Too many World Records being set —- not happy

letsdrum wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So are the 2k, 3k and the 2 miles run less often. It didn't stop athletes from setting records there that have lasted decades.

Changing the subject - as always. He is always doing this before admitting he was wrong.

2000m and 2 Miles are run extremely seldom, the 3000m not. But more often than the Mile and for sure not as often as the 1500m and the 5000m.

El Guerrouj's 2000m WR was strong - but not as strong as his other outdoor records. Komen's 2 Miles WB was good, but way behind his 3000m mark. It lasted so long because it almost never was contested (and for sure because Komen had his strength at 3000m/2 Miles). And Gebrselassie, Bekele, El Guerrouj not. Even the 3000m mark currently is not as strong as the 1500m and the 5000m.

Ingebrigtsen next year might better the Mile WR, the 1500m is out of his reach.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

If Willis is correct that means the 1500 record is actually worth 3:23x in the new spikes - and the mile record sub-3:40. (Of course Willis doesn't say that). That means these records were doped beyond our comprehension (not to mention Komen's records and those who ran close like Ngeny, Lagat and Kiprop). Only a lunatic would believe 3:23x and 3:40 respectively could be clean. But that doesn't really square with your oft-stated view that those records weren't doped and also that athletes only "believe" doping enhances performance and that at best it only offers a "placebo" effect. But what a placebo! Clearly, it's what Jakob needs because the magic shoes alone aren't doing it. You are a joke.

Maybe beyond your comprehension, because your mind is clouded with all your doping myths.

Your whole post is awkward. It doesn't square because you are awkwardly trying to inject doping as a possible factor, assuming the conclusion, without basis or substance or evidence or fact, that doping could have made him faster in the first place. If he ran 3:23.xx or 3:40.xx in the latest spikes, this could be either clean or dirty -- no way to tell from the time until someone can correlate doping with time. All these athletes: El G, Komen, Ngeny, Lagat, Kiprop, could have been clean when producing their fastest performances, or could have been dirty. We simply don't have sufficient substantial evidence to determine that based on times alone.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

If Willis is correct that means the 1500 record is actually worth 3:23x in the new spikes - and the mile record sub-3:40. (Of course Willis doesn't say that). That means these records were doped beyond our comprehension (not to mention Komen's records and those who ran close like Ngeny, Lagat and Kiprop). Only a lunatic would believe 3:23x and 3:40 respectively could be clean. But that doesn't really square with your oft-stated view that those records weren't doped and also that athletes only "believe" doping enhances performance and that at best it only offers a "placebo" effect. But what a placebo! Clearly, it's what Jakob needs because the magic shoes alone aren't doing it. You are a joke.

Maybe beyond your comprehension, because your mind is clouded with all your doping myths.

Your whole post is awkward. It doesn't square because you are awkwardly trying to inject doping as a possible factor, assuming the conclusion, without basis or substance or evidence or fact, that doping could have made him faster in the first place. If he ran 3:23.xx or 3:40.xx in the latest spikes, this could be either clean or dirty -- no way to tell from the time until someone can correlate doping with time. All these athletes: El G, Komen, Ngeny, Lagat, Kiprop, could have been clean when producing their fastest performances, or could have been dirty. We simply don't have sufficient substantial evidence to determine that based on times alone.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I have substantiated my views in countless other doping threads but I can count on you to have absorbed none of it. There is only room for doping-denial inside your cranium. That is shown by you thinking 1500/milers somehow fall outside the sphere of doping practised in every other athletic activity. WADA doesn't see it that way, as it has placed track in the same category of risk of doping as weightlifting, bodybuilding and cycling - none of which would exist now without doping. Jakob Ingebrigtsen is really no different from Mr Olympia - different drugs and appearance but same practice.

It looks like "substantiated" is another English word which you don't know the meaning.

We cannot even begin to count those threads because the number is ZERO. My cranium has plenty of room for substantial facts and evidence and logic, because I keep it clear of baseless conclusions and myths.

You do not substantiate your views, but when pressed, either "choose not to substantiate (lol)", or, like here, commit some obvious fallacy like appealing to a false authority. WADA doesn't see elite performance benefits because they are not looking at elite performance. They are satisified with subjective non-empirical assessments of a potential benefit, in some cases by looking at small samples of amateurs, in other cases, not even looking at any athlete performances.

The fact is that no one substantiates the performance benefit of drugs for elite performances in men's distance running.

Scientists look at amateurs who may or may not be running their peak performances. In one case, they looked at near elite athletes who tempo'd their time trials (far from elite performances) -- what a wasted opportunity.

What about the athletes and coaches who know so much? We don't have any elite athlete/coach anecdotes supporting elite benefits. Unlike cycling or bodybuilding, distance runners or their coaches don't talk about how doping made an unnatural difference. I'm aware of one athlete who did speak (Kisorio) to the press, but he doesn't even know if he took EPO, and in any case, he got slower while doping.