Su Bingtian 100m progression

TeenageBoy! wrote:

Wow, a normal progression! He must be clean!

Thank-you for proving that you are a moran.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Unless you don't believe that PED's work in sprinting, you cannot so readily dismiss sprint progression as mere correlation, with athletes who are known to have used.

BY DEFINITION, some of their improvement is due to the PED's--that is the enhancement of performance. It is not unreasonable to expect to find a PED marker in that progression.

It would be very handy, however, if it was as cut-and-dried as a 0.40 or 0.50 improvement over 2 years, that resulted in vaulting an athlete from obscurity to one of the best in the world.

Unlike the valuable criticism from the other poster about my methodology being weak, your criticism seems to me to be invalid.

I can, and did. PEDs react differently with different runners, injuries prevent athletes from progressing or realising their potential, athletes change coaching set ups or lose motivation. There are hundreds of different factors that go into progressions and there are thousands of sprinters each with a different progression, some are clean and some are dirty.

Clayton Murphy improved by 12 seconds in three years in the 800m. An insane improvement. Akin to dropping 1.5 seconds in the 100m down to 9.90 or so. Nothing can be drawn from that.

Unless you have ANY evidence that your method controls for all the other factors involved in an athletes progression, you simply cannot draw any conclusions from the data. There's no scientific method to it whatsoever

Basic Magakwe:

2007 10.71 21yrs

2009 10.26 23yrs

0.45 improvement over 2 years.

Wrong. All else being equal for an individual sprinter, PED’s result in a faster time. That time is reflected in 100m SB progression, which is to say that it is responsible for at least some of the improvement shown in both the progression increments, as well as the progression end-point.

The only actual issue is how to isolate the benefit gained from PED’s from other sources of benefit. This is difficult because not all users have been caught, so there is no infallible clean control group.

Having said that, a factor that would weaken this analysis would be a timing anomaly, such as might occur in Eugene* or Clermont*, if and only if the 2nd-year time or subsequent lifetime best clocking came at such a facility, in a race that had demonstrably suspicious timing.

I’m not sure, but I don’t believe any of the 2nd-year time or subsequent lifetime best performance examples that I used were delivered at those facilities.

This thread got taken to Sprintgeezer University. These fools don't know who they were messing with!

You cannot say all else is equal though can you. That was my entire point.

There is absolutely no way to control for any other factor other than gender maybe.

You can't look at a progression of a runner and say "he she is doping". It's just not possible. Lots of dopers only improved incrementally over a long period of time.

PEDs work, I agree. But so does training. So does getting injured and not running for 3 months. It's just impossible to know anything useful from a progression unless you know an athletes life intimately.

ex-runner wrote:

Clayton Murphy improved by 12 seconds in three years in the 800m. An insane improvement. Akin to dropping 1.5 seconds in the 100m down to 9.90 or so. Nothing can be drawn from that.

Because Murphy has never tested positive. With the exceptions I noted, my examples have.

I never claimed that what I wrote was scientific. I know, I ran a research office. This is neither a scientific board, nor an outlet for peer-reviewed science. I made observations and related them to my stated BELIEF that there might be a 0.5-second-over-1 or 2 years improvement signature for users, if it takes them from oblivion to world-beating status.

At this point, there is no scientific support for the reasonableness of my belief, but that’s not the point. There are people whose job it is to do the good science, and there are those people who generate discussion and sometimes the impetus for that scientific research and analysis. There is not only the room for, but also the necessity for, both.

If you cannot accept an appropriate post in an appropriate forum, then the problem lies with you, not with the post.

You can't say Bingtian isn't or is doping based on his progression. You are simply trying to compare against randomised data. The analysis has no logical basis and is therefore totally irrelevant to anything.

It doesn't need to be peer reviewed research, but it's simply just a fallacy. That's fine if you want to openly discuss fallacious statements but you are simply guessing that Bingtian is clean, the progression is of no consequence.

I'll add to the discussion and say Bingtian is clean because he wears his hair long and most caught dopers have short hair or shaved heads.

When a sprint athlete dopes, their times improve. In that sense, all other things are equal. The benefit provided by the juice is separate and distinct from other benefits.

At first glance one might believe that this assumes an athlete who lives and trains so as to get the benefit of the juice, but I don’t think that’s the case. I may be mistaken, but sprint PED’s have been shown to produce advantages that could benefit sprint performance even if an individual is completely sedentary, for instance—and not only stimulants, but anabolics, gonadotropins, etc

I didn’ say that he was or was not using based on his progression. I made that explicit more than once.

The premise behind my post was that a 0.50 improvement over 2 years that takes an athlete from a nobody to elite in the world, or especially in history, is not easily, if at all, achievable cleanly—if it were, we would see a lot more athletes under 9.85. When looking at known users’ progressions and a commonality is observed, it is reasonable to investigate it further.

This is how certain programs and coaches hide their use—by claimimg that it is their coaching, their special program, that is responsible for the improvement. I don’t buy it. Not all athletes in their programs benefit similarly; also, the pattern is replicated by different coaches using different programs on different athletes in different countries.

Test

Sprintgeezer wrote:

When a sprint athlete dopes, their times improve. In that sense, all other things are equal. The benefit provided by the juice is separate and distinct from other benefits.

Not even close. When has your training/injury or life situation stayed completely the same across two years? It's nonsense. 101 different things can happen in that time.

It doesn’t matter. At any given instant in time, all other things are equal, except you now have some hgh in your blood rather than $200 in your wallet.

Think of it this way: when a sprinter runs a doped time, they would have run a slower time in that race had they been clean. All else IS equal.

As far as things like training go, they are enabled by many PED’s, so they are not external to PED’s...and as I said, training isn’t even necessary to achieve sprint-beneficial outcomes like increased lean muscle mass.

Yes many things can happen in 2 years, but that is factored out with a larger and more diverse sample size of users. Also note that it is also factored out during a career of improvements in a single athlete, as it occurs most often only one single time.

You seem to be missing the essential point: it is known that these athletes used. You are suggesting things that MIGHT be factors, whereas I am talking about one that IS a factor—the only issue remaining is how to isolate the quantitative effect of that factor.

Also, testimony of a user concerning when and what they used lacks credibility without a lot of good-quality corroborating evidence, because the offense of doping is one of fraudulent misrepresentation as to precisely that issue, and there is plenty of incentive to minimize the adjudicated time window of use.

Thank you, Randy.

Guys like you and Canova help keep idiots like pulled my hammy SprintGeezer inline.

It’s “in line”, not “inline”.

longjack wrote:

weird stat, germans set the 100 relay world record 7 times

Really that difficult to count to 8?

It's "Sprint Geezer", not "Sprintgeezer."

TeenageBoy! wrote:

It's difficult to imagine anyone taking this guy seriously. He's long been outed as a teenager poster that merely regurgitates basic principles from Charlie Francis' and Jimson Lee's websites. None of his analyses are particularly special. All the information about Su's progression can be found on his IAAF profile. Wow, a normal progression! He must be clean! Anyone can observe that. By the way, he had a meltdown on Sprintzone after he felt no one was listening to him. Sad!

The guy just can't figure out we all get the PED thing in track. To CONSTANTLY...is he clean....is he dirty....could he be.....simply sucks. Fans of the sport want to focus in on the action, the athletes. Who needs to CONSTANTLY be reminded of the PED situation?

The guy is totally obsessed with.....WHO IS DIRTY...WHO IS CLEAN.....? Yep, sad.