Subway Surfers wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I thought we discussed this already.
If the abstract were more important, why have a study at all? I think I've been consistent that the study wins in cases of ambiguity.
Regarding 5%, I'll direct you to the limitations sections of the studies for how to exercise caution when interpreting 5%.
Wow! I can't wait for the arguments against this.
Forget abstract, sometimes your arguments are deliberately deceiving, admit it.
At a conference on exercise physiology and one of the speakers proposed a rule of 0.3%, anything above this gain should be sought and incorporated (though he wasn't advocating drugs). Year to year updates in spike/shoe models are unlikely to offer this. If I can recall properly his speech was on elite cyclists and altitude training and he found gains of less than 1% though he still claim it as worthwhile. So your argument that altitude training alone can explain the epo era is a shaky proposition.
I have always said a 1-2% gain is massive at an elite level, that is why epo is banned, WADA & the IOC have done their own testing and concluded with resources available to them (that are far greater than what you have available) and concluded the gains are significant. I have always said everything in this life abides by the law of diminishing returns but I can also easily see epo turning a 14:30 runner into a 13:30 runner, which is 6.9% I can also see a 13:55 becoming a 13:10 a 5.4% gain, enough for championship qualification. So 13:05 becoming 12:56, though smaller is enough to distort the outcome of the sport and therein lies the problem.[/quote]Or the occasional super-responder that comes along:
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/i-took-epo-to-have-an-equal-chance-says-athlete-51094.htmlFrom 30:35 (2002) to 27:33 (2004). ?
A ~10% improvement in about 21 months. Probably the exception rather than the rule but nonetheless he cheated himself to the National Irish record and the Olympics "A" standard.