Steeplecahse WR holder Ruth Jebet Banned for 4 years

rekrunner wrote:

really?? Really?? wrote:

They are assertions without evidence.

If you want to believe those assertions, that is fine, but don't pretend it is less based on "faith" than other people's beliefs.

Maybe, but they are not "conjecture about doping" from a coach who has no experience with doping.

Armstronglivs says we should consider the experiences and knowlege of coaches -- it seems hypocritical for him to act like he knows experience better than someone with real experience.

You say that we need data and evidence, not speculation from people who do not have experience. It is "conjecture about doping" in that it totally speculates about what the effects of doping might be but without any data.

You are hypocritical because you are privileging HIS (totally unconfirmed) narrative because you think it supports you. That is against every standard of evidence or proof you have ever suggested.

You actually think that thousands of people are going to openly dope, admit to it and enter scientific studies while racing on a circuit that tests? OK.

I actually hope someone starts an open doping circuit just for you.

bannnedd i got wrote:

there is a time faster than that and it was an EPO bust...but renato and gary love to forget that one lolz

It is possible that world record holders and gold medal winners also doped, even when there is no effect.

If prevalence is 20%, I would expect as many as 20% could have doped, in a scenario where this is no effect.

Showing the existence of fast runners who doped is a weak argument for showing effect.

I am not relying on my "perception of the experiences of athletes and coaches", as you describe it; I am observing the undeniable fact that doping is endemic at the highest level in the sport, and it is beyond credulity to suggest this will not be a significant factor in performances. However you try to argue it, irrationality is not what drives athletes' decisions to dope - with you as the lone voice for rationality. Athletes don't dope as a one-off speculative experiment; it is typically a programme, which few would continue with if it did not produce results. The experiences of other athletes would reinforce those perceptions. As the baseball player Jose Canseco said in his autobiography, "Juiced", everybody doped - because they knew what it did for their game.

As far as Renato's experiences are concerned, it has been pointed out that none of his athletes (bar one, in the 3k steeple) is a world record-holder in any of the major track events, middle or long-distance. Nor are his athletes amongst the current top performers in those events. It can only be assumed that the present world track records are clean, but if they are not then the best clean performances by his athletes are not as good as the very best performances, clean or doped.

I further point out the obvious, that his conviction that training is superior to doping is formed, firstly, without experience of what doping might do for his athletes, and, secondly, is not shared by the thousands of athletes convinced that doping helps more than training alone. The question he hasn't addressed is whether doping could add improvements to his athletes, above and beyond the training he provides. How would he know the answer to that unless he and his athletes tried it? His view of the relative merits or otherwise of doping therefore remains speculative - and, in your favoured words, is "confounded" by the experiences of the many athletes who have doped for generations.

physics defiant wrote:

You actually think that thousands of people are going to openly dope, admit to it and enter scientific studies while racing on a circuit that tests? OK.

I actually hope someone starts an open doping circuit just for you.

What I actually think is that we cannot call the experience of thousands of athletes knowledge.

We cannot say thousands of athletes/coaches/physicians know better based on their experiences, if we do not know their experiences, nor what they know.

We must call it a belief. Armstrong believes based on what thousands of athletes/coaches/physicians believe.

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

That's just one, not thousands.

We still need to answer some questions -- was he a sub-talented elite without drugs?

Showing benefit or improvement requires two data points.

Uh, yeah he was.

Without data, that is simply your belief. What was his potential without drugs?

rekrunner wrote:

really?? Really?? wrote:

They are assertions without evidence.

If you want to believe those assertions, that is fine, but don't pretend it is less based on "faith" than other people's beliefs.

Maybe, but they are not "conjecture about doping" from a coach who has no experience with doping.

Armstronglivs says we should consider the experiences and knowlege of coaches -- it seems hypocritical for him to act like he knows experience better than someone with real experience.

If we are to believe Renato, who says he only coaches clean athletes, he has no more experience of doping than I do.

But you suggest he does have experience with doping. An unfortunate Freudian slip?

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

Uh, yeah he was.

Without data, that is simply your belief. What was his potential without drugs?

4% slower.

If a thousand people go outside on a hot day and say it's hot are they just believing it or is it actually hot? Gary logic 101.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

And they almost all came from countries identified as being "most at risk of doping".

You mean like Belarus and Ukraine?

Kenya is one such listed - which you already know. Deliberate evasion. You have the technique of a practised liar.

rekrunner wrote:

What I actually think is that we cannot call the experience of thousands of athletes knowledge.

Knowledge is impossible on this standard

Armstronglivs wrote:

If we are to believe Renato, who says he only coaches clean athletes, he has no more experience of doping than I do.

But you suggest he does have experience with doping. An unfortunate Freudian slip?

The data is there...I wonder why so many people are willing to avoid what is staring them in the face...

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

Um, Ramzi's (et al) experience was not just perceived irrationally. The data was three Golds from a sub talented elite.

That's just one, not thousands.

We still need to answer some questions -- was he a sub-talented elite without drugs?

Showing benefit or improvement requires two data points.

Pretty significant jump in performance over a short period of time. Double gold at Helinski where he ran a PB of 1:44 in the 800 with insane Off-scores of 157 & 148 taken after the finals of each event. Also later that year he posted his 1500 PB of 3:29.14. And his CERA-fueled victory at Beijing holding off doper Kiprop at the line otherwise making a mockery out of a world-class field.

Armstronglivs wrote:

It doesn't get "worse"; the law of diminishing returns - if that's what applies - still produces a net positive outcome.

And doping doesn't improve the best? 10 of the 11 fastest times for the 100m in 2017 were run by dopers. It works in every event and for all distances. Ramzi, Jeptoo, Kiptum, Jebet, Kiprop, the Chinese runners in the '90's, the E Bloc women in the '80's - and many more. If doping had not played a feature in their performances they must have been monumentally stupid along with being dishonest.

Does it always produce a net positive outcome? That is an unsupported hypothesis.

When doping works, and how significant it is, and if it is "net positive", depends on the dope and the event, and the state of fitness of the athlete when doping.

Your observation holds for some events, e.g. women in shorter distance events, but it is a stretch to say "every event for all distances".

I don't rule out that some athletes are monumentally stupid and dishonest.

really?? Really?? wrote:

You say that we need data and evidence, not speculation from people who do not have experience. It is "conjecture about doping" in that it totally speculates about what the effects of doping might be but without any data.

You are hypocritical because you are privileging HIS (totally unconfirmed) narrative because you think it supports you. That is against every standard of evidence or proof you have ever suggested.

When someone says "this performance was achieved without doping", this is not "conjecture about doping".

I was not the one that introduced the notion of privileging this with knowledge gained from experience.

While i respect and have no reason to doubt his experiences are real, I am also privileging my data based conclusions from my all time historical performance analysis, as well as the various studies that have been discussed, within the limitations identified for those studies.

Barrel of Laughs wrote:

Pretty significant jump in performance over a short period of time. Double gold at Helinski where he ran a PB of 1:44 in the 800 with insane Off-scores of 157 & 148 taken after the finals of each event. Also later that year he posted his 1500 PB of 3:29.14. And his CERA-fueled victory at Beijing holding off doper Kiprop at the line otherwise making a mockery out of a world-class field.

Was this beyond his clean potential? We have seen historically that North Africans can run faster in the mile and 1500m than non-Africans like Cram.

Are there any other potential confounders?

really?? Really?? wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

What I actually think is that we cannot call the experience of thousands of athletes knowledge.

Knowledge is impossible on this standard

If experience does not count as knowledge, what the f*ck is knowledge? Even scientific studies require experiences of a kind - actual research - or they remain hypotheses. Rekrunner's experiences of the subjects he opines about are limited to reading studies written by others, which have drawn at some point on the researchers' and their subjects' experiences, and somehow he believes that such second-hand knowledge as he possesses must trump direct experience - and, by necessary inference, that includes the experiences of those conducting the studies he so devotedly relies upon.

But of course he then contradicts himself, because he continues to argue at the same time that Renato's "experiences" of doping (does he really mean that?) must perforce be more persuasive than my lack of such experience (despite Renato disclaiming that he has worked with dopers). So "experience" counts when it suits rekrunner but doesn't count when it doesn't suit him. This is someone who argues from convenience, not principle. And certainly not logic.

Sure man.

When his entire point of his post is that doping could not have improved these performances, this is certainly conjecture about posting.

Plus, you know, it is all anecdotal.

Look, you are the one that has a theory of knowledge that eliminates all anecdotal sources and only trusts data (and then only particular kinds of data acquired in particular ways). So argue consistent with your own standards.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

You actually think that thousands of people are going to openly dope, admit to it and enter scientific studies while racing on a circuit that tests? OK.

I actually hope someone starts an open doping circuit just for you.

What I actually think is that we cannot call the experience of thousands of athletes knowledge.

We cannot say thousands of athletes/coaches/physicians know better based on their experiences, if we do not know their experiences, nor what they know.

We must call it a belief. Armstrong believes based on what thousands of athletes/coaches/physicians believe.

I don't "believe" what they believe. I see that the practise is widespread. I also see no evidence that it is irrational - which is your unsubstantiated assertion. I will hold you to the same standard of proof as you would hold me to, that without information about what those athletes believe - and you say we do not know their experiences or what they know - you aren't able to conclude their beliefs are wrong - whatever they are - or even that they lack "knowledge". Hoist by your own petard.

rekrunner wrote:

Barrel of Laughs wrote:

Pretty significant jump in performance over a short period of time. Double gold at Helinski where he ran a PB of 1:44 in the 800 with insane Off-scores of 157 & 148 taken after the finals of each event. Also later that year he posted his 1500 PB of 3:29.14. And his CERA-fueled victory at Beijing holding off doper Kiprop at the line otherwise making a mockery out of a world-class field.

Was this beyond his clean potential? We have seen historically that North Africans can run faster in the mile and 1500m than non-Africans like Cram.

Are there any other potential confounders?

Geez...I wonder why the Berbers of Morocco run faster than most non-Africans? ? It's called a top-notch doping program with some very good responders. Let me turn the cards on you for a change - can you prove that Ramzi would have achieved those accomplishments clean?