Kiplimo Should Now Be Accussed of Cheating To The Same Extent as Ruth C

longjacksss wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Every performance now raises the same questions. The debate is over. Nothing in the sport can now be trusted.

i never trusted the times after Viren's reindeer juice jkass escapade. There was no even playing field for that one, he was the only one in the field in seventy two, and the top performers from new zealand and foster had no idea to blood dope. Europeans caught on around seventy six, and the bronze medal 76 5K guy may have had access to the Finns protocol

I was also taught way back in the day, and this was matter of fact statement from an Olympic team coach, that all throwers were on steroids, plain and simple, same era, player said most every college gave steroids in the two he played for, the coaches handed steroids out like candy. the athletes talked freely about it, just like Aouita did when he went to Australia, except, he had zero clue that the public there had zero idea, nada

Also, the same coach, with the "wisdom" of the day though steroids had no use in middle and long distance due to the bulking up factor. I never bought into that idea for a second. I was reflex thinking, steroids would be good for injury or illness... and speed,

Fast forward to today, in the press, public, and on the boards, we;re talking a huge ensemble, access and sophistication. Much of this stuff is over the counter in 3rd world, know first hand this year.

so we're talking a sucker born every minute, the ongoing naive posts demonstrate ridiculous baseline of non info . and this naivety goes all the way to the top here.

Brojo can go on EPO and test and do a three month cycle and come back. knowing at least the first very basics of the topic they spend an inordinate amount of time on

Armstronglivs wrote:

The role played by doping in every sport is the single most compelling argument that it aids performance. It has been practised for decades and has extended to all sports in all countries, all ages and especially amongst professional athletes. To conclude that doping doesn't aid performance (because no elite doped athletes have submitted themselves to analysis and so blown their cover) is to take the position that athletes (not to mention their coaches, trainers and physicians) are non-rational actors and have been so since the practice began. If doping doesn't work then experience has taught them nothing. (And that includes the experience of generations of athletes who have doped. It also means antidoping have no reason to be concerned about the "potential" for drugs to aid performance - since you know that drugs don't). You, on the other hand, have no experience of the practice and yet claim to know that athletes can no more be confident that drugs aid performance (even when they use them) than they can be sure the Almighty exists. If you were able to see for a moment past the vanity of your presuming to know better than those with experience (and experience that you don't have) you might grasp the intellectual absurdity of your position. But no chance.

VIPAM wrote:

rappatic wrote:

There’s a difference between taking fractions of a second off a relatively recent 3000m record or breaking a 5000m record that is now old enough to drink, and what just happened with Kiplimo breaking his 10k PR en route to shattering 1.3% off an already strong record, or Ruth coming out of nowhere to take minutes off the marathon record.

....

You obviously don't follow the sportor you just like to bathe in your own rhetoric. Anyone who recently gave won 2 World X Country titles have went on to become one of the best ever or currently fulfilling their potential: Kenenisa Bekele, Faith Kipyegon, Joshua Cheptegei, Letesenbet Giday etc.

Kiplimo has excelled on grass and roads but have unperformed on the track. So it's no shocker he ran such a time on the roads.

As far as Ruth she didn't come out of nowhere, I fact she had at least 2 other marathons in which she went out 2:11 to 2:09 pace couldn't hold on. It was just a matter of adjusting training and a little luck it all came together in her WR.

'Enuff Said

rekrunner wrote:

SB wrote:

This is a little evidence that you don't really bother to read other posts, let alone register their content if they don't approach the problem from exactly the angle you demand that they must-- the empirical evidence of scientific research or comparative long term performance data.

This is simply old fashioned logical positivism (i.e. wherein there are only "facts and values"-- that which is not a measurable fact is simply an expression of someone's values).

In your world, there is no room for other hypotheses, based on other, non-empirical observations, the most compelling of which is that, whatever you happen to think, people with with actual skin in the game appear to be utterly convinced that O2 vector doping works. Until we can hear honestly and directly from them (and we likely never will), there is no way to know what evidence has convinced them of this. And your hypothesis that they are all simply operating on "faith" is highly unconvincing, just as any hypothesis that is based on the assumption of long term, widespread mass stupidity is bound to be faulty.

You may find your own comparative performance statistics convincing, but lots of statistical models turn out to misapprehend reality is fundamental ways. I give you for instance: The "science" of economics.

Anyway, my point in linking that study was to show that it was possible to deny, with recourse to objective facts (research data) that a technique that athletes know full well improves performance, was actually effective. I'm sure those scientists would have said "show me the data" or you're wrong, right before they had to admit that practical reality (i.e. massive increases in the weightlifting world records) had proven them wrong. And, sorry, it would not have been necessary to show that everyone who used anabolics, at all times and in all places, got the same results in order to show that they were driving average performance through the roof.

I do read most all the posts, although I did not read your anabolic steroids report past the title, and you did not really explain what it was supposed to say. The problem is that I raise very specific doubts, and none of the posts really address those doubts.

If you are offended calling it faith, we can call it hypothesis. Sure there is room for hypothesis, but we must understand that this is hypothesis waiting to be confirmed by facts and evidence and empirical observations, rather than taking it for granted that hypothesis has evolved to conclusion by popular vote, skipping these necessary elements. Lacking that, we could consider what we "hear honestly and directly from them", but then you say "we likely never will". So the current status is "hypothesis" or "hypothetical conclusion".

I have no doubt that "people with with actual skin in the game appear to be utterly convinced that O2 vector doping works". (To me, they appear to have faith, and you appear to have faith in them.) The next step for me is accumulating facts and evidence and empirical and controlled observations. You called it earlier "trial and error", but you act like it is really "trial and success". I know too well the role of confounders and placebos which may lead one to falsely confirm their hypothesis, especially if they are not controlling any of the variables and confounders.

But even then, if O2 vector doping really worked the way you conclude, we could see it, as you say "driving average performance through the roof" -- something easily empirically observed in running to anyone with a stopwatch. This was my motivation to see what happened "in the real world", rather than in the lab. We should also see it making the fastest performances faster (the underlying premise of this thread is that smashing this world record is only possible through doping -- yet it is still hypothesis that doping is even a potential candidate). Yet for most of the world -- the 5 non-African contintents -- from 1988 through 2017, before the era of supershoes, we saw very little progress at the top, both in the number of fast athletes, and the magnitude of progress. We could hypothesize that for these 5-continents, doping in the EPO-era was not much better than doping in the 1980s, but even this new hypothesis doesn't really answer which doping, and whether it worked in the 1980s, and how much it worked, and how it worked, and for whom.

SB wrote:

There's what you're calling "faith" and then there's rational conviction. Considering the stakes involved in a failed doping test, particularly for already highly ranked athletes, I would trust that agents and athletes who are willing to run the risks of doping are acting on rational conviction and not "faith".

Again, we don't know for certain what the bases for that rational conviction are-- and we may never know-- but the continued willingness of people to undertake the risk of doping is prima facie factual support for its efficacy in boosting performance-- not proof, because proof either way is very hard to come by-- but strong support for the hypothesis.

And I don't know why you consider your comparative performance data to be so compelling when it comes to sowing doubt about the effectiveness of 02 vector doping. There could well have been widespread blood boosting in countries that nevertheless showed flat or even negative performance increases (e.g. Russian of Chinese men), because these benefits could have been cancelled out by other factors, such as declining participation in particular sports. Likewise the opposite trends in countries wherein it is reasonable to suspect there was no doping going on (e..g. Japan, which has never had a positive test for EPO) could have led to an increase in overall performance that would not be attributable to doping. Neither scenario would necessarily bear meaningfully on the hypothesis that 02 vector doping improves performance. Back to the example of Russian men in particular, it's notable that their average life expectancy dropped catastrophically post-1992-- signs of a crisis in the lives of Russian men that would have undermined athletic performance even in the presence of otherwise effective state-supported doping, particularly in low-paying sports like athletics.

Such as it is, your "experimental design" is inadequate without a full, longitudinal, comparative sociology of sport for the countries whose average performances you are comparing. Without this, it is impossible to properly tease out the possible effects of doping on performance, because the performance data alone have too many other possible determinants. You've used this same complexity to argue that there no evidence doping works-- that others things could be driving performance-- but none of what you've said supports the hypothesis that doping does not drive performance in the way that the science suggests it should and that so many athletes in agents are convinced it does.