Wait a minute! Over 40% of letsrun visitors DON'T think El G was doped up?

This survey is garbage. Letsrun is a joke.

This thread is stupid. All of these idiots who expect everyone to agree with them.

TLW wrote:

It's important to understand the current viewership of this website.

It's obvious that the MAJORITY of posters are now college age or younger. They didn't follow the sport in the EL G era. They don't know when the EPO test was invented. They have no clue there was a span of nearly a decade when EPO was totally undetectable.

How is this obvious? Stop pretending you have any idea what the age demographics of letsrun are.

bigtool05 wrote:

How is this obvious? Stop pretending you have any idea what the age demographics of letsrun are.

It's obvious for two reasons:

1) The demographic that used to go to Dyestat, now comes here since the legit Dyestat forum is gone. Note the many immature posts by users who are obviously young.

2) There is almost no intelligent discussion from the El G era regarding racing, athletes, etc because the majority demographic did not follow the sport than.

TLW wrote:

RRRR wrote:

Webb ran no better when he "leaned out" under Salazar.

Wrong.

Webb ran 13:36 at the Silicon Valley Turkey Trot and beat Rupp. 13:36 on the roads in November beating Rupp at 5k was IMO his last elite level performance.

13:36 is not as good as 3:46.

A lot of runners in the 90s were doping. In my opinion the human limit for the mile is 3:45 without PEDs.

I believe Steve Cram could have done it with better pacing and a race on his hands. I believe Jim Ryun could have done it on a modern track with a pacer. I believe El G was a legit 3:45 miler but only a 3:43 miler with the help of PEDs.

Here's something interesting - the times from the dirt tracks in the 60s are supposedly worth about 2-3% faster on a modern track with modern spikes. If you look at a vast majority of elite milers today, and convert their times to the dirt track equivalent, they are remarkably similar to what the guys in the 60s were doing (mid to high 3:50s for the mile).

Which people? The 60% or the 40%?

Doped up again wrote:

Are people naive or just plain stupid?

The clean/dirty pole has been an epic waste for sure.

Morris wrote:

This survey is garbage. Letsrun is a joke.

TLW wrote:

bigtool05 wrote:

How is this obvious? Stop pretending you have any idea what the age demographics of letsrun are.

It's obvious for two reasons:

1) The demographic that used to go to Dyestat, now comes here since the legit Dyestat forum is gone. Note the many immature posts by users who are obviously young.

2) There is almost no intelligent discussion from the El G era regarding racing, athletes, etc because the majority demographic did not follow the sport than.

TLW, the only thing obvious here is that you don't know what "obvious" means. There is no way you can know what the demographics of lets run are.

Naive or not- he never got caught so the anyone how "knows" he was doped is stupid.

tlw is obviously dumb wrote:

There is no way you can know what the demographics of lets run are.

It's in the polls you idiot. Do you think people massively lie about their age in an anonymous poll?

Many people do. Do some simple research on this subject. This survey is unscientific garbage.

* wrote:

And over 70% thought Bekele was clean and over 60% thought Komen was clean.

The northern Africans must seem more supicious than eastern Africans.

Not sure why you think K Bekele doped. He is still running at a high level and NEVER been busted. El G stopped his career early. BIG difference. Unless your reasoning is "every WR holder is doped." In that case you are a lost cause as a human being.

I told them the first time their poll design was worthless. There is no way to interpret the results.

If 56 hit dirty for El G and 44 percent clean, what does it tell you about what the people were thinking? The poll included no instructions for how a respondent should interpret the vague question, which they all must do because 0% of them really know one way or the other.

Maybe the 44% decided to vote clean unless proven dirty. Maybe they voted clean unless from Communist country. Many likely were biased against sprinters.

On other other hand, maybe the 56% were thinking everyone's dirty except those who are convincingly clean, and that El G was only possibly dirty.

There's way to know, because the question was not specific enough. The only way a poll like that can have value is tenure. If it was done once a month for 10 years and carefully adjusted for demographic changes, then it could show a general trend, but its values at any particular time would still be meaningless.

All it really says is "around 56 percent of visitors to a website of questionable reputation think that El G is either dirty, or probably dirty, or might be dirty, or hasn't proven for sure that he is clean, or don't know, or like calling him dirty just for fun."

calc ulon wrote:

TLW wrote:

Wrong.

Webb ran 13:36 at the Silicon Valley Turkey Trot and beat Rupp. 13:36 on the roads in November beating Rupp at 5k was IMO his last elite level performance.

13:36 is not as good as 3:46.

Thanks, you beat me to the same reply. TLW, the 13:36 in a November road race was very impressive, but nowhere near as impressive as Webb's 3:46, or his 1:43 the same year.

We have no idea what Webb would have done during outdoor track that season had he stayed with Salazar, but I'm hardly wrong in saying that he performed no more impressively "leaned out", than he did when he had the extra weight under Raczko.

I agree with you. Obviously 3:46 is superior to 13:36.

I think Webb was getting back on track with Salazar evidenced by his 13:36 (more importantly beating Rupp).

sbeefyk1 wrote:

* wrote:

And over 70% thought Bekele was clean and over 60% thought Komen was clean.

The northern Africans must seem more supicious than eastern Africans.

Not sure why you think K Bekele doped. He is still running at a high level and NEVER been busted. El G stopped his career early. BIG difference. Unless your reasoning is "every WR holder is doped." In that case you are a lost cause as a human being.

How would that make someone a "lost cause as a human being"? It would at least make sense. We know for a fact that a lot of World Record and championship-winning performances have been achieved by dopers. We know for a fact that effective doping has been going on for decades. Now, when someone comes along and beats a record that was set by the latest in a long line of dopers, and somebody chooses to conclude that that athlete must have been doping too, well, you might disagree, but you could hardly blame them too harshly for reaching that conclusion. It definitely seems just as reasonable as saying, well, I do believe the athlete was clean, because they said so, or because they have spoken out against drugs, or because they have been successful for a long time, etc.

Or perhaps you totally unaware of the history of doping in sports?

bigtool05 wrote:

TLW wrote:

It's important to understand the current viewership of this website.

It's obvious that the MAJORITY of posters are now college age or younger. They didn't follow the sport in the EL G era. They don't know when the EPO test was invented. They have no clue there was a span of nearly a decade when EPO was totally undetectable.

How is this obvious? Stop pretending you have any idea what the age demographics of letsrun are.

The demographics are included in the survey.

By far the highest proportion of voters, who provided their ages, were in the bitter and twisted 25-34 age group. 61% of them said dirty.

Bad Wigins wrote:

....

All it really says is "around 56 percent of visitors to a website of questionable reputation think that El G is either dirty, or probably dirty, or might be dirty, or hasn't proven for sure that he is clean, or don't know, or like calling him dirty just for fun."

+1

At best, that's all it says.