'We Can Now Estimate the Effect of Blood Doping'

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The only correct part of that response is that you say you lack evidence of an athlete's knowledge and experience. Yes, you are indeed ignorant if that.

I didn't say just me. What is also correct is that you lack evidence of an athlete's knowledge and experience.

And that you are ignorant of that.

And yet you insist that such knowledge and experience exists, is reliable, and is a positive experience.

I am prepared to change my position only after you meet this higher burden.

I am not interested in you changing your position; you are incapable of doing that. The only thing that interests me is according appropriate ridicule to your tedious, incorrect, and poorly-reasoned views.

I am not claiming to know what is in an athlete's mind when they and their team dope; you are, when you say they are acting on "belief" without knowledge. You are unable to produce anything that proves that claim. Discussing these things with you is like playing a novice tennis player who still thinks he is winning points when he puts the ball in the net.

Even weaker. Those examples include the top.

Africans dope more and white western runners largely gave up. Africans still dope more. Ask El Keniano.

Facts.

rekrunner wrote:

I didn't say just me. What is also correct is that you lack evidence of an athlete's knowledge and experience.

So when the athletes who doped explain how it helped them, in writing and interviews that doesn't count?

Do we have to sit and have coffee with them to make it count?

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I didn't say just me. What is also correct is that you lack evidence of an athlete's knowledge and experience.

So when the athletes who doped explain how it helped them, in writing and interviews that doesn't count?

Do we have to sit and have coffee with them to make it count?

No it doesn't count for much. It's an anecdote from someone who is likely neither scientist nor coach, who likely did not take controlled measurements, nor recognize confounders, told by a non-neutral observer.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I am not interested in you changing your position; you are incapable of doing that. The only thing that interests me is according appropriate ridicule to your tedious, incorrect, and poorly-reasoned views.

I am not claiming to know what is in an athlete's mind when they and their team dope; you are, when you say they are acting on "belief" without knowledge. You are unable to produce anything that proves that claim. Discussing these things with you is like playing a novice tennis player who still thinks he is winning points when he puts the ball in the net.

If you are not claiming that such knowledge and experience exists, it's not clear what your issue is when I refuse to recognize it.

Recall I have six decades of distance running performance data suggesting that, unless you were of African descent, or a woman on steroids, the knowledge and experience of any dopers, even if a local success, resulted in a failure at the global level.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

So when the athletes who doped explain how it helped them, in writing and interviews that doesn't count?

Do we have to sit and have coffee with them to make it count?

No it doesn't count for much. It's an anecdote from someone who is likely neither scientist nor coach, who likely did not take controlled measurements, nor recognize confounders, told by a non-neutral observer.

But they are athletes and EPO is likely measured pretty specifically and kept track of when used.

By athlete and coaches and doctors surrounding them. That's how sport is.

But keep flailing. You do it well.

You were hoping it would become universally and openly used?

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

No it doesn't count for much. It's an anecdote from someone who is likely neither scientist nor coach, who likely did not take controlled measurements, nor recognize confounders, told by a non-neutral observer.

But they are athletes and EPO is likely measured pretty specifically and kept track of when used.

By athlete and coaches and doctors surrounding them. That's how sport is.

But keep flailing. You do it well.

Now that you put it that way, it still doesn't count for much.

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

If you are not claiming that such knowledge and experience exists, it's not clear what your issue is when I refuse to recognize it.

Recall I have six decades of distance running performance data suggesting that, unless you were of African descent, or a woman on steroids, the knowledge and experience of any dopers, even if a local success, resulted in a failure at the global level.

You were hoping it would become universally and openly used?

I am drawing conclusions assuming prevalence is high.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

You were hoping it would become universally and openly used?

I am drawing conclusions assuming prevalence is high.

So you get to assume without knowing? Your goalposts are getting closer together and farther away.

You don't really pay very close attention to previous details.

This is not my assumption per se, but it is the wide assumption of many others, that I chose not to challenge.

And it is not completely without knowledge, but consistent with recent studies which have estimated doping prevalence at World Championships, consistent with leaked IAAF blood data results analysis, and also consistent with published WADA reports.

You are claiming the athletes' knowledge doesn't exist. You can produce no evidence for that. Race performance data is not proof or even evidence. Your argument that athletes do not have knowledge about doping but only "belief" is based solely on your view that doping doesn't aid performance, which you also cannot prove. As I have said before, you are virtually alone against countless athletes, coaches, trainers, physicians, and scientists, not to mention anti-doping experts, in holding to that view. Madness comes in many guises - but that is one of them.

rekrunner wrote:

You don't really pay very close attention to previous details.

This is not my assumption per se, but it is the wide assumption of many others, that I chose not to challenge.

And it is not completely without knowledge, but consistent with recent studies which have estimated doping prevalence at World Championships, consistent with leaked IAAF blood data results analysis, and also consistent with published WADA reports.

Neither do you. They can't Wild West dope now. Go by that.

The leaked data tells you that doping is prevalent and yet you know Radcliffe is clean despite the same evidence.? OK.

Stay inconsistent.

During the wild West years the athletes probably shot up in the warm-up area. For the belief effect on their brain.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You are claiming the athletes' knowledge doesn't exist. You can produce no evidence for that. Race performance data is not proof or even evidence. Your argument that athletes do not have knowledge about doping but only "belief" is based solely on your view that doping doesn't aid performance, which you also cannot prove. As I have said before, you are virtually alone against countless athletes, coaches, trainers, physicians, and scientists, not to mention anti-doping experts, in holding to that view. Madness comes in many guises - but that is one of them.

Athlete's knowledge would be confounded by lack of controls and a lack of controlled observations making their anecdotal experience of limited value.

Whatever the knowledge is, it cannot overcome the historical fact that doping prevalence was global, while extreme performances were local. This in and of itself suggests a bad correlation.

Once again, I point you to a 1997 legal altitude study which also produced up to a 6.5% increase in performance for the hi-lo men over the course of the study. This is not a question of "doping doesn't aid performance", but whether fast performances indicate doping.

I am only alone against about a half-dozen to a dozen anonymous posters, and I stand with many scientists who are critical of doping studies to date.

Oh I wouldn't be so sure that there were no controls and controlled observations just because they haven't been released yet because you know, doping is illegal.

Paula is sitting on some of that. No news is good news for you though.

physics defiant wrote:

The leaked data tells you that doping is prevalent and yet you know Radcliffe is clean despite the same evidence.? OK.

Stay inconsistent.

Don't mistake your inability to see things in perspective with any alleged inconsistency on my part.

With a large database, you can make estimates of the whole population, and large subsets, even if individual samples are in error.

What we learned about Paula's samples in the database, backed by a decade of anti-doping research, is that the threshold violations, in one case exceeding an altitude threshold of suspicion, had multiple plausible non-doping causes.

physics defiant wrote:

Oh I wouldn't be so sure that there were no controls and controlled observations just because they haven't been released yet because you know, doping is illegal.

Paula is sitting on some of that. No news is good news for you though.

Of course you wouldn't be so sure -- that's part of your faith.

rekrunner wrote:

What we learned about Paula's samples in the database, backed by a decade of anti-doping research, is that the threshold violations, in one case exceeding an altitude threshold of suspicion, had multiple plausible non-doping causes.

A couple of corrections to be precise:

... might have had allegedly plausible non-doping causes.

"might" because, for example, there was no evidence for the alleged machine error(s), or for Paula's claim that two tests occurred right after the races in 2003 and 2005.

"allegedly" because that was the claim of the corrupt IAAF, hardly a neutral observer here, accepted by WADA who was originally in charge, thus also not a neutral observer.

And of course none of that addresses her absurd off-score jumps within days, that the IAAF chose to not even mention in their propaganda piece.