Here is one of Yorck Schumacher's coauthors who thinks that the studies with well-trained athletes tend to overestimate the blood doping benefit vs. elites:
Here is one of Yorck Schumacher's coauthors who thinks that the studies with well-trained athletes tend to overestimate the blood doping benefit vs. elites:
rekrunner wrote:
Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:
Lastly, World-renowned anti-doping expert Dr. Schumacher made some intersting statements on macro vs micro-doping EPO at an Anti-Doping Symposium back in 2014. One interesting statement made was that "the same dose of EPO will not have the same effect on every individual." This would explain the individual responses to EPO (e.g. high-responder, low-responder, etc.) and lack of consistent uniformity in the performance benefits of EPO. In addition, Dr. Schumacher mentioned that "a small effect of doping will have measurable outcome of the results of the race." (Starts @ 30:00 mins into the presentation):
I agreed with Dr. Schumacher's answer to the question.
Some other parts of his response agree with things I have said many times before: "micro-dosing gives micro-effect", "it is hard to quantify effect", and the part you left out "you can obviously imagine ...".
One of the reasons for varying observations of EPO response is that scientists and athetes alike are not always very good at fixing the start reference of the observation. So when observing large effects, part of the observation is due to the starting reference being too low, rather than the resulting performance being too high. I saw a similar reaction in my performance thread. Many people took exception to my choice of reference, and argued it would be more fair for me to pick a slower starting point, as if that would make the end result even faster.
I didn't leave anything out - go back and listen to it closely. He says you can "obviously imagine" (in ref to the less than "1%" performance difference with the top elites) "a small effect of doping will have a measurable impact on the results of the race."
Some testimony from Schumacher in CAS hearings:
Ugarova CAS hearing (2016/0/4463):
103 - "High Hgb values enhance sporting performance."
Karamasheva CAS hearing (2017/0/5368):
77 - EPO "can increase oxygen supply by 6% and take as much as one minute off the time taken to run 10,000 meters, and proportionately more over lesser distances."
A paper on ABT from Solheim et al:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6614299/Conclusion
"The literature review revealed that ABT enhances performance across a span of exercise intensities from ~ 70 to 100% of VO2peak and durations of 5–45 min, and these results were also observed in well-trained athletes. The impact of ABT on VO2peak apparently exhibits a dose-response relationship, but well-designed studies of likely associated gradual performance effects are lacking. However, reinfusion with as little as 135 mL packed RBCs increases time-trial performance. Red blood cell reinfusion increases endurance performance by elevating CaO2. The increased CaO2 is accompanied by increased VO2peak as well as reduced lactate concentrations, i.e. reduced anaerobic energy contribution at submaximal intensities. Both effects improve endurance performance, the latter because most endurance competitions are not performed at intensities corresponding to 100% of VO2peak. Apparently, the magnitude of change in haemoglobin concentration explains the increase in VO2peakassociated with ABT because blood volume and maximal cardiac output remain constant in the majority of ABT studies. Thus, the arterial-venous O2 difference during exercise must be increased after reinfusion, which is supported by experimental evidence. Additionally, it remains a possibility that ABT can enhance repeated sprint performance, but studies are lacking. The only available study did not observe a performance-enhancing effect of reinfusion on 4 × 30 s sprinting.
The findings are of importance for both the physiological understanding of how ABT interacts with exercise capacity and in relation to anti-doping efforts. From an anti-doping perspective, the literature review demonstrates the need for analytical methods able to detect even minor blood manipulations."
Crister Malm:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0156157"Initially, blood transfusion was used to enhance military aviation pilots’ work capacity to fly at high altitude during WWII, when pressurized cockpits were not used [21]. Later, submaximal [22] and maximal [23] running performance was shown to improve with blood transfusion. The discovery of erythropoietin (EPO) [24] simplified blood doping in sports, supplementing blood donation, storage and re-infusion. Similar performance enhancements of 6–12% could now be achieved by a simple recombinant human (rh) EPO injection [25–27]. In a review on blood doping published in 1989, Jones and Tunstall [28] describe increases in performance and VO2max ranging between 0% and 40%, depending on the subjects included and methods used for both testing and doping. From the summarized literature, it can be estimated that elite athletes may improve performance by up to 3% with blood doping, regardless of method [29–31]. This enhancement is equivalent to, for example, seven minutes faster winning time in the 90 km cross country ski race Vasaloppet, 20–30 seconds faster time in any given 5000 m run at world class level, and four minutes faster finishing time in a marathon race. In cycling, a 3% increase in performance translate to a more than two hour faster winning time in Tour de France 2014."
More from Malm:
https://youtu.be/xDOgDJhT8G4Armstronglivs wrote:
I haven't read anything that leads me to conclude that the effects of doping on performance are being over-estimated. Quite the reverse. That includes the studies often quoted here that I find quite credible, and have no need to replicate in my own comments. I also have over half a century of participating in sports as well as observing how they have changed as doping has become more prevalent. I pay attention to what sportsmen/women have to say, as well as coaches and trainers, and those who have anti-doping (or doping) experience. Unlike you, I find those at the coal-face more credible than academics without that experience. Academic research has often been used to justify some awful bullsh*t over the years. If you trust academics implicitly then you would risk finding yourself in agreement with Nazi scientists and their studies purporting to validate their appalling race theories.
I dont separate people's opinions here into those that are either "scientific" or "faith-based", as you do. Those are specious and misleading terms. Everyone simply has opinions here and some opinions are possibly better informed than others. But your use of terms like "scientific" and "faith-based" - chiefly to claim superiority for yourself - is condescending and deserves the derision it properly receives.
Further, for someone who professes a desire for "accuracy" in their inquiries, as you do, it is remarkable that you don't seem to be aware of the overwhelming need you reveal toward constructing a particular world-view, in which doping plays an insignificant role in sports performance while at the same time consuming an enormous amount of your attention in seeking to prove that insignificance.
None of that explains your petty childlike behavior for the last 9 pages, not to mention the last few years, just because someone simply does not share your opinion or your faith. I would expect someone of your age to be more mature.
I don't trust academics implicitly, but also require them to provide data. They are sometimes better at providing data in controlled circumstances, but they also have human failures, sometimes letting their faith impair their judgement. In fact, "appeal to authority" is a classic logic failure. That's why I find supporting data more important than anyone's filtered conclusions.
By "those at the coal-face", do you mean you find experienced coaches like Renato are more credible?
Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:
I didn't leave anything out - go back and listen to it closely. ...
Some testimony from Schumacher in CAS hearings:
...
A paper on ABT from Solheim et al:
Conclusion
...
Crister Malm:
...
More from Malm:
...
I looked closely -- you did not tell us "you can obviously imagine".
You are wasting everyone's time by cutting and pasting the same text in dozens of threads, only to have me repeat why these fail to persuade me, lacking specification of the real observations and the context of such observations.
I do not doubt that these interventions can improve performance, in some unspecified cases up to 3% or 1 minute, for non-elite athletes, but do not see how this relates to, for example, the mile world record.
Schumacher's comments in CAS hearings lack context. Up to 1 minute for who?
Solheim tells us "The exact relationship between performance increase and transfusion volume cannot be established due to a lack of studies." Sounds strangely familiar.
Malm's equivalency calculation is the worst of all: he makes an equivalency conversion (without explaining the mehod for converting) based on non-running studies, which caution against projecting any conclusions on elite performances.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I haven't read anything that leads me to conclude that the effects of doping on performance are being over-estimated. Quite the reverse. That includes the studies often quoted here that I find quite credible, and have no need to replicate in my own comments. I also have over half a century of participating in sports as well as observing how they have changed as doping has become more prevalent. I pay attention to what sportsmen/women have to say, as well as coaches and trainers, and those who have anti-doping (or doping) experience. Unlike you, I find those at the coal-face more credible than academics without that experience. Academic research has often been used to justify some awful bullsh*t over the years. If you trust academics implicitly then you would risk finding yourself in agreement with Nazi scientists and their studies purporting to validate their appalling race theories.
I dont separate people's opinions here into those that are either "scientific" or "faith-based", as you do. Those are specious and misleading terms. Everyone simply has opinions here and some opinions are possibly better informed than others. But your use of terms like "scientific" and "faith-based" - chiefly to claim superiority for yourself - is condescending and deserves the derision it properly receives.
Further, for someone who professes a desire for "accuracy" in their inquiries, as you do, it is remarkable that you don't seem to be aware of the overwhelming need you reveal toward constructing a particular world-view, in which doping plays an insignificant role in sports performance while at the same time consuming an enormous amount of your attention in seeking to prove that insignificance.
None of that explains your petty childlike behavior for the last 9 pages, not to mention the last few years, just because someone simply does not share your opinion or your faith. I would expect someone of your age to be more mature.
I don't trust academics implicitly, but also require them to provide data. They are sometimes better at providing data in controlled circumstances, but they also have human failures, sometimes letting their faith impair their judgement. In fact, "appeal to authority" is a classic logic failure. That's why I find supporting data more important than anyone's filtered conclusions.
By "those at the coal-face", do you mean you find experienced coaches like Renato are more credible?
I don't bother to argue with you on your own terms - others try to do that and it is an utterly futile exercise. Your mind is made up and nothing anyone says can change that. But I have seen enough to conclude that however much you choose to protest against the description you are the resident doping denier; your practise is to dispute whatever any other commenter says about doping with the aim of diminishing the impact doping has on the sport. As one of many who are dismayed at the increasing corruption of the sport I find your views obnoxious in your insistent defence and justification of dopers and the minimilisation of their cheating, and all the while pretending to be the voice of reason.
Allied to this is the immense self-importance of one who claims to have a monopoly on the "scientific" approach in discussing these issues, while pompously dismissing the views of those who disagree with you as "faith-based" i.e. without factual basis, ignorant and tantamount to little more than primitive superstition. Of course you would see it as "petty" and "childish" when you are called out. It offends the image you have of yourself as one who comes here in the spirit of academic discourse when you are simply another tedious polemicist selling your own garden variety of religious conviction.
Fanaticism can be found in many different guises but what they all share is the absolute absence of a sense of humor. That, too, they find beneath them. No one would accuse you of possessing a sense of humor, which would be the only thing that could make your posts readable.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I don't bother to argue with you on your own terms - others try to do that and it is an utterly futile exercise. Your mind is made up and nothing anyone says can change that. But I have seen enough to conclude that however much you choose to protest against the description you are the resident doping denier; ...
Indeed -- you are arguing on your terms.
I have seen enough to conclude that you use personal insults and name calling when you cannot argue on any terms with those who do not share your opinions and/or faith.
If I'm just expressing my opinions, based in part on my own personal faith, what is it about my exercising my freedom of expression that triggers such immature behavior on your part? I don't think it is correct to blame me for your own inability to control yourself and failure to behave like the high IQ and high EQ adult you believe yourself to be.
rekrunner wrote:
Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:
I didn't leave anything out - go back and listen to it closely. ...
Some testimony from Schumacher in CAS hearings:
...
A paper on ABT from Solheim et al:
Conclusion
...
Crister Malm:
...
More from Malm:
...
I looked closely -- you did not tell us "you can obviously imagine".
You are wasting everyone's time by cutting and pasting the same text in dozens of threads, only to have me repeat why these fail to persuade me, lacking specification of the real observations and the context of such observations.
I do not doubt that these interventions can improve performance, in some unspecified cases up to 3% or 1 minute, for non-elite athletes, but do not see how this relates to, for example, the mile world record.
Schumacher's comments in CAS hearings lack context. Up to 1 minute for who?
Solheim tells us "The exact relationship between performance increase and transfusion volume cannot be established due to a lack of studies." Sounds strangely familiar.
Malm's equivalency calculation is the worst of all: he makes an equivalency conversion (without explaining the mehod for converting) based on non-running studies, which caution against projecting any conclusions on elite performances.
Oh...so now I'm the bad guy for posting studies on the efficacy of EPO/blood transfusions on performance and opinions from anti-doping experts when you were earlier in this thread posting some studies to the opposite and imperiously pushing your narrative that O2-vector doping is ineffective with elites. Lol.
- Schumacher's comments were made in the Karamasheva CAS hearing who is an elite runner (3:59/1500). He also commented in Ugarova's CAS hearing (2016/0/4463): "High Hgb values enhance sporting performance." But I suppose on this one your argument will be that if the elevated Hgb values are the result of altitude training then sporting performance is enhanced but not by artificial means such as EPO/blood transfusions (this is seems to be your way of thinking. Lol).
- On Solheim et al: You conveniently posted only one (1) of three (3) key points in the introduction - and you even left out the last sentence of this paragraph: "Even low-volume (135 mL) transfusions increase exercise performance."
The other two points:
- "Autologous blood transfusion increases exercise performance over a broad range of exercise intensities and durations."
- "Autologous blood transfusion increases maximal oxygen uptake corresponding to the augmented haemoglobin concentration, whereas maximal cardiac output appears unaffected."
Lastly, this thread is pointless considering who and when the WR was set. El G = Moroccan = a strong doping nation that produced many great performances over the 90s through 00s. The WR record was set in 1999 - no test for EPO yet, no ABP, etc...an athlete could dope to the gills with impunity (nothing new there).
Has anyone even come close yet? The best the U.S. could do was Webb's 3:46.91 in 2007 - a whopping 3+ seconds slower. And in 13 yrs, the fastest mile is Souleiman's 3:47.32 in 2014 - more than 4 seconds slower!
https://www.worldathletics.org/records/all-time-toplists/middlelong/one-mile/outdoor/men/seniorA report on Moroccan doping. Lol
https://lawm.sportschau.de/doha2019/nachrichten/Morocco-A-paradise-for-sports-cheats,lawmdoha1138.htmlrekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I don't bother to argue with you on your own terms - others try to do that and it is an utterly futile exercise. Your mind is made up and nothing anyone says can change that. But I have seen enough to conclude that however much you choose to protest against the description you are the resident doping denier; ...
Indeed -- you are arguing on your terms.
I have seen enough to conclude that you use personal insults and name calling when you cannot argue on any terms with those who do not share your opinions and/or faith.
If I'm just expressing my opinions, based in part on my own personal faith, what is it about my exercising my freedom of expression that triggers such immature behavior on your part? I don't think it is correct to blame me for your own inability to control yourself and failure to behave like the high IQ and high EQ adult you believe yourself to be.
I have tried to contend with your arguments on previous threads - as others have - but, as I have pointed out, your method is evasive and obfuscatory and patronizing. That is how you "exercise your freedom of expression". No one stops you from doing that but it earns the derision it receives. I see that you also suggest you are simply expressing your opinions, based in part on your "personal faith". And there in that description is what you routinely attribute to others when you dismiss their arguments as weak or irrelevant, and lacking the factual integrity that you claim for yourself. What a cheap argument, to try to use what you level at others to defend yourself.
Of course you see personal jibes or criticism as "immature behaviour" because that, too, is an expression of your superiority. You would never reflect on what it is you do that provokes the response you get because that might suggest you are less than perfect. You remind me of someone.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I have tried to contend with your arguments on previous threads - as others have - but, as I have pointed out, your method is evasive and obfuscatory and patronizing. That is how you "exercise your freedom of expression". No one stops you from doing that but it earns the derision it receives. I see that you also suggest you are simply expressing your opinions, based in part on your "personal faith". And there in that description is what you routinely attribute to others when you dismiss their arguments as weak or irrelevant, and lacking the factual integrity that you claim for yourself. What a cheap argument, to try to use what you level at others to defend yourself.
Of course you see personal jibes or criticism as "immature behaviour" because that, too, is an expression of your superiority. You would never reflect on what it is you do that provokes the response you get because that might suggest you are less than perfect. You remind me of someone.
You should not be insulted when you arguments use faith to link together otherwise disconnected facts.
You should also not expect such elements of faith to be persuasive, for those who do not share the same faith.
Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:
Oh...so now I'm the bad guy for posting studies on the efficacy of EPO/blood transfusions on performance and opinions from anti-doping experts when you were earlier in this thread posting some studies to the opposite and imperiously pushing your narrative that O2-vector doping is ineffective with elites. Lol.
- Schumacher's comments were made in the Karamasheva CAS hearing who is an elite runner (3:59/1500). He also commented in Ugarova's CAS hearing (2016/0/4463): "High Hgb values enhance sporting performance." But I suppose on this one your argument will be that if the elevated Hgb values are the result of altitude training then sporting performance is enhanced but not by artificial means such as EPO/blood transfusions (this is seems to be your way of thinking. Lol).
- On Solheim et al: You conveniently posted only one (1) of three (3) key points in the introduction - and you even left out the last sentence of this paragraph: "Even low-volume (135 mL) transfusions increase exercise performance."
The other two points:
- "Autologous blood transfusion increases exercise performance over a broad range of exercise intensities and durations."
- "Autologous blood transfusion increases maximal oxygen uptake corresponding to the augmented haemoglobin concentration, whereas maximal cardiac output appears unaffected."
Lastly, this thread is pointless considering who and when the WR was set. El G = Moroccan = a strong doping nation that produced many great performances over the 90s through 00s. The WR record was set in 1999 - no test for EPO yet, no ABP, etc...an athlete could dope to the gills with impunity (nothing new there).
Has anyone even come close yet? The best the U.S. could do was Webb's 3:46.91 in 2007 - a whopping 3+ seconds slower. And in 13 yrs, the fastest mile is Souleiman's 3:47.32 in 2014 - more than 4 seconds slower!
It is not a question of good-guy/bad-guy.
As I said earlier, your counter-points do not counter any points I made -- this is why it is wasting everyone's time.
I don't doubt and have never doubted the "efficacy of EPO/blood transfusions on performance", observed in the context and duration of these studies, on the study subjects.
The doubt is how well these studies replicate real world conditions i.e. when setting world records for the mile.
Generally studies advise against projecting study conclusions from amateurs onto elites.
This is why I find such arguments unpersuasive.
Whatever Schumacher said in CAS hearings, he did not observe the magnitude of improvement (if any) of Karamasheva and Ugarova, and is in no position to say whether improvements were due to the high blood values, or due to other factors, like steroids, HGH, or testosterone.
The observations he refers to remain observations of gains by subjects in a study -- an argument I find unpersuasive.
Regarding Solheim, I quoted the part where he agrees with me, that studies have not provided all of the answers. I don't doubt the other points were observed in the studies he reviewed, subject to the limitations of the studies.
With respect to El G, I know you find arguments like "Morocco" and "no EPO test" persuasive, but it leaves too many questions unanswered to be persuasive.
Your "no one has come close" looks more like an argument against a strong effect for those at the top, as we know many athletes from many nations are still doping, and have been for the last 20 years.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I have tried to contend with your arguments on previous threads - as others have - but, as I have pointed out, your method is evasive and obfuscatory and patronizing. That is how you "exercise your freedom of expression". No one stops you from doing that but it earns the derision it receives. I see that you also suggest you are simply expressing your opinions, based in part on your "personal faith". And there in that description is what you routinely attribute to others when you dismiss their arguments as weak or irrelevant, and lacking the factual integrity that you claim for yourself. What a cheap argument, to try to use what you level at others to defend yourself.
Of course you see personal jibes or criticism as "immature behaviour" because that, too, is an expression of your superiority. You would never reflect on what it is you do that provokes the response you get because that might suggest you are less than perfect. You remind me of someone.
You should not be insulted when you arguments use faith to link together otherwise disconnected facts.
You should also not expect such elements of faith to be persuasive, for those who do not share the same faith.
This isn't a religious discussion (except perhaps for you), so "faith" is quite irrelevant. The term you might be looking for is unsubstantiated assertion, or selective argument - which you are a master of.
It's almost funny, that you don't see how patronizing it is to say I "use faith to link together otherwise disconnected facts". You're calling me stupid but say I shouldn't feel insulted by that. Add lack of self-awareness to the superiority complex.
rekrunner wrote:
Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:
Oh...so now I'm the bad guy for posting studies on the efficacy of EPO/blood transfusions on performance and opinions from anti-doping experts when you were earlier in this thread posting some studies to the opposite and imperiously pushing your narrative that O2-vector doping is ineffective with elites. Lol.
- Schumacher's comments were made in the Karamasheva CAS hearing who is an elite runner (3:59/1500). He also commented in Ugarova's CAS hearing (2016/0/4463): "High Hgb values enhance sporting performance." But I suppose on this one your argument will be that if the elevated Hgb values are the result of altitude training then sporting performance is enhanced but not by artificial means such as EPO/blood transfusions (this is seems to be your way of thinking. Lol).
- On Solheim et al: You conveniently posted only one (1) of three (3) key points in the introduction - and you even left out the last sentence of this paragraph: "Even low-volume (135 mL) transfusions increase exercise performance."
The other two points:
- "Autologous blood transfusion increases exercise performance over a broad range of exercise intensities and durations."
- "Autologous blood transfusion increases maximal oxygen uptake corresponding to the augmented haemoglobin concentration, whereas maximal cardiac output appears unaffected."
Lastly, this thread is pointless considering who and when the WR was set. El G = Moroccan = a strong doping nation that produced many great performances over the 90s through 00s. The WR record was set in 1999 - no test for EPO yet, no ABP, etc...an athlete could dope to the gills with impunity (nothing new there).
Has anyone even come close yet? The best the U.S. could do was Webb's 3:46.91 in 2007 - a whopping 3+ seconds slower. And in 13 yrs, the fastest mile is Souleiman's 3:47.32 in 2014 - more than 4 seconds slower!
It is not a question of good-guy/bad-guy.
As I said earlier, your counter-points do not counter any points I made -- this is why it is wasting everyone's time.
I don't doubt and have never doubted the "efficacy of EPO/blood transfusions on performance", observed in the context and duration of these studies, on the study subjects.
The doubt is how well these studies replicate real world conditions i.e. when setting world records for the mile.
Generally studies advise against projecting study conclusions from amateurs onto elites.
This is why I find such arguments unpersuasive.
Whatever Schumacher said in CAS hearings, he did not observe the magnitude of improvement (if any) of Karamasheva and Ugarova, and is in no position to say whether improvements were due to the high blood values, or due to other factors, like steroids, HGH, or testosterone.
The observations he refers to remain observations of gains by subjects in a study -- an argument I find unpersuasive.
Regarding Solheim, I quoted the part where he agrees with me, that studies have not provided all of the answers. I don't doubt the other points were observed in the studies he reviewed, subject to the limitations of the studies.
With respect to El G, I know you find arguments like "Morocco" and "no EPO test" persuasive, but it leaves too many questions unanswered to be persuasive.
Your "no one has come close" looks more like an argument against a strong effect for those at the top, as we know many athletes from many nations are still doping, and have been for the last 20 years.
" I don't doubt and have never doubted the "efficacy of EPO/blood transfusions on performance", observed in the context and duration of these studies, on the study subjects.The doubt is how well these studies replicate real world conditions i.e. when setting world records for the mile".
So EPO/blood transfusions work in the laboratory but never on the track - or "real world conditions". It isn't "doubt" you experience about this but certainty. You have never acknowledged that doping of any kind has contributed to any world record performance, let alone the mile.
It amuses me when you say you don't find an argument "persuasive". When would you ever be persuaded of what you don't already believe?
Armstronglivs wrote:
This isn't a religious discussion (except perhaps for you), so "faith" is quite irrelevant. The term you might be looking for is unsubstantiated assertion, or selective argument - which you are a master of.
It's almost funny, that you don't see how patronizing it is to say I "use faith to link together otherwise disconnected facts". You're calling me stupid but say I shouldn't feel insulted by that. Add lack of self-awareness to the superiority complex.
"faith" is not necessarily religious:
"complete trust or confidence in someone or something"
"synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction"
I do not find it stupid to use faith to form your ideas and opinions, but rather the lack of awareness or acceptance that you are doing so, or expecting it to persuade someone with a different faith.
Armstronglivs wrote:
" I don't doubt and have never doubted the "efficacy of EPO/blood transfusions on performance", observed in the context and duration of these studies, on the study subjects.The doubt is how well these studies replicate real world conditions i.e. when setting world records for the mile".
So EPO/blood transfusions work in the laboratory but never on the track - or "real world conditions". It isn't "doubt" you experience about this but certainty. You have never acknowledged that doping of any kind has contributed to any world record performance, let alone the mile.
It amuses me when you say you don't find an argument "persuasive". When would you ever be persuaded of what you don't already believe?
Once again, you strengthen my conviction that when you are enable to refute my words, you substitute your own words.
Recall earlier one of the key points I quoted from the Solheim review: "The exact relationship between performance increase and transfusion volume cannot be established due to a lack of studies." Concluding "never on the track - or "real world conditions"" would be establishing a relationship -- something I just got done agreeing with Solheim cannot be established.
My expressed doubt here is rather the same as you saying "those at the coal-face (are) more credible than academics without that experience". What happens in a lab may or may not reflect real world experience.
I have indicated many times what would persuade me: data and references (with data).
If you want to establish a correlation, you need a representative amount of two sets of data,
If you attempt to persuade me with filtered conclusions based on elements of faith and fallacies, I clearly see them for what they are.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
This isn't a religious discussion (except perhaps for you), so "faith" is quite irrelevant. The term you might be looking for is unsubstantiated assertion, or selective argument - which you are a master of.
It's almost funny, that you don't see how patronizing it is to say I "use faith to link together otherwise disconnected facts". You're calling me stupid but say I shouldn't feel insulted by that. Add lack of self-awareness to the superiority complex.
"faith" is not necessarily religious:
"complete trust or confidence in someone or something"
"synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction"
I do not find it stupid to use faith to form your ideas and opinions, but rather the lack of awareness or acceptance that you are doing so, or expecting it to persuade someone with a different faith.
Armstronglivs wrote:
" I don't doubt and have never doubted the "efficacy of EPO/blood transfusions on performance", observed in the context and duration of these studies, on the study subjects.The doubt is how well these studies replicate real world conditions i.e. when setting world records for the mile".
So EPO/blood transfusions work in the laboratory but never on the track - or "real world conditions". It isn't "doubt" you experience about this but certainty. You have never acknowledged that doping of any kind has contributed to any world record performance, let alone the mile.
It amuses me when you say you don't find an argument "persuasive". When would you ever be persuaded of what you don't already believe?
Once again, you strengthen my conviction that when you are enable to refute my words, you substitute your own words.
Recall earlier one of the key points I quoted from the Solheim review: "The exact relationship between performance increase and transfusion volume cannot be established due to a lack of studies." Concluding "never on the track - or "real world conditions"" would be establishing a relationship -- something I just got done agreeing with Solheim cannot be established.
My expressed doubt here is rather the same as you saying "those at the coal-face (are) more credible than academics without that experience". What happens in a lab may or may not reflect real world experience.
I have indicated many times what would persuade me: data and references (with data).
If you want to establish a correlation, you need a representative amount of two sets of data,
If you attempt to persuade me with filtered conclusions based on elements of faith and fallacies, I clearly see them for what they are.
No, you don't. Your failure to understand the sources you rely on shows that. Data doesn't correct that.
You demonstrate that when you quote Solheim. When he says an "exact relationship" cannot be established he is saying a relationship exists but that it cannot (currently) be measured - hence, it is not "exact". He is not saying there is no relationship, as you have misunderstood him to mean. If there was no relationship, that is what he would have said. A simple point, but you didn't get it and as a result it leads the rest of your argument into error.
Because you mistakenly infer there is no "real world" relationship (i.e. race conditions) between doping and performance - because it hasn't been "established" - you are logically required to hold that doping doesn't improve performance - unless you think a relationship does exist. I can prove that my interpretation of what you said is correct by asking you a simple question: is any elite performance the product of doping? Of course, if your answer is "yes" you must accept the possibility that this could include any world-record performance, including the mile. And that you are unable to bring yourself to do.
It seems you are the one mixing up what is plainly written.
Here is what I initially said:
"The doubt is how well these studies replicate real world conditions i.e. when setting world records for the mile"."
And Solheim's quote:
"The exact relationship between performance increase and transfusion volume cannot be established due to a lack of studies."
Nowhere do I say "no relationship" or "never on the track - or "real world conditions""
These are your words, and I agree with you that these words are nonsense.
I don't have enough information to characterize the relationship as "no" or "never" for elite athletes.
rekrunner wrote:
Whatever Schumacher said in CAS hearings, he did not observe the magnitude of improvement (if any) of Karamasheva and Ugarova, and is in no position to say whether improvements were due to the high blood values, or due to other factors, like steroids, HGH, or testosterone.
The observations he refers to remain observations of gains by subjects in a study -- an argument I find unpersuasive.
What? He is in a position to say that their improvements (and cheating) were due to high blood values - he's an expert in the field providing expert testimony at CAS hearings for ABP hematological-anomalies cases. It's not a case of a ADAF for steroids, HGH, or T - the two Russian cases used as examples here are solely based on elevated blood levels at or near key competitions (doping scheme) that the two Russian dopers are trying to appeal by offering defenses such as altitude training, illness, menstral problems, etc. - what do you not understand about that? Why then didn't the arbitrator in the hearing (who has a legal background) tell Schumacher that he's in "no position to say whether improvements were due to the high blood values?" Instead Schumacher's expert testimony becomes accepted and part of the hearing record.
Same situation in the Ryzhova DT hearing last year for an ABP hematological-anomalies case (SR/adhocasport/82/2019), where anti-doping expert & excercise physio Dr. Garvican-Lewis provided expert testimony in response to a question from the council of the athlete: (paragraph 85):
"The Counsel for the Athlete asked Dr. Garvican-Lewis about whether a haemoglobin concentration of 16 g/dL was excessive for an athlete, from both a sports and health perspective. Dr. Garvican-Lewis stated that a high haemoglobin concentration would be advantageous to the athlete from a sports perspective, as race-walking is an aerobic sport, and having a higher amount of haemoglobin would improve performance."
- So why didn't the Chair of the DT Arbitral Panel tell Dr. Garvican-Lewis that she's "in no position to say whether improvements were due to high blood values?"
- If you're not an expert in this field, why do you continually knock these experts for their expert testimony in these hearings? It's getting ridiculous and old.
rekrunner wrote:
With respect to El G, I know you find arguments like "Morocco" and "no EPO test" persuasive, but it leaves too many questions unanswered to be persuasive.
Like what too many "unanswered questions?" Do you understand the prevalence of doping in Moroccan athletics that spans over three decades? Did you not read that link I posted about Morocco being a haven for "sports cheats?" Did you forget that 3 out of the Morocco's top 6 all-time fastest 1500 men served bans for doping? Lol.
3:26:00 El G
3:28.79 Iguider
3:29.14 Ramzi (CERA/2008)
3:29.46 Aouita
3:29.53 Laâlou (Furosemide/2012 & EPO/2016)
3:31.10 Kaouch (EPO/2007)
rekrunner wrote:
Your "no one has come close" looks more like an argument against a strong effect for those at the top, as we know many athletes from many nations are still doping, and have been for the last 20 years
Yeah...they're still doping but not like back in the days of the wild 90's & crazy 00's. You should know by now athletes can't get away with macro-doping nowadays with the ABP. If they do chances are pretty good they'll get flagged by the ABP. Just go ask Kitpum - he blazes to a HM WR only to blow his passport to Kingdom come with an insane 60+ Hct and crazy Off-score of 148 resulting in the performance flushed. Lol. Imagine if there was no PLK lab in Nairobi doing the ABP sampling - Kiptum would be the HM WR and you'd telling us it's a clean performance because he's an altitude native who trains at altitude and all jazz. Lol.
rekrunner wrote:
It seems you are the one mixing up what is plainly written.
Here is what I initially said:
"The doubt is how well these studies replicate real world conditions i.e. when setting world records for the mile"."
And Solheim's quote:
"The exact relationship between performance increase and transfusion volume cannot be established due to a lack of studies."
Nowhere do I say "no relationship" or "never on the track - or "real world conditions""
These are your words, and I agree with you that these words are nonsense.
I don't have enough information to characterize the relationship as "no" or "never" for elite athletes.
You did use the phrase "real world conditions" in the part of your comment I quoted above. What can that phrase mean other than elite competition on the track (or road)? Denial should be your middle-name, because it even extends to the very words you use.
Your saying that you "don't have enough information to characterise the relationship (between doping and performance) as 'no' or 'never' for elite athletes" is astonishing, in the light of your presenting yourself as something of an authority on doping in athletics, by disputing with others on the subject - as you are doing on this thread - and generally posting on the topic over many years. It is effectively an admission that you don't know enough to have an opinion on the fundamental question of whether doping assists elite performance. Extraordinary. How to back yourself into a corner.
Clearly, your reluctance to express an opinion extends to the question I asked, of whether any elite performance has been assisted by doping. You won't answer it because you know where it will lead.
Here's another one for you to explain that I forgot list on the last post. This from USADA's own site on "Blood Doping and EPO" (Q&A):
https://ufc.usada.org/blood-doping/
"Why is EPO prohibited?"
"EPO has a long history of abuse in endurance sports. Blood doping involves the misuse of certain techniques and/or substances like EPO to increase one’s red blood cell mass, which allows the body to transport more oxygen to muscles and therefore increase stamina and performance. EPO has been shown to increase performance parameters such as maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) and time to exhaustion, which is why it’s commonly abused in endurance sports."
Since USADA oversees the testing of U.S. elite athletes, why would they make a specific statement that EPO/blood transfusions increases stamina and performance if you contend that EPO/transfusions have no effect on elites?
Timothy Cheruiyot definitely could get close if he was paced correctly. He runs from the front the whole race and goes 3:28 for 1500m.
While those old farts rek and armstrong are blathering about blood doping, the thing that will make the 45 year old sub 4 world record mile just happened. That thing is Lagat went home devastated with his silly marathon dream broken.
Now he will return with a vengeance to his MAIN EVENT, the 1500/mile, and utterly destroy it. He's gonna run a 3:55 mile and a 3:37 1500. He might even go to the OT and make the team. Watch out!