10 sub 3:50 in Bowerman Mile at Prefontaine Classic. Abel Kipsang was dead last in 3:53, Like seriously, what are these guy's on. Is there a new drug in market?
They’re on carbon fiber springs.
Are we still pretending that the shoes don’t matter?
It’s the foam, not the plate. The Dragonfly doesn’t even have a carbon fiber plate; it’s PEBA.
We didn't see records being broken with this regularity by the E Bloc athletes or even in the EPO heyday of the 90's. It has become farcically obvious what is happening. Doping is getting better - and it can't be detected.
Yeah how come it's this way? I'm also wondering how the heck Jakob doesn't even look all that tired after the 3k as well! I rather think it's the shoes here though. the spring really takes a lot of pounding from the legs like a magnetic levitator...
10 sub 3:50 in Bowerman Mile at Prefontaine Classic. Abel Kipsang was dead last in 3:53, Like seriously, what are these guy's on. Is there a new drug in market?
I feel it is more that people realize 3:30 or 3:50 is not good enough as there are many very good runners. It's stepping up the game.
On a smaller scale: When I ran my first marathon I studied and broke 2:20 on a warm day with a fair amount of buffer, although for 2 years no one in my country had gone so fast. As obviously I wasn't the biggest Talent or pro this resulted in more and more people realizing that it must be possible to run way faster.
Today people here are running 2:06 etc...
I just feel like it is a very competetive era and people love to race more and the internet helps with easy access to better training methology. For sure this isn't only PEDs.
10 sub 3:50 in Bowerman Mile at Prefontaine Classic. Abel Kipsang was dead last in 3:53, Like seriously, what are these guy's on. Is there a new drug in market?
Theyre on combinations of EPO and low dose steroids mostly.Cutting steroids and fat burners.Clenbuterol,testosterone,insulin,nandrolone,possibly winstrol.
We didn't see records being broken with this regularity by the E Bloc athletes or even in the EPO heyday of the 90's. It has become farcically obvious what is happening. Doping is getting better - and it can't be detected.
Or maybe it can be,but the athletes doing it are all being protected,for the good of the sport,and the glory of the countries involved.......
It doesn't matter what they're on, because it's still doping, whatever it is. And they are getting away with it. Track is no different from WWE.
What you are saying here is in accordance with what a group of WADA researchers wrote in 2013, about athletics. And these weren’t the only ones -I have seen well renowned independent researchers firmly backing views like this, also connected to named, unpopped individual athletes (f.dx Norwegian cross country skiers)…
The problem with the things mentioned above is that these researchers clearly seem flawed! (Not my “invented” view -other, well renowned researchers says this about their colleagues). -F.ex the mentioned WADA group of 2013 admit themselves that they should have taken altitude training into account, but don’t seem tounderstand that not doing so totally undermines all of their research, conclusions and estimates, and credibility.
It is extremely hard to estimate the prevalence of doping in athletics. -It can be extremely low (just a little above the 1-3% of the positive tests), or extremely high. -We just don’t know; the research seems to be utterly sparse, flawed and limited and old. And the researchers seem to be dependent of a lot of guesswork and unfounded opinion, and some of them just don’t know the difference between this and science…
Examples: The WADA group from 2013 writes that one have to take into account that there always will be doping methods they can’t detect. Well, that seems logical because new doping methods will of course always have a time gap / advantage to technology in WADA labs. But this is also inlogical (in the meaning “it’s easy to outsmart the testing”) because obviously one have to have an advanced clinical support apparatus to do so. Logic says this: Only big teams (f.ex cycling teams) with their own dedicated medical personnel can do advanced doping, or one must have the support from a apparatus on National level - “state doping” as in Russia and Eastern Europe. But even that has been popped… But the point here is: No random athlete have access to advanced doping methods in athletics-you have to be in an advanced system. And in Norway f.ex, the only candidate I can see for this advanced cheating is the “Olympiatoppen” -but given it’s public founding structure, transparency and so on its not very likely this kind of advanced medical manipulation wouldn’t be exposed and revealed…
One round more about the researchers: The 2013 Wada group suspected a lot of athletes (18%) based on their blood passes. But specialist in altitude training and blood pass fluctuations, professor Jostein Hallen says one cannot use blood values at all! -Far too much natural fluctuations that the researchers misjudged (because of altitude training, time frame coming home from altitude, hydration, wrong measurements, and so on and so on…
More: There is very little controlled research being made on accuracy of doping estimates. But even “good” research can be problematic: Ten athletes were injected with Epo. Seven of these will be popped on readings of their blood passes, three will only be (strongly) suspected. But the problem was that also one of the clean athletes from the control group was strongly suspected… But here is the point: Was altitude training part of the experiment (I mean both for the injected ones and the clean ones)? Nothing in the experiment says anything about that! But if it wasn’t (and that is most likely) the conclusions are that this experiment is flawed! (As in a general estimation of blood values and doping). This shows how difficult estimation of prevalence is, even in controlled research…
This WADA group predicted a significant decrease in doping from 2011 to 2013. (Because of the introduction of ABP; athletes afraid of being popped). But this didn’t happen -on the contrary: They saw a (couple of %) increase, and was a little puzzled, but left it there. But my question is this: Can it be that the group didn’t understand that there very well could have been a significant decrease in doping, but that an increase in altitude training gave the so called doping increase?! -When things are flawed they can really get flawed….
You often hint to surveys being done by other researchers (but uncritically cited by the WADA group): These ten year old speculative surveys gives very high estimates of doping prevalence in athletics. But they are not what people think: They certainly do not register yes or no answer from athletes if they dope, or know about anybody who dopes (as we may have thought), no they in theory trick the athletes to popp them self unwillingly through a 2 min long survey (extremely controversial method of course -regarding some accuracy at all). Take a look on the method -if you doped, do you really think you could be popped by writing some answers on a 2 min survey ?! I don’t say the method is 100% bogus, but you cannot use a such a controversial and old survey as proof…
”Jakob micro dosing with Epo” -well, artificial Epo can be detected, also in low doses. -The deciding factor is of course how often one is being tested and the timeframe, meaning a test close enough to the micro injection will of course be positive. -Has Jakob undergone that kind of testing throughout the years? -Yes I believe so…
Conclusion: There are no consensus among experts about high prevalence of doping in athletics. There are indications in all directions (low, medium, high) -very subjective and hard to know and judge. -You have made up your opinion, and I have no problem with that, or your frequent repetition of your view -gives me an opportunity to think the matter through and doing some reading…
"Conclusion: There are no consensus among experts about high prevalence of doping in athletics. There are indications in all directions (low, medium, high) -very subjective and hard to know and judge. -You have made up your opinion, and I have no problem with that, or your frequent repetition of your view -gives me an opportunity to think the matter through and doing some reading…"(quote)
You are wrong about that. That is because you have been too narrow in your choice of experts. For a start, WADA estimates of doping have ranged from 10% of top athletes to 40%. Then we have confidential athlete surveys a decade ago that show that anywhere between 30-60% of championship athletes are doping. We can then add experts like Victor Conte, who supplied drugs to top athletes, who says that at the top level all the athletes are doping. He isn't alone in that. Others estimate a more "modest" 80%.
We know that drugs can be performance-enhancing and we know the demand for them is such that the black market in ped's exceeds a billion dollars each year. We know also that antidoping remains behind doping, so most dopers will not be caught - that from David Howman and other antidoping experts. When athletes who are driven to succeed know their chances of reaching the top will increase if they dope, and the likelihood of their being caught is very slim, there is only one outcome. That is where professional sport is today.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
It doesn't matter what they're on, because it's still doping, whatever it is. And they are getting away with it. Track is no different from WWE.
What you are saying here is in accordance with what a group of WADA researchers wrote in 2013, about athletics. And these weren’t the only ones -I have seen well renowned independent researchers firmly backing views like this, also connected to named, unpopped individual athletes (f.dx Norwegian cross country skiers)…
The problem with the things mentioned above is that these researchers clearly seem flawed! (Not my “invented” view -other, well renowned researchers says this about their colleagues). -F.ex the mentioned WADA group of 2013 admit themselves that they should have taken altitude training into account, but don’t seem tounderstand that not doing so totally undermines all of their research, conclusions and estimates, and credibility.
It is extremely hard to estimate the prevalence of doping in athletics. -It can be extremely low (just a little above the 1-3% of the positive tests), or extremely high. -We just don’t know; the research seems to be utterly sparse, flawed and limited and old. And the researchers seem to be dependent of a lot of guesswork and unfounded opinion, and some of them just don’t know the difference between this and science…
Examples: The WADA group from 2013 writes that one have to take into account that there always will be doping methods they can’t detect. Well, that seems logical because new doping methods will of course always have a time gap / advantage to technology in WADA labs. But this is also inlogical (in the meaning “it’s easy to outsmart the testing”) because obviously one have to have an advanced clinical support apparatus to do so. Logic says this: Only big teams (f.ex cycling teams) with their own dedicated medical personnel can do advanced doping, or one must have the support from a apparatus on National level - “state doping” as in Russia and Eastern Europe. But even that has been popped… But the point here is: No random athlete have access to advanced doping methods in athletics-you have to be in an advanced system. And in Norway f.ex, the only candidate I can see for this advanced cheating is the “Olympiatoppen” -but given it’s public founding structure, transparency and so on its not very likely this kind of advanced medical manipulation wouldn’t be exposed and revealed…
One round more about the researchers: The 2013 Wada group suspected a lot of athletes (18%) based on their blood passes. But specialist in altitude training and blood pass fluctuations, professor Jostein Hallen says one cannot use blood values at all! -Far too much natural fluctuations that the researchers misjudged (because of altitude training, time frame coming home from altitude, hydration, wrong measurements, and so on and so on…
More: There is very little controlled research being made on accuracy of doping estimates. But even “good” research can be problematic: Ten athletes were injected with Epo. Seven of these will be popped on readings of their blood passes, three will only be (strongly) suspected. But the problem was that also one of the clean athletes from the control group was strongly suspected… But here is the point: Was altitude training part of the experiment (I mean both for the injected ones and the clean ones)? Nothing in the experiment says anything about that! But if it wasn’t (and that is most likely) the conclusions are that this experiment is flawed! (As in a general estimation of blood values and doping). This shows how difficult estimation of prevalence is, even in controlled research…
This WADA group predicted a significant decrease in doping from 2011 to 2013. (Because of the introduction of ABP; athletes afraid of being popped). But this didn’t happen -on the contrary: They saw a (couple of %) increase, and was a little puzzled, but left it there. But my question is this: Can it be that the group didn’t understand that there very well could have been a significant decrease in doping, but that an increase in altitude training gave the so called doping increase?! -When things are flawed they can really get flawed….
You often hint to surveys being done by other researchers (but uncritically cited by the WADA group): These ten year old speculative surveys gives very high estimates of doping prevalence in athletics. But they are not what people think: They certainly do not register yes or no answer from athletes if they dope, or know about anybody who dopes (as we may have thought), no they in theory trick the athletes to popp them self unwillingly through a 2 min long survey (extremely controversial method of course -regarding some accuracy at all). Take a look on the method -if you doped, do you really think you could be popped by writing some answers on a 2 min survey ?! I don’t say the method is 100% bogus, but you cannot use a such a controversial and old survey as proof…
”Jakob micro dosing with Epo” -well, artificial Epo can be detected, also in low doses. -The deciding factor is of course how often one is being tested and the timeframe, meaning a test close enough to the micro injection will of course be positive. -Has Jakob undergone that kind of testing throughout the years? -Yes I believe so…
Conclusion: There are no consensus among experts about high prevalence of doping in athletics. There are indications in all directions (low, medium, high) -very subjective and hard to know and judge. -You have made up your opinion, and I have no problem with that, or your frequent repetition of your view -gives me an opportunity to think the matter through and doing some reading…