How much are the new spikes worth per kilometer? And if the effect scales with distance, by how much? If you’re using shoe tech to discount widespread doping, you need to provide some numbers. Maybe just take 3:30, 13:00, and 27:00 run in old spikes and tell us what a person with the same fitness would run in dragonflies.
I need to provide numbers?
Other people have provided numbers. Nick Willis said 2 seconds for 1200m. Scientists say 2-6% efficiency, and I recall some early estimates of 90 seconds in the marathon for the earlier shoes. Might be more for the high responders.
I do not discount the width of the spread of doping -- but if you want to establish how widespread doping is, in distance running events, you need to provide some numbers.
Recall one non-expert speculates that recent jumps in performance causing new records can be attributed to recent developments in doping, apparently with so much evidence, that it could hit me over the head with a sledgehammer. If someone is going to argue that, they need to provide some numbers.
Changes to shoe technology are rudimentary and indeed shoes have changed little in decades. The latest innovations are the first in which it is being claimed they have a demonstrable effect on performance. That effect is only being estimated, as some athletes have made no improvements from using the new shoes.
Doping, however, has continued to be developed, as scientific innovation, modern medicine and pharmaceuticals are in a process of constant change and improvement. It is why doping remains ahead of antidoping. It is why the numbers doping will be much greater than those caught. Only a fool or an ignoramus will discount its effect on modern performances. But there you are.
If the fault is not easily discernible or 50/50, then yes a morally perfect individual would be able to tip the scales to one side and settle on an unequivocal judgement or decision.
Oh wow you just made me laugh out loud.None of them are/were clean.Theyre all drugged out of their skulls.
Are you a man of moral impeccability in speech and actions? If you are then you have the ability to make a judgement on matters of a man's morality. I am! I believe dear Rojo is the same as me. We both are men of the most perfect morals. Rojo will definitely agree with me that every single athlete I named in that list above is absolutely clean from drugs.
I think youre extremely deluded,and i sincerely doubt youre a man of moral impeccability in your speech or your actions.No such thing as a person with perfect morals.We are all shades of grey.Of course you could be a robot,or an alien,which might explain why you think youre morally impeccable..And youre also wrong.None of the people you mentioned are clean from drugs.Thanks for the laughs.
If the fault is not easily discernible or 50/50, then yes a morally perfect individual would be able to tip the scales to one side and settle on an unequivocal judgement or decision.
Are juries made up of morally perfect individuals? As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Well however much the superspikes gives you, it's comparable to if not less than the doping, especially when considering that training should also have improved in the last 2 decades, plus wavelights!, and today's athletes still dope, just not to the gills.
As it stands now:
The 800 m is from 2012, best current performer is on place 6 (no superspikes).
The 1500 m WR is from 1998, best current performer is on place 4.
The mile WR is from 1999, best current performer on place 3.
The old 3000 m steeple WR, 5000 m and 10000 m got broken, finally, but so far only by 1 man each.
The shoes don't beat doping. We also see that with women's records that are up to forty years old.
Im sort of suprised that marita koch's record hasn't fallen.Todays women are much more muscled than she was,and they wear the fancy shoes she didnt wear,and run on allegedly faster tracks.
All American pros (including Shelby) are clean, except Salazar/Rupp and the more obvious people like Christian Hesch.
I ran as a pro for a number of years and can definitely tell you there is a disconnect between the amount of American pros that people on LetsRun think are doping and the amount that actually are. Basically no American DISTANCE stars (except one guy) have doped in the last couple decades.
Pros get tested. Doping is way more prevalent in college because testing is so limited. Tuohy has never been tested and she is built like a sprinter.
I ran mid-level D1. There is 100% doping at the collegiate level. I am aware of a 2017 XC All American who took EPO when home training for the summer (international athlete). Of course I can't provide proper evidence for this, and my comment may just add to the nonsense. It's there, it's everywhere. But drugs without years of 100+ mile week and incredible talent are just vitamins.
All American pros (including Shelby) are clean, except Salazar/Rupp and the more obvious people like Christian Hesch.
I ran as a pro for a number of years and can definitely tell you there is a disconnect between the amount of American pros that people on LetsRun think are doping and the amount that actually are. Basically no American DISTANCE stars (except one guy) have doped in the last couple decades.
Hahahaha no. The opposite is true (well except for Rupp). Either you are trolling or spreading propaganda, or they fooled you (and you weren't part of any good team).
Other people have provided numbers. Nick Willis said 2 seconds for 1200m. Scientists say 2-6% efficiency, and I recall some early estimates of 90 seconds in the marathon for the earlier shoes. Might be more for the high responders.
I do not discount the width of the spread of doping -- but if you want to establish how widespread doping is, in distance running events, you need to provide some numbers.
Recall one non-expert speculates that recent jumps in performance causing new records can be attributed to recent developments in doping, apparently with so much evidence, that it could hit me over the head with a sledgehammer. If someone is going to argue that, they need to provide some numbers.
Changes to shoe technology are rudimentary and indeed shoes have changed little in decades. The latest innovations are the first in which it is being claimed they have a demonstrable effect on performance. That effect is only being estimated, as some athletes have made no improvements from using the new shoes.
Doping, however, has continued to be developed, as scientific innovation, modern medicine and pharmaceuticals are in a process of constant change and improvement. It is why doping remains ahead of antidoping. It is why the numbers doping will be much greater than those caught. Only a fool or an ignoramus will discount its effect on modern performances. But there you are.
So what you are showing is that the standard here at letsrun is that we don't need to provide numbers.
Doping has been around for many decades. The records and the shoes are recent.
Does doping develop so fast? Non-Africans generally stopped improving for decades after the 1980s, until recently, in the era of new shoes.
Doping is constantly changing, which is one of the reasons why antidoping can't keep up with doping. Shoe technology has been present since the beginning of the sport. It is simple and crude by comparison with what drugs are able to do to the human body.
Non Africans didn't stop improving, but the rate of their improvements slowed through more vigorous antidoping measures. Africans largely evaded that with virtually no drug testing in their countries and their use of a drug in the 90's for which there was then no effective test.
In this century athletes have used microdosing as a means of countering testing, but the ongoing developments in doping have put athletes further and further ahead of antidoping. (An exception is Kenya, where more focused antidoping has pulled in a vast net of "amateurs". It has shown doping is a norm in their sport.) Whatever the shoes have enabled has just been icing on that particular cake. It takes incredible naiivity to believe that ambitious athletes will avail themselves of the advantages of shoe technology but not drugs. The Kenyans show what they are prepared to do to succeed. The sport is full of drugs.
It takes incredible naiivity to fall for these gospels without supporting facts, data, or evidence.
Are you a man of moral impeccability in speech and actions? If you are then you have the ability to make a judgement on matters of a man's morality. I am! I believe dear Rojo is the same as me. We both are men of the most perfect morals. Rojo will definitely agree with me that every single athlete I named in that list above is absolutely clean from drugs.
I think youre extremely deluded,and i sincerely doubt youre a man of moral impeccability in your speech or your actions.No such thing as a person with perfect morals.We are all shades of grey.Of course you could be a robot,or an alien,which might explain why you think youre morally impeccable..And youre also wrong.None of the people you mentioned are clean from drugs.Thanks for the laughs.
Only the men who study electromagnetic fields (RF and EMF) have any bragging rights to moral impeccability which is taken to mean at least better than the rest of the other men on the planet earth who don't study these fields. Want to know why I say the men who dedicate their lives to the study and care of RF and EMFs tend towards the earth's most 'righteous angels'?
'Shades of grey'?? You don't know my level of moral impeccability do you? Is this the case where something or somebody is too good to be true for you that you deem such things or persons as deluded?
I give you one fine example that prima facie without any further consideration or in-depth inquiry, my morality beats all the rest of LRCers by billions of light years ALREADY!
I don't use a mobile phone, TV, Wi-Fi, radio, and hardly use AC electricity. Can you match this my friend?? Be honest, you can't and will fail miserably because you don't have what it takes in terms of moral impeccability! It's the same for sexual pleasure! Can you, like me, go without sexual fulfillment indefinitely?? Again, you know the answer......so stop acting like it's not possible to be at least relatively far more morally impeccable than the rest of the earth!
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
If the fault is not easily discernible or 50/50, then yes a morally perfect individual would be able to tip the scales to one side and settle on an unequivocal judgement or decision.
Are juries made up of morally perfect individuals? As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Look, the more 'objective' or 'material' evidence you need to see or hear to make a judgement about the probability or cause of space and time, the less morally impeccable person you have to be! It's a no-brainer.
Being able to 'see' through space and time and foretell it's likelihood or cause of reason without physical eyes and ears is the reserve of moral impeccability ironically because only the subjective realm of morality can catapult you pass physical objective evidence and still bring you to the truth!
The cause of Physics is morality. It was first a MORAL GOD who second created physical universe and earth. MORAL then PHYSICAL, remember this order!
Only the morally impeccable has the front seat to the truth, not the 'objective science or scientist'! Of course, the morally impeccable could not be harmed having the advantage of objective scientific material in front of their eyes but this is all a luxury and he doesn't really need to rely on it. If he has it it's all fine and good, if he doesn't it's okay since he will never lose his accuracy on the truth relying only on morality or moral theory.
This post was edited 9 minutes after it was posted.
All American pros (including Shelby) are clean, except Salazar/Rupp and the more obvious people like Christian Hesch.
I ran as a pro for a number of years and can definitely tell you there is a disconnect between the amount of American pros that people on LetsRun think are doping and the amount that actually are. Basically no American DISTANCE stars (except one guy) have doped in the last couple decades.
Pros get tested. Doping is way more prevalent in college because testing is so limited. Tuohy has never been tested and she is built like a sprinter.
I ran mid-level D1. There is 100% doping at the collegiate level. I am aware of a 2017 XC All American who took EPO when home training for the summer (international athlete). Of course I can't provide proper evidence for this, and my comment may just add to the nonsense. It's there, it's everywhere. But drugs without years of 100+ mile week and incredible talent are just vitamins.
I wonder if this is just your experience or is somewhat new. Competing at an NCAA major in a power conference '99-'01 I didn't suspect any of my teammates (multiple Oly Trials guys and one 1:45 800 m. Olympian) or my competitors above 800 m. There are definitely more "there is no right or wrong" types now than there were then, but I still wouldn't think very many distance runners would dope at the college level (just knowing the personalities that were typically involved in getting to that point.).
I think youre extremely deluded,and i sincerely doubt youre a man of moral impeccability in your speech or your actions.No such thing as a person with perfect morals.We are all shades of grey.Of course you could be a robot,or an alien,which might explain why you think youre morally impeccable..And youre also wrong.None of the people you mentioned are clean from drugs.Thanks for the laughs.
Only the men who study electromagnetic fields (RF and EMF) have any bragging rights to moral impeccability which is taken to mean at least better than the rest of the other men on the planet earth who don't study these fields. Want to know why I say the men who dedicate their lives to the study and care of RF and EMFs tend towards the earth's most 'righteous angels'?
'Shades of grey'?? You don't know my level of moral impeccability do you? Is this the case where something or somebody is too good to be true for you that you deem such things or persons as deluded?
I give you one fine example that prima facie without any further consideration or in-depth inquiry, my morality beats all the rest of LRCers by billions of light years ALREADY!
I don't use a mobile phone, TV, Wi-Fi, radio, and hardly use AC electricity. Can you match this my friend?? Be honest, you can't and will fail miserably because you don't have what it takes in terms of moral impeccability! It's the same for sexual pleasure! Can you, like me, go without sexual fulfillment indefinitely?? Again, you know the answer......so stop acting like it's not possible to be at least relatively far more morally impeccable than the rest of the earth!
Oh i see.Youre a joke profile,and a comedian.Cool.I originally thought you were just insane.Still,thanks for the laughs.You dont use technology,but you manage to come on here and type.Hahahahaha.
If you can read as well as I cannot joke at all you would notice I didn't include COMPUTER OR A LAPTOP with a wired Ethernet LAN connection. NO WI-FI for me to protect my brain matter! You mustn't have seen such impeccable morality as no WI-FI have you? Now you know do you? You are ridiculous. Your speech and reply extremely irreverent and outrageous like you are about to truly go mentally insane.......
And you still think you don't need the love of God and repentance of sins? Still think this is all a joke or insanity? Look who's more clear-minded than you are right now!!!
Nobody would rely on a seemingly morally defunct, irreverent, double-dealing man like you to give judgement on the culpability of Haile Gebrselassie and/or Kenenisa Bekele or if they had taken drugs.
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.
All American pros (including Shelby) are clean, except Salazar/Rupp and the more obvious people like Christian Hesch.
I ran as a pro for a number of years and can definitely tell you there is a disconnect between the amount of American pros that people on LetsRun think are doping and the amount that actually are. Basically no American DISTANCE stars (except one guy) have doped in the last couple decades.
You lost your argument as soon as you said Shelby is clean.
Changes to shoe technology are rudimentary and indeed shoes have changed little in decades. The latest innovations are the first in which it is being claimed they have a demonstrable effect on performance. That effect is only being estimated, as some athletes have made no improvements from using the new shoes.
Doping, however, has continued to be developed, as scientific innovation, modern medicine and pharmaceuticals are in a process of constant change and improvement. It is why doping remains ahead of antidoping. It is why the numbers doping will be much greater than those caught. Only a fool or an ignoramus will discount its effect on modern performances. But there you are.
So what you are showing is that the standard here at letsrun is that we don't need to provide numbers.
I cannot discount that which no one counts.
Doping exists whether you think you can count it or not.
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.