Do the math wrote:
You are changing the subject after caught red-handed with basic reasoning error.
I don't say anything about whether marathon is doped or not. I'm just pointing out that you are stupid when saying women is doped more in marathon because they catch up with 1960's men, while today 800m women haven't catched up with 1960's men.
If you want to point out sex-specific improvement in marathon (doped or otherwise) you have to compare men and women in marathon.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Surely it's beyond dispute that the marathon will be affected far more by a widely available endurance drug like EPO than the 800m? The men's 800m WR has been improved by less than a second since the introduction of EPO, while the women's best 800m times have actually gone backwards (of course due to rampant doping from the Soviet Bloc athletes in the 70s/80s). Compare with the improvement in the longer distances, which have been increasingly crazy the longer the distance. The continued improvement in marathon times is likely due to the comparative lack of testing as compared to track (and the influx of top track distance runners seeking to escape improved testing on the track circuit - what would Kipchoge, Bekele (and even Mo) have run if they had taken up the marathon in 2004 instead of 2014 and well past their prime?)
On that last point, has anybody questioned why Lonah decided to move up to the Marathon, where she had a pb of 2:40 just when she becomes an elite track star (and would have achieved the 5k/10k double at the Europeans if not stopping a lap early in the latter)?