Justin says:
<<<<<<
When we can show that the record is improving by a
smaller margin with each succeeding 20 yr period, we'll be able to make some
intelligent predictions (rather than simple assertions, which is all you've
managed so far).
>>>>>>
You can make the WR's say whatever you want them too ... if you choose the
years correctly and only look at large 20 year blocks.
I said that I believe that a 50 second improvement in the seasonal-best
level of the 10k over 15 years was due to more than more Africans running.
By 1983, 2 guys had broken 27:24 and by 1998 two guys had broken 26:29.
Looking more carefully at the progression of the WR (every 10 years from the
last one set):
98 26:22 (51 seconds/10 yrs - 2.04 secs a lap)
88 27:13 (9 seconds/10 yrs - .36 secs a lap)
78 27:22 (17 seconds/10 yrs - .68 secs a lap)
68 27:39 (50 seconds/10 yrs - 2.00 secs a lap)
58 28:30
48 ???
You say:
"Clearly, as we reach the point of
maximum potential, we will see diminishing returns. As was elegantly shown
to us all, there is no evidence of diminishing returns in the event you
chose to highlight, the 10k."
Based on the WR progression, was the world seeing DIMINISHING RETURNS from
1955 to 1988, or not? Clearly it was. Based on the progression over the
very long term ( the last 50 years ) has the world seen an unexpected rate
of improvement of the 10km WR from 1988 to 1998?
Clearly we have.
What does that prove about drug use? Nothing at all. But, those who say we
have been improving 60 seconds every 20 years, and we should expect that to
continue until we reach the "limits" of endurance, whether they are 26:20,
25:20 or 24:20 ... are just plain wrong.
We had already reached the point of diminishing returns by 1980.
By 1983 the top-ten men in history were all within EIGHT seconds. They
ranged from 27:22.4 to 27:30.x. Clearly, the world was near the limits of
what was possible for the time. Men from many nations had run 27:30 ... two
Kenyans, two Portuguese, two East Germans, two Americans, two Englishmen, a
Finn.
Since the late 1980's the WR has improved by close to the same margin that
used to separate the top-ten ALL-TIME:
27:13
27:08
27:07
26:58
26:53
26:43
26:31
26:27
26:22
What does that prove about drug use? Nothing at all. But, it is not true
to say that the WR has advanced at about the rate the world should expect,
based on our knowledge of the last 50 years.
Based on World experience over 1950-1990 ... you would expect the WR now to
be 27:05 or slower.
I am not saying that is the limit of human performance in 2000 ... just that
if you had never seen the dramatic escalation from 1992-1998 ... but were
presented with the WR progression of the previous 40 years, you WOULD NOT be
expecting the WR to be 26:22.
What does that prove about drug use? Nothing at all.
-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Clouder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 12:30 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: t-and-f: Not EVERYONE is doping
Oh come on Brian, at least try to debate intelligently.
Of course it's true that no race can be run in zero time. Limits are above
zero time, we can all agree on that. Clearly, as we reach the point of
maximum potential, we will see diminishing returns. As was elegantly shown
to us all, there is no evidence of diminishing returns in the event you
chose to highlight, the 10k. The record has come down (in fits and starts)
by a lap or so every 20 years. That's a rolling stat of course - every year
we can compare 20 year periods going back as far as we like and measure the
diminishing returns. When we can show that the record is improving by a
smaller margin with each succeeding 20 yr period, we'll be able to make some
intelligent predictions (rather than simple assertions, which is all you've
managed so far).
There are two major objections to your limits argument:
1. For it to be right, literally every single distance runner has to be on
drugs. There are only two statements about drugs in sport that we know are
rubbish - that everyone is clean, and that everyone is dirty. If even one
athlete has been competitive while clean (ie run say 13:00 and 27:10) then
your argument falls down.
2. You have to show that we have ALREADY REACHED the natural limits of human
potential and that improvements since then are solely down to drugs. In
fact, you have to argue that we reached human limits before the advent of
EPO, ie in the late 80s. Damn, if I'd realised that I'd have paid better
attention!! If even one athlete can be shown to have exceeded late 80s
standards while clean, again your argument falls down.
Most of us completly buy your contention that EPO and other drugs are rife
at all levels of the sport. You do not need to use these patently absurd
arguments to make your point.
Justin
**********************************************************************
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message.
If you are not the addressee indicated in the message (or responsible
for the delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone.
In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the
sender by reply Email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet Email for messages of this kind.
Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd or its
Group/Associated Companies shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by them.
Abbott Mead Vickers.BBDO Limited.
Registered in England.
Registered Number 1935786.
Registered Office 151 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5QE.
Telephone 020 7616 3500.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**********************************************************************
