Also when I claim knowledge.
Also when I claim knowledge.
rekrunner wrote:
Also when I claim knowledge.
That can only be a tiny claim - and doesn't extend to the subject of doping, of which you have admitted your ignorance. But boast away.
The mile world record is inherently a discussion about performance.
Sad Ngeny noises wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
It took a 3.26 runner to achieve a 3.43 mile. No one else since has been close.
False. 1:44/3:28 man Noah Ngeny ran a 3:43 mile mere fractions of a second later.
Armstronglivs wrote:
No, he won't. It took a 3.26 runner to achieve a 3.43 mile. No one else since has been close. Cheruiyot hasn't got another 2 seconds in him unless he does a Kiprop (and then gets busted) or time-travels back to the 90's.
Tim ran 3:29-low in a championship race (i.e. unpaced & fatigued) and won by the biggest margin of victory in WC history over Makhloufi, a triple Olympic medalist and inarguably the best 800-1500 runner of this generation (however shady he may be). El Guerrouj had pacers but never dominated to that extent, even in his 3:27 in ‘99. Tim is a better racer than El Guerrouj and has PRs that are equivalent to Ngeny’s. He most certainly could run 3:43 given good pacing and conditions.
Ngeny ran that time in the same race as ELG, so it remains the case that no one else has got close in the 21 years since.
1999 was the height of the EPO period and there was still no test. I’ve felt for years, based on Ngeny’s meteoric rise from nowhere and his then equally swift demise from elite level, that Ngeny was doped. He was coached/ overseen by Kim McDonald, who worked closely with former GDR coaches, he was able to run a 2:11 one kilometre, despite being only a 1:44 800m guy, and he was involved in a car accident in 2001, the year EPO testing was introduced outside of just the Olympics, which apparently ruined his chances of being the best but wasn’t bad enough to stop him running c. 3:32/3:33 for the next couple of seasons! How convenient!
With the recent plethora of Kenyan elites testing positive, I have little doubt that Ngeny was just as doped as El G.
And Cheruiyot is not capable of 3:26! Not sure whose spikes he ran in when running 3:28/3:29, but Highly probable that they had the carbon plate in which I would suggest likely gave him at least a second on the spikes worn by El G 20 years ago.
You have to take into consideration the improvement in tracks and spikes since El G’s times.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rgege wrote:
Right, what part of "unpaced & fatigued" has your biased brain failed to grasp?
And how about the reference to Ngeny that you ignored in your reply?
You talk about rekrunner but you ignore facts presented to you when they show your incredible ignorance about the sport. And you say you were a sports journalist... Figures. Misquote people, ignore facts to suit your narrative...
I don't say and have never said I was a sports journalist - you get your facts wrong. My specialty was politics.
Ngeny was also a doper in the EPO era.
No runner in the last 20 years has gotten within 3 seconds of the mile record. Cheruiyot would have to be a 3.26 runner to do it. He won't. He doesn't have that level of improvement in him. The only proof you can have that I am wrong is if he breaks the record. I think I'm safe.
+1. Totally agree. Cheruiyot would be a 3:30 runner on 80’s tracks and in 80’s spikes.
El G, Lagat and Ngeny all on EPO to run 3:26/3:43
OBE wrote:
Maybe? wrote:
He’s got decent speed for a 5k runner, but there are plenty of quicker 5k guys. He got annihilated in the WC final by guys with much slower (or nonexistent) 1500m PRs, even though he took the lead.
He’s got decent speed for a teenage 1500m runner, but there have been plenty of teen milers with better quickness. Elliott, Ryun, Ovett, Coe, Walker, etc. Compared to real mile greats, Jakob’s basic speed seems rather pedestrian.
Sebastian Coe wasn’t faster than Jakob over 400 at 18. He eventually went on to split 45 at age 23 after only running 50, then 49, etc at age 18 and 19.
I think his speed improvements came from drugs though.
A very slanted view of his progression.
In 1975, at 18 (and he was a scrawny, non matured 18 year old, unlike Ovett at same age), Coe was still primarily a 1500m/3k runner, running thgose 2 distances all season, except for one 400 relay (on cinders) in 50.5 and a 36.2 300m (from blocks) which equates to 50.5 for an open 400m.
In 1976, at 19, he didn't run any 400ms.
In '77, at 20, he ran an open 49.1 (a time Cram was running at 21). That was the year he decided to focus on 800m, joined Loughborough and started doing more gym work, weights and plyometrics.
In '78, at 21, he ran a 47.7 open 400m and a relay split in 47.3.
In '79, at 22, the year he graduated and was able to fully focus on his running, he ran an open 46.8 and a 45.5 relay.
This is a natural line of progression for any 800m runner, never mind someone who was more of a 1500/3000m athlete at the beginning of this period. There is nothing in that progression that suggests drugs.
A progression that does suggest drugs is when an athlete goes from 1:47.3 at 17 to 1:41.7 a year later.
rekrunner wrote:
Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:
The mile record of 3:43.13 is insane. And throw in Ngeny's time of 3:43.40 right up there with El G. Both set in 1999..The only two to ever run under 3:44. Both athletes suspicious of doping. In fact, Ngeny, El G & Lagat went 1, 2, 3, in the 1500 at the Sydney Olympics - which was coined the "Drug Games." Lol. There were several undisclosed doping positives for EPO that were just filed away - names never to be released:
''I believe there were a lot of athletes using EPO at the Sydney Olympics who were never brought before the courts. The net wasn't cast wide enough,'' says Robin Parisotto, one of the scientists who developed the off-model test. ''It's impossible to know exactly how many athletes were on it. But they did about 300 unofficial [off model] drugs tests, from which they found seven positives. If they'd done 3000 tests, they probably would have found 70 positives. That would have been an absolute debacle, a scandal.''
Somebody has to go 1-2-3 in the Olympics. This happens in every Olympic event in every Olympics.
"Former Olympian Peter Larkins, who was a medical adviser with the 2000 Games organising committee ... believes labelling Sydney 2000 the ''drug games'' is unfair."
How does this article make any sense? Blood testing, whether "on" or "off" model, was not valid for declaring doping positives until 9 years after Sydney Olympics, when the ABP was finally approved. Surely Parisotto was well aware of that in 2010.
Sure..."somebody has to go 1-2-3 in the Olympics." However, in this case it was 3 of the most highly suspected dopers of that era. Lol.
At Sydney, the "on model" (recent use) was used as a screening tool to determine if the urine sample would be tested for rHuEPO (the test was very expensive back then). The "off model" was for prior use weeks before the competition. However, I doubt any of the samples would have actually tested positive for rHuEPO since it wasn't recent use that the blood markers were indicating.
rekrunner wrote:
The mile world record is inherently a discussion about performance.
Well...see Deanouk's posts and you might just learn something. ?
Let's tell it like it is wrote:
Sure..."somebody has to go 1-2-3 in the Olympics." However, in this case it was 3 of the most highly suspected dopers of that era. Lol.
At Sydney, the "on model" (recent use) was used as a screening tool to determine if the urine sample would be tested for rHuEPO (the test was very expensive back then). The "off model" was for prior use weeks before the competition. However, I doubt any of the samples would have actually tested positive for rHuEPO since it wasn't recent use that the blood markers were indicating.
It looks like the only reason you say that they are highly suspected is because they went 1-2-3, closing the loop of circular reasoning.
The article you provided doesn't say screening tool, so this might be just your imagination. If the test was only used for screening, then it is highly misleading to call it an EPO positive, as Parisotto did.
Let's tell it like it is wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
The mile world record is inherently a discussion about performance.
Well...see Deanouk's posts and you might just learn something. ?
Apart from some details about Coe's progression, DeanoUK doesn't tell me anything I didn't already know.
Regarding 1990 being the height of the EPO-era and no test for EPO: this was true for every country and every athlete in the 1990s.
rekrunner wrote:
The mile world record is inherently a discussion about performance.
Which is synonymous with drugs - except to those "not informed" about drugs.
rekrunner wrote:
Let's tell it like it is wrote:
Sure..."somebody has to go 1-2-3 in the Olympics." However, in this case it was 3 of the most highly suspected dopers of that era. Lol.
At Sydney, the "on model" (recent use) was used as a screening tool to determine if the urine sample would be tested for rHuEPO (the test was very expensive back then). The "off model" was for prior use weeks before the competition. However, I doubt any of the samples would have actually tested positive for rHuEPO since it wasn't recent use that the blood markers were indicating.
It looks like the only reason you say that they are highly suspected is because they went 1-2-3, closing the loop of circular reasoning.
The article you provided doesn't say screening tool, so this might be just your imagination. If the test was only used for screening, then it is highly misleading to call it an EPO positive, as Parisotto did.
The runners referred to were not the "most highly suspected" dopers of their era because they went 1-2-3 - except to someone who knows nothing of the individual history of those runners and track in the '90's - as you apparently don't. The argument is only "circular" to someone ignorant of that context and the wider arguments that led to those doping suspicions - which were much more than one race. But this obtuseness is not surprising coming from someone who has admitted he is not highly informed on doping.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
The mile world record is inherently a discussion about performance.
Which is synonymous with drugs - except to those "not informed" about drugs.
In the gospel of Armstonglivs, maybe.
As we have seen from the many studies linked, in the scientific world, no one has yet established the relation between doping and the expected performance improvement with elite times -- or do you have information that says otherwise?
Armstronglivs wrote:
The runners referred to were not the "most highly suspected" dopers of their era because they went 1-2-3 - except to someone who knows nothing of the individual history of those runners and track in the '90's - as you apparently don't. The argument is only "circular" to someone ignorant of that context and the wider arguments that led to those doping suspicions - which were much more than one race. But this obtuseness is not surprising coming from someone who has admitted he is not highly informed on doping.
I am highly informed on all-time history of elite performances.
What is the basis for suspicion, if not their performance?
Can you make a linear and coherent argument without assuming the relationship between EPO and elite performance?
This means that you must establish this relationship with data, while discussing potential confounders.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The runners referred to were not the "most highly suspected" dopers of their era because they went 1-2-3 - except to someone who knows nothing of the individual history of those runners and track in the '90's - as you apparently don't. The argument is only "circular" to someone ignorant of that context and the wider arguments that led to those doping suspicions - which were much more than one race. But this obtuseness is not surprising coming from someone who has admitted he is not highly informed on doping.
I am highly informed on all-time history of elite performances.
What is the basis for suspicion, if not their performance?
Can you make a linear and coherent argument without assuming the relationship between EPO and elite performance?
This means that you must establish this relationship with data, while discussing potential confounders.
You assume that a linear argument can or should be shown for a clandestine practice that involves individuals, none of whom are physiologically identical, or who will respond to drugs in exactly the same way, or will even be taking the same drugs in the same proportions according to the same programme. Furthermore, none of these elites have been obliging subjects for your much favored studies in laboratory conditions. You will never find the data you claim will resolve all argument, even though there is enough evidence to reveal the presence of likely doping in individual performances - like those of runners in the '90's - and evidence that enables an estimation of doping that far exceeds the data of doping busts.
Your understanding of the world of doping is absurdly simplistic. But that is also your purpose. By constructing parameters that cannot be fulfilled in the real world you can persuade yourself that the problem doesn't really exist.
There isn't an argument that will prise you from your doping-minimalisation position. The effort expended many times by others has shown that. I have learned that p*ssing into the wind has only one outcome.
Armstronglivs wrote:
You assume that a linear argument can or should be shown for a clandestine practice that involves individuals, none of whom are physiologically identical, or who will respond to drugs in exactly the same way, or will even be taking the same drugs in the same proportions according to the same programme. Furthermore, none of these elites have been obliging subjects for your much favored studies in laboratory conditions. You will never find the data you claim will resolve all argument, even though there is enough evidence to reveal the presence of likely doping in individual performances - like those of runners in the '90's - and evidence that enables an estimation of doping that far exceeds the data of doping busts.
Your understanding of the world of doping is absurdly simplistic. But that is also your purpose. By constructing parameters that cannot be fulfilled in the real world you can persuade yourself that the problem doesn't really exist.
There isn't an argument that will prise you from your doping-minimalisation position. The effort expended many times by others has shown that. I have learned that p*ssing into the wind has only one outcome.
I assume if you say it is not circular, that you can backup what you say, and provide a non-circular argument.
I assume that if you say suspicion is not based solely on performance, you can backup what you say and provide an alternate basis that was used for suspicion.
I assume from your avoidance tactics that you cannot backup what you say, and this explains the constant need to divert attention away from your constant failure, and attempt to make it about me, attacking views that I may or may not hold.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You assume that a linear argument can or should be shown for a clandestine practice that involves individuals, none of whom are physiologically identical, or who will respond to drugs in exactly the same way, or will even be taking the same drugs in the same proportions according to the same programme. Furthermore, none of these elites have been obliging subjects for your much favored studies in laboratory conditions. You will never find the data you claim will resolve all argument, even though there is enough evidence to reveal the presence of likely doping in individual performances - like those of runners in the '90's - and evidence that enables an estimation of doping that far exceeds the data of doping busts.
Your understanding of the world of doping is absurdly simplistic. But that is also your purpose. By constructing parameters that cannot be fulfilled in the real world you can persuade yourself that the problem doesn't really exist.
There isn't an argument that will prise you from your doping-minimalisation position. The effort expended many times by others has shown that. I have learned that p*ssing into the wind has only one outcome.
I assume if you say it is not circular, that you can backup what you say, and provide a non-circular argument.
I assume that if you say suspicion is not based solely on performance, you can backup what you say and provide an alternate basis that was used for suspicion.
I assume from your avoidance tactics that you cannot backup what you say, and this explains the constant need to divert attention away from your constant failure, and attempt to make it about me, attacking views that I may or may not hold.
What you assume is wrong. The only thing that you can safely assume is that I don't choose to waste my time debating dogma with a religious fanatic - as you are. Your assertion that you are better informed on sports doping than thousands of professional athletes, their coaches and physicians has rendered everything you say on the topic irrelevant. As a self-declared mathematician with an interest in statistics even you should be able to grasp the degree that you are outnumbered.
rekrunner wrote:
Let's tell it like it is wrote:
Sure..."somebody has to go 1-2-3 in the Olympics." However, in this case it was 3 of the most highly suspected dopers of that era. Lol.
At Sydney, the "on model" (recent use) was used as a screening tool to determine if the urine sample would be tested for rHuEPO (the test was very expensive back then). The "off model" was for prior use weeks before the competition. However, I doubt any of the samples would have actually tested positive for rHuEPO since it wasn't recent use that the blood markers were indicating.
It looks like the only reason you say that they are highly suspected is because they went 1-2-3, closing the loop of circular reasoning.
The article you provided doesn't say screening tool, so this might be just your imagination. If the test was only used for screening, then it is highly misleading to call it an EPO positive, as Parisotto did.
So, it's just also the imagination of the Robinson et al paper? (Erythropoietin and blood doping):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2657498/"Indirect methods of detection."
"....the Australian Institute of Sport, together with the Australian Sports Drug Testing Laboratory, designed an anti‐doping test using multiple secondary blood markers such as the haematocrit level, the reticulocyte haematocrit, serum sTFR and EPO concentrations, and lastly the percentage macrocytic cells. Different mathematical models were developed allowing the identification of sportspeople under rHuEPO treatment (ON‐model) and those who had taken rHuEPO in the past (OFF‐model).23 In August 2000, the IOC Medical Commission approved the ON‐model to be used during the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney. As the direct method capable of discriminating endogenous EPO from rHuEPO had already been published in spring 2000,24 the ON‐model was used only as a screening test to determine which urine samples had to be collected to perform the urinary test."
A blood/urine testing matrix used at Sydney is also referenced in paragraph 4 of this WADA link on the detection of EPO:
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/questions-answers/epo-detectionrekrunner wrote:
Let's tell it like it is wrote:
Sure..."somebody has to go 1-2-3 in the Olympics." However, in this case it was 3 of the most highly suspected dopers of that era. Lol.
At Sydney, the "on model" (recent use) was used as a screening tool to determine if the urine sample would be tested for rHuEPO (the test was very expensive back then). The "off model" was for prior use weeks before the competition. However, I doubt any of the samples would have actually tested positive for rHuEPO since it wasn't recent use that the blood markers were indicating.
It looks like the only reason you say that they are highly suspected is because they went 1-2-3, closing the loop of circular reasoning.
No...from my standpoint they're highly suspect based on the nations they're from; Morocco & Kenyan - two nations with widespread and prevalent doping. Numerous athletes, including top level athletes who were Olympic medalists, NR holders and even a few WR holders, busted for doping from both positive tests & ABP violations. Both nations on the AIU's "most at risk for doping" list. What does that tell you? That they've been doing it clean? Lol.
Certainly, I would think if you have any logic at all that you would have concluded by now that these two running powerhouses are prevalent doping nations and have been doping for a long time. Remember when the EPO test became available and steroid testing improved in the 00's, Kenyans & Moroccans started getting busted. And this trend has continued right up to the present time getting so bad for Morocco that after a short hiatus they had to be put back on the "most at risk for doping" list. Lol.
And consider the top performing athletes getting popped - household names such as Kiprop, Kiptum, Bett, Yago, Kisorio, Jeptoo, Sumgong, Kirwa, Jebet, etc, and the Moroccans; Ramzi, B. Boulami, Mourhit, Laâlou, Goumri, Al Mahjoub Dazza, Selsouli, Hachlaf, etc.
When a nation has a lot of doping violations from the very top performing athletes all the way down to the lower tier ones, and violations involving every discipline from the 400 on up to the marathon that equals a major doping problem.
https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1091486/morocco-nigeria-aiu-list-doping-riskArmstronglivs wrote:
What you assume is wrong. The only thing that you can safely assume is that I don't choose to waste my time debating dogma with a religious fanatic - as you are. Your assertion that you are better informed on sports doping than thousands of professional athletes, their coaches and physicians has rendered everything you say on the topic irrelevant. As a self-declared mathematician with an interest in statistics even you should be able to grasp the degree that you are outnumbered.
So if I understand -- this is what it looks like when you are saving time?
Since you don't back up what you say, my only possible conclusion is that your beliefs remain unsupported and that you continue to wimp out.
Note that "(I am) better informed on sports doping" is actually your assertion -- a strawman I suggested you should not have said.
My assertion, based on (at least) the two meta-studies I linked, was that EPO effect in studies among non-elites have generally been over-estimated for as long as they have been studying it, and EPO effect for elite performances is virtually unstudied.
It's an interesting thought process that you think this can be resolved by popular vote, rather than supporting conclusions with unconfounded data.