Subway Surfers wrote:
Don't forget that during this debate we found out that the North African 5000m data was wrong and understated the massive epo era gains.
rekrunner wrote:
Really? I don't remember that.
No surprises there as you don't remember saying, "Would expect EPO helps 5000m." ?
rekrunner wrote:
Really? I don't remember that.
Subway Surfers wrote:
Don't forget that during this debate we found out that the North African 5000m data was wrong and understated the massive epo era gains.
"Method:
All of the raw data comes from listings at "
www.alltime-athletics.com" as of 15 Jan 2018, including performances that were annulled due to doping.
I counted "performers" and not "performances". If an athlete has multiple performances, I count only the best one.
I chose the cut-off as the average of the top-5 performers before 1 Jan 1990, as the massive drop in times started after 1990.
From this cut-off, I calculated two simple measures:
1) Quantity: A simple count of how many athletes performed better than the pre-1990 top-5 average.
2) Quality: Improvement, as a percentage of the pre-1990 cut-off, of the average of the post-1990 top-5 performers, if 5 existed, or the average of all of them if less than 5 existed."
"North Africa (Top 5): 12:50.06 1.5%"
1.5% of 12:50 (or 770s) is 11s or 13:01 but we will see this is an impossibility
1. 12:58.39 Saïd Aouita MAR 02.11.59 1 Roma 22.07.1987
2. 13:12.10 Brahim Boutayeb MAR 15.08.67 1 La Coruña 25.07.1989
3. 13:17.30 Khalid Skah MAR 29.01.67 5 Bruxelles 25.08.1989
4. 13:24.06 Hammou Boutayeb MAR Sevilla (ESP) 20 JUN 1989
5. 13:25.26 Abderrazak Bounour ALG Firenze 13.06.1984
Off the top of my head this is an average of 13:15.6 or a gain of 25.5s or 3.4%
Subway Surfers wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Really? I don't remember that.
"Method:
All of the raw data comes from listings at "
www.alltime-athletics.com" as of 15 Jan 2018, including performances that were annulled due to doping.
I counted "performers" and not "performances". If an athlete has multiple performances, I count only the best one.
I chose the cut-off as the average of the top-5 performers before 1 Jan 1990, as the massive drop in times started after 1990.
From this cut-off, I calculated two simple measures:
1) Quantity: A simple count of how many athletes performed better than the pre-1990 top-5 average.
2) Quality: Improvement, as a percentage of the pre-1990 cut-off, of the average of the post-1990 top-5 performers, if 5 existed, or the average of all of them if less than 5 existed."
"North Africa (Top 5): 12:50.06 1.5%"
1.5% of 12:50 (or 770s) is 11s or 13:01 but we will see this is an impossibility
1. 12:58.39 Saïd Aouita MAR 02.11.59 1 Roma 22.07.1987
2. 13:12.10 Brahim Boutayeb MAR 15.08.67 1 La Coruña 25.07.1989
3. 13:17.30 Khalid Skah MAR 29.01.67 5 Bruxelles 25.08.1989
4. 13:24.06 Hammou Boutayeb MAR Sevilla (ESP) 20 JUN 1989
5. 13:25.26 Abderrazak Bounour ALG Firenze 13.06.1984
Off the top of my head this is an average of 13:15.6 or a gain of 25.5s or 3.4%
Nice ? "3.4%" is right in that spectrum of 3-6% that rekrunner expected to see in reference to his introduction on the EPO-footprint thread. And he even said himself: "Would expect EPO helps 5000m." Again, rekrunner is spot-on! ?
Most Definitely wrote:
Nice ? "3.4%" is right in that spectrum of 3-6% that rekrunner expected to see in reference to his introduction on the EPO-footprint thread. And he even said himself: "Would expect EPO helps 5000m." Again, rekrunner is spot-on! ?
Let's wait in suspense for his reply to this one, in the meantime I'm off to buy popcorn ?
Subway Surfers wrote:
wrongo wrote:
This is where you are wrong. And in so many other aspects...
Renato doesn't need to do anything for you. I don't know why he still provides data and wastes time replying to the likes of you.
He should ignore people like you.
Oh and...
LOL gorilla war????? LOL
Hi ? ex runner
Subway Surfers, you were totally owned! LMAO
347yyy wrote:
Subway Surfers wrote:
Hi ? ex runner
Subway Surfers, you were totally owned! LMAO
ex-runner wrote: Turns out I was wrong
ex-runner wrote: Turns out I was wrong
ex-runner wrote: Turns out I was wrong
ex-runner wrote: Turns out I was wrong
ex-runner wrote: Turns out I was wrong
You mess with Subway, you mess with me b!tch
You're not wrong wrote:
What a joke wrote:
It’s been going on for a long time, when will someone in authority do something about it? Just the tip of the iceberg.
No doubt it's just the start. When more professional runners come in, then more doping athletes appear.
The sport needs these dopers to entertain us, nobody wants to watch hobby joggers.
rekrunner wrote:
Assuming you are correct and he is blatantly lying, and assuming that a lie about supplements is actually significant in other contexts, such as elite training, performance, and any possible role EPO might play, you could reject the direct knowledge and experience. In this case, you are left with nothing, because there is no one here who actually has direct knowledge and experience with elite athletes, and the level of conversation remains one of uninformed and baseless speculation, hypothesis, theory, faith, and mythology.
C'mon man...what's with the pretentious & bombastic attitude? And aren't you being a hypocrite belittling posters who offer an opinion on a wide variety of issues here?
For example, on the hot topic of EPO-induced performance improvement, posters bring opinions based on some facts as well as hypothesis & theory. But yet you sit on your high horse and do nothing but belittle & demean people as if you have all the right answers. Just because you read books on "logical fallacies" doesn't mean you've aquired this great amount of knowledge now that only your opinion counts and nobody else's opinion does. You believe EPO is ineffective, or very marginally effective, for elite endurance athletes. Fine...that's just your "opinion" & theory and it's not a fact just because you're obessed with "logical fallacies." And "logical fallacies" can be incorrectly called in many instances:
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2013/01/six-fallacies-called-incorrectly-by-david-dilworth-in-anti-gmo-article.htmljeff tallon wrote:
if athletes in the west are being tested,why isnt it working? when i see runners lining up for national championship finals,with muscles popping out in unnatural ways,and looking like cyborgs i know something is amiss.theyre either testing positive,and are protected somehow,or theyre not really being tested,at all.perhaps its bribery,perhaps its corruption,a huge cover up,perhaps the sponsors are seeing to it that they dont get popped,but its all very strange.im from a bodybuilder background,and i know fully well,that most of the sprinters,and many distance runners are on a whole cocktail of drugs.some of them are on hardcore stuff like dianabol,or injectables like deca durabolin,and testosterone.some are on a mix of these.unnatural biceps,huge round capped delts,muscled lats that pop out,traps that stick up in ways that make them look deformed.theres also the dry veiny skin,sunken faces,wide jaws,acne ,adams apples on women.i see it all.as a former bodybuilder,i know what those drugs do,and i know the signs to look for.i also know what a natural physique is,from an unnatural one.ive seen whole national finals where everyone is on the juice.
Aren't those drugs easy to catch?
Sand Dunes wrote:
zxcvxcv wrote:
El K, why would we expect Kenyan wr holders would test positive when Rudisha, Daniel Komen, Dennis Kimetto, and Beatrice Chepkoech are the only Kenyan wr holders? Komen retired a long time ago, Rudisha has not competed this year and Kimetto has been uncompetitive for years. Chepkoech just got her wr, but the previous record holder has been busted, and she was Kenyan before plastic citizenship. We do have Rita Jeptoo, Jemima Sumgong, Asbel Kiprop, Boniface Kipresa, Matthew Kisorio, and Ruth Jebet as positives, and they are very high profile.
Rudisha is the only one I believe to be clean.
What makes you say that? He did set the world record without pacers in an Olympic final, you do realise that?. You do realise that he does live in the same country as all those other dopers?
456 wrote:
The pressure is very great in Kenya to succeed in long distance races. This is their way to achieve financial security.
This is true of many people in numerous countries and they all compete against each other, hence the desire for an advantage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrLequ6dUdMm!ndweak wrote:
it would be nice if we could rely on el k or ghost to really really be boots on the ground in kenya and give us this guys full running history
cause on a for real, 2:14:30? how many "scrub" americans run that?
Oh that's right, some of you felt we should compare North Africans to their own personal reference, thinking that a common reference for all groups was somehow incorrect. While I presume you correctly measured the gain, recall again this is a measure of top progress from all sources, and not necessarily a measure of EPO effect. EPO is by no means a single controlled variable. By calculating from a slower reference, you are also partly measuring the lack of depth and maturity in the small North African population pre-1990s.
Subway Surfers wrote:
Off the top of my head this is an average of 13:15.6 or a gain of 25.5s or 3.4%
Oh I forgot conclusions drawn with logical fallacies, thanks. Bombastic? Pretentious? Hypocritical? If we are all just here offering our opinions without knowledge and experience, then my statement is simply correct and redundant -- no need to resort to calling me names. But I'm not just giving my theory and opinion -- it is a quantifiable historical fact that all non-African athletes made very small progress with very few people after synthetic EPO was developed, contrary to expectations. Others offered new opinions as to why that was, but I remained skeptical given the size of the populations and the long duration.
Here We Go Again wrote:
C'mon man...what's with the pretentious & bombastic attitude? And aren't you being a hypocrite belittling posters who offer an opinion on a wide variety of issues here?
For example, on the hot topic of EPO-induced performance improvement, posters bring opinions based on some facts as well as hypothesis & theory. But yet you sit on your high horse and do nothing but belittle & demean people as if you have all the right answers. Just because you read books on "logical fallacies" doesn't mean you've aquired this great amount of knowledge now that only your opinion counts and nobody else's opinion does. You believe EPO is ineffective, or very marginally effective, for elite endurance athletes. Fine...that's just your "opinion" & theory and it's not a fact just because you're obessed with "logical fallacies." And "logical fallacies" can be incorrectly called in many instances:
Not really sure what point you are trying to make by repeating that phrase. I remember saying that, and being surprised when most nations did not show large gains post-1990 with more athletes. Perhaps it's worth taking the time to go back and read the first three posts which are rather comprehensive, rather than taking one line out of context.
Barrel of Laughs wrote:
No surprises there as you don't remember saying, "Would expect EPO helps 5000m." ?
rekrunner wrote:
Oh I forgot conclusions drawn with logical fallacies, thanks.
Bombastic? Pretentious? Hypocritical? If we are all just here offering our opinions without knowledge and experience, then my statement is simply correct and redundant -- no need to resort to calling me names.
No name calling; it's a characterization of your posting style...nothing new there.
rekrunner wrote:
But I'm not just giving my theory and opinion -- it is a quantifiable historical fact that all non-African athletes made very small progress with very few people after synthetic EPO was developed, contrary to expectations. Others offered new opinions as to why that was, but I remained skeptical given the size of the populations and the long duration.
How in the hell do you that "all" non-Africans were using EPO, or other PEDs for that fact? Do you have any proof that "all" these athletes from non-Africans nations were using PEDs. Same with the African nations - do you have proof that everyone one of your top-5 in each event was using PEDs?
And it's also a "quantifiable historical fact" that many athletes, African & non-African, male & female, who tested positive for PEDs, or were sanctioned for an ABP violation ran very fast times, won Olympic & WC Gold medals and even set a few WRs along the way.
rekrunner wrote:
While it's tempting to think I showed cause, looking for a "footprint" with an expectation, and even finding examples which appear to match, is not sufficient to show both cause and effect. Drawing this kind of conclusion is the same "proof by example" fallacy which I keep saying is not valid. Notably, I did not draw this conclusion in my analysis, nor did I state that this expectation was "a goalpost". The performance analysis only shows effect. Confirmation of expectation is comforting, but falls far short of actually showing cause.
You might ask, what is the point then. The goalpost was never to show that EPO caused East African performance (something this analysis does not and cannot show), but to quantify, in terms of quality and quantity, my previously unsupported claims that statistics would show how most of the world performed rather poorly compared to expectations, in an era named after EPO. I said we should see this footprint outside of Africa. We should have seen it, for example, in Spain, where we only saw 1 athlete in 10000m (0.0%) and 1 athlete in the marathon (0.3%). We should have seen it in Morocco, and we saw 0.9% in both the 10000m and marathon, which is fairly close to MY estimation of less than 1%.
That's not correct if you look at individual performance. First the 10: Mourhit, a confirmed doper (EPO), has the fastest Morrocan time & 32nd fastest all-time:
26:52.30 Mohammed Mourhit BEL 10.10.70 2 Bruxelles 03.09.1999
Your pre-90s top-5 average: 27:14...22 secs faster or ~1.3%
Abderrahim Goumri, also a confirmed doper (ABP sanction/hematological anomalies) has the fastest Morrocan marathon time:
2:05:30 Abderrahim Goumri MAR 21.05.76 3 London 13.04.2008
Your pre-90s top-5 average: 2:07...~2 mins faster or ~1.5%
FACT: Mourhit & Goumri were busted for doping
FACT: Mourhit & Goumri ran 1.3% and 1.5% faster, respectively, than your pre-90 top-5 presumably clean (?) averages.
Btw, Mourhit served a 2 yr ban from 2002-04 and upon returning back to competition in 04, could only muster a 28:47...a far cry from his sizzling 26:52 pre-ban. There's nothing on Goumri as he died in that tragic car accident in 2013 while serving his ban.
What? All these statements about EPO and PED usage -- I didn't say any of that. In my analysis I assumed that doping prevalence was greater than 0%, up to 100% both before and after 1990, based on the uncertainty that race times do not give this information. Either post-1990 non-Africans used, and ran slow, or they did not use, and ran slow. I only concluded they ran slow, regardless, as a basis for further discussion. Your fact is selective cherry-picking. There are also many examples of athletes running slow at the time we know they took EPO. I made a global and absolute statement about the whole group of all non-Africans over the whole time period where EPO was available, and either undetectable or easily beatable.
Here's my take wrote:
How in the hell do you that "all" non-Africans were using EPO, or other PEDs for that fact? Do you have any proof that "all" these athletes from non-Africans nations were using PEDs. Same with the African nations - do you have proof that everyone one of your top-5 in each event was using PEDs?
And it's also a "quantifiable historical fact" that many athletes, African & non-African, male & female, who tested positive for PEDs, or were sanctioned for an ABP violation ran very fast times, won Olympic & WC Gold medals and even set a few WRs along the way.
rekrunner wrote:
Either post-1990 non-Africans used, and ran slow, or they did not use, and ran slow. I only concluded they ran slow, regardless, as a basis for further discussion.
That's not a fact at all, it's sheer nonsense. All of it.
I would say it's not correct to look at one (or two) individual performance(s). Looking at one individual is not a basis for forming a general rule, but a specific cherry-picked example. In any case, figures like 1.3% and 1.5%, as the "best" examples, are very small, especially when throwing around numbers like 3-6% and 5-10% for everyone.
Confirmed Morrocan Dopers wrote:
That's not correct if you look at individual performance.