rekrunner wrote:
You answered hypothesis with more hypothesis.
Despite all the hype, Rosa, Aden, Canova, Schumacher, Coe and Radcliffe have not been found guilty of doping.
Only Aden is on trial for breaking Spanish law.
0/10
rekrunner wrote:
You answered hypothesis with more hypothesis.
Despite all the hype, Rosa, Aden, Canova, Schumacher, Coe and Radcliffe have not been found guilty of doping.
Only Aden is on trial for breaking Spanish law.
0/10
I'm shill here... wrote:
rekrunner wrote:Is the sample set small? As input to this exercise, I used a complete set of performances spanning at least 4 decades. The sample set can hardly be larger.
That is entirely besides the point. The fact you can't produce more data for your experiment has no bearing on whether or not the sample is large enough to allow deductions to be drawn with statistical meaning. I'm sure you must know this...?
^^Yup
Crusty Old Cyclist wrote:
pariah wrote:
Miraculous????? That's 5.8 watts per kilo. Like I said, normal range. The drugs are NOT performance enhancing.
What kind of a troll are you? LA's watts per kilo for the 2001 Tour was recored at ~6.25...right up there with Ullrich's 97 Tour and slightly behind Riis' & Pantani's record setting Tour #'s (both were before the implementation of the 50% Hct upper limit safety measure). LA also set a record a 6.97 watts per kilo on Alpe de Huez in 04, which put his time up the climb as 4th fastest ever. And who has the top three times? Pantani! (geez...imagine that). I think you better smell the coffee and get to reading on the following info:
http://sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-de-france-2009-power-estimates/https://i0.wp.com/www.sportsscientists.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Tour-winner-power-to-weight.pnghttp://www.climbing-records.com/2013/07/all-time-top-100-fastest-rides-on.html?m=1
Sorry crusty, but those numbers are grossly exaggerated. Michele Ferrari's test for the riders he 'coached' was a 4km climb of 9% where Lance failed to make the 6.7 watts per kilo in 2003 but still won the Tour. It was 6.7 watts per kilo for 11 minutes, not 60 minutes. Your local hero amateur cyclists are doing similar power outputs. There is now huge amounts of data that wasn't available before. Check it out sometime.
so 15 pages long and all rekrunner can say is "i dont care what data you show me, ughhh i will argue till the end! EPO doesnt work"
may i ask one question gary? what is your end game? like really what the f*ck do you plan on accomplishing with your annoying rant? you have made like 10 threads on your EPO doesnt work, hijacked 10 more threads to shove your EPO doesnt work into the comments, and you get peoples replies deleted if you dont like the ACTUAL facts.
you are so f*cking annoying, like for real. you are like the guy in the bar that comes in wasted and talks sh*t to everyone and claims reptilians and aliens and flat earth. everyone wonders why he isnt 86ed from the bar, then finally someone finds out that he is the older brother to the boss and he is protected.
there are a few theories going around, one being that you are paula ratsh*ts husband, and since the one of the brojos paced her you guys are man crush bro brahs for life, thus allowing you to annoy, hijack and delete anyone who disagrees with you without you ever getting banned or deleted.
i know you are protected, i know you are annoying, and i know you act like a 5yr old spoiled brat and you yourself could inject EPO and run a WR and still argue that it doesnt work. so again i ask, WTF is your deal?
do you wish that everyone will agree that EPO doesnt work so it comes off the banned list, so no one will get in trouble for using it? like i really dont know what the hell your problem is, so maybe instead of making 10 more threads to annoy us, you can just TELL US NOW why you keep this going.
either
A) shut up about "YOUR" idea that EPO doesnt work
or
B) tell us your end game and then SHUT UP ABOUT HOW YOU THINK EPO DOESNT WORK
if it didnt work WHY WOULD PEOPLE TAKE IT? WHY WOULD IT BE BANNED? DO YOU KNOW MORE ABOUT EPO THAN THE IOC, WADA, and Aden? is it possible that you and Renato are so much smarter than the drug testers? come on man 15 pages and you wont give it up
I agree with rekrunner. We don't agree on a lotta stuff but...
There is no such thing as a performance enhancing drug. It's a fantasy that people want to believe.
Why do people smoke cigarettes?
Why do people think alchohol makes them happy?
Why do people do cocaine, amphetamine, etc etc?? You can see they are fukced up, they think it's a buzz.
so what you are saying is nothing does anything at all? every single thing is a f*cking placebo!?!?!? MIND F*CKING BLOWN!!!
i cant believe it, my whole life i have been mislead and lied to!!! you dont need food or water, or sh*t to even breath cause oxygen doesnt do anything either!!!!!!!
death is just a fantasy created by mindweak people, we can all live for EVER!
People are mass brainwashed in lotsa ways. Religion and drugs are quite similar in this respect.
Scathing response, but still largely unhelpful. Regarding false premises -- is it firmly established that Rosa had anything to do with doping, either in Italy or Kenyal? Same thing for Hermens? "Drugs experiment" didn't come from me, but is that something we must take for granted, or is just another part of the mythology? Wouldn't improved organization and training from European managers also be positive factors in addition to, or in the absence of, doping? Your observation "owing to their (East Africans) superior innate talent", is something new, and rarely admitted. I can agree this is highly relevant, but for some deep-rooted reasons, merely suggestings East Africans are more talented is a taboo subject in doping discussions. It is consistent with a claim that EPO's significance is over-estimated. And it raises the complicated assessment of what this innate talent is worth. If it is worth a lot, then this whole EPO in the EPO-era discussion is kind of relegated to the noise. If my choice of "top-5" is ill-chosen, what is the right analysis? If EPO has a large effect, shouldn't EPO performances rise to the top? It is precisely the large drop in times that we see from East Africans (and some North Africans), relative to the '80s, that we don't see outside of Africa, except from emigrated East (and North) Africans. If the large effect of EPO is hiding in the slower performances, slower than the 1990s, how can we pick the right data and analysis to observe it? You say, exceptions to exceptions, but in what other analysis would a group representing 85% of the world population not be the general rule? Tell me more about these "easy ways to analyze the right data longitudinally", because what you describe doesn't sound "easy" in practice. It's also partly mistaken, because I didn't just look at record holders. What is "the right data"? Besides ABP, what are the important "EPO testing" milestones? I'm told that even today, testing effectively doesn't exist in Kenya and Ethiopia, during OOC, when it really counts. Yet as long ago as 2005, there was an improved urine test for EPO, which effectively curbed track performances. Besides EPO milestones, shouldn't we look at other milestones, like changes in financial incentives, and the subsequent East African shift to the roads?
Populist Demagogue Iconic Hero wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I recall East African men, both seniors and juniors, started dominating cross-country in the 1980's before the arrival of Dr. Rosa, and Jos Hermens.
While Italian and Dutch drugs is one popular way to explain East and North African success, this completely sidesteps addressing my observed "anomaly":
- Why didn't the results of these successful drug experiments trickle out of Africa, like we saw in cycling?
I searched worldwide, over the entire period of 28 years, looking for just 5 non-African athletes that outperformed 1980's era runners.
You're being intentionally daft. I know you know at least something about statistical analytical methods, so you're not making the mistakes you're making here in anything resembling good faith.
The fact that Africans were at the top talent heap pre-EPO is not an argument against the efficacy of EPO. That's unforgivably bad reasoning.
You're using a false premise, knowingly so, when you pretend that the doping of Africans by shady European witch doctors was "an experiment" that did not have roots outside Africa. Rosa et al. know what would happen when they doped African
runners -- sociologically as well as physiologically. Not only would they dominate the other dopers from elsewhere in the world owing to their superior innate talent, but the world would resist the notion that East Africans were doping owing to a perverse blend of white guilt and occult racism ("They're happy and smiling and afraid of needles! They wouldn't even know it if their white coaches were juicing them anyway!"). Africa was thus a potential a gold mine for these turds in the athletic punch bowl. Add Hussein Makke to this mess.
The thing about your search for those magical five runners is that it is utterly ill-chosen. You are selecting your conclusion, looking for the exceptions among the exceptions, instead of sorting through the right data, and you're doing this strictly so that you can reject the hypothesis that EPO has been of significant benefit.
There are easy ways to analyze the right data longitudinally, looking at deep lists rather than just at record-holders. It is more instructive, in fact, to look at what's happened since the introduction of the ABP and useful EPO testing than it is to compare the pre-EPO and post-EPO-introduction eras, because one cannot argue that the Africans were not yet fully on the scene circa 2005 as one can do with respect too 1990 or 1991.
To anyone who knows a little about both running and statistics, you appear viciously ignorant.
so if all that is true, then this website is fake, and computers are fake and words, writing and thought is all fake...you are fake and i am fake....this is INSANITY?!?!!? what is real? (well besides jim ryuns 3'24 WR)
I don't need proof of EPO effectiveness outside of running.
Racewalker Ricky (aka/RWR). wrote:
Trackdan. wrote:
Has speed skating been mentioned?
There is an interesting trend from the early 90s similar to track
Same with racewalking starting around the 00s. It's an endurance sport full so full of EPO you can't even see straight. WRs, NRs, major competition medals...a lot associated with EPO & passport sanctions in one way or another. Both men & women here - it's makes no difference.
If that "rekrunner" character needs some proof of EPO effectiveness with endurance exercise look no further than full throttle racewalking. And don't undermine racewalking younsters. I'm an old cat in my late 50s who had to transition a few yrs ago to racewalking due to chronic injuries. If you go hard enough it'll kick your ass! Definitely an endurance sport with time to exhaustion an important factor.
i will do a summary for all those who dont want to read all that
rekrunner wrote:
blah blah blah, i am so smart you are all dumb, i am smart and you are dumb. EPO doesnt work, EPO is just water, i am smart and you are not. i dont care about anything you say na-na-na-na (finger in ears, rolling eyes and sticking tongue out). you are dumb and i will quote you quoting me to further annoy, duh everyone knows the person who yells the most and loudest won the argument. im smart your an idiot, EPO doesnt work.
ps im a genius, i will tell everyone over and over for 15 more pages
I guess DDT had no effect on wildlife then if that’s your case... and all those people from the Vietnam War who got sprayed with agent orange are magically believing they have cancer from the forest clearer from 40-50 years ago when ever that war was...
Island wrote:
I guess DDT had no effect on wildlife then if that’s your case... and all those people from the Vietnam War who got sprayed with agent orange are magically believing they have cancer from the forest clearer from 40-50 years ago when ever that war was...
What has that got to do with this thread?
pariah wrote:
I agree with rekrunner. We don't agree on a lotta stuff but...
There is no such thing as a performance enhancing drug. It's a fantasy that people want to believe.
Why do people smoke cigarettes?
Why do people think alchohol makes them happy?
Why do people do cocaine, amphetamine, etc etc?? You can see they are fukced up, they think it's a buzz.
This is what got me to respond and that other bit of writing you wrote too.
m!ndweak wrote:
so if all that is true, then this website is fake, and computers are fake and words, writing and thought is all fake...you are fake and i am fake....this is INSANITY?!?!!? what is real? (well besides jim ryuns 3'24 WR)
What is real?
I'll tell you what's real. The human body is amazing. Didn't you know that? I'm sure you did, but you keep forgetting. That is the basis of doping psychology, people lose sight of the amazing ability of a healthy body to do amazing things and get sucked into a void of drug delusion that it can be better. It's a fantasy. Why is boozing culture so pervasive and persuasive. Go on tell me why? What's wrong with just having a good time without alchohol? How many drug testers can do that?
The problem with drug testing and anti doping rhetoric is that it sends out exactly the wrong message, it makes doping look more desirable. Simple psychology that should be obvious. But such holier thou rhetoric works most of the time. People shout amen at the preacher en masse.
rekrunner wrote:
Is the sample set small? As input to this exercise, I used a complete set of performances spanning at least 4 decades. The sample set can hardly be larger.
Already dealt with^^^
What is small is not the sample set I used, but the results of quality and quantity for one selected, but still rather large supermajority, group.
I did not infer EPO effectiveness or use from the small results of one large group, but asked how that is consistent with many popular assumptions about EPO.
That's still inferring that the data tells us something about EPO. It doesn't.
The discussion is why "the number of people who are capable of running at this level, let alone the ones who actually do, is vanishingly small".
You say "there could be any number of reasons" -- well, of course there can. That's just restating the question.
I feel like I'm labouring the point a little here but all I'm saying is, yet again, even if you take ALL the available data, that's still too small for what you appear to be trying to theorize.
BTW, why do you say "Europeans" or "a tiny group of elite Europeans" and "appear to get slower"?
Ok I'm going to have to back up a little bit:-
1. "why do you say "Europeans"?"
Probably because you mentioned cycling by way of comparison, which is completely dominated by Europeans and Americans of European decent. We know/assume top cyclists were all cheating bastards so why weren't top European runners doing better? Either they didn't cheat (but people tend to assume them did, we just can't be sure who), or EPO doesn't work very well. I thought that was your whole premise.
2. "a tiny group of elite Europeans"
Statistically the number of people in the elite of any event, even over time, is very small. You've chosen to focus on top-5s.
3. "appear to get slower"
Overall Europeans got slower or plateaued in the distance events. Might not be true if you just focus on the top-5 performances. However , a number of European distance records lasted from the mid 80s to the late 90s and beyond. I don't have the lists to hand.
The group in question is "5 continents", and they appear to have gotten marginally faster.
[/quote]
Ok, slower relative to Africans then.
I can hear the sound of our goalposts moving about but I'm not quite sure where to.
rekrunner wrote:
Despite the completeness of the source of the raw data (assuming "alltime-athletics" completeness), I was still curiously accused of using a small sample set, because I filtered out slower than 1990s performances,
amateur wrote:
It wasn't because of your filtering that you were accused of using a small sample set.
I think I see you problem now.
I'm not quite sure how to put this but: The sample set is small because it's small.
That is to say the number of people who are capable of running at this level, let alone the ones who actually do, is vanishingly small.
There could be any number of reasons why Europeans (in this case a tiny group of elite Europeans) appeared to get slower in the 90s or it could just be random. You can't infer anything about EPO use or effectiveness from such a dataset.
another few posts deleted later ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, will go again .
as said then and again and again now , assumptions galore .
iaaf / wada are the ones enabling and pushing the real doping .
including the many managers , agents that includes the saint bro colm .
they layed down all the hard work and systems in place that now nearly run themselfes and with locals at helm .
so could just stop right there .
not including any newer dope in list , and with control wada etc has over narrative wont hear much about it ,
and what to test and more importantly not test for is key .
gw501516 - even though never widespread , made rudisha and afew ultra fast marathons on slower courses
IGF-1 lr3 - the big one and absolutely widespread now and that souped up nervous system without
anything else get one down to flat 13 minute for 5000 and maybe even a kick like farah.
Meldonium - was banned for a reason and found way to ethiopia and especially dibaba when running those times ,
used by itself does very little but when use with speed peptide watch out .
Mildronate Alpha is replacement and deliberately dont test for but only select few get hands on , how to rig the game.
Damn, formatting fail. This will not stand!
amateur wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Is the sample set small? As input to this exercise, I used a complete set of performances spanning at least 4 decades. The sample set can hardly be larger.
Already dealt with^^^
What is small is not the sample set I used, but the results of quality and quantity for one selected, but still rather large supermajority, group.
I did not infer EPO effectiveness or use from the small results of one large group, but asked how that is consistent with many popular assumptions about EPO.
That's still inferring that the data tells us something about EPO. It doesn't.
The discussion is why "the number of people who are capable of running at this level, let alone the ones who actually do, is vanishingly small".
You say "there could be any number of reasons" -- well, of course there can. That's just restating the question.
I feel like I'm labouring the point a little here but all I'm saying is, yet again, even if you take ALL the available data, that's still too small for what you appear to be trying to theorize.
BTW, why do you say "Europeans" or "a tiny group of elite Europeans" and "appear to get slower"?
Ok I'm going to have to back up a little bit:-
1. "why do you say "Europeans"?"
Probably because you mentioned cycling by way of comparison, which is completely dominated by Europeans and Americans of European decent. We know/assume top cyclists were all cheating bastards so why weren't top European runners doing better? Either they didn't cheat (but people tend to assume them did, we just can't be sure who), or EPO doesn't work very well. I thought that was your whole premise.
2. "a tiny group of elite Europeans"
Statistically the number of people in the elite of any event, even over time, is very small. You've chosen to focus on top-5s.
3. "appear to get slower"
Overall Europeans got slower or plateaued in the distance events. Might not be true if you just focus on the top-5 performances. However , a number of European distance records lasted from the mid 80s to the late 90s and beyond. I don't have the lists to hand.
The group in question is "5 continents", and they appear to have gotten marginally faster.
Ok, slower relative to Africans then.
I can hear the sound of our goalposts moving about but I'm not quite sure where to.
rekrunner wrote:
Despite the completeness of the source of the raw data (assuming "alltime-athletics" completeness), I was still curiously accused of using a small sample set, because I filtered out slower than 1990s performances,
amateur wrote:
It wasn't because of your filtering that you were accused of using a small sample set.
I think I see you problem now.
I'm not quite sure how to put this but: The sample set is small because it's small.
That is to say the number of people who are capable of running at this level, let alone the ones who actually do, is vanishingly small.
There could be any number of reasons why Europeans (in this case a tiny group of elite Europeans) appeared to get slower in the 90s or it could just be random. You can't infer anything about EPO use or effectiveness from such a dataset.
pariah wrote:
m!ndweak wrote:
so if all that is true, then this website is fake, and computers are fake and words, writing and thought is all fake...you are fake and i am fake....this is INSANITY?!?!!? what is real? (well besides jim ryuns 3'24 WR)
What is real?
I'll tell you what's real. The human body is amazing. Didn't you know that? I'm sure you did, but you keep forgetting. That is the basis of doping psychology, people lose sight of the amazing ability of a healthy body to do amazing things and get sucked into a void of drug delusion that it can be better. It's a fantasy. Why is boozing culture so pervasive and persuasive. Go on tell me why? What's wrong with just having a good time without alchohol? How many drug testers can do that?
The problem with drug testing and anti doping rhetoric is that it sends out exactly the wrong message, it makes doping look more desirable. Simple psychology that should be obvious. But such holier thou rhetoric works most of the time. People shout amen at the preacher en masse.
I have some sympathy with what you are saying up to a point. The point at which some athletics do successfully cheat. Although who's to say what they could have achieved without the drugs? It wouldn't be far-fetched to suggest that some athletes might have a righteous psychological need to compete clean, others not so much. Certainly most of humanity has a pathological belief in magic pills.
One more thing before I leave this thread alone. rekrunner has just touched on this. This is
going to come as a shock to some of you so brace yourselves but aside from drugs and genetics
it's possible, just possible that Africans are better at, wait for it, ... running.
What's up with this? wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
You answered hypothesis with more hypothesis.
Despite all the hype, Rosa, Aden, Canova, Schumacher, Coe and Radcliffe have not been found guilty of doping.
Only Aden is on trial for breaking Spanish law.
0/10
What's up with this? Well, you are trolling in response to a reasonable reply. If you think 'everyone is at it' then, you are a conspiracy hypothesist.
