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.
The only thing that can be taken from that nonsense is that you haven't a clue what is a ped. That makes sense, because in your wonderland they don't exist, Alice.
The only thing that can be taken from that nonsense is that you haven't a clue what is a ped. That makes sense, because in your wonderland they don't exist, Alice.
So are you able to put two and two together yet?
I was a little confused about the ambiguous meaning of PEDs, but thanks to your clue, I do now: ""PEDS"(sic) is the term used to describe drugs that are banned."
I must admit that I'm not all that familiar with these amorphous quirky colloquial euphemisms that WADA doesn't use or define in its banned drugs list. I naively thought the PE meant "performance enhancing". Thanks for clearing that up.
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":
With the exception of the steeplechase, why then did the Russian's women's performances drop significantly in the 800, 1500, 5000 & marathon after 2012 - when ABP hematological anomalies were being enforced on Russia's top runners? 🤔
Dr Sergei Iljukov, Dept of Sports & Excercise Medicine, Univ of Helsinki, and an anti-doping expert, says the Russian women through blood doping improved times by 1-4%, but on average 2-3%.
The steroidal module of the ABP wasn't implemented until 2014. The hematological module of the ABP was implemented in 2009 when the passport program was rolled out in it's infancy. The enforcement of hematological anomalies on the Russians didn't start until 2012 which eventually caught virtually all of their top runners! 😲
With the exception of the steeplechase, why then did the Russian's women's performances drop significantly in the 800, 1500, 5000 & marathon after 2012 - when ABP hematological anomalies were being enforced on Russia's top runners? 🤔
Dr Sergei Iljukov, Dept of Sports & Excercise Medicine, Univ of Helsinki, and an anti-doping expert, says the Russian women through blood doping improved times by 1-4%, but on average 2-3%.
The steroidal module of the ABP wasn't implemented until 2014. The hematological module of the ABP was implemented in 2009 when the passport program was rolled out in it's infancy. The enforcement of hematological anomalies on the Russians didn't start until 2012 which eventually caught virtually all of their top runners! 😲
Why indeed? That is a good question, but I have so many more. What else was going around 2012? Oh, I know. Not only was ABP being enforced, but all Russian anti-doping was being enforced for all doping across the board, with increased pressure coming at first from (one part of) the IAAF around 2012, just before the IAAF-Russian scandal broke out, increasing the pressure even more. This is well documented by both IAAF and WADA.
What else can you tell me about his study? What other potential causes did Dr. Iljukov hypothesize and evaluate and rule out besides ABP enforcement? How did he eliminate that the hypothesized association with ABP enforcement wasn't spurious? Were the banned for ABP female runners also taking steroids? What else did he say in the "Limitations" section?
If you say that virtually all the top runners were banned starting in 2012, then 2013-2017 included virtually no top runners. Indeed, according to WADA, between 2013 and 2017, 168 Russian track and field athletes were banned. So Dr. Iljukov compared top runners from 2008-2012, to middle runners from 2013-2017. Wouldn't the drop in the caliber of runners alone explain the observed drop in performance?
I don't understand half of what you say. You obfuscate so much it's not even funny. You're the only poster than I can read your comments a couple of times & still not make heads or tails of what you're saying (maybe I just dumb or something but don't have this problem on comprehension with Armstrong's posts, or anyone else for that fact. Lol). IMO, you're being pretentious & trying to show off all the time (you think you're the superior intellect on the doping issues with elites or something. Lol).
All I know is that Sergei Iljukov is a qualified expert in the field of blood doping --- and he says female elite runners can improve their times, on average 2-3%.
And look at these performances with these female elites that were busted for hematological anomalies on their ABP; Shobukhova (Chicago winner & 2nd fastest marathon at one time), Savinova (gold medalist @ Daegu & London with PB set at Daegu), Zaripova (gold medalist @ London & PB set that year), Alptekin (gold medalist @ London & PB set that year), just to name a few.
As I said before, and bring this thread back into Kenyan doping, you have historically questioned Kenyan doping performances basically running damage control for them.
I'll refresh your memory by linking the 27 page Abraham Kiptum doping thread from 4 yrs ago. This is where Mr. Kiptum was doped to the gills when he blew his ABP to kingdom come with a 60% Hct when he set the HM WR in Valencia!
This is 27 pages of discussion & debate with you & casual obsever, Subway Surfer, Covett, Armstronglivs, myself (I posted under "Let's get to the bottom of this" & "Passport Era Doping") & many others.
You chime in on page #9 & already on page #11 you questioning the validity of the ABP in Kiptum case, and athletes busted on the ABP in general. Lol (and there's some good exchanges between you & casual obsever - as he knows his sh*t on the subject of Kenyan doping):
The only thing that can be taken from that nonsense is that you haven't a clue what is a ped. That makes sense, because in your wonderland they don't exist, Alice.
So are you able to put two and two together yet?
I was a little confused about the ambiguous meaning of PEDs, but thanks to your clue, I do now: ""PEDS"(sic) is the term used to describe drugs that are banned."
I must admit that I'm not all that familiar with these amorphous quirky colloquial euphemisms that WADA doesn't use or define in its banned drugs list. I naively thought the PE meant "performance enhancing". Thanks for clearing that up.
The only thing you understand about peds is that they aren't performance enhancing. It goes with your flat-earthism.
"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.
(I am less intelligent than everyone) ...but about this PED acronym subject - don't people nearly always say "Illegal PED" or "Banned PED" ? ....rather than just "PED" ??? ...it would be weird if people had to start saying "IPED" or "BPED" right ?
P.S. ...isn't caffeine banned/illegal ? I know a Pentathlete got pinged for it at the Olympics. Still, I remember Randy Macho Man Savage (RMMS) saying 'Cup of cooooffee' - and he never used BPED.
I was a little confused about the ambiguous meaning of PEDs, but thanks to your clue, I do now: ""PEDS"(sic) is the term used to describe drugs that are banned."
I must admit that I'm not all that familiar with these amorphous quirky colloquial euphemisms that WADA doesn't use or define in its banned drugs list. I naively thought the PE meant "performance enhancing". Thanks for clearing that up.
The only thing you understand about peds is that they aren't performance enhancing. It goes with your flat-earthism.
BTW...I've been for long drives in Australia. - actual on-site first-hand experiences and I have to say, the Earth seemed pretty flat to me. I guess I must have turned around prematurely.
His first sentence was a reply to your first sentence. You really are stupid. Well done.
So you have to defend another illiterate who can't write what he means. Birds of a feather.
He or she is not defending me. He or she is explaining the illiterate in the room, you, how to read. But you are really that stupid and have awful reading comprehension.
So you have to defend another illiterate who can't write what he means. Birds of a feather.
He or she is not defending me. He or she is explaining the illiterate in the room, you, how to read. But you are really that stupid and have awful reading comprehension.
I could see what he was trying to say but all he could achieve was the opposite (as shown when I quoted him) because he is obviously unable to use the English language effectively. Since you don't see that you must be in the same boat.
The only thing you understand about peds is that they aren't performance enhancing. It goes with your flat-earthism.
BTW...I've been for long drives in Australia. - actual on-site first-hand experiences and I have to say, the Earth seemed pretty flat to me. I guess I must have turned around prematurely.
Rekrunner would say the "facts" and the "data" support your hypothesis. It also proves to him that peds are not actually performance enhancing - unless they are coffee or sugar.
"I don't understand half of what you (rekrunner) say. You obfuscate so much it's not even funny. You're the only poster than I can read your comments a couple of times & still not make heads or tails of what you're saying.. "
You're in good company. There are two reasons for it: he doesn't understand what he is talking about and he also needs to cover his tracks so his lying isn't blatantly obvious.
I don't understand half of what you say. You obfuscate so much it's not even funny. You're the only poster than I can read your comments a couple of times & still not make heads or tails of what you're saying (maybe I just dumb or something but don't have this problem on comprehension with Armstrong's posts, or anyone else for that fact. Lol). IMO, you're being pretentious & trying to show off all the time (you think you're the superior intellect on the doping issues with elites or something. Lol).
All I know is that Sergei Iljukov is a qualified expert in the field of blood doping --- and he says female elite runners can improve their times, on average 2-3%.
And look at these performances with these female elites that were busted for hematological anomalies on their ABP; Shobukhova (Chicago winner & 2nd fastest marathon at one time), Savinova (gold medalist @ Daegu & London with PB set at Daegu), Zaripova (gold medalist @ London & PB set that year), Alptekin (gold medalist @ London & PB set that year), just to name a few.
As I said before, and bring this thread back into Kenyan doping, you have historically questioned Kenyan doping performances basically running damage control for them.
I'll refresh your memory by linking the 27 page Abraham Kiptum doping thread from 4 yrs ago. This is where Mr. Kiptum was doped to the gills when he blew his ABP to kingdom come with a 60% Hct when he set the HM WR in Valencia!
This is 27 pages of discussion & debate with you & casual obsever, Subway Surfer, Covett, Armstronglivs, myself (I posted under "Let's get to the bottom of this" & "Passport Era Doping") & many others.
You chime in on page #9 & already on page #11 you questioning the validity of the ABP in Kiptum case, and athletes busted on the ABP in general. Lol (and there's some good exchanges between you & casual obsever - as he knows his sh*t on the subject of Kenyan doping):
I don't understand what you don't understand, so I cannot help you. I don't understand what you believe is obfuscation in my post, rather than direct responses to your posts and to the study, so again, I am unable to help you.
But let's try again, to talk about this Russian women performance study that you brought into this Kenyan thread.
You say Dr. Iljukov says all these things, but in fact, the conclusion of 2-3% attributed to blood doping that you understood, comes from journalist Alex Hutchinson (PhD in Physics, and researcher at NSA's Quantum Computing Group and Candian national team competitor), in a non-peer reviewed website article from "Outside Online", and not from Dr. Iljukov.
Dr. Iljukov wants to associate the performance drops pre and post 2012 to the "Implementation of the Athlete Biological Passport" -- an improvement in anti-doping enforcement -- in a paper entitled "Association Between Implementation of the Athlete Biological Passport and Female Elite Runners’ Performance".
What Dr. Iljukov says about "blood doping gains" is much more speculative: "The considerable amount of doping cases ... coinciding with implementation of the ABP provides grounds to speculate that the magnitude of the performance decrease reflects the gains that were available by means of blood doping before."
Unlike Alex Hutchinson, Dr. Iljukov is not concluding, or even speculating, but observing a "coincidence" and providing future researchers the "grounds to speculate".
My questions arising from this study:
The runners from 2008-2012 are presumably all "top" runners, before any ABP busts. Wouldn't the pool of runners from 2013-2017 be inferior quality runners, for the very reason you gave?: "The enforcement of hematological anomalies on the Russians didn't start until 2012 which eventually caught virtually all of their top runners!" Why wouldn't that alone suggest the 2-3% drop?
Even if we decide the drop in performance quality comes as a result of ABP implementation, how does Dr. Iljukov propose to isolate the performance gains from blood doping from those Russian women busted for ABP violations who were combining blood doping with steroids?
Besides ABP implementation, what else was happening in Russia around 2012, with respect to anti-doping enforcement? (Hint: IAAF-Russian scandal).
As for your other points:
Again, "questioning Kenyan doping performance" is not "running damage control". I don't understand what you are saying here about "running damage control". That is not my intent or goal. Doping violations do not depend on performance. Runners who run slower are just as guilty as runners who run faster.
Regarding page 11 in that old thread, as you don't say anything specific, again I have to guess what you are referring to. Luckily there are only two posts from me. I guess it's the post that says "many papers that describe the various problems that undermined the ABP". Note the past tense used here. All these weaknesses I spoke about were published in pre-2009 papers, before the ABP was rolled out into production. The post I'm replying to refers to Paula's pre-2009 values (i.e. the ones subject to dehydration and equipment calibration errors). There was a suggestion that Kiptum needed all of Paula's values to be published to learn the weaknesses to build his own defense. My point there was that publishing all of Paula's values was not necessary for Kiptum's defense, because the weaknesses were already published during all the ABP research before 2009. These papers, including papers from the Australian scientists Ashenden and Parisotto, identified many factors that can lead to false positives. The consequence of these papers led to refining procedures for blood collection, transfer, storage, and testing procedure. These refinements eventually made the ABP results more reliable, and is what allowed the ABP to be rolled out in 2009 for athletics (2007 for cycling). The pre-2009 weaknesses would no longer be applicable after 2009, if the refined procedures are followed.
Do you have a better example where I doubted the validity of the ABP sanctions post-2009, after it was rolled out post procedure refinements?
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
