Steeplecahse WR holder Ruth Jebet Banned for 4 years

I dont rule rule out that you are monumentally stupid and dishonest. You are effectively saying that all the athletes I listed above - champions and world record-holders - are stupid as well as cheats. Or you are saying nothing.

That it is only "a hypothesis" that doping will produce a net positive outcome is utterly disingenuous. Coffee, electrolytes and anti-inflammatories will all produce a net positive outcome, but it is only "hypothetical" that something stronger will also have a beneficial effect?

You don't actually argue; you merely react. Like an infant's Moro reflex - but in the brain.

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

I explained it better in the next sentence by adding "if we do not know their experiences, nor what they know."

Knowledge is indeed not possible on the standard of us not knowing what the experience of these coaches/athletes were. Armstronglivs needs a better standard before he can claim it is knowledge.

Barrel of Laughs wrote:

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?

Not only Berbers of Morrocco. There are some Algerians in that list too.

Armstronglivs says doping is everywhere, with prevalence estimates as high as 60%.

It would seem unlikely that only Africans from North and East Africa are high responders.

I do not need to prove a claim I am not making.

I claim that it remains a possibility until it is ruled out. This is the challenge when trying to prove a claim with one cherry-picked example. You must work harder to eliminate all of the unknowns. That burden is on you.

You comments on how athletes think when they make these decisions is mere speculation; you have no data to support it - which is your requirement for any statement to become knowledge or fact as distinct from "belief".

With regard to your comment about Renato, the issue of what may be possible with clean training is not the issue or what is being debated; it is the possible or likely effects of doping in addition to training. And on that he knows nothing more than the rest of us who have never doped or worked with dopers.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I dont rule rule out that you are monumentally stupid and dishonest. You are effectively saying that all the athletes I listed above - champions and world record-holders - are stupid as well as cheats. Or you are saying nothing.

That it is only "a hypothesis" that doping will produce a net positive outcome is utterly disingenuous. Coffee, electrolytes and anti-inflammatories will all produce a net positive outcome, but it is only "hypothetical" that something stronger will also have a beneficial effect?

You don't actually argue; you merely react. Like an infant's Moro reflex - but in the brain.

I don't think you are dishonest.

If you think doping helped them, you have to do more than assume it was already proven.

Performance in a complex system is an optimization problem.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

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?

Are you sure? It looks like I said "from a coach who has no experience with doping."

rekrunner wrote:

Barrel of Laughs wrote:

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?

Not only Berbers of Morrocco. There are some Algerians in that list too.

Armstronglivs says doping is everywhere, with prevalence estimates as high as 60%.

It would seem unlikely that only Africans from North and East Africa are high responders.

I do not need to prove a claim I am not making.

I claim that it remains a possibility until it is ruled out. This is the challenge when trying to prove a claim with one cherry-picked example. You must work harder to eliminate all of the unknowns. That burden is on you.

Balls. You have argued endlessly that these top performances are clean. You have never identified any performance that you think might be doped. If you were to actually adhere to the line of reasoning you insist on for others, relating to "lack of data", the best you could say is that you don't know either way. You are not in a position to say an opposing view is wrong, without that data. The threads would be a lot shorter.

physics defiant wrote:

4% slower.

Now who's WAG-ging it?

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

Perhaps here is a basic misunderstanding. I do not suggest belief is necessarily wrong and only knowledge is right. It is the difference between a weak argument and a strong argument, not right and wrong.

rekrunner wrote:

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?

Are you sure? It looks like I said "from a coach who has no experience with doping."

I misread that sentence. But Renato's lack of experience about doping weakens his claim that the best clean athletes can still be better than the best doped athletes.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You comments on how athletes think when they make these decisions is mere speculation; you have no data to support it - which is your requirement for any statement to become knowledge or fact as distinct from "belief".

With regard to your comment about Renato, the issue of what may be possible with clean training is not the issue or what is being debated; it is the possible or likely effects of doping in addition to training. And on that he knows nothing more than the rest of us who have never doped or worked with dopers.

I agree on both points.

I believe the athlete doping decision making is irrational. You believe it is not. Without data -- this is a stalemate.

I believe Renato has a rich experience with altitude training, and any opinions about additional effect from doping, even if guided by experience and knowledge, could be proven wrong.

rekrunner wrote:

Regarding what Canova said, I recently said the same thing in another thread -- EPO can work for everyone, even high altitude Kenyans, when they are aerobically unfit. But elite athletes, when in their top shape, tend to already be aerobically strong.

Okay then...what about the recent four Kenyans busted for ABP hematological-anomalies violations? There's Kiptum - an insane *60.9* Hct on his very first ABP sample submitted! (with a corresponding Off-score of 148!). He sets the WR at Valencia and follows that up with running 2nd & a PB at Dhabi with a another high Hct of 58! (Off-score of 145!). Both results annulled under the "unfair advantage" clause. In his DT hearing, he testified that he lives and trains in Nandi County (2000m-2300m) and often races at such altitudes. Aerobically fit or unfit when he started his program?

Two of the other three Kenyans (Rutto & Chepchirchir) were also found guilty of doping for ABP hematological anomalies, using the same living & training at altitude excuse. The fourth Kenyan case, Chepkirui, is still in the DT process - I'm sure it will be more or less the same altitude defense. Lol.

The Russians are also noted for using the altitude training excuse in most of their ABP cases. They have over 70 ABP hematological-anomalies bans (I may have lost track. Lol) involving athletes from the heptathlon and every discipline from the 800 up through the marathon, as well as RW! They have some of the best doping coaches & doctors in the business - so they know a thing of two about doping.

If altitude training is so beneficial and can produce such tremendous results, then why in the heck wouldn't the Russians just have their athletes train at altitude and not resort to 02-vector doping? Their women had some very impressive & notable performances in every aforementioned event particularly in the 800, 1500 & SC. The RW men were the most dominant in the world over a several year period.

As a result of their doping, they also had a huge number of Olympic & WC medals and marathon victories annulled and all this culminated of course in an unprecedented double Olympic ban. If they could have achieved all these results clean by living & training at altitude - then why in the heck wouldn't they have done so in the first place and avoid all these humiliating bans & annulments?

The altitude training mantra is just a cover story by the dopers and their coaches - they're also trying to mask their doping during their cycles and pre-comp doping schemes. It's the buzzword with the dopers when they get caught for doping with either EPO or blood transfusions. And the altitude native dopers think the ABP won't be able to differentiate between altitude-induced elevated blood values & O2-vector doping-induced values.

really?? Really?? wrote:

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.

I have argued consistently with the data I have presented.

Again, I didn't set the standard of listening to anecdotes from the voice of experience.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

Perhaps here is a basic misunderstanding. I do not suggest belief is necessarily wrong and only knowledge is right. It is the difference between a weak argument and a strong argument, not right and wrong.

You don't know that the athletes who are doping lack knowledge of the kind that would reinforce the link between doping and performance. You cannot simply categorize their experiences as "belief", because, as you have said, you don't know what they may know.

However it is not they who are making the argument that doping works; they are simply choosing to dope - and in considerable numbers. For many reasons, I would conclude that doping feeds into performance but it is surely persuasive that doping is a widespread practice around which an entire industry has developed. At an anecdotal level, we have instances of coaches telling their athletes they can't succeed without it.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Balls. You have argued endlessly that these top performances are clean. You have never identified any performance that you think might be doped. If you were to actually adhere to the line of reasoning you insist on for others, relating to "lack of data", the best you could say is that you don't know either way. You are not in a position to say an opposing view is wrong, without that data. The threads would be a lot shorter.

On the contrary, when asked to take a position, I have only ever argued "Maybe, maybe not. Need more data."

I am adhering to that line of reasoning.

Don't you recall your recent outrage when I talked about El G and the mile record, "covering all the bases"?

I'm not the one claiming that elite performances are only possible with doping.

I'm claiming, without supporting data, this is not better than speculation.

It is "data" that thousands of athletes dope, with the help of experts like physicians. It is "data" that many charged with anti-doping consider doping is performance enhancing. It is "data" that there are studies that reinforce that view. It is "data" that relatively mediocre athletes have enjoyed success from doping. It is not a "stalemate"; the data is against your view that the decision to dope is irrational.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I misread that sentence. But Renato's lack of experience about doping weakens his claim that the best clean athletes can still be better than the best doped athletes.

I agree that that claim is still open for discussion.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

4% slower.

Now who's WAG-ging it?

You can work out the math from 3:39 to 3:29 then.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I misread that sentence. But Renato's lack of experience about doping weakens his claim that the best clean athletes can still be better than the best doped athletes.

I agree that that claim is still open for discussion.

Discussion is really pointless, since you do not agree with your opponents about standards of evidence.

It is just people sticking their fingers in their ears yelling, "I'm right, you are wrong"

Unproductive and boring.