What will it take for a new mile WR?

justbaur wrote:

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.

No, he won't. It took a 3.26 runner to achieve a 3.43 mile. No one else since has been close. Cheruiyot hasn't got another 2 seconds in him unless he does a Kiprop (and then gets busted) or time-travels back to the 90's.

Schumacher did not tell the arbitrator that Karamesheva or Ugarova improved.

No expert can draw performance improvement conclusions without performance improvement data.

If they did, I would not be persuaded unless the expert 1) provided the supporting data, and 2) addressed likely confounders.

This is what peers expect from experts.

Arbitrators in doping cases do not consider performance when determining the doping decision before them.

I knocked a non-expert interpretation of expert testimony.

Here's one question about El G -- why did you bold other names, but not his?

Can you answer without faith or fallacy?

So you say athletes can't get away with macro-doping, but despite that, Kiptum still had an "insane 60+ Hct and crazy Off-score of 148".

USADA doesn't prohibit substances -- WADA does.

WADA bans substances on several criteria, including a "potential to improve performance".

What USADA describes is a potential.

Proven parameters like VO2max and TTE are not mile world records.

USADA oversees elite and non-elite athletes alike.

USADA oversees many sports.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

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!

There's doping. And then there's plain dopey. Hi, Bad.

Lagat can rub sub 4 and you know it, and please could you and rek just go get a room.

I did use that phrase in one context. You used that phrase in another context.

I agree with what I said about the "real world", and disagree with what you said about the "real world".

I addressed your question about doping and elite performance above.

I don't know why you are astonished. The existing studies, combined with doping busts, and historical performance trends, are insufficient to draw these conclusions. I dispute with others regarding conclusions that are insufficiently supported.

You can't/won't answer my question. That tells me everything. OJ Simpson was more up front than you are.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

There's doping. And then there's plain dopey. Hi, Bad.

Lagat can rub sub 4 and you know it, and please could you and rek just go get a room.

If Lagat is micro-dosing, like he probably is, then he beats 4. But nowhere near 3.55 - unless he's full-bore on the EPO.

"I said", "you said", "another context", "I addressed", "insufficient to draw these conclusions" - and so on, ad nauseam. You can't ever respond without seeking refuge in semantic drivel. By constantly changing the meaning of what you claim to have previously said you slither and slide into a position where you believe you can still - falsely - claim to be right. It is the only way you can be right, because if you are correctly taken at your word your arguments simply fall over. You are truly an Olympic-class bullsh*tter. But even that awards you an accolade that is undeserving. There is a simpler and more appropriate word. Liar.

+1

Well said.

You're sounding like a true doping apologist defending two prolific Russian dopers in a ABP hematological-anomalies CAS hearing. Lol. It's implied, suggested, etc. - why else would be comment about "high Hgb levels enhance sporting performance" and the up to 1 minute improvement in the 10,000m in ABP hematological-anomalies cases where the sole evidence being evaluated is elevated blood values that o

could only be achieved by doping, and these values were observed at or near key competitions proving a doping scheme.

However, as posted previously ref the Ryzhova Disciplinary Tribunal 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."

Also, in the same hearing anti-doping expert Dr. d'Onofrio provided expert testimony in response from a question by the Tribunal:

(Paragraph 89): "The Panel also asked Professor d’Onofrio about how long before a competition an athlete would be able to effectively transfuse blood so as to have a substantial impact on performance. Professor d’Onofrio stated that earlier, 24-48 hours was considered to be the normal time frame. Recently, however, athletes had been caught transfusing blood as little as two hours before a race. He stated that if blood were to be reinfused too early, it would decrease production of new red blood cells, which would be detrimental to an athletes performance."

- Here we have Dr. Garvican-Lewis explaining that Ryzhova's 16.0 Hgb level (48 Hct) would be advantageous from a sports perspective and improve performance in an aerobic sport such as RW.

- And we have the Tribunal asking an anti-doping expert how long before a competition would an athlete effectively transfuse blood so as to have a "substantial impact on performance."

- Keep in mind this is a DT for an international-level "elite" athlete - not some non-elite caught doping at some local charity event (where they wouldn't be testing anyway. Lol).

Too funny - as a non-expert you seem to have no problem drawing all kinds of "EPO/transfusions is ineffective with elites" conclusions without performance improvement data either.

Performance improvement isn't necessary to find an athlete guilty of doping on ABP hematological-anomalies cases. However, arbitrators are allowing expert testimony for the record on opinions in reference to performance improvement from O2-vector doping (e.g, Karamasheva, Ugarova, Rzyhova, etc). In addition, arbitrators do like to see a doping scheme shown (doping at or near key competitions), which would then show an unfair advantage by the dopers over the other competition in these events - hence why the performances are annulled.

And here's one answer: I bolded the 3 that were actually caught doping and served bans highlighting that the 3 were caught using EPO.

C'mon man - Kiptum didn't get away with anything. His very first ABP sample (60.9 Hct/148 Off-score) was flagged exceeding the 99.99 specificity (less than 1 in 10,000 chance of being undoped). His ABP sample for the Dhabi marathon, where he was runner-up and ran a PB of 2:04:16 (yes...I know the course was a few hundred meters short) was flagged also exceeding the 99.99 specificity (56.1 Hct/145.40 Off-score). Both the HM WR & the Dhabi marathon finish were annulled due to doping and he recieved a 4 yr ban. So, the ABP worked very well effectively detecting macro-doping at/near his key competitions including the HM WR performance.

- Why can't you acknowledge this for once and agree that anti-doping caught a prolific doper consequently annulling a doped WR performance instead of starting all this nonsense that his doping doesn't prove that his performance was enhanced, and that his doping was "faith based," and the Kenyans don't benefit from doping because the rest of the world was all doping and also should have ran as fast as the Kenyans, and all that BS. This is where you come across as constantly defending dopers, IMO.

Armstronglivs wrote:

"I said", "you said", "another context", "I addressed", "insufficient to draw these conclusions" - and so on, ad nauseam. You can't ever respond without seeking refuge in semantic drivel. By constantly changing the meaning of what you claim to have previously said you slither and slide into a position where you believe you can still - falsely - claim to be right. It is the only way you can be right, because if you are correctly taken at your word your arguments simply fall over. You are truly an Olympic-class bullsh*tter. But even that awards you an accolade that is undeserving. There is a simpler and more appropriate word. Liar.

Once again, 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 which I also agreed with:

"The exact relationship between performance increase and transfusion volume cannot be established due to a lack of studies."

The inference from both of these quotes should be that we need more studies, which better replicate real world conditions, to answer your questions because the current studies do not.

When everything else fails, it must be comforting to fall back in the refuge of all the golden oldies: “doping apologist”, “doping doesn’t work”, etc.

You seem to have forgotten what point you were making — we were not really talking about dopers and doping justice, but about an anti-doping expert’s opinion on the cause of performance improvements.

You were saying how well positioned Schumacher was to conclude with no uncertainty that only high blood values caused the performance improvements of Karamesheva and Ugarova.

And now, one post later, this alleged performance improvement was in fact only “implied, suggested, etc.”

What I’m prepared to listen to is: 1) real performance data from the elites in question, in conjunction with 2) discussion of confounders.

What about Dr. Garvican-Lewis in a race-walking case? Once again “implied, suggested, etc.”

Do me a favor and google “appeal to authority”.

What I’m prepared to listen to is: 1) real performance data, in conjunction with 2) discussion of confounders.

One of the reasons for the lengthy post above was to avoid having to address these recurring strawmen.

In one breath you say no one macro-dopes anymore, and in the next breath you say “ask macro-doper Kiptum”. Do you not see the irony?

I can acknowledge that the ABP catches dopers. But if you want to talk about performance, I’m prepared to listen to: 1) real performance data, in conjunction with 2) discussion of confounders.

If performance improvement isn't necessary to find an athlete guilty of doping, why start all this nonsense that doping caused a performance improvement, only to concede that even the experts imply, suggest, etc. the alleged performance improvement?

Armstronglivs wrote:

If Lagat is micro-dosing, like he probably is, then he beats 4. But nowhere near 3.55 - unless he's full-bore on the EPO.

He ran a 2:14 marathon. The first 2:14 ever was ran in 1963, when the world record for the mile was 3:54 by Peter Smell. He can go way faster than 4.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

If Lagat is micro-dosing, like he probably is, then he beats 4. But nowhere near 3.55 - unless he's full-bore on the EPO.

He ran a 2:14 marathon. The first 2:14 ever was ran in 1963, when the world record for the mile was 3:54 by Peter Smell. He can go way faster than 4.

Women are running 2.14 for the marathon. (EPO - like Lagat.) And how close are they to a 4-min mile? He won't run 3.55 now without doing a Kiprop.

"We" don't need more studies; you do. Because you lack "sufficient data" to come to a view you shouldn't have an opinion on any of this. But you do - and what's more it's the only correct view. Fatuous, as ever.

Of course, you don't need any studies to form faith based opinions that assume the conclusion in order to conclude the assumption.

Why do *we* need more studies? I cannot express it any better than this peer-reviewed abstract:

"Imagine a medicine that is expected to have very limited effects based upon knowledge of its

pharmacology and (patho)physiology and that is studied in the wrong population, with low-quality

studies that use a surrogate end-point that relates to the clinical end-point in a partial manner at most."

Solheim also said there were a lack of studies. And he is not alone.

In this thread alone, we have now seen four meta-studies, conducting surveys of studies from all of the literature available, critically evaluating these studies, which all suggest the same thing: existing studies are lacking, and we need more studies with a better design:

"The exact relationship between performance increase and transfusion volume cannot be established due to a lack of studies."

"the influence of micro-dose rHuEpo on endurance performance in athletes is still unclear and further studies are warranted"

"The magnitude of the EDAP–relationship (Epo Doping And Performance) is overvalued"

"the available literature lacks the appropriate information"

"few reports show positive effects on exercise perfomance"

"more thorough research needs to be conducted"

This is something I always keep in mind when anti-doping experts draw from these poorly design studies on the wrong population, to infer, suggest, etc., performance improvements on elites in non-peer reviewed statements in a CAS hearing.

You're talking as if this is a new product that has just been introduced. Blood doping has been practised for over 40 years and EPO for over 30 years. Several generations of athletes have experienced what it does and informed observers will have seen it. You are not amongst them.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

There's doping. And then there's plain dopey. Hi, Bad.

Lagat can rub sub 4 and you know it, and please could you and rek just go get a room.

This.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You're talking as if this is a new product that has just been introduced. Blood doping has been practised for over 40 years and EPO for over 30 years. Several generations of athletes have experienced what it does and informed observers will have seen it. You are not amongst them.

What? These comments were not restricted to the recent past, but span the entire history of EPO and blood transfusions.

The meta-review studies cover EPO studies dating as far back as Ekblorn-1991 and the blood transfusion ones even earlier.

It would seem scientists are also not amongst these experienced and informed observers either, making it even easier for me to dismiss CAS statements from anti-doping experts.

On the contrary, regarding EPO as something newly discovered, it is you who say things like: 'Women are running 2.14 for the marathon. (EPO - like Lagat.)", as if Kenya just recently discovered EPO.

If blood doping has been practised for over 40 years and EPO for over 30 years, where are all of the 2:14 women in history? Or let's relax this by 4 minutes: where were all the sub-2:18 women before 2017 (a period when many predicted testing with a new lab in Africa would slow times down for the Africans)?

You also forget I have looked at the evolution of all time best performances -- information publicly available to everyone -- twice:

- Once quantifying and qualifying what has happened to whom since 1990

- Once going back even further to the 1960s

In all cases, if you have any specific case studies from these generations of experienced athletes, I am prepared to listen to 1) performance data, and 2) a discussion of any confounders.