'We Can Now Estimate the Effect of Blood Doping'

Scientist who make the drugs?

For many of the drugs, and many of the events, the effect hasn't been proven yet by incompetent scientists either.

There -- bias removed.

Swing and a miss. You're trying too hard.

rekrunner wrote:

Scientist who make the drugs?

For many of the drugs, and many of the events, the effect hasn't been proven yet by incompetent scientists either.

There -- bias removed.

I see, proof is only what you are aware of. Perhaps you could also refer to the data you rely upon to claim that athletes and their teams don't make informed decisions about doping. They haven't consulted with you?

physics defiant wrote:

Swing and a miss. You're trying too hard.

You seem completely disengaged.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The effect of the drugs, that they generally enhance performance, is proven by the extent of their use, case examples of those who have used them, and studies that have all confirmed benefit.

...

I see, proof is only what you are aware of. Perhaps you could also refer to the data you rely upon to claim that athletes and their teams don't make informed decisions about doping. They haven't consulted with you?

This is you arguing something on the basis of what you don't know, trying to conclude that "use" proves "knowledge of effect".

Proofs are well defined in Logic 101, and I've seen quite a bit. Going back to my favorite events, distance running, the motivation of athletes/coaches, and their doping regime doesn't actually seem relevant to the discussion, as I already know, historically, non-African athletes and coaches who doped, were unable to replicate the kinds of performance improvements made by the East Africans, even on a smaller scale. The only thing they "know" is that even with doping, they are not as fast as the East Africans, by as much as 2-3%.

Your proof above is incomplete:

- "Extent of their use" just demonstrates a widespread belief.

- As for the case examples and studies, you said the problem before -- we don't see the clean baseline.

- Athletes/coaches don't know what is possible to achieve with legal methods.

- Studies make the same failure too -- they don't establish the clean baseline.

Even then, this is answering the wrong question (in the wrong way). Proving individual improvement beyond doubt, is still not enough to make the many claims here about how to achieve the fastest times. Examples like Ramzi and Jeptoo and Sumgong would not be enough to say El G surely doped, or Komen, or Geb, or Bekele, or Paula, or Genzebe. A more interesting question to answer is "does legal training fail?"

Take for example, blood doping for distance events. How many times have I shown the 1997 hi-lo study -- the hi-lo men (average of 9 men) improved 6.5% over the course of the study, using legal altitude training. What needs to be shown is *not* individual improvement over the course of 10 weeks from an unestablished baseline, but that blood doping would achieve even better results than hi-lo altitude training. Instead, it seems the typical quality studies are non-controlled, non-blinded studies, like the one from Pitsiladis, who needs to use EPO to get Kenyans to improve from their marathon pace to semi-marathon pace for a 9 minute time trial that they can run in 8 minutes. (For clarity, I assume the incompetence here does not lie with the makers of EPO.)

How can you show this better?

- Look at the kinds of lists produced by the top-30 100m times linked to doping, or the lists of the top-10 finishers of the Tour de France. To be clear these are also not proofs, but would be more than we can produce today with top-100 lists of all time fastest times for distance running.

- What about examples of fast runners caught doping? To be convincing, you need significantly more examples , enough to show that the doping ratio at the top significantly exceeds general prevalence ratio. This is also not a proof, but would be more than what we have today.

- Establish a strong correlation between doping and fast times, over the whole population. Correlation is also not a proof, but would be more than what we have today.

Failing that, all we have is a strong belief in a popular mythology.

This is really so much wind. You discount experience as though it can teach nothing of value. Over a life-time I have seen that doing always surpasses theorizing. I have learned this through the many sports I have played, as well as training to be a lawyer and working as a journalist, a broadcaster and a professional musician. Experience is the only thing that confers real understanding. Those that haven't done it know nothing compared to those who have. You're like a guy who thinks he knows better about how music is played than the guys on the bandstand, when he has never done that or even played an instrument. But you've read a book. Good for you. So it is with elite and professional sports. From behind your computer you condescending refer to these athletes as virtual ignoramuses because they haven't read what you have. I've got news for you - sport is not an armchair pursuit - or an academic discipline, as you pretend it is. But you will never get that.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Scientist who make the drugs?

For many of the drugs, and many of the events, the effect hasn't been proven yet by incompetent scientists either.

There -- bias removed.

I see, proof is only what you are aware of. Perhaps you could also refer to the data you rely upon to claim that athletes and their teams don't make informed decisions about doping. They haven't consulted with you?

Still can't answer that question I see. Where's your data for this?

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

Swing and a miss. You're trying too hard.

You seem completely disengaged.

Not from the reality that doping works.

You speak about experience as though you have it, or you have established what the experience of the athletes were.

If you had already provided anything of substance, I would have considered it.

But you haven't. You are arguing from things you do not know.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Still can't answer that question I see. Where's your data for this?

Not only can, but already have.

In the absence of data, we form beliefs.

If you want to say something stronger, that becomes your burden to support this stronger claim.

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

You seem completely disengaged.

Not from the reality that doping works.

Training also works.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

Not from the reality that doping works.

Training also works.

Not as well as both together. As can clearly be seen by a comparison of the Wild West years to the ABP years. You know, data.

Armstronglivs wrote:

If there are aerobic limits then how is it that athletes can continue to get faster? We see this not only with individual athletes but with the performance improvements that have occurred in the sport over many years.

By doing more of the desired work with less energy.

Armstronglivs wrote:

When training remains a constant - and training methods have little changed since the 70's - then something else is contributing to an athlete's improvements. Either they have not reached their aerobic maximum or they are adding to it - with drugs.

Now you are showing your age. Many things have changed in the last 50 years.

Training methodology has been refined since the 70's.

The sport changed from amateur to professional, and athletes began to specialize in one event.

Not to mention technology in clothing, footwear, sports drinks, and tracks.

physics defiant wrote:

Not as well as both together. As can clearly be seen by a comparison of the Wild West years to the ABP years. You know, data.

The doping data from the Wild West years is missing.

rekrunner wrote:

athletes began to specialize in one event.

.

Yes, especially Rashid Ramzi.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

Not as well as both together. As can clearly be seen by a comparison of the Wild West years to the ABP years. You know, data.

The doping data from the Wild West years is missing.

So are all of Lance's positive EPO tests. Until one wasn't.

rekrunner wrote:

By doing more of the desired work with less energy.

.

Oh dear. Jon Orange has a believer.

rekrunner wrote:

By doing more of the desired work with less energy.

.

Not even more work with the same amount of energy as before but actually LESS energy.

Show the energy data from this process. Scientifically.

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

By doing more of the desired work with less energy.

Not even more work with the same amount of energy as before but actually LESS energy.

Show the energy data from this process. Scientifically.

Exercise physiologist Stephen Seiler sums up the adaptations from training in three phases:

1) Short term (roughly VO2max)

2) Mid-term (roughly LT)

3) Long term (Efficiency)

You can find a nice picture on page 97 (see link below).

This simple model is derived from the repeatable observation that performance continues to improve, long after improvements in VO2max and LT have hit their limits.

Of course that's an oversimplification. For a more complex model, look at the picture on page 4. Note once again, many aerobic components, and many non-aerobic components.

Even that model is a simplification.

For a primer on how exercise works: