Lurker wrote:
banned i got wrote:
And this thread has officially been rekked.....annoying is not even close to giving this rambling justice....no its not ruined, wrecked, trolled or hijacked.....its all in one, rekked
Why? Because he adheres to logic instead of gut feeling?
Logic is clear and simple - everything rekrunner isn't - and doesn't require a thesaurus to make its point.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The question of which are the best doping performances that are beaten by Kipchoge and Bekele begs that they themselves are clean. They may well not be.
You are relying solely on performances from athletes with confirmed anti-doping violations to answer the question. That is highly selective. As has been pointed out repeatedly, known anti-doping violations are but a fraction of those estimated to be doping as most dopers are not caught. The estimates of the incidence of doping are not exact (they cannot be - they are estimates) but are of sufficient scale to suggest that no top performance can be assumed clean, and only that no violation has been thus far recorded. Former world record holder Kipsang is such a case in point.
Hence, your attempt to redefine the question according to what is "knowledge" is quite the reverse, as it assumes a definitive answer on clearly inadequate data. There is however enough wider information on doping, and in particular its practice in countries like Kenya, to say it is very possible if not likely that all top performances are the result of doping, including those of Kipchoge and Bekele.
Recall I asked one easily answerable question -- which marathon performance is the fastest known doped marathon performance, and alternatively, if there was a known doped performance faster than Luka Kanda's annulled 2:06:15.
Sorry for the lengthy response, but it becomes necessary due to the many varied attempts to avoid giving what should be a simple answerable fact, drawing from a common pool of knowledge.
It is credulous (lol) to suggest that I rely solely on confirmed violations to draw any conclusions about performances which may also be violations but are as yet unknown, or that I am attempting to redefine the question (which question exactly?). You should view this as an attempt to establish what should be common ground for everyone, regardless of beliefs -- "what is known?" I only asked one question, admittedly highly selective, out of hundreds that need to be answered to gain a richer understanding. Yet a clear answer to this simple question alone, seems to be a major challenge for everyone, as the few who did answer want to relax the criteria to "what are the best performances of performers who were caught doping at other times either in the distant past, or well after their best performance?", or even relax the criteria further to include rule violations not involving doping. Even then, relaxing the criteria, we still get only a handful of candidates running around 2:05, some three minutes now behind the fastest marathon performances. By the way, this is similar to Shobukhova and Jeptoo, the best known confirmed dopers still falling 3 minutes short of the then world record.
To address your post, this is why it would be ideal to have an accurate estimate of doped performances which are specific to fast marathons. Lacking such an estimate, we should be careful about our assumptions and conclusions (not to mention the fallacy of concluding our assumptions). The only set of figures I'm aware of for marathons, come from the Australian scientists published by the Sunday Times for blood parameters, if we accept the Sunday Times findings for blood doping prevalence as indicative, there are strong reasons to doubt the presence of doping in the vast majority of the fastest marathon performances:
- The ratio of "abnormal" blood tests for Kenyans (11%) and Ethiopians (8%) was below the average of all blood tests (12%). When you compare these "abnormal" findings to their performances, this suggests an extremely low correlation between (blood) doping and all of the athletics performances of Kenyans and Ethiopian.
While the Sunday Times did not look at fastest performances, they did look at World Championship and Olympic medals won:
- They found that only 11% of WC and Olympic medals won were won by an athlete who possessed a "suspicious" test result at any time. Using the same measure as other distance events, the marathon (11%) was about 1/5th as suspicious as the 1500m, and race-walking events (48%-54%), and 1/3rd as suspicious as the other track events: 800m, 3000m ST, 5000m, 10000m (28%-30%).
The extensive data-backed findings that Kenyans and Ethiopians were below average dopers and the marathon is by far the least suspicious distance event greatly undermines any assumption regarding the doping status of the top-100, or the top-200 fastest marathon performances.
Now I want you to take a long reflective pause before you once again falsely accuse me of concluding from these data-backed findings, that 89% of Kenyans and 92% of Ethiopions are clean, and that 89% of marathon WC and Olympic medal winners are clean. While these remain possibilities (with low-likelihood), this is neither my argument or conclusion.
The only suggestion I'm making is that we don't have enough knowledge about these 89%-92% of athletes, or about the 89% of WC and Olympic medals won. While you freely accuse me of lacking such knowledge, you seem to be extremely reluctant to admit that you, and everyone else, also lack such knowledge -- knowledge that would be necessary to form the many conclusions littered in this forum and in the press. We need much more data to be able to turn "The Gospel according to Armstronglivs" into a knowledgeable explanation of the impact of doping on the fastest distance performances.
Behind this gale of words your position is quite simple, which is your willingness to believe that in the marathon the best clean performances are better than the best doped performances, and hence the best times are still clean. In view of everything that is known about doping, it is absurd.
Armstronglivs wrote:
That is the most roundabout way of saying that doping
hasn't contributed to the fastest marathon times. But an argument that depends on semantics is a weak argument. Your credulity is not in doubt.
Doping plays a role but training methods have developed more and runners concentrate fully on the marathon distance from younger age. They do not "waste" their best years on track. When they run together, they improve and consequently there are more and more runners who are capable of running faster marathons than what distance runners ran 10 years ago after a long track career.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Most of this post seems to want to re-emphasize that doping is prevalent in Kenyan distance running, something that was not under discussion, nor is in doubt. Prevalence alone does not address performance.
In the end, to your credit, you realize you need to link prevalence with performance:
"Doping is believed by the athletes using it to confer advantage - studies reinforce that perception; it defies credulity to not accept that the fastest times in - in any running event - have not been or aren't being achieved through doping."
It's an apt choice of expression, "to defy credulity". Some synomyms for "credulity":
"gullibility, gullibleness, credulousness, naivety, naiveness, blind faith, trustfulness, over-trustfulness, lack of suspicion, innocence, ingenuousness, unworldliness, lack of experience, lack of sophistication, guilelessness, greenness, callowness, childlikeness, simpleness, simplicity, ignorance"
These seem like traits we should be defying in any search for a better understanding. I'm constantly trying to defy ignorance, to defy blind-faith, to defy simplicity, to defy ignorance.
That is the most roundabout way of saying that doping
hasn't contributed to the fastest marathon times. But an argument that depends on semantics is a weak argument. Your credulity is not in doubt.
That is an interesting conclusion from a post that only 1) agreed with you about doping prevalence and a Kenyan doping problem, and 2) agreed with your apt phrase to "defy credulity".
Baltsu wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
That is the most roundabout way of saying that doping
hasn't contributed to the fastest marathon times. But an argument that depends on semantics is a weak argument. Your credulity is not in doubt.
Doping plays a role but training methods have developed more and runners concentrate fully on the marathon distance from younger age. They do not "waste" their best years on track. When they run together, they improve and consequently there are more and more runners who are capable of running faster marathons than what distance runners ran 10 years ago after a long track career.
You can make the better training argument for every event, and not just the marathon. But it's just as plausible to say that the best performances today are the product of talent and training +doping, given the incidence of doping and its performance enhancing effects.
Armstronglivs wrote:Behind this gale of words your position is quite simple, which is your willingness to believe that in the marathon the best clean performances are better than the best doped performances, and hence the best times are still clean. In view of everything that is known about doping, it is absurd.
A better summary of my "position" is:
"We need much more data to be able to turn "The Gospel according to Armstronglivs" into a knowledgeable explanation of the impact of doping on the fastest distance performances."
You talk about "everything that is known about doping" but seem unable to bring any of that knowledge into a discussion about marathons faster than Luka Kanda's 2:06:15, but instead fall back to knocking down strawmen.
I am willing to believe what a large body of data suggests, and find it hard to believe question-begging conclusions presented without any supporting data. I don't wish to impose my beliefs on anyone, but only to highlight where data is lacking, or worse, contradictory.
Armstronglivs wrote:
You can make the better training argument for every event, and not just the marathon. But it's just as plausible to say that the best performances today are the product of talent and training +doping, given the incidence of doping and its performance enhancing effects.
So, what is the given incidence of doping in the best marathon performances?
Even assuming your worst estimate of 50%, this concedes that 50% of the best performances are clean. Even this most pessimistic outlook is far from saying every performance should be considered suspect.
No. You are assuming an even distribution. That doesn't work because PEDs are performance enhancing.
Salazar says, 2 minutes in the marathon, Malm thinks 3%.
Going with your 50% cheats in the top 500, how many cheats are in the top 50? 80%? 90%?
No doorbell wrote:
No. You are assuming an even distribution. That doesn't work because PEDs are performance enhancing.
Salazar says, 2 minutes in the marathon, Malm thinks 3%.
Going with your 50% cheats in the top 500, how many cheats are in the top 50? 80%? 90%?
I actually concluded we don't know the distribution in the top anything, and assumed only for discussing this point, not "my" 50%, but Armstronglivs' "50%", that 50% for the top-100 or top-200, would be a worst case, particularly given blood doping suspicion figures on the order of 11%.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You can make the better training argument for every event, and not just the marathon. But it's just as plausible to say that the best performances today are the product of talent and training +doping, given the incidence of doping and its performance enhancing effects.
So, what is the given incidence of doping in the best marathon performances?
Even assuming your worst estimate of 50%, this concedes that 50% of the best performances are clean. Even this most pessimistic outlook is far from saying every performance should be considered suspect.
The logic of that argument fails because it assumes there is no difference in performance between a doped and a clean athlete. (If there were no difference there would be no reason to object to doping - quite apart from any health issues). If there is, say, a 50% incidence of doping amongst marathon runners, it could be predicted that most if not all the top performances would be from the dopers. Indeed, all it would need for that to occur is for a small percentage - maybe 2 or 3% - of the very best runners to be doped. Their performances would be superior to any clean performance. The reverse would not be true, because a doped athlete will be better than the same athlete who is clean. The only question is the extent of the advantage a doped athlete would gain, and there we have been afforded a range of estimates. But they agree on one point, which is that there will be an advantage.
Logic doesn't fail because of assumptions.
You failed to address or contradict my conclusion: assuming 50% among the fastest are dirty, then by assumption 50% are clean, and by simple math, 50% is less than 100%.
What you did was inject some of your own assumptions, and suggested some false dichotomy relationships. Where we differ greatly is that I have rejected your assumptions that either lack data, or worse, are contradicted by data.
That is one of the reasons I attempted to search for common ground, by asking "what do we know". I already know we differ on several assumptions.
rekrunner wrote:
Logic doesn't fail because of assumptions.
You failed to address or contradict my conclusion: assuming 50% among the fastest are dirty, then by assumption 50% are clean, and by simple math, 50% is less than 100%.
What you did was inject some of your own assumptions, and suggested some false dichotomy relationships. Where we differ greatly is that I have rejected your assumptions that either lack data, or worse, are contradicted by data.
That is one of the reasons I attempted to search for common ground, by asking "what do we know". I already know we differ on several assumptions.
I didn't dispute that 50% are clean; I was addressing your claim that 50% of the "best" performances will be clean. That doesn't follow. Given the performance enhancing effects of doping it is more credible to suggest that amongst a pool of athletes the dopers will dominate performance-wise. Most of the best performances will be from the dopers - far more than 50% of the fastest times. Your point would only apply if the effects of doping were neutral. They are not.
But even if doping for the marathon was only in the region of 10% - your oft-made claim - all it would take is for a very few of the best runners to be in that pool and their performances would exceed any clean athlete. That is where I suggest we are.
The 50% was your claim. You said we should suspect 100% of the fastest performances because of estimates that 50% are dirty, which by assumption, concedes that 50% of that same group are clean. You keep using the word "given" for things that are not given. There are strong reasons and data to doubt your starting assumptions. - The best known doped performances are minutes behind the fastest times. - Science has not studied the effects of doping for the slower paces and the longer duration in the marathon. - The most comprehensive source of blood data results suggests lower than average prevalence among Kenyans, and Ethiopians, and among marathon World Champion and Olympic medalists.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I didn't dispute that 50% are clean; I was addressing your claim that 50% of the "best" performances will be clean. That doesn't follow. Given the performance enhancing effects of doping it is more credible to suggest that amongst a pool of athletes the dopers will dominate performance-wise. Most of the best performances will be from the dopers - far more than 50% of the fastest times. Your point would only apply if the effects of doping were neutral. They are not.
But even if doping for the marathon was only in the region of 10% - your oft-made claim - all it would take is for a very few of the best runners to be in that pool and their performances would exceed any clean athlete. That is where I suggest we are.
rekrunner wrote:
The 50% was your claim. You said we should suspect 100% of the fastest performances because of estimates that 50% are dirty, which by assumption, concedes that 50% of that same group are clean.
You keep using the word "given" for things that are not given.
There are strong reasons and data to doubt your starting assumptions.
- The best known doped performances are minutes behind the fastest times.
- Science has not studied the effects of doping for the slower paces and the longer duration in the marathon.
- The most comprehensive source of blood data results suggests lower than average prevalence among Kenyans, and Ethiopians, and among marathon World Champion and Olympic medalists.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I didn't dispute that 50% are clean; I was addressing your claim that 50% of the "best" performances will be clean. That doesn't follow. Given the performance enhancing effects of doping it is more credible to suggest that amongst a pool of athletes the dopers will dominate performance-wise. Most of the best performances will be from the dopers - far more than 50% of the fastest times. Your point would only apply if the effects of doping were neutral. They are not.
But even if doping for the marathon was only in the region of 10% - your oft-made claim - all it would take is for a very few of the best runners to be in that pool and their performances would exceed any clean athlete. That is where I suggest we are.
You have trouble following an argument. I said some estimates put doping as high as 50%, which you then took as the basis of discussion to say that figure requires 50% of top performances will be clean. It does not mean that. It could mean that the 50% who are doping are all faster than the 50% who are clean. I don't actually argue that but I would suggest given the performance enhancing effects of doping that the majority of faster times would have come from the dopers - taking into account that some of the dopers will not be the best athletes. But some will be. And they will have the fastest times.
The key part of your position, by implication, is that the effects of doping for the marathon are neutral; no credible research maintains that. It would make the marathon unique amongst events in which doping is employed. It would also be an argument for exempting marathon runners from doping control; no one makes that argument.
You also have suggested that the incidence of doping for the marathon will be lower than for other events and thereby the 50% estimate. It may well be less than that figure but the prevalence of doping in the Kenyan distance running culture - and marathon runners are distance runners - suggests it will still be significant. Doping busts and infractions like those of the former world record holder, Kipsang, the half-marathon world record holder, Kiptum, and championship winner, Jeptoo, show that the rot extends to the top.
If doping in the marathon is less than 10% - your figure for the sake of argument - and it includes some of the best runners (which it will as there is no self-selecting "line" in doping that establishes that only the second-rate will dope) then ipso facto the fastest times will still be doped. It is only the inadequacy of testing that allows any debate about that, as those caught are still far fewer than those actually doping.
Can’t you guys start your own thread?
Armstronglivs wrote:
fatalist wrote:
If the drugs are so good, how come no-one got near her? Was she a he? Did you look?
Are you saying it's physically impossible for a 'real woman' to run 10.49 without drugs?
I think that would be naive. But then you drug obsessives do seem to share that trait, which you love to project onto everyone who doesn't have your amazing insights into just how magical these magic potions really are in making talented athletes superhuman.
What you don't seem able to comprehend is that just because use of magic potion x is rampant, doesn't mean it does what you claim it does. You are incapable of saying anything that isn't pure dogma. Did you get beaten over the head witha bible when you were a kid?
Hi, Drugreligion - posting under a different handle, I see.
No doped performance has gotten near 10.49 (or I should say more accurately - no other doped performance). A woman might run 10-flat and you would still be justifying it.
If doping is only a "religion" it has countless adherents in every sport, with the backing of scientists who are manufacturing it and scientists who are trying to detect and stamp it out. A definition of madness might be that everyone is wrong except you.
Hi, umm, whoever you are? It doesn't matter I suppose. My argument is the same that you believe in a supercalorimetry, which is impossible. Most people do including the many scientists who have no idea what calorimetry is. For this reason, Exercise Physiology is stuck in the 1930s and it was a foolish idea even then.
Abeneziel wrote:
Bekele is 13-3 on the track and Xc.
If Bekele has his Berlin shape, it will be a great show down and I think he would win. Fingers crossed he came in the same shape or better.
Bekele was the leanest and fittest at Berlin that I've ever seen him by far.
If he's in the same shape or better at London, he's my pick to win vs anyone else.
dodge ball wrote:
Can’t you guys start your own thread?
Preferably that's not on the internet.
I’ll tell you where you are: exactly where the 100m has been for a while.
In the face of strong opposition, I have maintained since 1988 that nobody had ever shown that it was possible to cleanly go 9.80-or-faster.
I received all the same arguments that are going on here relative to the marathon—assumptions of 10%, of 50% etc and all sorts of arguments proceeding from false premises.
All of those specious arguments have been systematically destroyed as every single “athlete” who has ever gone 9.80-or-better has proved to have used, except for the corrupt Diack’s golden goose Dolt...and Coleman, although for me personally, the proof of his use is sufficiently compelling.
ALL of the top marathon times, and ALL of the athletes who have produced them, are dirty. What is “the top”? Of those wind-legal performances still on the books, in the 100m the top 43 performances are 9.80-or-faster, and are the result of drugs. The top about 75 performances are from proven dopers. You have to get to the upper 9.8’s or lower 9.9’s before you find an untainted performance, somewhere around the top 160-200 performances.
So of 100m performances, the top 50 for sure; the top 85 almost certainly; the top 160-200 very likely; and the top 1000 probable. As far as “athletes” are concerned, the top 11, for sure. One might consider applying those numbers to marathon. Just offered FWIW.
IMO?
Armstronglivs wrote:
You have trouble following an argument. I said some estimates put doping as high as 50%, which you then took as the basis of discussion to say that figure requires 50% of top performances will be clean. It does not mean that. It could mean that the 50% who are doping are all faster than the 50% who are clean. I don't actually argue that but I would suggest given the performance enhancing effects of doping that the majority of faster times would have come from the dopers - taking into account that some of the dopers will not be the best athletes. But some will be. And they will have the fastest times.
The key part of your position, by implication, is that the effects of doping for the marathon are neutral; no credible research maintains that. It would make the marathon unique amongst events in which doping is employed. It would also be an argument for exempting marathon runners from doping control; no one makes that argument.
You also have suggested that the incidence of doping for the marathon will be lower than for other events and thereby the 50% estimate. It may well be less than that figure but the prevalence of doping in the Kenyan distance running culture - and marathon runners are distance runners - suggests it will still be significant. Doping busts and infractions like those of the former world record holder, Kipsang, the half-marathon world record holder, Kiptum, and championship winner, Jeptoo, show that the rot extends to the top.
If doping in the marathon is less than 10% - your figure for the sake of argument - and it includes some of the best runners (which it will as there is no self-selecting "line" in doping that establishes that only the second-rate will dope) then ipso facto the fastest times will still be doped. It is only the inadequacy of testing that allows any debate about that, as those caught are still far fewer than those actually doping.
I followed your argument.
Forget my position -- show me the credible research that demonstrates the doping effect for marathon performances that would be unobtainable otherwise.
You say the marathon would be unique, but maybe not. I have generally avoided questioning EPO effect for cycling, but I have already shown you two "credible research" meta-studies which say that EPO research in cycling isn't as credible as they would have you believe.
I did not suggest anything about marathon doping prevalence -- Ashenden/Parisotto/Sunday Times did, about blood doping prevalence among WC and Olympic medals won, for various distance events, and the marathon was significantly lower (1/3rd to 1/5th lower).
Despite your impressions to the contrary, they also suggested that Kenyan blood doping suspicion is below the global average, while Ethiopia's is even lower.
Your ideas about the distribution of doped performances amongst the clean ones remain your personal speculation -- something that doesn't interest me when I only asked "what is known?". This is a question that should have been easily answered, unless you know nothing.
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion