Geez Gary, between you and JonO I've never seen two people say a whole lot of nothing in two different ways to such an extent.
You with your wall of obfuscation and Jon with his endless repetition of the same vague theory.
Geez Gary, between you and JonO I've never seen two people say a whole lot of nothing in two different ways to such an extent.
You with your wall of obfuscation and Jon with his endless repetition of the same vague theory.
rekrunner wrote:
The fact is that when you say 25 years, with very few exceptions, we don't really know which coaches and athletes have been using EPO and succeeding for 25 years. And we don't have any real insight into the minds of the coaches and athletes, and their decision process, to determine if their thinking of risk and reward is the same rational thinking that you assume.
Speak for yourself, not for me please.
rekrunner wrote:
I assume you (or most of you in this forum) have never been in their shoes, evaluating whether to use EPO either for your performance, or your athlete's performance.
Speak for yourself, not for me please.
Or, to use your own words:
rekrunner wrote:
There are a number of loaded assumptions there.
Indeed.
rekrunner wrote:
So there is some amount of personal projection onto people who are not in your situation.
Now it gets comical. Or, to use your words:
rekrunner wrote:
There are a number of loaded assumptions there.
Yes there are.
rekrunner wrote:
- One counter example: Christian Hesch said he took EPO for 2 years before seeing any result.
Source?
rekrunner wrote:
- By your criteria, even a 1% placebo effect would have been enough to reinforce the decision and continue using.
Source for my criteria?
rekrunner wrote:
- Recall the point of my performance thread was to show 28 years of "very little success" since 1990 for most of the world outside of Africa. From this we could speculate:
1) You are right, many of them tried it and failed and stopped
2) Or you are wrong, and many tried it, and kept trying, and still many of the non-Africans failed to match the African performances, to within 2%, and very few even managed to outperform the previous generation of athletes.
3) Or I am right, they tried it, improved, and only slightly outperformed the previous generation of athletes because those had unlimited blood transfusions and no OOC tests prior to the mid/late 80s, depending on the country.
Plus, "non-Africans failed to match the African performances"? If both groups used EPO, that's no argument; if only the Africans used EPO, your point might backfire; if only the non-Africans used EPO, you would have a point, but recent events do not support that theory.
rekrunner wrote:
When you rank nations by known EPO usage, countries like Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and Greece come out on top. When you then look at these nations when ranked by performance, the rankings are not comparable at all.
Oh good, you finally make a correct point. But, that would only be a valid argument if the other nations would not be EPO users. Recall that the Russians only got caught because of a whistle blower, who got ignored by certain high ranking IAAF officials for a while.
rekrunner wrote:You have a lot of countries trying, and not succeeding.
That's only a loaded assumption of yours. Faith-based "argument".
rekrunner wrote:
In a thread where we are talking about men, Russia had ZERO men better than 1990 marks.
Also not true.
Aragon wrote:
I don't know who your "they" are but I don't agree with everything that rekrunner or Renato writes and actually I do think that it is more likely than not that most of the Kenyans get benefit from rHuEPO (even when I think that its effect is generally highly overstated). What I find objectionable in any discussion is taking shortcuts in interpreting evidence or using otherwise dubious methods to distort data when it suits one's narrative regardless of the motives or final conclusions.
To give an instance of distortion, not too long time ago one poster brought up different wind condition between two test runs to support his claims in relation to the study discussed in this thread. Because the wind readings between the conditions were 2.8 m/s and 1.6 m/s, instead of doing the simple subtraction and coming up with the figure of 1.2 m/s (most likely totally insignificant in round trip-type of running), he instead used percentage change and used figure of 75 % which in addition of sounding more dramatical conveys practically no information at all.
I don't think rekrunnerand JonO want to hear that...they were counting on you as a strong allie. Lolz
rekrunner wrote:
Are we going to do this for the next few months? -- no one actually called you a coward, or asked you for your real name.
It's kind of funny you accusing Jon of being anonymous -- long time readers know who Jon O. is -- he has probably posted here as long, if not longer than you, and originally posted for years using his real name. And for an old guy, has pretty decent nationally competitive age group times from 800m to the marathon.
Does that change anything? Would you take him more seriously now, knowing he is not anonymous, and has fairly competitive national class age group performances?
I'm a firm believer that what you type in the "Body" section needs to stand on its own merit, supported by external references, rather than drawing artificial support from your real world name, and/or performances, unless your are someone truly credentialed inside elite sport like Renato, who deserves more respect than he gets.
Given that most everyone in all of these threads are anonymous, it seems curious that you want start calling anonymous posters cowards and ball-less -- or is it just the ones who piss you off? Do you think all these posters are cowards too: "casual", "Subway", "Tell it like it is", "What's up with this?", "RFM", "Everyone's looking for an Edge", "Rocket Fuel Rick", "Canova is a liar", "Rekrunner is a liar", "Think this one through", "Barrel of Laughs", "Can't believe what I'm hearing", "Tour de Lance", etc. ... Maybe some of them are the same poster
Oh boy...we've got Chad & Gary going at it again. Lolz
When he says "its effect is generally highly overstated" and objects to "taking shortcuts in interpreting evidence" and "dubious methods to distort data", it sounds like we are not so far apart. I'm not looking for an allie -- I'm not so insecure in what I write that I'm looking for confirmation and safety in numbers.
Drawing the battle lines..... wrote:
Aragon wrote:
I don't know who your "they" are but I don't agree with everything that rekrunner or Renato writes and actually I do think that it is more likely than not that most of the Kenyans get benefit from rHuEPO (even when I think that its effect is generally highly overstated). What I find objectionable in any discussion is taking shortcuts in interpreting evidence or using otherwise dubious methods to distort data when it suits one's narrative regardless of the motives or final conclusions.
To give an instance of distortion, not too long time ago one poster brought up different wind condition between two test runs to support his claims in relation to the study discussed in this thread. Because the wind readings between the conditions were 2.8 m/s and 1.6 m/s, instead of doing the simple subtraction and coming up with the figure of 1.2 m/s (most likely totally insignificant in round trip-type of running), he instead used percentage change and used figure of 75 % which in addition of sounding more dramatical conveys practically no information at all.
I don't think rekrunnerand JonO want to hear that...they were counting on you as a strong allie. Lolz
rekrunner wrote:
In a thread where we are talking about men, Russia had ZERO men better than 1990 marks.
I agree with casual - that's not true.
However, the main thing with the Russian men is a lot of them have gravitated to racewalking over the past decades which is an extremely popular sport in Russia. Many of them were also former runners at one time. In fact, a neighbor of mine who moved here to the States from Russia told me RW is to the Russians what distance running is to the East Africans. The foundation for this is the Russian men wanted to have World dominance in an endurance sport that is not popular with the East Africans. And when was the last time we saw an E. African compete in RW at the Olympics or WCs?
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/sports/olympics/where-racewalking-is-king-the-antidoping-officials-are-busy.htmlAnd the Russians have been very competitive and at one point completely dominated the World scene, but all at a high price with the wrath of numerous doping sanctions & bans. Ever heard of Viktor Chegin?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_CheginDo I really have to say MEN and DISTANCE RUNNING everytime? This is a thread and forum about RUNNING, about MEN, about TIMES. In the 6 events I analyzed, Russia, the #1 country in DOPING, had ZERO men better than the1990 top-5 average times.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
In a thread where we are talking about men, Russia had ZERO men better than 1990 marks.
Also not true.
I like Vodka wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
In a thread where we are talking about men, Russia had ZERO men better than 1990 marks.
I agree with casual - that's not true.
In fact, a neighbor of mine who moved here to the States from Russia told me RW is to the Russians what distance running is to the East Africans. The foundation for this is the Russian men wanted to have World dominance in an endurance sport that is not popular with the East Africans. And when was the last time we saw an E. African compete in RW at the Olympics or WCs?
Interestingly a (white) Kazakhstani-Russian work colleague of mine who looks like Dolph Lundgren's twin brother and just so happens to have the same first name as a 1970s Soviet sprinter, told me Russian men weren't good at distance running because a) they drink too much vodka, b) Russia is too flat, c) half the year everywhere is under a metre of snow, d) the countryside is full of bears and you need to carry a gun, e) Russian men are the most mocho men in the world and all have to be muscular (hence Putin's top less horseback riding), f) they drink too much vodka. Just the other day the ref fouled him in a social city league basketball game and he argued with him for like ten minutes (worse than Serena) with a thick Russian/Borat accent.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
The fact is that when you say 25 years, with very few exceptions, we don't really know which coaches and athletes have been using EPO and succeeding for 25 years. And we don't have any real insight into the minds of the coaches and athletes, and their decision process, to determine if their thinking of risk and reward is the same rational thinking that you assume.
Speak for yourself, not for me please.
rekrunner wrote:
I assume you (or most of you in this forum) have never been in their shoes, evaluating whether to use EPO either for your performance, or your athlete's performance.
Speak for yourself, not for me please.
Or, to use your own words:
rekrunner wrote:
There are a number of loaded assumptions there.
Indeed.
rekrunner wrote:
So there is some amount of personal projection onto people who are not in your situation.
Now it gets comical. Or, to use your words:
rekrunner wrote:
There are a number of loaded assumptions there.
Yes there are.
rekrunner wrote:
- One counter example: Christian Hesch said he took EPO for 2 years before seeing any result.
Source?
rekrunner wrote:
- By your criteria, even a 1% placebo effect would have been enough to reinforce the decision and continue using.
Source for my criteria?
rekrunner wrote:
- Recall the point of my performance thread was to show 28 years of "very little success" since 1990 for most of the world outside of Africa. From this we could speculate:
1) You are right, many of them tried it and failed and stopped
2) Or you are wrong, and many tried it, and kept trying, and still many of the non-Africans failed to match the African performances, to within 2%, and very few even managed to outperform the previous generation of athletes.
3) Or I am right, they tried it, improved, and only slightly outperformed the previous generation of athletes because those had unlimited blood transfusions and no OOC tests prior to the mid/late 80s, depending on the country.
Plus, "non-Africans failed to match the African performances"? If both groups used EPO, that's no argument; if only the Africans used EPO, your point might backfire; if only the non-Africans used EPO, you would have a point, but recent events do not support that theory.
rekrunner wrote:
When you rank nations by known EPO usage, countries like Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and Greece come out on top. When you then look at these nations when ranked by performance, the rankings are not comparable at all.
Oh good, you finally make a correct point. But, that would only be a valid argument if the other nations would not be EPO users. Recall that the Russians only got caught because of a whistle blower, who got ignored by certain high ranking IAAF officials for a while.
rekrunner wrote:You have a lot of countries trying, and not succeeding.
That's only a loaded assumption of yours. Faith-based "argument".
+1
Great point.
rekrunner wrote:
Do I really have to say MEN and DISTANCE RUNNING everytime?
This is a thread and forum about RUNNING, about MEN, about TIMES.
In the 6 events I analyzed, Russia, the #1 country in DOPING, had ZERO men better than the1990 top-5 average times.
This thread title only specifies "(Kenyan) runners", and EPO.
In any case, so you meant six selected events without specifying, and with "1990 marks", you didn't mean the Russian records from 1990 (while you spoke about Russian men), but you meant "the1990 top-5 average times" worldwide. Got it.
"the #1 country in DOPING" So it seems. But, is there enough evidence to be allowed to say that by your standards?
Think back 10 years. After all, if the one whistle blower hadn't come forward, or if Coe and Co. had been more successful in ignoring him, we'd think differently. In other words, Russia was very unlucky.
rekrunner wrote:
Maybe some of them are the same poster ...
Drinking too much coffee and peforming sub-optimally?
JonO. wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Maybe some of them are the same poster ...
Drinking too much coffee and peforming sub-optimally?
Wouldn't any be too much?
Yes. You don't need it. You're already barking mad. You're just extra barking mad when you're caffeined up.
JonO. wrote:
Yes. You don't need it. You're already barking mad. You're just extra barking mad when you're caffeined up.
So it works. It's like you don't even realize you are contradicting your theory.
hmmm, which straw man will Jon bust out today? Will it be the physics thermoregulation one or the old 7.0 Lance one?
Well, he just found Newton. Maybe Clausius or Hess will be next?
JonO. wrote:
Yes. You don't need it. You're already blazing fast. You're just extra blazing fast when you're EPOed up.
same meaning
casual obsever wrote:
Well, he just found Newton. Maybe Clausius or Hess will be next?
So have you figured out how injecting EPO circumvents the laws of physics yet?
Skip to 3:28, even the Aussie vegan disagrees with Rekrunner and JonO
"EPO parrots"
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year