rekrunner wrote:
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.
Oh, I'm sure.
rekrunner wrote:
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.
Sure. That's why you don't want ALL of her data. How convenient.
I want more data, I want less data, I have enough data. You're so consistent.
rekrunner wrote:
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.
And so the stuck record goes on and on - doping doesn't really work. Yet you have nothing that proves that; you base that on little more than your view of performances. You will have no idea whether those performances are clean or not because you don't have a control group to compare with them. Furthermore, performances don't have to be "extreme" to be doped - another of your assumptions. As usual, you are simply going on "faith".
Athletes, on the other hand, have the advantage of empirical comparison - their performances before and after doping. That isn't "anecdotal" for them; it is knowledge - data that you don't have.
casual obsever wrote:
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.
"might have had allegedly plausible" -- wow. That's more precise? Plausible means plausible. It doesn't mean there was evidence, or even an allegation.
By the same token, we could say there is also no evidence for the alleged blood doping.
So I guess we can also say it "might have had allegedly plausible doping causes".
Note, the IAAF addressed all jumps in their response, by saying "The values from the blood samples collected prior to 2009 could not be ... fairly compared from one sample to the next". They said it was unfair to consider any jumps before 2009.
Note also that this was a response to the accusations of the ARD, the Sunday Times, and the scientists Ashenden and Parisotto, who did not raise the issue of Paula's jumps. They only reported "suspicious" or "abnormal" off-scores.
Despite being able to be explained by Science, Paula chose to about face and hide everything.
How very convenient.
physics defiant wrote:
Sure. That's why you don't want ALL of her data. How convenient.
I want more data, I want less data, I have enough data. You're so consistent.
I don't know where that came from, but not this thread.
We can infer that the remaining data in the database would not be suspicious at sea-level.
Out of curiosity, I would be interested to know her blood data from the two world records.
I would be much more interested in all of her data if it were collected according to ABP standards.
But even then, the leaked blood data showed that high blood values were not important for winning medals in the marathon, compared to other events.
rekrunner wrote:
physics defiant wrote:
Sure. That's why you don't want ALL of her data. How convenient.
I want more data, I want less data, I have enough data. You're so consistent.
I don't know where that came from, but not this thread.
We can infer that the remaining data in the database would not be suspicious at sea-level.
Out of curiosity, I would be interested to know her blood data from the two world records.
I would be much more interested in all of her data if it were collected according to ABP standards.
But even then, the leaked blood data showed that high blood values were not important for winning medals in the marathon, compared to other events.
It doesn't matter which thread. It's the only subject you ever go on about. And on and on.
There's not enough data to infer anything but that she's hiding something.
physics defiant wrote:
Despite being able to be explained by Science, Paula chose to about face and hide everything.
How very convenient.
It seems like the right choice.
We shouldn't set a precedent that irresponsible allegations in a newspaper should pressure athletes to reveal private data, that has already been reviewed and cleared by official anti-doping organizations.
She promised.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
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.
And so the stuck record goes on and on - doping doesn't really work. Yet you have nothing that proves that; you base that on little more than your view of performances. You will have no idea whether those performances are clean or not because you don't have a control group to compare with them. Furthermore, performances don't have to be "extreme" to be doped - another of your assumptions. As usual, you are simply going on "faith".
Athletes, on the other hand, have the advantage of empirical comparison - their performances before and after doping. That isn't "anecdotal" for them; it is knowledge - data that you don't have.
It goes on an on in part because after I just got done saying "This is not a question of "doping doesn't aid performance"", you replace my words with the exact opposite "doping doesn't really work".
I have nothing to prove that, because my argument is something else.
My "faith" is that slow, medium, and fast performances can be doped, because belief runs the full gamut of talent.
Sometimes doping works, like women and steroids in events requiring strength, or Russian men in racewalking.
Once again the empirical knowledge of athletes is confounded by factors they likely did not control.
And it has little value outside of that athlete.
If, for example, we had full disclosure of all of Ramzi's doping and training and any altitude data, this would provide no insight into El G's performances.
physics defiant wrote:
She promised.
She isn't exactly an honest person, that's for sure. Also, she is a total hypocrite...
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
And so the stuck record goes on and on - doping doesn't really work. Yet you have nothing that proves that; you base that on little more than your view of performances. You will have no idea whether those performances are clean or not because you don't have a control group to compare with them. Furthermore, performances don't have to be "extreme" to be doped - another of your assumptions. As usual, you are simply going on "faith".
Athletes, on the other hand, have the advantage of empirical comparison - their performances before and after doping. That isn't "anecdotal" for them; it is knowledge - data that you don't have.
It goes on an on in part because after I just got done saying "This is not a question of "doping doesn't aid performance"", you replace my words with the exact opposite "doping doesn't really work".
I have nothing to prove that, because my argument is something else.
My "faith" is that slow, medium, and fast performances can be doped, because belief runs the full gamut of talent.
Sometimes doping works, like women and steroids in events requiring strength, or Russian men in racewalking.
Once again the empirical knowledge of athletes is confounded by factors they likely did not control.
And it has little value outside of that athlete.
If, for example, we had full disclosure of all of Ramzi's doping and training and any altitude data, this would provide no insight into El G's performances.
You have nothing to prove. OK. Keep telling yourself that.
physics defiant wrote:
She promised.
That was a naive mistake. The fans should be able to trust anti-doping organizations. If they don't, this is not Paula's fault. In this instance, the IAAF, UKAD, WADA, and the WADA IC (with retained experts) all reviewed, or had a chance to review, all of the available data in context.
rekrunner wrote:
physics defiant wrote:
She promised.
That was a naive mistake. The fans should be able to trust anti-doping organizations. If they don't, this is not Paula's fault. In this instance, the IAAF, UKAD, WADA, and the WADA IC (with retained experts) all reviewed, or had a chance to review, all of the available data in context.
Classic.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
And so the stuck record goes on and on - doping doesn't really work. Yet you have nothing that proves that; you base that on little more than your view of performances. You will have no idea whether those performances are clean or not because you don't have a control group to compare with them. Furthermore, performances don't have to be "extreme" to be doped - another of your assumptions. As usual, you are simply going on "faith".
Athletes, on the other hand, have the advantage of empirical comparison - their performances before and after doping. That isn't "anecdotal" for them; it is knowledge - data that you don't have.
It goes on an on in part because after I just got done saying "This is not a question of "doping doesn't aid performance"", you replace my words with the exact opposite "doping doesn't really work".
I have nothing to prove that, because my argument is something else.
My "faith" is that slow, medium, and fast performances can be doped, because belief runs the full gamut of talent.
Sometimes doping works, like women and steroids in events requiring strength, or Russian men in racewalking.
Once again the empirical knowledge of athletes is confounded by factors they likely did not control.
And it has little value outside of that athlete.
If, for example, we had full disclosure of all of Ramzi's doping and training and any altitude data, this would provide no insight into El G's performances.
Yawn. Blah, blah - "women, steroids, Russian racewalkers". But doping doesn't help distance runners - especially Africans. They're "naturally" doped. Sure are.
Doping has "little value outside that athlete"? Do you engage your brain before you write that stuff? How about that it can be the difference between winning, medalling - and nothing? Or a wr? The first two medallists in the 2016 Rio marathon both doped. That had nothing to do with where they placed? Ben Johnson at Seoul, Kiptum's half marathon wr, Lance Armstrong and seven yellow jerseys - and so on.
You practice stupidity so hard that it should be an Olympic event.
*Women's 2016 Rio marathon.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Yawn. Blah, blah - "women, steroids, Russian racewalkers". But doping doesn't help distance runners - especially Africans. They're "naturally" doped. Sure are.
Doping has "little value outside that athlete"? Do you engage your brain before you write that stuff? How about that it can be the difference between winning, medalling - and nothing? Or a wr? The first two medallists in the 2016 Rio marathon both doped. That had nothing to do with where they placed? Ben Johnson at Seoul, Kiptum's half marathon wr, Lance Armstrong and seven yellow jerseys - and so on.
You practice stupidity so hard that it should be an Olympic event.
Are you denying steroids for women, and blood doping for race walkers?
I guess that makes you a doping denier and a doping apologist.
My ideas and observations about doping helping is a function of talent and instant fitness and instant weakness, and not necessarily restricted to just Africans or non-Africans. In fact, on the contrary, I think one of my stronger historical observations, assuming doping is both widespread and highly effective, that doping seems largely inneffective for non-Africans in distance events, apart from steroids for women..
The fact that you understood "Doping has "little value outside that athlete"?" shows me your brain is disengaged when you read that stuff. This often seems to be the case. I did not say "doping", but I said "it", which refers back to the "knowledge and experience of athletes". The knowledge and experience of one athlete is an experiment of one, with little informative value about the experience of others.
In a discussion that alleges doping related to the fastest times, I note once again that neither Sumgong, nor Kirwa have run faster than 2:20.
If you want to talk about Ben Johnson, Kiptum's half-marathon, or Lance's yellow jersey, these are three different discussions. With respect to men's sprinting I don't doubt the beneficial role of steroids. But the experience of Ben Johnson tells us nothing about the experience of Bolt. In the past, I also rarely expressed doubts about the grand tours of cycling, unless it was a doubt about their applicability to distance running. Recent meta-studies, including a time trial up the Mont Ventoux resulting in the doped group being slower, have forced me to reconsider.
Sumgong is an experiment of one. You don't compare her time to anything else except her own natural ability.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Yawn. Blah, blah - "women, steroids, Russian racewalkers". But doping doesn't help distance runners - especially Africans. They're "naturally" doped. Sure are.
Doping has "little value outside that athlete"? Do you engage your brain before you write that stuff? How about that it can be the difference between winning, medalling - and nothing? Or a wr? The first two medallists in the 2016 Rio marathon both doped. That had nothing to do with where they placed? Ben Johnson at Seoul, Kiptum's half marathon wr, Lance Armstrong and seven yellow jerseys - and so on.
You practice stupidity so hard that it should be an Olympic event.
Are you denying steroids for women, and blood doping for race walkers?
I guess that makes you a doping denier and a doping apologist.
My ideas and observations about doping helping is a function of talent and instant fitness and instant weakness, and not necessarily restricted to just Africans or non-Africans. In fact, on the contrary, I think one of my stronger historical observations, assuming doping is both widespread and highly effective, that doping seems largely inneffective for non-Africans in distance events, apart from steroids for women..
The fact that you understood "Doping has "little value outside that athlete"?" shows me your brain is disengaged when you read that stuff. This often seems to be the case. I did not say "doping", but I said "it", which refers back to the "knowledge and experience of athletes". The knowledge and experience of one athlete is an experiment of one, with little informative value about the experience of others.
In a discussion that alleges doping related to the fastest times, I note once again that neither Sumgong, nor Kirwa have run faster than 2:20.
If you want to talk about Ben Johnson, Kiptum's half-marathon, or Lance's yellow jersey, these are three different discussions. With respect to men's sprinting I don't doubt the beneficial role of steroids. But the experience of Ben Johnson tells us nothing about the experience of Bolt. In the past, I also rarely expressed doubts about the grand tours of cycling, unless it was a doubt about their applicability to distance running. Recent meta-studies, including a time trial up the Mont Ventoux resulting in the doped group being slower, have forced me to reconsider.
"The knowledge and experience of one athlete is an experiment of one, with little informative value about the experience of others."
It doesn't tell you anything, because nothing exists unless you've read it somewhere, but the point you miss - again - is that the knowledge that the athlete possesses of the benefits they gain from their doping is manifested in the real world, in their performances. You know - those things you call "data", from which you choose to draw inferences, such as that they don't benefit from their doping. How ironic. It appears "it" does have informative value, after all.
With regard to Sumgong and Kirwa, any observation that suggests doping must be measured solely in terms of times - like some notional "qualifying" standard - shows no understanding of doping. Or how sports performance relates to race conditions. Mediocrities can also dope - and do dope - and will never be race winners, even if they are better than they were clean.
Yes, I do get that you think doping is ineffective for African distance runners. It seems they don't possess the physiology of other human beings. Interestingly, many African distance runners don't apparently agree with you, and fortunately neither does WADA.
Armstronglivs wrote:
"The knowledge and experience of one athlete is an experiment of one, with little informative value about the experience of others."
It doesn't tell you anything, because nothing exists unless you've read it somewhere, but the point you miss - again - is that the knowledge that the athlete possesses of the benefits they gain from their doping is manifested in the real world, in their performances. You know - those things you call "data", from which you choose to draw inferences, such as that they don't benefit from their doping. How ironic. It appears "it" does have informative value, after all.
With regard to Sumgong and Kirwa, any observation that suggests doping must be measured solely in terms of times - like some notional "qualifying" standard - shows no understanding of doping. Or how sports performance relates to race conditions. Mediocrities can also dope - and do dope - and will never be race winners, even if they are better than they were clean.
Yes, I do get that you think doping is ineffective for African distance runners. It seems they don't possess the physiology of other human beings. Interestingly, many African distance runners don't apparently agree with you, and fortunately neither does WADA.
I got your point -- I just think it's informative value is limited, as it is likely uncontrolled and confounded data, hardly a strong basis for any inference.
Of course mediocrities dope, and probably have more potential to gain from doping.
It seems you are not quite getting it -- my idea of doping helping is a function of talent and current fitness and current weaknesses (and I forgot to mention, the dope in question, gender, and event).
I'm not sure what many Africans believe, but I also don't agree with your claim that "Africans don't possess the physiology of other human beings".
WADA is not interested in determining performance -- they will ban any athlete regardless of performance.