What will it take for a new mile WR?

I'm only talking about what it would take for me to stop calling what you so strongly believe is obvious, faith.

If you want to speak on my behalf, don't use other words, but use my words. I do not restrict you to academic journals or academic research. You can draw from all of history and all of knowledge. Just avoid drawing from faith and avoid committing logical fallacies -- I find both unpersuasive.

There are acceptable ways to reduce the ambiguity and uncertainty, even when there are many unknowns.

Petty personal attacks, and failed analogies about evil men with horns are not among them.

Yes, thank you -- please don't rehearse, or rehash, the failed arguments often made, only for me to debunk all of them again.

rekrunner wrote:

If we assume, as you do, "at least 40% doping prevalence", and 2 to 3 seconds improvement in the most talented high responders, "scientists" should predict large numbers of athletes, including large numbers of non-Africans, beating the 1980s times of Cram, Coe, Aouita and even Ovett, by significant margins.

You keep saying this, but you would only have a point there IF the 1980s times were clean - despite the well-known Wild West of Cold War era doping on both sides.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

If we assume, as you do, "at least 40% doping prevalence", and 2 to 3 seconds improvement in the most talented high responders, "scientists" should predict large numbers of athletes, including large numbers of non-Africans, beating the 1980s times of Cram, Coe, Aouita and even Ovett, by significant margins.

You keep saying this, but you would only have a point there IF the 1980s times were clean - despite the well-known Wild West of Cold War era doping on both sides.

Runners today are often matching times from the 80's, and sometimes better. But they are nowhere near the times of the 90's - the uncontrolled EPO era. It is as though the best times of the 70's were way slower than those in the 50's. Yet while times stagnate on the track they continue to race away, so to speak, on the road. And we see more road runners now being popped for EPO and other drugs. It can easily be surmised that stricter doping controls today and micro-dosing over industrial-scale doping has slowed the rate of progress in track and put the records out of reach - till better drugs come along.

We should perma ban Armstronglivs and rekrunner posting in the same thread.

Enough is enough.

First to post in a thread lock the other out.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

If we assume, as you do, "at least 40% doping prevalence", and 2 to 3 seconds improvement in the most talented high responders, "scientists" should predict large numbers of athletes, including large numbers of non-Africans, beating the 1980s times of Cram, Coe, Aouita and even Ovett, by significant margins.

You keep saying this, but you would only have a point there IF the 1980s times were clean - despite the well-known Wild West of Cold War era doping on both sides.

I don't think rekrunner believes there was any doping going on in the 80s, except for maybe the Soviet-block nations. So his MO is take the top 5 or so of the fastest times of various events from the 80's and average them out using that as his perceived clean controlled times. Then he compares his clean controlled times with the fastest times of the 90's/00's and when a certain geographic region doesn't have many running faster than his clean times, he says "see...doping doesn't work." I don't even think he believes Auiota was doping back in that era. If he does think it's likely Auiota was doping, then he should take his times from the 15, 5, 10, etc., which are primarily the fastest of that era, and compare that with some of the confirmed doped athletes of the 90's/00's and see how the PEDs/methods of the 80's stack up against the PEDs/methods of the later decades.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

If we assume, as you do, "at least 40% doping prevalence", and 2 to 3 seconds improvement in the most talented high responders, "scientists" should predict large numbers of athletes, including large numbers of non-Africans, beating the 1980s times of Cram, Coe, Aouita and even Ovett, by significant margins.

You keep saying this, but you would only have a point there IF the 1980s times were clean - despite the well-known Wild West of Cold War era doping on both sides.

I say this only in response to the assumptions that were laid out by others to show the inconsistency arising from that set of assumptions. Look at Armstronglivs immediate response -- ignoring your new point, and doubling down on "EPO in the '90s changed everything, compared to the doping of the '80s".

If you add one more faith based assumption -- that Cram, Coe, Aouita, and Ovett's times were only possible because they were doped, you only exchange one set of inconsistencies for another.

You add the burden of showing that Cram, Coe, Aouita, and Ovett doping is also not a faith-based assumption, while maintaining the same burden of showing the relation between this alleged doping and the faster times.

And we still have the 2-3 second gap generated by Africans in the African era suggesting that the difference is not dope (since by assumption everyone was doped), but talent, i.e, the non-African ceiling, doped or not doped, is 3:29 and 3:46, while the African ceiling is at least 3:26 and 3:43.

In effect you are not reducing the faith, but adding one more layer of faith, eliminating one set of contradictions but introducing others, not to mention raising awkward questions about the talent and doping of athletes after the Wild West of Cold War era, like Willis and Wheating and Webb.

I believe doping has been going on long before the 1980's -- we know that athletes were doping in the World War II era and likely long before. I have never doubted prevalence of doping.

I have never said or even implied that the 1980s were clean or controlled times. In one specific EPO-era performance analysis, the best times from the end of the 1980s served as a convenient reference representing what was possible before EPO was alleged to cause the amazing perform improvements in the 1990s, for comparing times from 1990 onwards. But I could have picked 1970, or 1960, as a reference, or some other neutral reference, like 1050 Purdy points, to make the same points about comparatively low quality and quantity from the non-Africans.

I don't see any inconsistency or faith in my post. Try to read it neutrally.

From various experts, we learned the following (and yes, I have references for all points):

1) Blood doping became "widespread" in Europe already in the 60s.

2) Blood doping was virtually impossible pre-EPO in Africa.

3) Blood doping helps 1 - 4% at the top (depending on the expert).

4) Blood doping was used by 18% of endurance athletes ("minimal estimate") on average worldwide in the last two decades (based on two different sets of blood tests).

In conclusion, your comparison pre and post 1990 is pointless, unless you focus on Africa alone, or find data showing a different prevalence of doping in Europe/US pre and post 1990.

rekrunner wrote:

I have never said or even implied that the 1980s were clean or controlled times.

No? Then what do you mean with this:

rekrunner wrote:

If we assume, as you do, "at least 40% doping prevalence", and 2 to 3 seconds improvement in the most talented high responders, "scientists" should predict large numbers of athletes, including large numbers of non-Africans, beating the 1980s times of Cram, Coe, Aouita and even Ovett, by significant margins.

[quote]casual obsever wrote:

I don't see any inconsistency or faith in my post. Try to read it neutrally.

Blood doping helps 1 - 4% at the top (depending on the expert).

[quote]

Of course it does, it circumvents theromregulation. How? By magic of course. All the experts know this to be a fact.

That's speaking the truth wrote:

If he does think it's likely Auiota was doping, then he should take his times from the 15, 5, 10, etc., which are primarily the fastest of that era, and compare that with some of the confirmed doped athletes of the 90's/00's and see how the PEDs/methods of the 80's stack up against the PEDs/methods of the later decades.

+1

Or, see it neutrally, without any prejudice and take the top Europeans/Americans of the 80s, and compare that with the respective European times of the 70s, 90s, 00s, and 10s.

Oh wait. I've already done that. In 2018 though, so it needs to be updated.

What? The difference is not dope with Morrocans? You're either a strange bird as in "naive" or a chronic Trollmeister.

3 out of Morroco's top 6 all-time fastest 1500 men have served bans for doping: (5 of those times are faster than your controls with Cram, Coe & Ovett).

3:26:00 El G

3:28.79 Iguider 

3:29.14 Ramzi (CERA/2008)

3:29.46 Aouita

3:29.53 Laâlou (Furosemide/2012 & EPO/2016)

3:31.10 Kaouch (EPO/2007)

This is 50% of their top six (6) 1500 men that were just caught doping. What does that suggest for the other three? Clean or just got lucky and didn't get caught?

The Moroccan 1500m men turned the world upside down with some tremendous performances that matched up with their rivals the Kenyans.

Rekrunner continues to maintain his belief (which in his case is never "faith-based", despite the fact his view cannot be proven) that records like those in the mile and the 1500 will be clean.

Yet what he does not address is why those records came at the end of a 40 year period when the record had improved regularly by a total 11 seconds - and then suddenly stopped. No improvement since. How can that be? What's more, no one has gotten near those times in the last 20 years (with the exception of a doped Kiprop in the 1500). In 1979, the mile record was 3.49; 20 years later it was 3.43. In the 20 years since, the best has been 3.46. The picture is little different for the 1500.

If - as rekrunner maintains- the records are the result of talent and not doping then why did such talent apparently begin and end in the 90's? This is completely contrary to the continued progression in most track and field records in the history of the sport, although it is significant that quite a few records (women's) stopped in the 80's and (for men) in the 90' s and then early 2000's. If it is talent that has decided these things then the sport must be declining, because today's best runners, perforce, must have less talent than those 15-20 or more years ago. And yet, there is Kipchoge, still breaking records on the road.

But the core problem with maintaining records are clean absent direct or confirmed evidence of doping is that no performance can thereby be suspect. If 3.43 is clean, what about 3.42, 3.41 or 3.40, and so on? For those who think like rekrunner, no performance of itself can be suspicious (quite apart from all the indirect evidence of widespread doping in the sport. He even refuses to consider whether Flojo's records are credible, or those of Kratochvilova). But for anyone else the question is, what level of performance do you find believable? Or not.

rekrunner is pointing out that your beliefs are just that, beliefs. I agree and also point out that they are based on pseudosience. And the use of emotive words, clean and dirty imply good and bad personalities.

Just how many potential doping products could be available? If you consider molecular tweaking, not just of testosterone but many other drugs, then you have potentially thousands of products that would need to be added to your list of imaginary performance enhancers. An unwinnable war but a profitable one for testers and dealers alike.

In the case of sprinters, an athlete's maximum speed and power limited by genetics. A woman would need a maximum speed of 11 meters per second to run as fast or faster than Flojo. And no drug can improve on this, it's a genetic trait. How many women have this genetic trait? Probably thousands. How many will do the training to achieve 10.49 or quicker in the next 20 years?

But sprint coaches don't think like this. They think like you, old school doping belief. There's the problem. And anti doping dogma reinforces this drug belief. It actually endorses it, whilst pretending to hold the moral high ground.

casual obsever wrote:

I don't see any inconsistency or faith in my post. Try to read it neutrally.

From various experts, we learned the following (and yes, I have references for all points):

1) Blood doping became "widespread" in Europe already in the 60s.

2) Blood doping was virtually impossible pre-EPO in Africa.

3) Blood doping helps 1 - 4% at the top (depending on the expert).

4) Blood doping was used by 18% of endurance athletes ("minimal estimate") on average worldwide in the last two decades (based on two different sets of blood tests).

In conclusion, your comparison pre and post 1990 is pointless, unless you focus on Africa alone, or find data showing a different prevalence of doping in Europe/US pre and post 1990.

Here I didn't do a comparison pre- and post-1990, but counted performers post-Cram.

Your new element of faith is your implication that Cram could only achieve his time in 1985 if he doped. Armstronglivs supposed it was clean, and that doping providing 2-3 seconds sounds about right.

While your 4 blood doping points may or may not be true, how is that connected to the mile WR?

Do you have facts or references establishing the relation of blood doping to the mile WR? Or is it just re-iterating the same faith that doping is necessary because it is obvious to those who believe.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I have never said or even implied that the 1980s were clean or controlled times.

No? Then what do you mean with this:

rekrunner wrote:

If we assume, as you do, "at least 40% doping prevalence", and 2 to 3 seconds improvement in the most talented high responders, "scientists" should predict large numbers of athletes, including large numbers of non-Africans, beating the 1980s times of Cram, Coe, Aouita and even Ovett, by significant margins.

As I said above, I responded to assumptions as already laid out by others. The context behind 2-3 seconds better than a "clean" time sounding about right comes from Armstronglivs:

Armstronglivs wrote:

And if any of them were clean it suggests that doping has taken at least 2 seconds off the wr. Sounds about right but I think 3 secs may be more likely.

That's speaking the truth wrote:

What? The difference is not dope with Morrocans? You're either a strange bird as in "naive" or a chronic Trollmeister.

3 out of Morroco's top 6 all-time fastest 1500 men have served bans for doping: (5 of those times are faster than your controls with Cram, Coe & Ovett).

3:26:00 El G

3:28.79 Iguider 

3:29.14 Ramzi (CERA/2008)

3:29.46 Aouita

3:29.53 Laâlou (Furosemide/2012 & EPO/2016)

3:31.10 Kaouch (EPO/2007)

This is 50% of their top six (6) 1500 men that were just caught doping. What does that suggest for the other three? Clean or just got lucky and didn't get caught?

The Moroccan 1500m men turned the world upside down with some tremendous performances that matched up with their rivals the Kenyans.

What are you missing? If we assume Cram,Coe,Ovett,Aouita's times from the 1980s was doped, as "causal obsever" implies, that would make it "not different" as the Moroccans, assuming that they also doped. Are you suggest you believe El G was clean and Cram was doped, and that makes it "different"?

casual obsever wrote:

That's speaking the truth wrote:

If he does think it's likely Auiota was doping, then he should take his times from the 15, 5, 10, etc., which are primarily the fastest of that era, and compare that with some of the confirmed doped athletes of the 90's/00's and see how the PEDs/methods of the 80's stack up against the PEDs/methods of the later decades.

+1

Or, see it neutrally, without any prejudice and take the top Europeans/Americans of the 80s, and compare that with the respective European times of the 70s, 90s, 00s, and 10s.

Oh wait. I've already done that. In 2018 though, so it needs to be updated.

Your "neutral" analysis only considered doping as a potential cause of improvement, ignoring all other potential causes of improvements for five decades.

The only thing I've maintained is that you have not provided supporting facts or references for something you find "obvious" that I've categorized as a belief. Instead, you have provide 3 pages of personal attacks on both my intelligence, and on my running performance.

Here are some Google definitions for belief:

"an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof."

"trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something)."

If you want me to stop calling it a belief -- and for some reason this offends you deeply, despite your own concessions that proofs are not possible -- it is not my burden to address new topics.

I also have beliefs, that are very different from yours, which lead me to many other conclusions and interpretations of historical facts and findings, but expressing my beliefs, or debunking my beliefs does not help you convert what you find "obvious" from a belief into something else.