C'mon...rekrunner - you're being intellectually dishonest (again).
Sergei IIjoukov, Univ of Helsinki, an anti-doping expert, completed that study on the Russian women mid-d & distance runners reference their performances pre & post ABP bans & sanctions.
His conclusions were "blood doping could improve running times by 1 to 4 percent, depending on the distance but on average 2 to 3 percent."
I'm sorry. What is your point? Is that meant to respond to my post? It's intellectually dishonest for me to give "steroids for women" as an example of doping that works? Are you arguing that steroids for women in fact do not work, and that this paper sets out to prove that?
This paper seems to ignore any and all effects of steroids on women completely. They don't explain why they omitted steroids from consideration.
Where are you pulling his conclusion from? That is not the peer reviewed conclusion found in the paper, but a quote in a magazine that starts with "one way of interpreting these findings ...". What are other ways then of interpreting these findings?
As a side note, it seems like some scientists are eager to "prove" that the ABP is a deterrent. I recall the IAAF already tried to show the deterrent effect of the ABP, by comparing the 2011 WCA and 2013 WCA estimated blood doping prevelances, but finding no significant reduction, except in Russia. I suspect the real reason is that Russia was under enormous pressure around that time from the IAAF (see the IAAF Ethics Commission Report and the WADA IC reports #1 and #2), and Russia stopped all doping, including steroids and blood doping.
Another factor that these researchers ignore, can be found in Table 2: 53% of the women in 2008-2012 were sanctioned. Maybe the 2013-2017 group was slower because many of the faster women from 2008-2012 were sanctioned and could not compete in 2013-2017.
Finally, the conclusion in the paper is "It can be reasonably speculated ...". Let all these weasel words sink in. All this analysis and graphs and discussion, and the best they can say is that reasonable speculation is possible.
So, are you trying to discredit another expert in the field? (first it was Schumacher, then Malm, then your former mentor Alberto Salazar, Lol).
lIjoukov says his conclusions based on his research is that blood doping can provide an average of 2% -- 3% improvement in performance.
So, why don't you email him or something & criticize his research - perhaps even have a debate with him?
Sergei Iljukov, MD, Sports & Exercise Medicine Phydician, Anti-doping as field of professional expertise:
You are halfway there. Without speculating, can you tell me what would his clean performances have been? Then we can start to talk about "efficacious" and "benefit".
Your first post was five paragraphs of "use" without one single mention of any single athlete with a performance gain attributable to that use. Now with Kiptum, you still haven't established that he benefited from his use.
These arguments might persuade you, but I find them completely uncompelling.
What do you mean I'm halfway there?
You seem to be killing the messenger - I've merely reported on the details of Kiptum's hearing from an anti-doping perspective. I've posted the link that provided the details of his case, the ABP data on Kiptum and the conclusions reached by the three anti-doping experts, as well as the defenses that Kiptum's team presented at the hearing.
Do I know what Kiptum's clean performances would have been? No...do you?
What I know is from the details of the case is that his Hct was 60% at or near the Valencia HM where the WR was set, and his Hct near 60% at or near the Dhabi marathon where he finished 2nd running a personal best.
Additionally, what I know from the details of the case is that the three anti-doping experts unanimously concluded that the high Hcts, the RETs %, and corresponding OFF-Scores met the 99.99% specificity level where these numbers are less than 1 in 10,000 chance of being undoped.
Do you agree with the anti-doping expert's interpretation of the data, and their conclusions reached in the case? (assuming you've read the case in it's entirety).
Furthermore, what I know from the details of the case, Kiptum's two performances from Valencia & Dhabi were disqualified for doping. This would seem that a benefit was, in fact, established & that Kiptum couldn't in the eyes of the anti-doping experts achieve the results at the two races clean (why else would the IAAF disqualify the results?).
Do agree that his results should have been disqualified for doping or do you think he should have been given a break - because according to you a "benefit" hasn't been established?
So, this is just one of many ABP hematological anomalies cases that I presented over the years with various athletes convicted & banned for doping (remember the old days where I brought these some of ABP cases up for review and you & "Aragon" debated me & "casual observer?"). As long as these cases are being published for the general public to review, we should appreciate the transparency to review them.
I assume since you've never argued against the conclusions reached by the anti-doping experts - you agree the athletes were doping & support the bans & disqualification of results?
You are halfway there. Without speculating, can you tell me what would his clean performances have been? Then we can start to talk about "efficacious" and "benefit".
Your first post was five paragraphs of "use" without one single mention of any single athlete with a performance gain attributable to that use. Now with Kiptum, you still haven't established that he benefited from his use.
These arguments might persuade you, but I find them completely uncompelling.
What do you mean I'm halfway there?
You seem to be killing the messenger - I've merely reported on the details of Kiptum's hearing from an anti-doping perspective. I've posted the link that provided the details of his case, the ABP data on Kiptum and the conclusions reached by the three anti-doping experts, as well as the defenses that Kiptum's team presented at the hearing.
Do I know what Kiptum's clean performances would have been? No...do you?
What I know is from the details of the case is that his Hct was 60% at or near the Valencia HM where the WR was set, and his Hct near 60% at or near the Dhabi marathon where he finished 2nd running a personal best.
Additionally, what I know from the details of the case is that the three anti-doping experts unanimously concluded that the high Hcts, the RETs %, and corresponding OFF-Scores met the 99.99% specificity level where these numbers are less than 1 in 10,000 chance of being undoped.
Do you agree with the anti-doping expert's interpretation of the data, and their conclusions reached in the case? (assuming you've read the case in it's entirety).
Furthermore, what I know from the details of the case, Kiptum's two performances from Valencia & Dhabi were disqualified for doping. This would seem that a benefit was, in fact, established & that Kiptum couldn't in the eyes of the anti-doping experts achieve the results at the two races clean (why else would the IAAF disqualify the results?).
Do agree that his results should have been disqualified for doping or do you think he should have been given a break - because according to you a "benefit" hasn't been established?
So, this is just one of many ABP hematological anomalies cases that I presented over the years with various athletes convicted & banned for doping (remember the old days where I brought these some of ABP cases up for review and you & "Aragon" debated me & "casual observer?"). As long as these cases are being published for the general public to review, we should appreciate the transparency to review them.
I assume since you've never argued against the conclusions reached by the anti-doping experts - you agree the athletes were doping & support the bans & disqualification of results?
Has this slipped from what I have understood is reks position that it unclear what benefit doping brings to whether someone is guilty?
Also it must be remembered that bans are based on a “positive result “ and need no for assumption of actual enhancement.
Sounds like you really are confused, mixing at least five discussions in two threads five years apart with at least three posters. When did I bring in the 1500 m? You mentioned it in the post I responded to. Don't assume, and stay on topic. If you want, tell us at some point why you are doing all this, and as how many posters.
Your "conclusion" that I challenged was "assumptions of high prevalence, and high effect for elite athletes, are incompatible with the reality of the low quantity and low quality of elite non-African EPO-era performances for nearly three decades." If you would stop mixing threads and posters, that would be obvious, I cited that now what? 4 times?
Many problems with that as mentioned. You didn't define "high prevalence" and "high effect", but then argue that all I am saying is invalid because of my similarly vague statement " doping does not work (well or significantly or whatever)" - which you even cited falsely!
And that is not all! You yourself wrote just two days ago: "I believe that "EPO works", just like "altitude works"'.... but apparently according to you only you are allowed to make such statements.
"low quantity and low quality" was also not defined; later you seem to imply that you mean similar results like during the 80s. That doesn't sound like low quantity and low quality to me. Tell that to Willis, Radcliffe, Flanagan, Meb, Mo, Rupp, Jager, Shobubkova and so on.
You also didn't mention EPO during the paragraphs preceding that one; those were all generally about doing such as "the athletes know about doping" and "how you can ignorantly suggest doping effect is greater than all other non-doping factors combined". You sneaked that in later for no reason.
Let me know when you want to start to have a dedicated one-on-one honest and serious discussion under your current handle. I'm ready whenever you are.
It was "moron or not" who brought 1500m into the discussion, and you, as "reminderer" who picked up the baton. If you don't care about 1500m, what is the topic I should stay on then? I'm not married to the 1500m. My comments and observations and doubts similarly apply to all men's distance events from the 1500m to the marathon. They generally apply to the same women's distance events too, when you account for the maturity of the respective events, and for steroids.
When "moron or not" talks about me ""concluding" that EPO didn't work", I think I am permitted to clarify what my beliefs about EPO are, including providing the basis for it. I think everyone is allowed to make such statements in a public forum that encourages discussion.
Similarly, it was "Armstronglivs" that added the context of athletes knowing about doping when I was talking about athletes telling us the performance benefits of shoes and tracks. This thread is about EPO-era performances, so there is no bait-and-switch of EPO for doping. If you have any substantial evidence linking any doping with performance benefits for elite distance performances, this forum encourages that kind of discussion.
It's curious you say you don't know my definitions for high prevalence, high effect, low quantity and low quality, but still conclude my statement is "hysterically wrong". Are you sure there aren't other unknowns like my definition of "compatible"? Shall I spend a paragraph defining every term I use?
Is there any reasonable definition of quality and quantity that would enable anyone to argue a reality that non-Africans produced high quantities of high quality performances between 1990-2018 in these distance events?
It's still not clear to me what you think the hysterically "right" statement is. I guess your point is that assumptions of high prevalence and high effect can be *compatible* with 28 years of low quantities and low quality performances.
If you are not prepared to have that serious and honest discussion, and prefer instead to tell me what I said in a bunch of other contexts as responses to others, and criticize me for not responding only to you, I think we are at a stalemate.
I'm sure that "Willis, Radcliffe, Flanagan, Meb, Mo, Rupp, Jager, Shobubkova (sic) and so on" (ignoring Meb, and Mo are East African origin), not to mention "Coe, Ovett, Cram, Jones, Moorcroft, Lopes, Mamede, Maree, Barrios, etc." (whoops, Maree is South African) will also be happy to learn that your compatibility effectively implicates them of benefitting from the assumed high effects of doping.
Do you believe that EPO-era doping was not more powerful than pre-EPO era doping, and that it is expected to achieve "comparable results"? Do any of your athlete/coach/physician experts ever say something similar?
Do you believe that EPO-era doping was more powerful than pre-EPO era doping, and that it is expected to achieve "superior results"? Do any of your athlete/coach/physician experts ever say something similar?
This is like asking me if I believe red cars are faster than blue cars.
What I believe is that doping before and after EPO are not powerful, for elite distance running athletes when in peak shape, and the significant progress made in the last five decades have many non-doping causes.
Many athletes/coaches/scientists talk about the performance benefits of these non-doping factors.
At least one coach here at letsrun says nothing is better for distance than clean training long term at altitude.
So, are you trying to discredit another expert in the field? (first it was Schumacher, then Malm, then your former mentor Alberto Salazar, Lol).
lIjoukov says his conclusions based on his research is that blood doping can provide an average of 2% -- 3% improvement in performance.
So, why don't you email him or something & criticize his research - perhaps even have a debate with him?
Sergei Iljukov, MD, Sports & Exercise Medicine Phydician, Anti-doping as field of professional expertise:
Btw, androgens induce erythrocytosis which can increase Hct/Hgb 7% --- 10%.
Oh no, far from discrediting him, I give Iljoukov full credit for his part in forming the conclusion in the paper that "It can be reasonably speculated ...". I think that they successfully defended the potential for reasonable speculation. Same with Schumacher, and Malm, when they also express potential possibilities with phrases like "can be up to ...".
You seem obsessed with the names and degrees of people -- this risks becoming a fallacy of appealing to authority. I judge the content of what people say by the content of what people say.
For me, this paper lacks discussion of two confounders: the role of steroids for these women, and the role of the IAAF-Russian scandal as the trigger for Russia's change of behavior. This lack of content cannot be cured by pointing me to someone's degrees.
What I mean is, what about performance? If you want to talk about a performance benefit, you need to start with two comparable performances, one with the benefit, and one without. You are still only halfway there, because one data point is half of two data points.
All this talk about "use" and "blood" and Kiptum's case will not fabricate the missing data point.
Did the anti-doping experts talk about performance? This is not measured by HcT and RET%.
I would agree athletes are punished for violating rules.
Since you think I am a troll who confers only insults why are you so desperate to have me respond to your questions? You obviously hang on every word I say. You should try thinking for yourself. Sorry - silly suggestion.
To make those who may well be gullible to understand that your statements have no validity in science and can’t be substantiated.
I don't have to do that. You show that well enough by your own example.
The latter discussion in this thread has taken on the character and clarity of a dust cloud. That is what attempted serious engagement with the fanatic who calls himself rekrunner invariably produces.
To make those who may well be gullible to understand that your statements have no validity in science and can’t be substantiated.
I don't have to do that. You show that well enough by your own example.
You are the one who says medical books are wrong and that we can proceed with taking drugs as you have not experienced any side effects from taking them.
The latter discussion in this thread has taken on the character and clarity of a dust cloud. That is what attempted serious engagement with the fanatic who calls himself rekrunner invariably produces.
You refer to serious engagement when you have refused to provide one bit of evidence that you can be bothered to read anything.
Let me know when you want to start to have a dedicated one-on-one honest and serious discussion under your current handle. I'm ready whenever you are.
....
I'm sure that "Willis, Radcliffe, Flanagan, Meb, Mo, Rupp, Jager, Shobubkova (sic) and so on" (ignoring Meb, and Mo are East African origin), not to mention "Coe, Ovett, Cram, Jones, Moorcroft, Lopes, Mamede, Maree, Barrios, etc." (whoops, Maree is South African) will also be happy to learn that your compatibility effectively implicates them of benefitting from the assumed high effects of doping.
I am ignoring your distractions about what moron and armstrong said. Argue with them.
Are you excluding Meb and Mo? Hi Coevett! May I remind you that you said non-African, which includes Brits and Americans. Speaking of excluding, who else did you include when you found only 2 non-Africans faster than 3:30 since 1990? I actually find quite a few more!
I honestly don't know what you want from me. I am using your assumptions of "high effect" and "high prevalence" and your data and observations (more or less stagnation in the men's 1500 since 1990) to conclude that the effectiveness of doping basically didn't change. Hysterically wrong would be the conclusion from the above that doping post 1990 didn't work. Or wait, I am not allowed to say that. Not precise enough. Hysterically wrong would be the conclusion from the above that doping post 1990 had only a low effect. Precise enough I hope. Again, your words.
The combination of "high effect" (such as doping helps by 3-6% as you mentioned) and "high prevalence" (such as 30-50% as you mentioned, meaning 15-25 of the top-50) means that the top-2 most likely doped - again, your assumptions. Yes, that basically implicates Mo and Radcliffe etc. Again, your assumptions.
I don't have to do that. You show that well enough by your own example.
You are the one who says medical books are wrong and that we can proceed with taking drugs as you have not experienced any side effects from taking them.
I don't say medical text books are wrong. How can I? They diagnose your condition perfectly.
The latter discussion in this thread has taken on the character and clarity of a dust cloud. That is what attempted serious engagement with the fanatic who calls himself rekrunner invariably produces.
You refer to serious engagement when you have refused to provide one bit of evidence that you can be bothered to read anything.
Vile insults are your dust cloud.
They can't be insults if they are a cloud or you would not know they were insults. You always shoot yourself in the foot.
Let me know when you want to start to have a dedicated one-on-one honest and serious discussion under your current handle. I'm ready whenever you are.
....
I'm sure that "Willis, Radcliffe, Flanagan, Meb, Mo, Rupp, Jager, Shobubkova (sic) and so on" (ignoring Meb, and Mo are East African origin), not to mention "Coe, Ovett, Cram, Jones, Moorcroft, Lopes, Mamede, Maree, Barrios, etc." (whoops, Maree is South African) will also be happy to learn that your compatibility effectively implicates them of benefitting from the assumed high effects of doping.
I am ignoring your distractions about what moron and armstrong said. Argue with them.
Are you excluding Meb and Mo? Hi Coevett! May I remind you that you said non-African, which includes Brits and Americans. Speaking of excluding, who else did you include when you found only 2 non-Africans faster than 3:30 since 1990? I actually find quite a few more!
I honestly don't know what you want from me. I am using your assumptions of "high effect" and "high prevalence" and your data and observations (more or less stagnation in the men's 1500 since 1990) to conclude that the effectiveness of doping basically didn't change. Hysterically wrong would be the conclusion from the above that doping post 1990 didn't work. Or wait, I am not allowed to say that. Not precise enough. Hysterically wrong would be the conclusion from the above that doping post 1990 had only a low effect. Precise enough I hope. Again, your words.
The combination of "high effect" (such as doping helps by 3-6% as you mentioned) and "high prevalence" (such as 30-50% as you mentioned, meaning 15-25 of the top-50) means that the top-2 most likely doped - again, your assumptions. Yes, that basically implicates Mo and Radcliffe etc. Again, your assumptions.
I don't want anything from you really, except basic honesty and the golden rule. You are the one that requested an honest and serious discussion. If that is truly the case, I asked you several direct questions which were not meant to be rhetorical. For example, what do you consider is the "hysterically right" statement?
Speaking of honesty, you berated me for incorrectly citing you, and despite you quoting my conclusion "4 times", you still "falsely cite" my conclusion as: "doping post 1990 didn't work" and "doping post 1990 had only a low effect". These were not conclusions you said you challenged. Try to stay on topic.
My conclusion - the one you challenged and cited 4 times -- was that these "assumptions ... are incompatible with ... reality ..." In other words, I consider one or both assumptions invalid -- invalidated by historical reality. This effectively implicates no one based on quality performance alone. You are the one suggesting that both assumptions are valid, and thereby implicating all the athletes I mentioned.
The context of "non-African" "depending on their heritage, and not citizenship", that resulted in finding 2 non-Africans for the 1500m, can be found in another thread you didn't want to talk about. You told me to stay on topic. Is that on-topic now? Or are you the only one who gets to stray off-topic?
That response was to "moron or not" -- an exchange you consider a distraction you just said you would ignore. So much for expecting basic honesty. My response to "moron", who asked for my assumption for 10 men, specifically said: "My "closer look" only included 2 non-African men" which is a direct reference to that other thread.
You are the one who says medical books are wrong and that we can proceed with taking drugs as you have not experienced any side effects from taking them.
I don't say medical text books are wrong. How can I? They diagnose your condition perfectly.
You insist the medical books are wrong as they say the bladder is part of the digestive system and you persist in saying it is not.
The latter discussion in this thread has taken on the character and clarity of a dust cloud. That is what attempted serious engagement with the fanatic who calls himself rekrunner invariably produces.
You refer to serious engagement when you have refused to provide one bit of evidence that you can be bothered to read anything.
Vile insults are your dust cloud.
Ever ask yourself why Kenyans are being busted frequently but no other East African nations?
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.