It isn't the fact you think it is. "Proportionality" does not reduce the scale or the seriousness of Kenyan doping, which is clearly the worst of any country today in the sport of distance running.
It is a fact. I am not addressing (or denying) the seriousness of doping in Kenya. I am just stating a fact that you are willfully ignoring. What I find interesting, is that people like you and the Corvette guy, attack the country where dopers are caught, and ignore the Western countries where athletes dope with impunity.
It isn't the fact you think it is. "Proportionality" does not reduce the scale or the seriousness of Kenyan doping, which is clearly the worst of any country today in the sport of distance running.
It is a fact. I am not addressing (or denying) the seriousness of doping in Kenya. I am just stating a fact that you are willfully ignoring. What I find interesting, is that people like you and the Corvette guy, attack the country where dopers are caught, and ignore the Western countries where athletes dope with impunity.
It may be a fact but in this instance it is irrelevant. It does not mitigate the seriousness of Kenyan doping in any way to say other countries dope.
The most relevant "data" - which you are unable to fathom - is that considerable numbers of their athletes use drugs that are banned because WADA knows the drugs in question can be used to enhance performance. So what is the likelihood the drugs have aided the Kenyan athletes even if they haven't submitted to research that would establish by how much? There is no "education" that can show drugs cannot aid performance. If there was WADA would not exist and nor would doping. Your ridiculous "scepticism" is based on an insistence on data which is impossible to obtain while refusing to acknowledge the data that is available and can be relied on to draw general if not individualised conclusions. You are blind because you choose to be, for what you don't wish to see.
Data on using drugs allows us to talk about drug use. But that is not data on "it helps them performance-wise".
I don't need any basis for skepticism, but rather a lack of basis -- which you continue to give me without fail.
The AIU's Brett Clothier told me that Kenyan education is part of the solution to the Kenyan doping problem. This must mean in part that doping "makes idiots of them all".
I acknowledge the data that is available and the difficulty of obtaining better data. However, the alleged impossibility of obtaining data is not relevant. We must still call baseless conclusions baseless, regardless of the difficulty of developing a basis. Don't blame me for the intellectual hurdles you fail to clear.
The intellectual hurdle you cannot clear is that doping is found in all sports in all countries amongst top sportsmen and women BECAUSE it gives advantage. How much is largely irrelevant. It wouldn't exist as a world-wide epidemic in sports without improving performance. Because it cannot be definitively measured for all athletes does not mean that it does not enhance performance, only that we don't know by exactly how much. It wouldn't persist as the global problem that it is if it did not enhance performance.
The intellectual hurdle you cannot clear is that doping is found in all sports in all countries amongst top sportsmen and women BECAUSE it gives advantage. How much is largely irrelevant. It wouldn't exist as a world-wide epidemic in sports without improving performance. Because it cannot be definitively measured for all athletes does not mean that it does not enhance performance, only that we don't know by exactly how much. It wouldn't persist as the global problem that it is if it did not enhance performance.
I'm sure you believe all that. Apparently your argument is that you believe because you believe athletes believe.
Your leaps of faith and jumps to conclusions still fail to clear any intellectual hurdle.
Until you can point to supporting performance data, I will remain skeptical.
The intellectual hurdle you cannot clear is that doping is found in all sports in all countries amongst top sportsmen and women BECAUSE it gives advantage. How much is largely irrelevant. It wouldn't exist as a world-wide epidemic in sports without improving performance. Because it cannot be definitively measured for all athletes does not mean that it does not enhance performance, only that we don't know by exactly how much. It wouldn't persist as the global problem that it is if it did not enhance performance.
I'm sure you believe all that. Apparently your argument is that you believe because you believe athletes believe.
Your leaps of faith and jumps to conclusions still fail to clear any intellectual hurdle.
Until you can point to supporting performance data, I will remain skeptical.
So which dopers volunteer to provide data on how much they gain from their doping? I wonder why there isn't any such data - which is the only data you will accept? I don't wonder why however that it is a global practice that infects every sport and often at all levels and all ages. But that only persuades you that they are all naive idiots who lack your intelligence - who has never actually used peds.
I'm sure you believe all that. Apparently your argument is that you believe because you believe athletes believe.
Your leaps of faith and jumps to conclusions still fail to clear any intellectual hurdle.
Until you can point to supporting performance data, I will remain skeptical.
So which dopers volunteer to provide data on how much they gain from their doping? I wonder why there isn't any such data - which is the only data you will accept? I don't wonder why however that it is a global practice that infects every sport and often at all levels and all ages. But that only persuades you that they are all naive idiots who lack your intelligence - who has never actually used peds.
Without such data, your claims are beliefs, and my skepticism remains unaddressed.
Recall the burden is all on you, no matter how you try to squirm out of it. You are the only one providing explanations with "BECAUSE ...". I'm only claiming the data is lacking and/or insufficient and/or inconclusive for many well known reasons.
It's not because the data hasn't been, or can't be collected, that your baseless beliefs are made stronger. As you clearly have no data, this remains baseless speculation by some keyboard warrior with no experience and very little relevant knowledge.
What data would I accept? Not only data from volunteers. We do have a lot of recorded performance data for the fastest athletes dating back decades. For example, I would accept data collected from large populations suggesting a correlation between high doping countries and high performance. Your model of use-equals-performance purports to explain Kenya, but fails to explain Russia, who did not even outperform Americans, Europeans, and Japanese.
Considering your frequent suggestion that 1 in 2 athletes are doping, it boggles the mind that only Kenyans (along with East and North Africans) would get the alleged benefit of record breaking performances.
"Considering your frequent suggestion that 1 in 2 athletes are doping, it boggles the mind that only Kenyans (along with East and North Africans) would get the alleged benefit of record breaking performances."
That isn't the allegation. Any athlete that dopes will gain from using it. Kenyans aren't the only athletes who improve, win or break records.
None of your comparative studies can be relied on to gauge the effects of doping when none of the subjects can be unequivocally identified as either clean or doping. Ultimately, it is a practice about which inferences are drawn from known individual examples of doping combined with the sheer international prevalence of doping. The overriding rational conclusion is that doping offers gains, even if we are unable to measure these gains in every athlete that dopes.
"Considering your frequent suggestion that 1 in 2 athletes are doping, it boggles the mind that only Kenyans (along with East and North Africans) would get the alleged benefit of record breaking performances."
That isn't the allegation. Any athlete that dopes will gain from using it. Kenyans aren't the only athletes who improve, win or break records.
None of your comparative studies can be relied on to gauge the effects of doping when none of the subjects can be unequivocally identified as either clean or doping. Ultimately, it is a practice about which inferences are drawn from known individual examples of doping combined with the sheer international prevalence of doping. The overriding rational conclusion is that doping offers gains, even if we are unable to measure these gains in every athlete that dopes.
Without supporting data, much of your speculation is just that -- baseless speculation from an unknowledge poster with no experience.
You argue there is no reliable data to guage the effects, after drawing conclusions requiring such data, or admitting it is just self-serving inferences from cherry-picked examples.
Simply concluding "doping offers gains" is also meaningless without more specific details. It may be true for some combinations of dope, athlete, event, initial state of training, etc. and false for other combinations of the same factors.
"Considering your frequent suggestion that 1 in 2 athletes are doping, it boggles the mind that only Kenyans (along with East and North Africans) would get the alleged benefit of record breaking performances."
That isn't the allegation. Any athlete that dopes will gain from using it. Kenyans aren't the only athletes who improve, win or break records.
None of your comparative studies can be relied on to gauge the effects of doping when none of the subjects can be unequivocally identified as either clean or doping. Ultimately, it is a practice about which inferences are drawn from known individual examples of doping combined with the sheer international prevalence of doping. The overriding rational conclusion is that doping offers gains, even if we are unable to measure these gains in every athlete that dopes.
Without supporting data, much of your speculation is just that -- baseless speculation from an unknowledge poster with no experience.
You argue there is no reliable data to guage the effects, after drawing conclusions requiring such data, or admitting it is just self-serving inferences from cherry-picked examples.
Simply concluding "doping offers gains" is also meaningless without more specific details. It may be true for some combinations of dope, athlete, event, initial state of training, etc. and false for other combinations of the same factors.
None of your endless turgid garbage disproves the conclusive likelihood that in most cases doping results in performance enhancement.
Without supporting data, much of your speculation is just that -- baseless speculation from an unknowledge poster with no experience.
You argue there is no reliable data to guage the effects, after drawing conclusions requiring such data, or admitting it is just self-serving inferences from cherry-picked examples.
Simply concluding "doping offers gains" is also meaningless without more specific details. It may be true for some combinations of dope, athlete, event, initial state of training, etc. and false for other combinations of the same factors.
None of your endless turgid garbage disproves the conclusive likelihood that in most cases doping results in performance enhancement.
Judging from your posts, nothing proves any "conclusive likelihood that in most cases doping results in performance enhancement" either.
That's why you keep trying to change the question, move the goalposts, and shift the burden.
If you want to join in on intellectual conversations, the default position for everything is that no cause and effect relation effect exists, until it is established with supporting data. The intellects are not burdened with disproving baseless speculation from those with no relevant knowledge or experience.
None of your endless turgid garbage disproves the conclusive likelihood that in most cases doping results in performance enhancement.
Judging from your posts, nothing proves any "conclusive likelihood that in most cases doping results in performance enhancement" either.
That's why you keep trying to change the question, move the goalposts, and shift the burden.
If you want to join in on intellectual conversations, the default position for everything is that no cause and effect relation effect exists, until it is established with supporting data. The intellects are not burdened with disproving baseless speculation from those with no relevant knowledge or experience.
The point that shows doping likely produces performance enhancement is that countless athletes have doped for decades and continue to do so. It is world wide. They who dope and have doped outnumber you in their many thousands, while you - who claim to know better than they - have no experience of doping. Your arrogance is stupefying.
The point that shows doping likely produces performance enhancement is that countless athletes have doped for decades and continue to do so. It is world wide. They who dope and have doped outnumber you in their many thousands, while you - who claim to know better than they - have no experience of doping. Your arrogance is stupefying.
Nothing in this "endless turgid garbage" "proves" a "conclusive" "likelihood". You just assume performance enhancement, and assume the knowledge, and experiences of thousands of athletes would support your currently unsupported claims.
The only next step forward in this discussion is for you to provide the performance data that supports your many claims currently based on your own assumptions.
The point that shows doping likely produces performance enhancement is that countless athletes have doped for decades and continue to do so. It is world wide. They who dope and have doped outnumber you in their many thousands, while you - who claim to know better than they - have no experience of doping. Your arrogance is stupefying.
Nothing in this "endless turgid garbage" "proves" a "conclusive" "likelihood". You just assume performance enhancement, and assume the knowledge, and experiences of thousands of athletes would support your currently unsupported claims.
The only next step forward in this discussion is for you to provide the performance data that supports your many claims currently based on your own assumptions.
I don't just "assume' performance enhancement. I suggest it is the only reasonable inference given the prevalence of doping in sports over the decades. The alternative is to conclude that while athletes and their coaches, trainers and physicians follow a scientific approach to training, nutrition, equipment and competition they are mere superstitious idiots when it comes to doping. I think you prove who the idiot here really is.
I don't just "assume' performance enhancement. I suggest it is the only reasonable inference given the prevalence of doping in sports over the decades. The alternative is to conclude that while athletes and their coaches, trainers and physicians follow a scientific approach to training, nutrition, equipment and competition they are mere superstitious idiots when it comes to doping. I think you prove who the idiot here really is.
I think so too. Don't be too hard on yourself. There is still time for you to learn.
You swing back and forth from saying it is almost foregone conclusion based on knowledge and experience, to now saying "I suggest it is ... inference".
I suggest that we are not given the prevalence of doping in distance running, that it is not the only reasonable inference, and that many athletes/coaches/etc. are scientific, while many athletes/coaches/etc. believe in myths, and some are both.