There is no “genetic superiority” when it comes to distance running. Literally everyone sub 2:09 is just doping.

Sorry. I'm not buying it.

If that was the point, then why do you feel the need to make up lies that I have purported to author studies on doping or claimed to have done research based on data?

The answer is you make up lies, so we talk about your lies, rather than you admitting you cannot ever rebut any of my opinions.

And isn't the point rather superfluous -- your point applies to virtually everyone who posts on letsrun, including you. If I cannot dismiss your opinions for lack of being published, then you cannot dismiss mine, until your research on the validity of my opinions is published.

It's just weird.

I take it then that we won't hear any more about your historical "studies" and your "research", that has never been subject to peer review.

"More and more people in letsrun get it which kind of person you are and that any discussion with you is totally useless."(quote)

It is useless when you have nothing of any value to contribute.

I wonder how that happen to me. When I was young I was way under 20:00 and I didn't dope. Maybe it was burritos. No. Wait. I didn't like burritos. Must have been something else that way shady in my diet. (giggle)

Wouldn't "any more" require as a prerequisite that you heard it in the first place? Did you just forget that these were your fabricated lies that you abandoned like dirty socks when challenged?

In any case, your whole premise is wrong. Opinions are not equal just because they are not peer reviewed and published. Generally speaking, opinions derived from a fairly complete set of all-time real world data, without contradiction, carries more weight than opinions grounded firmly in fantasy and imagination and mythology and religion.

And once again, there is no barrier of peer review to post in this forum, otherwise, you should be the first volunteering to leave for your dismal failure to meet your own fabricated standard.

What have you ever contributed with any value?

All you do is call fast athletes dopers and insult posters who disagree with you.

You are not liked here. You are a cancer. Go away.

I am relieved to have it confirmed that is how I am seen by those like you. I would hate to have your approval. It would mean I have failed.

Since you are not my peer your opinion is quite irrelevant. You have spent years here spouting your "studies" of doping performance. That you now seek to deny it is totally consistent with one whose only consistent practice is of lying.

Likewise -- since you are not a peer, your opinion is quite irrelevant.

The whole discussion of peers and peer review is quite irrelevant, as it is not required to participate in this forum. Everyone can look at publicly available data and share their opinions and comments.

When I looked at all time performances, I called it "a closer look" and "a longer deeper look" at performances. I did not ever call it a "study" on "doping performance". These are your lies and your lies alone.

A "long deep look" into what? The meaning of life? The bottom of a well? Your co-dependant's eyes? The effect of doping on historical performances isn't included? You are risible. I have looked deeply into your fanciful arguments and been overwhelmed by their shallowness.

Here is an earlier statement of yours to this subject (which in a normal discussion would have been solved with two sentences):

Army: "So you keep insisting that Keino was faster than those whose world
records far exceeded his best times, and was faster than the runner who
buried him in an Olympic final. But why stop there? He was obviously
taller than every other runner on the track and younger - even when he
retired. When stupidity becomes comical."

Several times you have stated that Clarke indeed WAS "faster" than Keino. From this post it's obvious that Keino "faster" Clarke for you is wrong (despite being much faster than Clarke over several distances, despite beating Clarke regularly at the big champs in Clarke's speciality and so on).

Btw, I have never said that Keino was "faster" than Clarke. I just stated that IF we agree to (the obviously nonsense statement) that Clarke was "faster" than Keino, THAN we have to also agree that Keino was "faster" than Clarke - a definitive consequence.

Your stupidity really is hurting.

Purity. 2:22. The gear. Done.

You participated in the thread at that time, so you must already know: "at all-time top performances".

You are right that "The effect of doping on historical performances isn't included". Any predicted effects of doping can be compared against this performance data but is not included as part of the performance data itself.