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.
There are facts, data and evidence. But unlike you I don't intend to write columns of figures to make a point. As you can only follow figures you aren't part of any intelligent discussion about doping.
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!
It's not often we get a complete madman commenting here but you have just raised the bar.
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.
You lost your argument as soon as you said Shelby is clean.
My impression is that the majority of Shelby defenders uses the following argument: The test revealed that she had had an oral ingestion of the nandrolone substance (that doesn’t give any performance advantage, especially given the small dose). -If she wanted intentionally to dope she would have used other means -the test says she didn’t at the time…
I think somebody more skilled / well informed than me should give an answer here to increase the consensus / views on the Houlihan case…
You lost your argument as soon as you said Shelby is clean.
My impression is that the majority of Shelby defenders uses the following argument: The test revealed that she had had an oral ingestion of the nandrolone substance (that doesn’t give any performance advantage, especially given the small dose). -If she wanted intentionally to dope she would have used other means -the test says she didn’t at the time…
I think somebody more skilled / well informed than me should give an answer here to increase the consensus / views on the Houlihan case…
Absolutely not. That issue has been thrashed to death in countless other threads. She doped. She was banned. End of story.
You lost your argument as soon as you said Shelby is clean.
You really have trouble understanding sarcasm...
It isn't sarcasm. If it isn't sincere then it is facetious. It is however too clumsy for that. It poses as genuine comment. So that shows you don't understand "sarcasm" either.
It isn't sarcasm. If it isn't sincere then it is facetious. It is however too clumsy for that. It poses as genuine comment. So that shows you don't understand "sarcasm" either.
It is genuine comment only to someone as ignorant as you.
Do you remember how often you belittle others, boasting about your incredible knowledge of the sport?
You are not knowledgeable at all. You are an ignorant buffoon.
Hesch admitted to EPO use. That poster knew it. You didn't. You are ignorant.
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!
It's not often we get a complete madman commenting here but you have just raised the bar.
Being hardwired differently as a man on this planet earth from you and the rest of the seemingly unremarkable men doesn't and shouldn't make me any less desirable or appreciated??
Why should a male man like me who practices virginity or celibacy, and, RFs and EMFs be considered any more or less 'mad' or 'madman' than Josh Giddey the pedophile or Lance Armstrong the shameless doper? If I supposedly raised the bar for 'madness' then did you inadvertently also raise the bar for blatant moral double-standards and indiscretion thus calling into question your very own 'moral impeccability'???
You can never make an argument against me, a truly morally immovable standard of antiquity, stone age or Scripture or at least a voice or advocate for one, without being pricked and harassed by your own gross lack of moral impeccability!
First of all, answer this question in front of LRCer if you claim to have any upper hand whether over me or over any other moral man on this planet earth: do you practice celibacy and sexual self-control aka monk-hood? This is a salient criteria or one of the salient criteria for qualification into the realm of moral impeccability, unfortunately for you am I right???
I agree with you dear ytre or whatever your name is, Armstronglivs isn't knowledgeable at all if the true definition of 'knowledge' is morally persuaded and governed! He couldn't see that Haile Gebrselassie and Kenenisa Bekele were the world's cleanest athletes that ever walked the earth because he lacked 'moral eyes' aka spiritual intelligence. He has a nihilistic view of reality whereas folks like me, an RF King am far more holistic in my judgement!
I have always said it for the umpteenth time, true knowledge is morally entrenched first and foremost, followed after by the laws of Physics. First morality then Physics. Mess up this order and you lose all your knowledge just like Stephen Hawkings who was truly a total failure in Physics! That guy knew nothing at all......he was truly The Madman!!
It isn't sarcasm. If it isn't sincere then it is facetious. It is however too clumsy for that. It poses as genuine comment. So that shows you don't understand "sarcasm" either.
It is genuine comment only to someone as ignorant as you.
Do you remember how often you belittle others, boasting about your incredible knowledge of the sport?
You are not knowledgeable at all. You are an ignorant buffoon.
Hesch admitted to EPO use. That poster knew it. You didn't. You are ignorant.
And Shelby was banned. I stopped reading after that. Let me know when you have understood the difference between sarcasm and facetious.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
It's not often we get a complete madman commenting here but you have just raised the bar.
Being hardwired differently as a man on this planet earth from you and the rest of the seemingly unremarkable men doesn't and shouldn't make me any less desirable or appreciated??
Why should a male man like me who practices virginity or celibacy, and, RFs and EMFs be considered any more or less 'mad' or 'madman' than Josh Giddey the pedophile or Lance Armstrong the shameless doper? If I supposedly raised the bar for 'madness' then did you inadvertently also raise the bar for blatant moral double-standards and indiscretion thus calling into question your very own 'moral impeccability'???
You can never make an argument against me, a truly morally immovable standard of antiquity, stone age or Scripture or at least a voice or advocate for one, without being pricked and harassed by your own gross lack of moral impeccability!
First of all, answer this question in front of LRCer if you claim to have any upper hand whether over me or over any other moral man on this planet earth: do you practice celibacy and sexual self-control aka monk-hood? This is a salient criteria or one of the salient criteria for qualification into the realm of moral impeccability, unfortunately for you am I right???
It is hard to imagine but you've just raised your own bar. A complete nutjob.
I want to hear from you the morally applaudable and God-fearing statement that Josh Giddey the NBA player had just raised the bar for exhibitionist-type pedophilia, the first on the planet earth in which he boasted or cause to be boasted in broad daylight a picture suggestive of blatant underage sex when ordinary pedophilias are usually caused to occur with a cloak of secrecy and denial that furthest away from public display on social media!
How about that from me my friend??? Give me a prize please.....my RF-honed acumen is the real bar breaker or legendary here! I'm sure you can see that....
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
I want to hear from you the morally applaudable and God-fearing statement that Josh Giddey the NBA player had just raised the bar for exhibitionist-type pedophilia, the first on the planet earth in which he boasted or cause to be boasted in broad daylight a picture suggestive of blatant underage sex when ordinary pedophilias are usually caused to occur with a cloak of secrecy and denial that furthest away from public display on social media!
How about that from me my friend??? Give me a prize please.....my RF-honed acumen is the real bar breaker or legendary here! I'm sure you can see that....
Unintelligible. You have yet to write a sane post.
I ran mid 13's and mid 28's and around pushing 2:10 marathon and I don't think I'm a genetic freak but worked really hard for a decade or more. People who are genetically gifted and train hard/smart could definitely run 12:50's, 26:50's and 2:05 ish. But the world records do seem outrageous to be significantly faster than those times. Maybe someone like me could have run 13:15 and 27:30 with doping, so the people at the front maybe aren't the only ones doping, as we've seen with a variety of people getting busted. And then one of those 12:50's genetically gifted people who also dope on top of that are the ones running 12:40 or faster. We'll never know about the current crop of athletes, not until we get to a higher level of testing. Will probably require daily blood tests if that is possible, like a diabetic blood sugar test type of thing.
It takes incredible naiivity to fall for these gospels without supporting facts, data, or evidence.
There are facts, data and evidence. But unlike you I don't intend to write columns of figures to make a point. As you can only follow figures you aren't part of any intelligent discussion about doping.
Indeed -- there are plenty of facts, data, and evidence in my posts, which support my opinions.
These are fundamental in any intelligent discussion of performance.
I ran mid 13's and mid 28's and around pushing 2:10 marathon and I don't think I'm a genetic freak but worked really hard for a decade or more. People who are genetically gifted and train hard/smart could definitely run 12:50's, 26:50's and 2:05 ish. But the world records do seem outrageous to be significantly faster than those times. Maybe someone like me could have run 13:15 and 27:30 with doping, so the people at the front maybe aren't the only ones doping, as we've seen with a variety of people getting busted. And then one of those 12:50's genetically gifted people who also dope on top of that are the ones running 12:40 or faster. We'll never know about the current crop of athletes, not until we get to a higher level of testing. Will probably require daily blood tests if that is possible, like a diabetic blood sugar test type of thing.
Hmmm I find your comments quite reasonable and I don't give out praise easily to LRCers but I kinda like the way you are thinking about things! I'm attracted! You however made one small mistake. There is no such thing as 'genetically' gifted, it's 'epigenetics' instead, how your genes get turn on by various factors whether pollutants or therapeutic ones.
I want to hear from you the morally applaudable and God-fearing statement that Josh Giddey the NBA player had just raised the bar for exhibitionist-type pedophilia, the first on the planet earth in which he boasted or cause to be boasted in broad daylight a picture suggestive of blatant underage sex when ordinary pedophilias are usually caused to occur with a cloak of secrecy and denial that furthest away from public display on social media!
How about that from me my friend??? Give me a prize please.....my RF-honed acumen is the real bar breaker or legendary here! I'm sure you can see that....
Unintelligible. You have yet to write a sane post.
There is a fine line between rarefied sphere of intelligence called loosely as the summation of IQ, EQ, SQ(spiritual), and, true insanity or lack of mind. I can completely empathize with you if you have trouble making sense of which category I belong to.
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.