This perfect summary of Rekrunner should be our last word on him. We should all ignore him from this point onwards. But of course we won't, myself included.
"our" last word?
I don't want to ignore him since for me he is one of the best posters on this board. He also is not right all the time, but at least he tries to back up his view with all the available data.
No, he doesn't. As has also been pointed out above, he uses only the data that suits and omits that which doesn't.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
But again, labelling me as "defending dopers", whether Kenyan or white English speaker, or as a "doping apologist", are clear misnomers obviously meant to avoid genuine discussion, preferably backed up by real data, and instead demonize the messenger, asking tough questions, or finding contradictory data, or generally poking at baseless myths.
More LOL. Those aren't misnomers at all. "backed up by real data" like an ABP or a positive test and a ban for intentional doping, confirmed by CAS? If that isn't real data for you, then any discussion with you is pointless.
Well... replace the "if" with "because"...
So you show the selective use of "data" in his arguments.
But again, labelling me as "defending dopers", whether Kenyan or white English speaker, or as a "doping apologist", are clear misnomers obviously meant to avoid genuine discussion, preferably backed up by real data, and instead demonize the messenger, asking tough questions, or finding contradictory data, or generally poking at baseless myths.
More LOL. Those aren't misnomers at all. "backed up by real data" like an ABP or a positive test and a ban for intentional doping, confirmed by CAS? If that isn't real data for you, then any discussion with you is pointless.
Well... replace the "if" with "because"...
I beg to differ. It's a complete misnomer. None of that supports any notion that I "defend dopers" for their rule violations, or otherwise "apologize for doping". They are baseless and misleading labels meant to discourage genuine discussion on all the facts.
While an ABP or positive test result is data, CAS decisions are not data, and presumptions are not data.
All of my expressed doubts are backed by real data.
More LOL. Those aren't misnomers at all. "backed up by real data" like an ABP or a positive test and a ban for intentional doping, confirmed by CAS? If that isn't real data for you, then any discussion with you is pointless.
Well... replace the "if" with "because"...
I beg to differ. It's a complete misnomer. None of that supports any notion that I "defend dopers" for their rule violations, or otherwise "apologize for doping". They are baseless and misleading labels meant to discourage genuine discussion on all the facts.
While an ABP or positive test result is data, CAS decisions are not data, and presumptions are not data.
All of my expressed doubts are backed by real data.
No they aren't. They are backed by what you only see is "data" and you dismiss what doesn't fit your predetermined conclusions. I'm sure you would have argued as vehemently that OJ was innocent, with the same selective "data".
"I don't ever question whether PEDs are drugs that are performance enhancing -- that is a trivial tautology."
It may be a tautology but what you consistently deny is that drugs are performance enhancing as a fact. You repeatedly insist that athletes only "believe" drugs are performance enhancing, which in your terminology equates with mere superstition and not fact - so you liken it to a religious belief, an article of faith. Because you therefore imply the effects of doping are all in the mind you suggest drugs may have a placebo effect - which is consistent with your position that athletes "believe" the drugs will aid them. But you never concede drugs used by athletes will physically enhance performance - and especially for distance runners, and Kenyans above all. (You do make a lonely exception for Russian women middle-distance runners on steroids to show you aren't really a doping denier. You don't care about them.) You hold to this position because no doped elite athletes have been obliging enough to engage in academic studies to show the effects of doping (which is the only "data" you are prepared to recognise outside your historical studies of performance), and you discount any anecdotal evidence for the effects of doping, which includes the years of doping conducted by innumerable athletes. You even seek to enjoin WADA to your doping denial, by trying to maintain WADA doesn't know if drugs enhance performance because it bans drugs for a "potential" to enhance performance and not a proven effect, when that is simply a position WADA adheres to so that it doesn't have to prove a banned drug aided the performance of any given athlete.
So in one sentence we see your method. It is to say one thing to actually mean its opposite, through the use of semantic games ("tautology") while leaving out the reasons you have previously iterated that show you in fact hold a contrary view to what you appear to be saying, and above all you omit any evidence that doesn't fit your fixed position that doping does not as an actual fact enhance athletic performance in elite athletes and especially distance runners.
So through misrepresentations, semantic word games, and the omitting of evidence that doesn't suit you are able to maintain a position on doping that is of dogmatic denial while presenting yourself as the very model of the voice of open-mindedness and reason. You do this in virtually every post and you have done so for years on those boards. Nothing and no one has changed the song you sing.
Many posters of limited intellectual sophistication are taken in by your act, but for those who aren't it is risible. Not only is it intellectually inept it is palpably dishonest. You are seeking to conceal your act through endless word mists. It is the method of a liar but heavily disguised.
I guess it takes 70 years to be this confused.
I can also accept as fact that drugs like caffeine and sugar are PEDs. I've had many cokes during marathons with the intent to enhance my performance.
Likewise, WADA bans drugs that are not known to be performance enhancing, e.g. masking agents, simply on some arbitrary consensus that it is potentially harmful to health, and against the spirit of the sport.
These discussions could be much cleaner by avoiding amorphous terms like PED that only muddies the discussion with hidden unproven presumptions.
No they aren't. They are backed by what you only see is "data" and you dismiss what doesn't fit your predetermined conclusions. I'm sure you would have argued as vehemently that OJ was innocent, with the same selective "data".
If the glove fits ...
What you mistake for "predetermined" is the null hypothesis -- that no effect exists.
It would be different if you ever provided any contradictory data, rather than rambling baseless contradictory conclusions, drawn from the Gospels According to Armstronglivs.
I don't want to ignore him since for me he is one of the best posters on this board. He also is not right all the time, but at least he tries to back up his view with all the available data.
No, he doesn't. As has also been pointed out above, he uses only the data that suits and omits that which doesn't.
"I don't ever question whether PEDs are drugs that are performance enhancing -- that is a trivial tautology."
It may be a tautology but what you consistently deny is that drugs are performance enhancing as a fact. You repeatedly insist that athletes only "believe" drugs are performance enhancing, which in your terminology equates with mere superstition and not fact - so you liken it to a religious belief, an article of faith. Because you therefore imply the effects of doping are all in the mind you suggest drugs may have a placebo effect - which is consistent with your position that athletes "believe" the drugs will aid them. But you never concede drugs used by athletes will physically enhance performance - and especially for distance runners, and Kenyans above all. (You do make a lonely exception for Russian women middle-distance runners on steroids to show you aren't really a doping denier. You don't care about them.) You hold to this position because no doped elite athletes have been obliging enough to engage in academic studies to show the effects of doping (which is the only "data" you are prepared to recognise outside your historical studies of performance), and you discount any anecdotal evidence for the effects of doping, which includes the years of doping conducted by innumerable athletes. You even seek to enjoin WADA to your doping denial, by trying to maintain WADA doesn't know if drugs enhance performance because it bans drugs for a "potential" to enhance performance and not a proven effect, when that is simply a position WADA adheres to so that it doesn't have to prove a banned drug aided the performance of any given athlete.
So in one sentence we see your method. It is to say one thing to actually mean its opposite, through the use of semantic games ("tautology") while leaving out the reasons you have previously iterated that show you in fact hold a contrary view to what you appear to be saying, and above all you omit any evidence that doesn't fit your fixed position that doping does not as an actual fact enhance athletic performance in elite athletes and especially distance runners.
So through misrepresentations, semantic word games, and the omitting of evidence that doesn't suit you are able to maintain a position on doping that is of dogmatic denial while presenting yourself as the very model of the voice of open-mindedness and reason. You do this in virtually every post and you have done so for years on those boards. Nothing and no one has changed the song you sing.
Many posters of limited intellectual sophistication are taken in by your act, but for those who aren't it is risible. Not only is it intellectually inept it is palpably dishonest. You are seeking to conceal your act through endless word mists. It is the method of a liar but heavily disguised.
I guess it takes 70 years to be this confused.
I can also accept as fact that drugs like caffeine and sugar are PEDs. I've had many cokes during marathons with the intent to enhance my performance.
Likewise, WADA bans drugs that are not known to be performance enhancing, e.g. masking agents, simply on some arbitrary consensus that it is potentially harmful to health, and against the spirit of the sport.
These discussions could be much cleaner by avoiding amorphous terms like PED that only muddies the discussion with hidden unproven presumptions.
"Hidden unproven assumptions"? You are farcical. But including sugar and caffeine as peds when WADA doesn't tops your absurdity. Then you digress to the other reasons drugs are banned than that they are performance enhancing (oh, only "potentially" - like EPO). You once show exactly the method I describe above. You can't change it. It is total cr*p. But it is your religion.
"all the available data"??? LOL. No he doesn't. He only sees data that might help the dopers, often taken out of context with his spin added (e.g. calling an appeal "double jeopardy" - see yesterday), ignoring the data that led to the bans of the dopers. Then he sides with the authorities when they were pro doper (USATF here, that infamously hid over 100 positives at that time!) over the neutral IAAF that banned the doper.
He just demonstrated that again. Or look into any of the current or old Shelburrito threads for more demonstrations, where he tries - since spring 2021!!!! - to discredit all the experts who showed how ridiculous the burrito excuse is.
Once again, you are shooting the messenger.
Earlier I linked to a contemporaneous 2002 critique of the doping control process from Dickinson Law Review. The idea of "double jeopardy" applied to Mary Slaney comes from them, not me. She was convicted before the creation of WADA and USADA resolved several issues with the lack of harmonization and jurisdictional power struggles, mainly between NGBs (like USATF), and IFs (like the IAAF).
Here are some excerpts:
Mary argued the unreliability of the T/E test and won:
"Before the panel, her attorneys argued that the six-to-one ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone in general, and as applied to women in particular, was unreliable and not evidence of a doping violation. Slaney argued that the use of oral contraceptives, menstruation and alcohol use, individually and collectively, would cause a ratio greater than six-to-one. On September 16th, USA T&F ruled that the six-to-one standard was unreliable in women and lifted Slaney's suspension."
Contrary to your suggestion, there was no appeal. The IAAF decided unilaterally on its own:
"In January 1998, the IAAF announced that it would not accept the ruling from USA T&F as conclusive and that it was sending the matter to its own arbitration proceeding."
Some general due process concerns with IFs (e.g. the IAAF) pre-WADA:
"From the athletes' perspective, the cases are evidence of a system that ignores basic notions of due process by incorrectly assigning burdens, issues punishment before holding a hearing and uses biased arbitrators."
"... the view that IF arbitration lacks due process and is generally nothing more than a rubber stamp for previous IF decisions. The fact that the arbitrators are appointed by the IF and the fact that the burden often seems to rest on the athlete to prove his or her innocence lends support to this view."
"The history of doping control has largely been a story of a prospective jurisdictional struggle between the IOC, the IFs and the NGBs."
"The third criterion for an efficient dispute settlement system is predictability of the outcome. This has been a problem for the Olympic Movement's doping control system. Similar to the concept of transparency, the results of a dispute settlement system must be predictable and consistent in order to create efficiency and give the system legitimacy."
"The Olympic Movement's doping control process has suffered from unpredictability and inconsistency. Outcomes have often been unpredictable because of a lack of precedent, a lack of detailed procedural rules and because of the tension between the NGBs and IFs."
"... the high number of times that an NGB's decision has been reversed by an IF has created unpredictability at best, and cynicism at the worst."
"The right to a meaningful hearing could also be violated when an IF, on its own motion, holds its own second hearing after an NBG has cleared an athlete of doping charges. If an IF can hold its own hearing, regardless of the results from a hearing conducted by the NGB, then the NGB's hearing is rendered meaningless."
"Notably, an IF would violate the prohibition against double jeopardy if it recharged and retried an athlete after an NGB has cleared the athlete."
Today, the IAAF cannot unilaterally decide to hold its own arbitration but would have to appeal to the CAS:
"Under the pre-USADA system, IFs frequently intervened or played an appellate role (i.e. if an athlete appeals) in NGB anti-doping actions. If an IF is unhappy with the result of an NGB proceeding, the IF could take the case to its own adjudication process, often resulting in a reversal of the NGB decision. Additionally, an athlete who is unhappy with an NGB decision could appeal to the IF. With the USADA system, the IF's review and appellate role has been replaced by an appeal to the CAS. According to USADA's rules, the athlete and the IF are parties to the process and may appeal the initial arbitration decision to the CAS."
Huh. Somehow rekrunner failed to mention that it was 6 : 1 back then, not 4 : 1 as now.
And let me guess. Since he didn't whine that she was barely above 6 : 1, she was likely way above the threshold like 8 : 1 or even higher??
I often leave out non-important details. Whether 4:1, 6:1, 8:1 or 11:1, the test that convicted Mary is no longer considered reliable enough to convict athletes on its own, especially under conditions when E is unusually low.
So the timeline is that:
- Mary convinced the USATF that the test was not reliable, according to the IOC Labs own internal literature.
- The IAAF didn't agree with the ruling, and initiated a brand new arbitration with its own appointed arbitors, and asked her again to prove it was not reliable. The IAAF still didn't agree.
- Subsequently, the science evolved, and the test that convicted her was considered too unreliable, and convictions require an additional CIR test.
"Hidden unproven assumptions"? You are farcical. But including sugar and caffeine as peds when WADA doesn't tops your absurdity. Then you digress to the other reasons drugs are banned than that they are performance enhancing (oh, only "potentially" - like EPO). You once show exactly the method I describe above. You can't change it. It is total cr*p. But it is your religion.
Were we talking about WADA banned substances, or PEDs? These are two different things.
If someone says PEDs, that includes a lot of WADA legal substances, like caffeine (which used to be banned above a certain limit). Wejo caused a scandal here when he said he drank coffee before races.
WADA doesn't use the term PEDs. It is too vague.
WADA does use the the phrase "the potential to enhance" as one general criteria to ban a substance.
WADA does not provide any explanation as to which substances on their banned lists were banned because they were considered as "performance enhancing", "potentially performance enhancing", or neither but rather the "health"+"spirit" factors.
There are intellectually valid ways to reasonably establish the effects of drugs on elite performance, but you are not applying any of them.
The Hincapie stuff is BS. Because of the initial EPO test was very effective IC, Ferrari switch Postal exclusively over to blood doping starting with the 2000 Tour (Postal last used EPO IC in the 99 Tour - Armstrong's first Tour win in his comeback from cancer). You can listen to Armstrong further explain this in his recent interview with Peter Attia (@ 1:38:00 in):
Correct on the first paper: subcutaneous injections with EPO is how EPO is generally taken - and used in this fashion in a clinical setting. Intravenous injections are not advised by any competent doctor as they're very dangerous. The vast majority of EPO dopers administer it with intramuscular injections.
And there you go again second guessing WADA testing assays just like you've second guessed the ABP when involves someone other than a Russian athlete. Lol
You & I go way back in arguing over your character of questioning & defending Kenyan doping cases. Do you remember page after page, thread after thread of me, "casual obsever," "Subway Surfer," etc, debating ad nuseam some of these high-profile Kenyan doping cases?
From Kiprop to Kiptum to Rosario to Sumgong to Jeptoo - you relentlessly questioned many times - not only the validity of the test/ABP anomalies - but whether or not PEDs, particularly 02-vector doping, even enhanced their performance. Your reputation if defending Kenyan dopers precedes you...nothing new there.
I recognize your unique style of bolding and italics and acronyms and linking to many pubmed articles and use of emojis.
So you are saying Lance still used EPO OOC. And you said Kiprop's test was OOC. Why do you say "The vast majority of EPO dopers administer it with intramuscular injections."?
I made a mistake above -- Kiprop had 6 days notice when he started exchanging texts with the tester. But let's pretend he was a veteran doper since before 2008 Olympics that showed up "glowing" for a test with a surprisingly short 6 days notice, and bribed the tester for hiding a test result that wasn't hidden.
Am I second guessing "WADA testing assays"? I'm not really sure what that even means. I think I made it clear that Prof. Erik Boye is the one second guessing the correct execution and interpretation of the tests by WADA Labs, with documents and data and pictures and graphs backing it all up. Apparently it is a difficult test to get right, and it is even more difficult for accused athletes to have access to the raw data being used to convict them in order to mount the defense they need. One athlete had to pay for the data. Another got the exculpatory results only after the conviction.
Have I ever second guessed the ABP? I don't recall second guessing the ABP or questioning the validity of it, only for non-Russians. Do you have an example? The general principle seems sound. But it does sound like me to ask questions about the data behind whatever wild claims may have come up over time in various threads.
I'm still gobsmacked at being accused out of nowhere of only "defending" white English speaking dopers (not to mention that 2 out of 4 of the best examples were never charged with doping), and now here you are saying my "reputation if (sic) defending Kenyan dopers precedes you...nothing new there."
But again, labelling me as "defending dopers", whether Kenyan or white English speaker, or as a "doping apologist", are clear misnomers obviously meant to avoid genuine discussion, preferably backed up by real data, and instead demonize the messenger, asking tough questions, or finding contradictory data, or generally poking at baseless myths.
I don't ever question whether PEDs are drugs that are performance enhancing -- that is a trivial tautology. That would be like questioning whether RBCs are blood cells that are red. Or whether UFOs are flying objects that are unidentified.
In the Attia interview that I linked, Armstrong said Ferrari had them use EPO only OOC. After the EPO test was implemented in 2000, Ferrari switch Armstrong & Postal to transfusions for all IC events.
Intramuscular injections for rEPO is the preferred method used by dopers - you can look it up in some of the CAS hearings involving EPO doping cases.
And you're now second guessing the rEPO testing assay because of some professor's opinion that you can't even link any papers that he's published on that? (I bet he's been paid to testified on behalf of some of these dopers in their CAS hearings. Lol).
You've questioned the ABP in many of the doping cases & CAS hearings that I've brought up in all those discussions & debates we've engaged in over the last several years. Lol
You've dismissed & discredit twor renowned sports Medicine scientists in the field that I've study under; Olaf Schumacher & Christer Malm. Schumacher, one of the top anti-doping experts & sports medicine researchers, has estimated that EPO can shave off 'up to "one minute off" in a 10,000 meter run (Karamasheva CAS hearing).
Christer Malm, Professor of Sports Science at Umea University in Sweden, published a paper on blood doping estimating the elite endurance athletes can improve up to "3%" with blood doping, regardless of method.
How many times in our many previous debates have you completely dismissed their estimations as not being applicable to elite athletes? (Even "casual observer," a research scientist himself I believe, agrees with this estimation being more on the conservative side!).
And I stand corrected - it's not only the Kenyan doping cases that you seem to defend & run damaged control for, but the Russian women runners as well. How many times in numerous past debates that I've link up dozens of their CAS hearings for analysis (Savinova, Zaripova, Karamasheva, Ugorova, etc), where they had egregious hematological anomalies at or about the time they had a gold medal winning event, or major marathon win, a PB, etc, only for you to dismiss the benefit they received from O2-vector doping instead chalking it off to more of the benefit they received from "steroids."
I hope this has jogged your memory as you seem to have conveniently forgotten all those debates you had with me & casual oberver. Lol
I've just seen so many one-sided argumentation patterns from you (when you gave arguments at all, which is not the norm for you).
True. Rekrunner is basically Armstronglivs' pro-doper counter part.
Then you are saying we're both guilty of promoting falsehood - since that is what rekrunner does. So where does the truth lie in this debate? There isn't much room for middle ground.
"Hidden unproven assumptions"? You are farcical. But including sugar and caffeine as peds when WADA doesn't tops your absurdity. Then you digress to the other reasons drugs are banned than that they are performance enhancing (oh, only "potentially" - like EPO). You once show exactly the method I describe above. You can't change it. It is total cr*p. But it is your religion.
Were we talking about WADA banned substances, or PEDs? These are two different things.
If someone says PEDs, that includes a lot of WADA legal substances, like caffeine (which used to be banned above a certain limit). Wejo caused a scandal here when he said he drank coffee before races.
WADA doesn't use the term PEDs. It is too vague.
WADA does use the the phrase "the potential to enhance" as one general criteria to ban a substance.
WADA does not provide any explanation as to which substances on their banned lists were banned because they were considered as "performance enhancing", "potentially performance enhancing", or neither but rather the "health"+"spirit" factors.
There are intellectually valid ways to reasonably establish the effects of drugs on elite performance, but you are not applying any of them.
What disingenuous bs. "PEDS" is the term used to describe drugs that are banned. Virtually anything can aid performance - food and water obviously included - but if they aren't on the banned list they aren't the subject of any discussion about doping. But if you are prepared to acknowledge that substances considered innocuous by WADA and hence not banned can nonetheless be performance enhancing then that makes it so much more likely that the banned drugs will also do that - but more so. But then you suddenly get all coy and say the banned drugs (like EPO) only have the "potential" to be performance enhancing (because that is the catch-all phrase used by WADA). Yet you make it clear there is no doubt that sugar and caffeine are. How dumb can WADA be? Actually, the question is better directed at you.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
I don't want to ignore him since for me he is one of the best posters on this board. He also is not right all the time, but at least he tries to back up his view with all the available data.
No, he doesn't. As has also been pointed out above, he uses only the data that suits and omits that which doesn't.
Yes he does. You are just too stupid to understand the data.
In the Attia interview that I linked, Armstrong said Ferrari had them use EPO only OOC. After the EPO test was implemented in 2000, Ferrari switch Armstrong & Postal to transfusions for all IC events.
Intramuscular injections for rEPO is the preferred method used by dopers - you can look it up in some of the CAS hearings involving EPO doping cases.
And you're now second guessing the rEPO testing assay because of some professor's opinion that you can't even link any papers that he's published on that? (I bet he's been paid to testified on behalf of some of these dopers in their CAS hearings. Lol).
You've questioned the ABP in many of the doping cases & CAS hearings that I've brought up in all those discussions & debates we've engaged in over the last several years. Lol
You've dismissed & discredit twor renowned sports Medicine scientists in the field that I've study under; Olaf Schumacher & Christer Malm. Schumacher, one of the top anti-doping experts & sports medicine researchers, has estimated that EPO can shave off 'up to "one minute off" in a 10,000 meter run (Karamasheva CAS hearing).
Christer Malm, Professor of Sports Science at Umea University in Sweden, published a paper on blood doping estimating the elite endurance athletes can improve up to "3%" with blood doping, regardless of method.
How many times in our many previous debates have you completely dismissed their estimations as not being applicable to elite athletes? (Even "casual observer," a research scientist himself I believe, agrees with this estimation being more on the conservative side!).
And I stand corrected - it's not only the Kenyan doping cases that you seem to defend & run damaged control for, but the Russian women runners as well. How many times in numerous past debates that I've link up dozens of their CAS hearings for analysis (Savinova, Zaripova, Karamasheva, Ugorova, etc), where they had egregious hematological anomalies at or about the time they had a gold medal winning event, or major marathon win, a PB, etc, only for you to dismiss the benefit they received from O2-vector doping instead chalking it off to more of the benefit they received from "steroids."
I hope this has jogged your memory as you seem to have conveniently forgotten all those debates you had with me & casual oberver. Lol
I think you and I jogged away with very different memories.
So we are agreed - OOC is relevant while IC is not.
You gave me a paper on "subcutaneous" injections and only your words about "intramuscular" injections. I think athletes in OOC pools prefer drugs and methods with short windows of detection. Kiprop had 6 days notice. What is the detection window for intramuscular injections? Again, are we supposed to pretend that with 6 days notice, he was so surprised by the tester, that he was caught with his pants down, and showed up to the test "glowing" and then tried to bribe the tester to hide the result which was not hidden? This strains credibility.
I don't know if I'm second guessing EPO assays. I thought I made it clear that it was Prof. Erik Boye second guessing EPO convictions. I'm still first guessing what second guessing EPO assays even means. I gave you enough information to investigate Erik Boye's results and the cases of Colvert, Sommer, and Karus if you are interested. Like you instructed me to do - "you can look it up". You can start like I did, with Ross Tucker's introduction (link at bottom).
I don't recall ever second guessing the validity of ABP convictions. I think what you are referring to is whether we can reliably determine any performance effect from the examples of ABP cases that do not measure performance. Did they tell is what Karamasheva's 10K top potential was with EPO and without EPO?
I certainly did not dismiss and discredit Malm and Schumacher. I accepted their statements for what they were, as hypothetical upper bounds expressed couched in phrases like "can be up to". Notably they did not do their own blood doping performance research, but second-handedly referred us to other research conducted by other experts, across a variety of sports, who caution against projecting conclusions onto elite performances.
I do not do damage control for Russian women by commenting on their performance, since doping convictions are not connected to performance. Athletes are convicted whether their performances were slower, or faster, or DNF or DNS. But it is no secret that the Russians were doping with steroid cocktails, and that steroids benefit women in sports and events requiring muscular strength. This massively confounds any attempt to determine "O2-vector" benefits, especially from cases that did not measure maximum performance potential with "O2-vector" doping, and without.
Here is the link on "The bias in power in anti-doping":
This is a guest post by Norweigian scientist Erik Boye, in which he raises concerns about the imbalance in power in antidoping and how it erodes confidence in the antidoping system
What disingenuous bs. "PEDS" is the term used to describe drugs that are banned. Virtually anything can aid performance - food and water obviously included - but if they aren't on the banned list they aren't the subject of any discussion about doping. But if you are prepared to acknowledge that substances considered innocuous by WADA and hence not banned can nonetheless be performance enhancing then that makes it so much more likely that the banned drugs will also do that - but more so. But then you suddenly get all coy and say the banned drugs (like EPO) only have the "potential" to be performance enhancing (because that is the catch-all phrase used by WADA). Yet you make it clear there is no doubt that sugar and caffeine are. How dumb can WADA be? Actually, the question is better directed at you.
The question is best directed in your mirror. Let me help you put two and two together:
If you tell me that "PEDs" only describe drugs that are banned (btw, caffeine was banned once), and WADA tells me that their banned drugs list is a mix of performance enhancing, potentially performance enhanding, and non-performance enhancing drugs, and WADA doesn't tell us which they considered which -- we cannot know which "PEDs" actually enhance which performance -- and the PEDs, as you describe it is used, is in fact a farcical misnomer that can morph into whatever the mind of the beholder wants to presume to believe.
WADA is not the dumb one. They did not create this farce, as they do not use this farcical amorphous term.
Again, there are intellectually valid ways to reasonably establish the effects of banned drugs on elite performance, but sadly you are not applying any intellect.
