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 don't recall seeing these other terms used much. My point is that WADA doesn't use this term, and they tell us that their banned list is a mix of (potentially) performance enhancing and non-performance enhancing drugs. Equating PEDs to WADA banned substances, may often be used interchangeably, but it can be misleading, by suggesting a drug is performance enhancing in scenarios where it hasn't been established as such.
Caffeine was banned for a short while, but it is not anymore. I'm not sure if the ban was worldwide, or just the USA, or just Universities.
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.
We've had fact and data based estimates of the earth's radius for more than 2000 years.
I don't dispute that PEDs are drugs that are performance enhancing -- that is a tautology.
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?
I not going to discuss anything further with you because what we are debating has already been debated ad nuseam in the 27 page Kiptum doping thread from 4 yrs ago!
And only 2 posts from you? Lol. Read pages 11 through 27 - dozens of posts from you! The battle lines were pretty much drawn in that thread - you, Aragon & Canova vs myself, casual obsever, Subway Surfer, Armstronglivs, Coveat, "I got banned" & a few others. In fact, a poster called you guys "Team Doping Apologists." Lol.
I presented tons of data on ABP hematological-anomalies cases involving high-profile athletes, tons of data on the ABP hematological module, tons of data showing a cause & effect with high blood values & fast times (e.g. Kiptum), tons of data on how athletes are circumventing the ABP with transfusions, etc. casual obsever presented tons of data on all that as well as stats on how egregious the doping problem is with elites. It's right there in the 27 page Kiptum thread.😉
So, it's pointless & foolish to have any further discussion on these issues since it was already done ad nuseam 4 yrs ago. The bottom line is, IMO, you're simply a doping apologist who runs enjoys running damage control for high-profile doping cases...really nothing new there.
Fcuk me! This clusterfcuk of a kindergarten squabble is still going? rekrunner and Armstronglivs, how childish are you two? Seriously!
To summarise:
Do drugs help? Yes.
Are all banned drugs PEDS? No. Some are banned for health reasons or because they can mask other PEDS.
Is there a definitive mark as to how much each drug can help everybody? No. That's emphasised by the fact that at the height of the TdF scandal teams were actively recruiting cyclists with lower haematocrit to be able to dope them up to the allowable threshold. Essentially you will get high and low responders to anything - drugs, training, altitude, or in the case of Armstronglivs and rekrunner getting dropped on their heads as kids.
Does the fact that there are high and low responders mean that some people could conceivably not benefit from PEDS? Theoretically, yes, though more likely is that you will have some outliers who minimally benefit rather than not benefit at all.
Does highlighting this fact make somebody a doping apologist? No. It shows an understanding of variability.
Is Armstronglivs still a boorish man-child and a bit of a d!ck? Indubitably.
Is rekrunner an idiot for continuing to rise to him? Undoubtedly.
Is Kochfan's sense of humour wasted on this thread? Yes! Some quality comments through Kochfan - thanks for the giggles.
Fcuk me! This clusterfcuk of a kindergarten squabble is still going? rekrunner and Armstronglivs, how childish are you two? Seriously!
To summarise:
Do drugs help? Yes.
Are all banned drugs PEDS? No. Some are banned for health reasons or because they can mask other PEDS.
Is there a definitive mark as to how much each drug can help everybody? No. That's emphasised by the fact that at the height of the TdF scandal teams were actively recruiting cyclists with lower haematocrit to be able to dope them up to the allowable threshold. Essentially you will get high and low responders to anything - drugs, training, altitude, or in the case of Armstronglivs and rekrunner getting dropped on their heads as kids.
Does the fact that there are high and low responders mean that some people could conceivably not benefit from PEDS? Theoretically, yes, though more likely is that you will have some outliers who minimally benefit rather than not benefit at all.
Does highlighting this fact make somebody a doping apologist? No. It shows an understanding of variability.
Is Armstronglivs still a boorish man-child and a bit of a d!ck? Indubitably.
Is rekrunner an idiot for continuing to rise to him? Undoubtedly.
Is Kochfan's sense of humour wasted on this thread? Yes! Some quality comments through Kochfan - thanks for the giggles.
Is Kochfan's sense of humour wasted on this thread? Yes! Some quality comments throughout Kochfan - thanks for the giggles.
Throughout, not through. Just being on this thread is killing my brain cells........ looks like certain posters have been here far too long on that basis.
I not going to discuss anything further with you because what we are debating has already been debated ad nuseam in the 27 page Kiptum doping thread from 4 yrs ago!
And only 2 posts from you? Lol. Read pages 11 through 27 - dozens of posts from you! The battle lines were pretty much drawn in that thread - you, Aragon & Canova vs myself, casual obsever, Subway Surfer, Armstronglivs, Coveat, "I got banned" & a few others. In fact, a poster called you guys "Team Doping Apologists." Lol.
I presented tons of data on ABP hematological-anomalies cases involving high-profile athletes, tons of data on the ABP hematological module, tons of data showing a cause & effect with high blood values & fast times (e.g. Kiptum), tons of data on how athletes are circumventing the ABP with transfusions, etc. casual obsever presented tons of data on all that as well as stats on how egregious the doping problem is with elites. It's right there in the 27 page Kiptum thread.😉
So, it's pointless & foolish to have any further discussion on these issues since it was already done ad nuseam 4 yrs ago. The bottom line is, IMO, you're simply a doping apologist who runs enjoys running damage control for high-profile doping cases...really nothing new there.
"Doping apoligist running damage control" is the opinion from someone who says he doesn't understand half of what I say. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but once again, I do not condone or apologize for banned doping with intent to enhance performance, regardless of success.
"cause and effect" is a pretty high bar.
All of your "tons of data" fails to show "cause & effect with high blood values & fast times".
You cannot show "cause and effect" with cherry-picked examples. There are too many biases and fallacies. You cannot even show "effect" without measuring it. If there is no established "effect", there can be no "cause".
Throw in all of the data from all of your "dream team" of "debaters", and all of their "tons of data" similarly fails to show "cause & effect with high blood values & fast times".
Throw in "experts" like Malm and Schumacher and Iljukov, and all of the researchers they rely on. All of their "tons of data" fails to show "cause & effect with high blood values & fast times". And they make no such claim. All of their "expert" statements are clearly speculative, e.g. "can be up to" and "grounds to speculate". To the extent there is data behind it, the original researchers who collected that data say not to extrapolate to the elite performances of elite athletes.
Lower the bar to "correlation", and similarly, none of your "tons of data" shows a "correlation" between doping and elite times.
Your "tons of data" from all sources worldwide combined only meet the low bars of "speculation" and "hypothesis", for these elite athletes running elite times.
You're only realizing that it is pointless to continue now? Tell me what your point was to begin with. I started by asking how it makes sense that Kiprop showed up "glowing" with EPO in his urine, after 6 days notice, when Ferrari says EPO can be cleared in 12 hours. Everything you responded to completely misses that point. You responded to an OOC test result with your non-expert opinions about how Ferrari and Hincapie were wrong about 12 hours, about how intra-muscular injections are preferred (according to whom?), with a paper about subcutaneous injections with long detection windows, and an interview with Lance Armstrong about what his team was doing in-competition.
How does any of that address Kiprop's the sense of OOC test result with 6 days notice? Considering all of the points you raised in your posts combined, that still doesn't make any sense.
I'll also note here that Lance is a proven serial pathological liar who will say whatever suits him the best. He finally came clean about his doping, but it would be naive to think he isn't still crafting what he wants you to believe to salvage his legacy.
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.
We've had fact and data based estimates of the earth's radius for more than 2000 years.
I don't dispute that PEDs are drugs that are performance enhancing -- that is a tautology.
What you dispute is that the peds African distance runners take are performance enhancing. It's a bit hard to hide behind semantics with that.
Fcuk me! This clusterfcuk of a kindergarten squabble is still going? rekrunner and Armstronglivs, how childish are you two? Seriously!
To summarise:
Do drugs help? Yes.
Are all banned drugs PEDS? No. Some are banned for health reasons or because they can mask other PEDS.
Is there a definitive mark as to how much each drug can help everybody? No. That's emphasised by the fact that at the height of the TdF scandal teams were actively recruiting cyclists with lower haematocrit to be able to dope them up to the allowable threshold. Essentially you will get high and low responders to anything - drugs, training, altitude, or in the case of Armstronglivs and rekrunner getting dropped on their heads as kids.
Does the fact that there are high and low responders mean that some people could conceivably not benefit from PEDS? Theoretically, yes, though more likely is that you will have some outliers who minimally benefit rather than not benefit at all.
Does highlighting this fact make somebody a doping apologist? No. It shows an understanding of variability.
Is Armstronglivs still a boorish man-child and a bit of a d!ck? Indubitably.
Is rekrunner an idiot for continuing to rise to him? Undoubtedly.
Is Kochfan's sense of humour wasted on this thread? Yes! Some quality comments through Kochfan - thanks for the giggles.
Does it feel better you got that off your chest?
With doping, no one is discussing drugs that are banned only for health reasons. Athletes don't take banned drugs except to make performance gains.
Fcuk me! This clusterfcuk of a kindergarten squabble is still going? rekrunner and Armstronglivs, how childish are you two? Seriously!
To summarise:
Do drugs help? Yes.
Are all banned drugs PEDS? No. Some are banned for health reasons or because they can mask other PEDS.
Is there a definitive mark as to how much each drug can help everybody? No. That's emphasised by the fact that at the height of the TdF scandal teams were actively recruiting cyclists with lower haematocrit to be able to dope them up to the allowable threshold. Essentially you will get high and low responders to anything - drugs, training, altitude, or in the case of Armstronglivs and rekrunner getting dropped on their heads as kids.
Does the fact that there are high and low responders mean that some people could conceivably not benefit from PEDS? Theoretically, yes, though more likely is that you will have some outliers who minimally benefit rather than not benefit at all.
Does highlighting this fact make somebody a doping apologist? No. It shows an understanding of variability.
Is Armstronglivs still a boorish man-child and a bit of a d!ck? Indubitably.
Is rekrunner an idiot for continuing to rise to him? Undoubtedly.
Is Kochfan's sense of humour wasted on this thread? Yes! Some quality comments through Kochfan - thanks for the giggles.
Is Kochfan's sense of humour wasted on this thread? Yes! Some quality comments throughout Kochfan - thanks for the giggles.
Throughout, not through. Just being on this thread is killing my brain cells........ looks like certain posters have been here far too long on that basis.
We've had fact and data based estimates of the earth's radius for more than 2000 years.
I don't dispute that PEDs are drugs that are performance enhancing -- that is a tautology.
What you dispute is that the peds African distance runners take are performance enhancing. It's a bit hard to hide behind semantics with that.
So wait -- you keep ping-ponging. Do PEDs simply refer to inclusion on a banned list as you claimed, regardless of PE, or does it mean only those drugs that enhance performance?
Can't you give me a single consistent comprehensive consensus definition?
I don't ever dispute that drugs that enhance performance enhance performance. I'm just waiting for someone to confirm the speculative hypothesis for top distance runners, both Africans and non-Africans alike, that drugs appearing on a banned list can by rightly considered in the category of performance enhancing drugs, and under which initial conditions, if any.
What you dispute is that the peds African distance runners take are performance enhancing. It's a bit hard to hide behind semantics with that.
So wait -- you keep ping-ponging. Do PEDs simply refer to inclusion on a banned list as you claimed, regardless of PE, or does it mean only those drugs that enhance performance?
Can't you give me a single consistent comprehensive consensus definition?
I don't ever dispute that drugs that enhance performance enhance performance. I'm just waiting for someone to confirm the speculative hypothesis for top distance runners, both Africans and non-Africans alike, that drugs appearing on a banned list can by rightly considered in the category of performance enhancing drugs, and under which initial conditions, if any.
You don't ever dispute "drugs that enhance performance enhance performance" - except you can't find any that actually do that for Kenyan distance runners. They, however, can. Many of them in fact - and we see one of them busted every week.
Your semantic bullsh*t that you try to hide behind to show you aren't really a doping-denier conceals nothing and shows how hard you practise the art of lying - to appear to concede indisputable fact ("peds are performance enhancing drugs" - your "tautology") while leaving out that which utterly changes its meaning (but "no such drugs exist for Kenyan distance runners because drugs don't improve their performances" - your fallacy and your lie).
This post was edited 12 minutes after it was posted.
They couldn't be peds because they don't work on Kenyans.
Testosterone for women?
Of course. The only drugs that are performance enhancing are steroids on Russian women md runners. All those other athletes that take any number of the drugs that are banned are all idiots who don't realise the drugs aren't performance enhancing. Or maybe you're the complete idiot.