What will it take for a new mile WR?

Yes of course they would. Just like those Jehovah's witnesses. Delusion.

Records exist. No one's found the Ark.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You would save a lot of time if you simply said you don't think EPO/blood doping aids performance. Countless athletes would disagree but you know better than those who have run for a living. The rest of your argument is like hearing a Jehovah's Witness spiel that they believe proves the existence of Noah's Ark.

A few pages back, in the expressed interest of saving time in the future, I offered a lengthy yet summary explanation of how I think about doping and performance, including when it works and when it fails.

I also addressed why athletes might attribute benefits to doping, and why that personal testimonial based on their experience would still fail to convince me.

However, it isn't saving me any time, because the failure isn't me writing it, but you failing to read it, and therefore you keep building the same strawmen, and creating new failed analogies.

Fervent religious conviction. The worst part of it though, is the self righteous aspect, which is really thinly disguised drug endorsement. True hypocrisy. But hypocrites don't see themselves that way do they? It's everyone else who is at fault, in morality and reasoning.

WADA is supposedly an anti doping organisation that is in reality a huge advertisement for a huge number of products. What are young athletes supposed to make of this tautology?

Too funny...I definitely believe at times you show characteristics of a doping apologist and defender of dopers with respect to your position that EPO/blood transfusions are ineffective with elites - so, you're not fooling me. There's dozens of EPO/cases I, and others, have debated with you on where you constantly undermine and mitigate any suggested performance gains, benefits or unfair advantage that the athlete had by 02-vector doping. I'm not going to highlight these cases specifically - that would take pages but you know what I'm talking about: Cases involving Kiprop, Kisorio, Jeptoo, Sumgong, Ramzi, Russian female marathoners, Moroccan doping, etc. (you'll admit androgens are effective for females athletes but that's about it). You also seem to avoid terms for athletes convicted of doping such as dopers, cheaters, etc. - another sign that maybe you feel there's benevolence with their doping and that they don't fall to any level of having an unfair advantage in competitions, etc. In fact, I'll bett the next big name that's popped for either an EPO positive or ABP hematological-anomalies violation you'll be johnny-on-the-spot running damage control and imperiously stating to those who would dare say that doping benefited their performances that EPO/transfusions had nothing to do with any performance enhancement or unfair advantage in competitions. Lol.

Schumacher gave a professional opinion on the benefits of EPO-induced elevated Hgb levels - his expert testimony was accepted and is part of the record. Like I told you before, these two Russian doping cases before CAS were ABP hematological-anomalies cases - not steroids...not HGH...not SARMs....and so on...understand? Therefore, roids, HGH, SARMs, etc., were not contributing factors in these cases because the evidence being evaluated was to determine if the elevated blood values of the Russian dopers were artificially induced and whether a doping scheme was shown (values elevated at or near competition time frames - unfair advantage).

"Once again" an expert opinion testifying that a 16.0 Hgb in this ABP case with Ryzhova would improve aerobic capacity in her sport of RW.

In addition, ref Paragraph 89, the DT asked this very interesting question to an anti-doping expert:

"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."

Note the panel didn't ask if transfusing blood would have a "substantial impact on performance" but "how long before competition" would an athlete be able to effectively transfuse blood so as to have a "substantial impact on performance."

Another one of your deflections - this would also apply to you ref your posts on the studies from "authorities" who suggest EPO is overrated and all that.

No...that's not what I'm saying. I stated with the ABP an athlete can not macro-dope without being flagged (assuming the athlete is part of the ABP). However, it's not going to stop some of them from trying, e.g., Kiptum and it also looks like some macro- doping in Rutto's ABP case (and according to the AIU site, there's one other Kenyan & Ukrainian ABP case still pending in the DT phase). Kiptum's values are indicative of macro-doping as his passport was flagged with values that were considered dangerous high by the anti-doping experts reviewing the case. I don't know what kind of anti-doping countermeasures advice he was getting from his coach but a Hct of *60.9* with a corresponding 148 Off-score is going to set off all kinds of alarm bells. And with a 99.99 specificity (less than 1 in 10,000 chance of being undoped) he performances were clearly doped (both Valencia/WR & Dhabi/marathon PB were annulled).

Maybe he (or his coach) didn't think he was part of ABP yet and was being tested IC/OOC only for any PEDs therefore going full-throttle doping when most other dopers, as casual obsever has pointed out many times, will micro-dose EPO staying within the upper & lower parameters of the ABP. At his Disciplinary Tribunal hearing his council's main contentions was that his high values were the result of being an altitude native living & training at altitude (where have we heard this before. Lol).

yes wrote:

Fervent religious conviction. The worst part of it though, is the self righteous aspect, which is really thinly disguised drug endorsement. True hypocrisy. But hypocrites don't see themselves that way do they? It's everyone else who is at fault, in morality and reasoning.

WADA is supposedly an anti doping organisation that is in reality a huge advertisement for a huge number of products. What are young athletes supposed to make of this tautology?

There is probably a certain element that if it is on the banned list, there is a kind of perverse endorsement to try it because it must enhance performance.

I don't want to be too critical of WADA, because I think the ideal is the right one. We shouldn't go back to the days where women were men.

But there are a number of challenges facing WADA.

- The large expense required combined with low detection rates puts them under enormous pressure to justify the low rate of return on investment as they negotiate with all countries for more funding.

- In many cases, anti-doping "justice" takes years, which is frustrating for fans.

- The pressure to increase busts may lead to make mistakes resulting in unfairness against innocent athletes who cannot afford to defend themselves: Recently the cases of Vojtěch Sommer, Steven Colvert, Benedikt Karus suggest that the WADA labs can make mistakes, and with the shift of burden from the "ADO" to the athlete to explain the test, it is difficult and expensive to clear their name. Such cases only serve to further undermine the confidence in WADA.

Criminalizing may seem like the right direction, giving anti-doping officials more clout to compel evidence, but at the same time the increase in standard will only lengthen prosecution time.

Don't know how to reform this, but I can appreciate the challenges facing anti-doping.

Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:

"Once again" an expert opinion testifying that a 16.0 Hgb in this ABP case with Ryzhova would improve aerobic capacity in her sport of RW.

In addition, ref Paragraph 89, the DT asked this very interesting question to an anti-doping expert:

"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."

Yes, lots of claims of supposed increase in performance. But how does polycythemia supposedly do that?

Where is the extra energy supposed to come from?

How is this extra energy supposedly utilitzed in the body?

How does this extra energy circumvent thermoregulation?

Do you even know what thermoregulation is?

I am sure you do appreciate the challenges to anti-doping. You're one of them.

Remind me then, of what you claimed to have already said, does EPO/blood doping aid performance in elite athletes? Yes, or no will do.

Tell us more about what the chicken entrails say.

As I have expressed many times, I am not interested in the beliefs of anonymous posters.

The fact is you were talking about the anti-doping expert's ideas about one cause of performance improvements, and not about dopers.

I'm also not interested in his professional opinion, unless it is supported by data used to arrive at that opinion, and there is a discussion of potential confounders.

The fact is that Schumacher did not show that any performance improvement occurred. You even conceded that.

This should render the whole performance discussion moot.

Assuming there was any performance improvement at all, steroids, HGH, SARMs, etc. are always potential confounders regardless of the limited scope and purpose of the CAS arbitration.

Arguing that CAS did not consider these factors works against you. Do you honestly not understand that?

Not quite. I do not rely on the author's expert status, i.e. "Schumacher gave his professional opinion", but the data and the arguments and discussion they provide.

So by the same token, getting back to what you originally argued, it will not stop some milers from trying to macro-dope, with some of them succeeding to get within 3 seconds of El Guerrouj (or alternatively, just faster than Cram in 1985). The fact that no one has come close in 20 years seems to argue against a large effect.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Remind me then, of what you claimed to have already said, does EPO/blood doping aid performance in elite athletes? Yes, or no will do.

I said yes and no.

I know from experience, you haven't read it and you won't read it.

Don't you have an adult friend who can read it and explain it to you?

It's clear to me, when faced with a depth of thought greater than 1-bit, you are only motivated to provide a pseudo-witty non-sequitur: "Doping occurs somewhere on the dark side of the moon but never, to your awareness, in plain sight. Hence, you never see it."

Without taking any position to one way or another about the basis/reliability/applicability of any uniform estimate about blood doping induced boost, here a few words about the origins of the 3 % improvement figure of the Malm-paper from Christer Malm himself:

"This number came from, as you state, estimated in literature but also from a discussion with Björn Ekblom [who coauthored five published blood doping research papers between 1972 and 1991]."

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Remind me then, of what you claimed to have already said, does EPO/blood doping aid performance in elite athletes? Yes, or no will do.

I said yes and no.

I know from experience, you haven't read it and you won't read it.

Don't you have an adult friend who can read it and explain it to you?

It's clear to me, when faced with a depth of thought greater than 1-bit, you are only motivated to provide a pseudo-witty non-sequitur: "Doping occurs somewhere on the dark side of the moon but never, to your awareness, in plain sight. Hence, you never see it."

"Yes"? And "no"? Got all your options covered. But meaningless. They cancel each other out. But if it is "yes" in respect of any elite athlete then logically you are required to concede the possibility that any world record, including the mile, was doped. But you can't do that.

However, your response is more "no" than "yes". You have never acknowledged a single elite performance has benefitted from EPO, in which case no elite performance has benefited - only non-elites, apparently, in a restricted study.

Your correct answer should be that you don't know, as you have repeatedly said there is "insufficient data" to establish a relationship between doping and performance. But not knowing still doesn't stop you from telling others they are wrong. A doping denier at work - and it is dirty work.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Remind me then, of what you claimed to have already said, does EPO/blood doping aid performance in elite athletes? Yes, or no will do.

I said yes and no.

I know from experience, you haven't read it and you won't read it.

Don't you have an adult friend who can read it and explain it to you?

It's clear to me, when faced with a depth of thought greater than 1-bit, you are only motivated to provide a pseudo-witty non-sequitur: "Doping occurs somewhere on the dark side of the moon but never, to your awareness, in plain sight. Hence, you never see it."

You should work on pseudo-witty. I don't expect you can accomplish wit itself but to get even half-way there might be the only thing that redeems the terminally dull recitations that are your specialty.

Armstronglivs wrote:

"Yes"? And "no"? Got all your options covered. But meaningless. They cancel each other out. But if it is "yes" in respect of any elite athlete then logically you are required to concede the possibility that any world record, including the mile, was doped. But you can't do that.

However, your response is more "no" than "yes". You have never acknowledged a single elite performance has benefitted from EPO, in which case no elite performance has benefited - only non-elites, apparently, in a restricted study.

Your correct answer should be that you don't know, as you have repeatedly said there is "insufficient data" to establish a relationship between doping and performance. But not knowing still doesn't stop you from telling others they are wrong. A doping denier at work - and it is dirty work.

You only gave me two options: "yes" or "no". "I don't know" wasn't an option.

I gave a more correct answer above.

It's possible some world records are doped, including the mile.

I tell others that they don't know, but that they believe.

I do not say they are wrong, only unpersuasive.

"It's possible some world records are doped, including the mile."

Now, then - that wasn't so hard, was it?

It was so easy that I said it was possible 4 pages ago.

rekrunner wrote:

I'm also not interested in his professional opinion, unless it is supported by data used to arrive at that opinion, and there is a discussion of potential confounders.

The fact is that Schumacher did not show that any performance improvement occurred. You even conceded that.

This should render the whole performance discussion moot.

Assuming there was any performance improvement at all, steroids, HGH, SARMs, etc. are always potential confounders regardless of the limited scope and purpose of the CAS arbitration.

Arguing that CAS did not consider these factors works against you. Do you honestly not understand that?

I'm not denying that steroids, HGH, SARMs, etc are used in conjunction with EPO/blood transfusions by dopers as part of their programs (nothing new there). However, in a CAS hearing or Disciplinary Tribunal for an ABP hematological-anomalies case, the arbitrators do not consider those PEDs as factors in the case. The athlete didn't test positive for any of those substances - it's irrelevant and not the issue at the hearing. The only issue before arbitrations is whether or not the IAAF can prove to the satisfaction of the arbitrator/DT panel that the athlete's abnormal blood values are the result of artificial means (ESA, blood transfusions, etc.) and not the result of a physiological or pathological reason. The council for the athlete will bring up defenses such as altitude training, sickness, mental stress, etc. as the cause of the anomalies. Other PED use as potential cofounders is never brought up by either the anti-doping experts nor the council for the athlete or even the arbitrator - it's not the issue at hand for ABP hematological-anomalies cases.

For someone who puts so much emphasis on evidence and expertise, I'm surprised you're not at all interested in the expert opinion of a world-renowned anti-doping expert, such as Schumacher, in these hearings (the arbitrators are very interested in his opinions). Schumacher, who has been the team physician for the German Olympic team since 2000, and a senior member of the IAAF's anti-doping expert panel should know a little something about elevated blood levels and the relationship with performance enhancement...don't you think?

Listen to what he says in the Ugarova CAS (2016/0/4463), paragraph 103:

- 103. "In addition, importantly, the Sole Arbitrator notes that Sample 2 was taken on the eve of an important competition (i.e. the European Championship in Helsinki), whereas Sample 3, 4 and 5 were not taken in temporal vicinity to a competition. As testified by Dr. Schumacher, high HGB values enhance sporting performance. The Sole Arbitrator therefore finds that the coincidence of the fact that Sample 2 contained high HGB values, whereas Sample 3, 4 and 5 contained no such high levels, makes it indeed highly likely that the abnormal blood values in Sample 2 are to be explained by the use of prohibited substances or prohibited methods."

Sample 2 was on the eve of the 2012 EC where Ugarova made the finals of the 1500.

The values from sample 2 taken on June 26 were 16.5 Hgb (49.5 Hct) and a corresponding Off-score of 141.00 (99.99 specificity).

This from the Arbitrator - paragraph 141:

- 141. "The Sole Arbitrator does not deem it appropriate to entirely dispose of any disqualification of results as he is convinced that the Athlete doped and because the main purpose of disqualification of results is not to punish the transgressor, but rather to correct any unfair advantage and remove any tainted performances from the record LEWIS / TAYLOR (Eds.), Sport: Law and Practice, 2014, para. C.162, with further references). The Sole Arbitrator, considering that neither a doping scheme, nor a doping plan has been established in the present case, deems it adequate and proportionate, comparing to other cases where a single anti-doping rule violation could have been established through the analysis of a positive sample, to disqualify the results of the Athlete for a period of six months. Six months seem to be a period long enough for an anti-doping organization to perform results management including a possible disciplinary proceeding."

"Unfair advantage" & "tainted performances" as a result of elevated blood values from doping. Ugarova's 8th place finish in the final was annulled.

So, perhaps you're confused and think elevated blood values from altitude training is performance enhancing (e.g., Stray-Gundersen) but not elevated blood values from doping.