping in sport. Doping always starts with trial and error by athletes and coaches, based on their rough hypotheses about what certain compounds might do in the body, with the more effective techniques being adopted and the less effective ones going by the wayside. Lab-based science only ever discovers what works, and how it actually works, after the fact, if at all (e.g. the first lab experiments on anabolics concluded that there were not effective in building strength
I just read rekrunner’s response to my post from earlier, and you are absolutely right, this guy is hopeless. He seems impervious to any kind of rational argument. It’s like dialoguing with a brick wall. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is guy is posting from a padded cell in an insane asylum. Seems like a nut if you read his recent post. I won’t waste any more time responding to his posts. Thanks for the heads up bro.
Bear in mind that you're replying to someone who would concede the point that many athletes have tested positive, but counter with claims that: 1. Some of them weren't actually doping and were railroaded by the system (e.g. Shelby H.); or 2. Were not actually receiving a performance boost from the drugs they were taking.
The fact that athletes and their agents clearly want to continue using these drugs, believing that they can improve performance, counts for nothing according to him. They are willing to risk everything to use these drugs (02 vector drug in particular), but he thinks they, like the rest of us, are all wrong about their benefits. For him, the existence of overwhelming circumstantial evidence of illicit performance-boosting-- such as preposterous one-time improvements in already super fast world records-- counts for nothing.
You will never win this argument with him. He's a tendentious pettifogger who only accepts arguments that operate within the framework of assumptions he adduces. For him, 02 vector doping shouldn't work, based on the available science, so it therefore doesn't work. For him, the ongoing fact that athletes and agents continue to risk everything in order to use these drugs is NOT evidence that they probably DO work, despite what the existing science might say. The possibility that the science has not caught up with the reality does not exist for him, which is pretty insane when one considers the entire history of doping in sport. Doping always starts with trial and error by athletes and coaches, based on their rough hypotheses about what certain compounds might do in the body, with the more effective techniques being adopted and the less effective ones going by the wayside. Lab-based science only ever discovers what works, and how it actually works, after the fact, if at all (e.g. the first lab experiments on anabolics concluded that there were not effective in building strength
According to WADA reports, some 30% or more of positive tests do not result in ADRVs. Positive tests alone don't mean "doping".
I have no doubt athletes and agents "believe they can improve performance" using trial and error. The second part of "trial and error" is "error". We cannot be sure of the results of their "trials" and how much appetite they have for "error", given the low chance of being caught with proper risk management.
You refer to the example of "O2 vector drugs", and you wrongly suggest I argue that they cannot work. I do not argue that they cannot work, but ask if they did work. I also ask for performance data, and/or the best examples, suggesting that O2 vector doping "worked". I looked at nearly 30 years of EPO-era performances, wondering why it didn't seem to "work" so well for non-Africans, e.g. Russians and Spaniards, compared to East Africans and North Africans, with very few non-Africans from 5-continents outperforming the best performances of the '80s. I did not base my ideas on the science (although the collective doping-performance science is bad), or the lack thereof, but on the relative lack of better real-world performances -- i.e. the "reality" you suggest doesn't exist for me. Since then, in the last 7 years, performances have significantly improved, compared to the previous 28 years.
You curiously link a report on "androgens" -- I have expressed no doubts about steroids giving increased muscular strength, especially for women, in sprinting and throwing and jumping events, and more generally, events that require such muscular strength.
I just read rekrunner’s response to my post from earlier, and you are absolutely right, this guy is hopeless. He seems impervious to any kind of rational argument. It’s like dialoguing with a brick wall. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is guy is posting from a padded cell in an insane asylum. Seems like a nut if you read his recent post. I won’t waste any more time responding to his posts. Thanks for the heads up bro.
I would not be impervious to real performance data that would support the premise behind your otherwise baseless allegations.
No way he is clean. The course is probably short as some have already suggested, but if not he’s doped to the gills. We need to be fair and call it like it is. If 2:09 from a woman is unbelievable, then 56:41 is just as if not more impossible. We can’t be hypocrites here. The boards exploded with criticism after Ruth C ran 2:09.
Brojos, delay or even just permanently withhold a dedication page to Kiplimo. He does not deserve it. He’s now become the most obvious doper in our sport’s history. Let us not be fools here. All the biocarb and fancy shoe tech in the world cannot account for this.
Problem is: PROOF. Not until there is proof (they flunk a doping test, biological passport etc.) we can't do much about it other than beach and complain. Ce la vie!