None of this seems relevant to the on-going discussion about "blood doping and Human Growth Hormone" and the difficulty of being "among the top 5 in the world".
I predicted that someone would dismiss Salazar's 2013 statement, and you unwittingly instantly provided me with the case in point.
I do not rely on Salazar's changing expressed beliefs or expertise one way or another, but find that they all lack the data which could persuade me that "blood doping works".
I don't "unwittingly" provide anything; I reject your quoting Salazar as an authority on doping ethics or any sporting ethics.
Let me throw this around at you for once - since you seem to have all the answers (though most of the time I think you're just clowning around for the sake of arguing with people 🤡).
Can you present any evidence that Wanjuri would have smoked the London half finishing 3rd almost beating Farah clean?
How about the cases of Kiptum, Boulami & Ramzi that I brought up: Can you provide any evidence that either of them would have shattered those WRs or won Olympic gold clean?
So many issues with this seemingly reasonable request (also known as the "burden of proof" fallacy or an attempted "appeal to ignorance" fallacy). One might start to think that it is you trolling me. The short answer is that I shouldn't let you throw this around at me, but I will address it anyway: 1) it is not proper to reverse the burden if you are the one trying to establish an effect exists; 2) reversing the burden only proves my claim that you don't have the data sufficient to establish "cause & effect"; and 3) yes I can present and provide "any evidence".
It is not clowning around to point out the frequently used biases and fallacies that are necessary to prop up widespread beliefs that even the "experts" only speculate with caution (i.e. lacking "tons of data showing cause and effect"). It is the universal reliance on such fallacies that only strengthen my expressed doubts.
I thought that with all the ABP cases and EPO violations, and opinions of experts from studies on blood doping, and performance drops associated with ABP implementation, that you were trying to convince me that "blood doping works". Your reverse "clean" scenario means no doping at all, which would equally eliminate potential non-blood doping confounders.
In math and science, the burden is not only to establish the non-spurious relation between two variables with data, e.g. doping causing faster-than-natural performance, but also to disprove the null hypothesis, i.e. that no relation exists because either there is no significant "effect", or the "cause" is some other variable not being examined. By first assuming the conclusion (another fallacy), and asking me to prove the null hypothesis (prove a negative?) with data, you are effectively conceding you do not have "tons of data showing cause & effect" -- in other words, this exercise also assumes that my claim is true before I even begin the exercise.
Nevertheless, the confounding evidence I can provide against conclusions of blood-doping causing faster-than-natural performances is that 1) WADA legal altitude training also "works", confounding determining blood-doping as the cause, and 2) the nearly complete lack of real world examples from the entire population of sea-level non-Africans of the comparable shattering of the WRs, or even ARs, or NRs, during an era spanning nearly three decades, widely believed to have significantly benefited from the convenience and widespread availability and widespread use of EPO with the express intent to cause the effect of faster than natural performance.
Are you familiar with El Mahjuob Dazza ABP hematological-anomalies case? (Dazza is a 2:05 speedster & the Moroccan marathon NR holder).
On the eve of Prague marathon win, which he smoked the course in 2:05:58, he blew up his ABP with a 17.4 Hgb (52 Hct) & an astronomically high Off-score of 140.00!
The primary defense that Dazza's "expert" defense team argued at the CAS hearing was Dazza never engaged in any type of doping (imagine that. Lol), and that he adapted a,"new coach" who implemented - "altitude training" - that resulted in the high blood values & subsequent performance at Prague.
Needless to say, that defense was torn apart by the anti-doping experts, including Olaf Schumacher (you should read the details provided by the anti-doping experts as to why there's absolutely no way that "altitude training" could have resulted in those values).
Moroccan marathon runner El Mahjoub Dazza has been banned by the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) for four years after testing positive for a prohibited...
Frankly, I'm sick & tired of these dopers always trying to defend their hematological anomalies with "altitude training!" And you should be sick of it too!
You don't ever dispute "drugs that enhance performance enhance performance" - except you can't find any that actually do that for Kenyan distance runners. They, however, can. Many of them in fact - and we see one of them busted every week.
Your semantic bullsh*t that you try to hide behind to show you aren't really a doping-denier conceals nothing and shows how hard you practise the art of lying - to appear to concede indisputable fact ("peds are performance enhancing drugs" - your "tautology") while leaving out that which utterly changes its meaning (but "no such drugs exist for Kenyan distance runners because drugs don't improve their performances" - your fallacy and your lie).
OK -- it's clear you cannot give me any comprehensive consensus definition of PED. Sometimes it is a performance enhancing drug, and other times it is whatever is on a banned list. Can you clearly define your fictitious term "doping denier". Of course I concede and confirm athletes are doping, including Kenyans. I read annual WADA reports.
But when it comes to doping and performance enhancement, my search extends far beyond Kenyan runners -- recall when I took a closer look at EPO-era performances, my primary question was regarding non-Africans originating from the remaining 5 continents -- why so few, and then by so little?
What I cannot find is anyone who finds the performance enhancement for these elite distance runners. The best anti-doping performance experts are still only able to speculate about what happens with elite performance.
Interesting position to take. How do you propose a cause and effect study on EPO with elite distance runners? Could you detail a study that meets your criteria, including your plan to recruit study participants? Thanks!
Are you familiar with El Mahjuob Dazza ABP hematological-anomalies case? (Dazza is a 2:05 speedster & the Moroccan marathon NR holder).
On the eve of Prague marathon win, which he smoked the course in 2:05:58, he blew up his ABP with a 17.4 Hgb (52 Hct) & an astronomically high Off-score of 140.00!
The primary defense that Dazza's "expert" defense team argued at the CAS hearing was Dazza never engaged in any type of doping (imagine that. Lol), and that he adapted a,"new coach" who implemented - "altitude training" - that resulted in the high blood values & subsequent performance at Prague.
Needless to say, that defense was torn apart by the anti-doping experts, including Olaf Schumacher (you should read the details provided by the anti-doping experts as to why there's absolutely no way that "altitude training" could have resulted in those values).
Frankly, I'm sick & tired of these dopers always trying to defend their hematological anomalies with "altitude training!" And you should be sick of it too!
I think I would have never heard of El Mahjuob Dazza, but for you -- this must be around the 7th time you bring it up in these threads in the last 4 years.
Around 3 years ago, in one of the threads, I said:
"what really shows Dazza is more extreme is the low RET% value, producing a 140 Off-score, off the charts (1 in 100,000 worst case at sea level; 1 in 10,000 worst case at altitude)"
"What is tragic is that he could have trained at high altitude, raising his blood values legally, creating a win-win-win scenario for him, his competitors, and the sport."
"They should stop using (altitude) as a defense, and use it as a clean way to keep their RBC high."
Are you familiar with El Mahjuob Dazza ABP hematological-anomalies case? (Dazza is a 2:05 speedster & the Moroccan marathon NR holder).
On the eve of Prague marathon win, which he smoked the course in 2:05:58, he blew up his ABP with a 17.4 Hgb (52 Hct) & an astronomically high Off-score of 140.00!
The primary defense that Dazza's "expert" defense team argued at the CAS hearing was Dazza never engaged in any type of doping (imagine that. Lol), and that he adapted a,"new coach" who implemented - "altitude training" - that resulted in the high blood values & subsequent performance at Prague.
Needless to say, that defense was torn apart by the anti-doping experts, including Olaf Schumacher (you should read the details provided by the anti-doping experts as to why there's absolutely no way that "altitude training" could have resulted in those values).
Frankly, I'm sick & tired of these dopers always trying to defend their hematological anomalies with "altitude training!" And you should be sick of it too!
You know how many sins you will face God in the after life with all these blasphemous doping threads?
How about speaking about Khalid Khannouchi who immigrated to USA at the age 20?
He was WR marathon holder from 1999 to 2003.
One record was set at London Marathon 2002.
It's your home.
He exclusively trained in USA.
Khalid fell out with the Moroccan athletics federation over training expenses and moved to Brooklyn, New York City in 1992 with three of his friends. He married American Sandra Inoa in 1996, who coached him and acted as his agent. They set up home in Ossining, New York. He became a naturalized citizen of the United States on May 2, 2000.
MOROCCO’S Taoufik Allam has won the 2022 Dublin Marathon this afternoon. The long distance runner clocked a winning time of 2:11:30 from the 25,000 runners. BETTING OFFERS: FREE BETS AND…
Interesting position to take. How do you propose a cause and effect study on EPO with elite distance runners? Could you detail a study that meets your criteria, including your plan to recruit study participants? Thanks!
What position is that?
This "cause and effect" criteria is not mine. Some pages ago, "Here's my take" suggested he has already cleared that high bar: "... tons of data showing cause & effect".
My criteria doesn't actually require any full-fledged study on EPO with elite distance runners. There is so much to learn before going to that extreme. I could be partially persuaded by empirical observations of achieved performance from groups known to have doped, for example, by comparing the achieved performance of Russian men known to have out-doped Americans and Europeans; or for example Spanish men versus the rest of Europe; or for example Russian men and women, versus Japanese men and women. This is why I do not question the performances of Russian and Chinese women. Any uncertainties identified from these empirical comparisons could point the direction of relevant studies.
If I were to design a study on elevated blood values, there is still information that can be gained from ethical altitude studies designed to confirm whether any relation exists between higher blood values and faster personal best times. This WADA-legal phase could include elite athletes. I would base it off of a 1997 Stray-Gundersen study which included a 6-week sea-level lead-in and control phase, and then studied three groups: a high-high group, a high-low group, and a sea-level control group. But I would move in a direction that makes it more realistic, extending the short term 13-week study to a longer-term study, say 4-5 years, with a qualified coach training the athletes to race. Depending on these results, if more information is required, further studies could be identified, e.g. adding EPO for altitude groups and sea-level groups to see if these groups outperform the other groups. This EPO phase would be difficult to conduct on elite athletes given their anti-doping obligations. Yet comparing doped amateurs to altitude-only amateurs could potentially provide more information.
In this specific exchange with "Here's my take", we were discussing what Salazar's stated beliefs were, when he was actually a world renowned coach, and not the merits of his beliefs. "Here's my take" accused me of arbitrarily dismissing Salazar's statment of belief, and I effectively responded by asking "which one"?
No one in this thread established that any of his views from 1998, 1999, or the contradictory views from 2013, were anything more real than Salazar's own publicly stated beliefs.
It just seems obliviotly awkward for you to jump into the middle of conversation apropos of nothing. I kinda feel sorry for you.
Are you familiar with El Mahjuob Dazza ABP hematological-anomalies case? (Dazza is a 2:05 speedster & the Moroccan marathon NR holder).
On the eve of Prague marathon win, which he smoked the course in 2:05:58, he blew up his ABP with a 17.4 Hgb (52 Hct) & an astronomically high Off-score of 140.00!
The primary defense that Dazza's "expert" defense team argued at the CAS hearing was Dazza never engaged in any type of doping (imagine that. Lol), and that he adapted a,"new coach" who implemented - "altitude training" - that resulted in the high blood values & subsequent performance at Prague.
Needless to say, that defense was torn apart by the anti-doping experts, including Olaf Schumacher (you should read the details provided by the anti-doping experts as to why there's absolutely no way that "altitude training" could have resulted in those values).
Frankly, I'm sick & tired of these dopers always trying to defend their hematological anomalies with "altitude training!" And you should be sick of it too!
I think I would have never heard of El Mahjuob Dazza, but for you -- this must be around the 7th time you bring it up in these threads in the last 4 years.
Around 3 years ago, in one of the threads, I said:
"what really shows Dazza is more extreme is the low RET% value, producing a 140 Off-score, off the charts (1 in 100,000 worst case at sea level; 1 in 10,000 worst case at altitude)"
"What is tragic is that he could have trained at high altitude, raising his blood values legally, creating a win-win-win scenario for him, his competitors, and the sport."
"They should stop using (altitude) as a defense, and use it as a clean way to keep their RBC high."
C'mon now, the dopers are training at high altitude to screw with the ABP - hypoxia training influences ABP biomarkers similar to EPO usage. And in the case of EPO "microdosing" - this technique is hardly distinguishable from exposure with hypoxia training:
The hematological module of the Athlete's Biological Passport (ABP) identifies doping methods and/or substances used to increase the blood's capacity to transport or deliver oxygen to the tissues. Recombinant human erythropoi...
And with the Kenyan dopers, one of primarily defenses they use in the CAS hearings is that their hematological anomalies are explained by their living & training at altitude.
In the Kiptum hearing, his defense team argued that his 60 hct/0.83 RET% & OFF-score of 148 taken on the eve of the Valencia HM where he smoked the WR was due to his living & training in altitudes of 2000m (~6500 ft) & 2300m (~7500 ft). What a barrel of laughs. 🤣
In this specific exchange with "Here's my take", we were discussing what Salazar's stated beliefs were, when he was actually a world renowned coach, and not the merits of his beliefs. "Here's my take" accused me of arbitrarily dismissing Salazar's statment of belief, and I effectively responded by asking "which one"?
No one in this thread established that any of his views from 1998, 1999, or the contradictory views from 2013, were anything more real than Salazar's own publicly stated beliefs.
It just seems obliviotly awkward for you to jump into the middle of conversation apropos of nothing. I kinda feel sorry for you.
To quote someone as an authority on a matter of ethics while leaving out the fact they have been convicted of offences that have an ethical basis is lying by omission. You can't help it. Lying is in your blood stream. You have this in common with Trump.
In this specific exchange with "Here's my take", we were discussing what Salazar's stated beliefs were, when he was actually a world renowned coach, and not the merits of his beliefs. "Here's my take" accused me of arbitrarily dismissing Salazar's statment of belief, and I effectively responded by asking "which one"?
No one in this thread established that any of his views from 1998, 1999, or the contradictory views from 2013, were anything more real than Salazar's own publicly stated beliefs.
It just seems obliviotly awkward for you to jump into the middle of conversation apropos of nothing. I kinda feel sorry for you.
To quote someone as an authority on a matter of ethics while leaving out the fact they have been convicted of offences that have an ethical basis is lying by omission. You can't help it. Lying is in your blood stream. You have this in common with Trump.
I think I would have never heard of El Mahjuob Dazza, but for you -- this must be around the 7th time you bring it up in these threads in the last 4 years.
Around 3 years ago, in one of the threads, I said:
"what really shows Dazza is more extreme is the low RET% value, producing a 140 Off-score, off the charts (1 in 100,000 worst case at sea level; 1 in 10,000 worst case at altitude)"
"What is tragic is that he could have trained at high altitude, raising his blood values legally, creating a win-win-win scenario for him, his competitors, and the sport."
"They should stop using (altitude) as a defense, and use it as a clean way to keep their RBC high."
C'mon now, the dopers are training at high altitude to screw with the ABP - hypoxia training influences ABP biomarkers similar to EPO usage. And in the case of EPO "microdosing" - this technique is hardly distinguishable from exposure with hypoxia training:
And with the Kenyan dopers, one of primarily defenses they use in the CAS hearings is that their hematological anomalies are explained by their living & training at altitude.
In the Kiptum hearing, his defense team argued that his 60 hct/0.83 RET% & OFF-score of 148 taken on the eve of the Valencia HM where he smoked the WR was due to his living & training in altitudes of 2000m (~6500 ft) & 2300m (~7500 ft). What a barrel of laughs. 🤣
Are you the one now casting doubt on the ABP? Sure, altitude is a known confounder, but the question is why are they blood doping at all, if altitude is already providing the desired blood value increases in a risk-free way? If you poor water in a full glass, you just get a wet table.
They should stop, and take full advantage of the high altitude.
What I can't find in your posts is where you try to address this question about performance: how are Kiptum's blood values related to his personal performance? Did the extra EPO and RBC make him any faster than alitude alone? Did it make him slower? You told me you had "tons of data showing cause & effect" -- can you post again some of most important data establishing this causal relation between the increase in blood values and the decrease of stopwatch values, for these road-racing events like the marathon and half-marathon?
Kiptum's nullified record is now 47 seconds slower than the world record, and 5 years later, he is outside of the top-10, and just the 8th fastest Kenyan. I wonder if he could have run faster if his blood weren't unnaturally thick, potentially hindering the flow of oxygen to his muscles, and the flow of CO2 and H+ from the muscles.
I also wonder if all these times since 2018 have more to do with new shoes, than with doping, especially considering the increased anti-doping effort from the AIU focused on Kenya from 2017 onwards.
To quote someone as an authority on a matter of ethics while leaving out the fact they have been convicted of offences that have an ethical basis is lying by omission. You can't help it. Lying is in your blood stream. You have this in common with Trump.
To quote someone as an authority on a matter of ethics while leaving out the fact they have been convicted of offences that have an ethical basis is lying by omission. You can't help it. Lying is in your blood stream. You have this in common with Trump.
What Trump does is project his faults onto others, like you do here. You are creating a false narrative, as well as omitting facts.
I did not quote Salazar "as an authority on a matter of ethics". I provided a quote "as an authority on a matter of his beliefs", and predicted that this stated belief would be dismissed (enter the unwitting obliviot arguing against non sequitur conclusions no one made -- fulfilling the prediction).
I do not rely on quotes that I consider to be an "appeal to authority" fallacy. This includes Salazar quotes that start with "I believe ..." or "I think ...".
