No...from my standpoint they're highly suspect based on the nations they're from; Morocco & Kenyan - two nations with widespread and prevalent doping. Numerous athletes, including top level athletes who were Olympic medalists, NR holders and even a few WR holders, busted for doping from both positive tests & ABP violations. Both nations on the AIU's "most at risk for doping" list. What does that tell you? That they've been doing it clean? Lol.
Certainly, I would think if you have any logic at all that you would have concluded by now that these two running powerhouses are prevalent doping nations and have been doping for a long time. Remember when the EPO test became available and steroid testing improved in the 00's, Kenyans & Moroccans started getting busted. And this trend has continued right up to the present time getting so bad for Morocco that after a short hiatus they had to be put back on the "most at risk for doping" list. Lol.
And consider the top performing athletes getting popped - household names such as Kiprop, Kiptum, Bett, Yago, Kisorio, Jeptoo, Sumgong, Kirwa, Jebet, etc, and the Moroccans; Ramzi, B. Boulami, Mourhit, Laâlou, Goumri, Al Mahjoub Dazza, Selsouli, Hachlaf, etc.
When a nation has a lot of doping violations from the very top performing athletes all the way down to the lower tier ones, and violations involving every discipline from the 400 on up to the marathon that equals a major doping problem.
So "3 of the most suspicious" was just something from your standpoint, based on the nations they are from. Armstronglivs painted a very different picture about needing to know the detailed histories of the athletes in question. In contrast, for you it is guilt by association based on sweeping generalizations requiring nearly no knowledge of the history of individuals.
"most at risk of doping" tells me that the AIU is concerned about ensuring adequate testing.
We have seen figures that Kenyan blood doping is around the global average. This while (relative to a 1990 benchmark) Kenyans roughly outnumber the remaining East Africans combined by a factor of 2, North Africans by a factor of 7, and the rest of the world by a factor of 7.
Some of your household names are more famous for being popped than for running fast.
Morocco has been doping this whole time, and it is particularly bad now, but after El G. retired, their best performances have regressed to non-African levels.
What you assume is wrong. The only thing that you can safely assume is that I don't choose to waste my time debating dogma with a religious fanatic - as you are. Your assertion that you are better informed on sports doping than thousands of professional athletes, their coaches and physicians has rendered everything you say on the topic irrelevant. As a self-declared mathematician with an interest in statistics even you should be able to grasp the degree that you are outnumbered.
So if I understand -- this is what it looks like when you are saving time?
Since you don't back up what you say, my only possible conclusion is that your beliefs remain unsupported and that you continue to wimp out.
Note that "(I am) better informed on sports doping" is actually your assertion -- a strawman I suggested you should not have said.
My assertion, based on (at least) the two meta-studies I linked, was that EPO effect in studies among non-elites have generally been over-estimated for as long as they have been studying it, and EPO effect for elite performances is virtually unstudied.
It's an interesting thought process that you think this can be resolved by popular vote, rather than supporting conclusions with unconfounded data.
It isn't resolved by popular vote- it is resolved by popular usage, which has numbered thousands of athletes world-wide and over decades. Despite the fact that you continue to deny actually claiming superior knowledge to those athletes (and of course everyone involved in anti-doping), when the words you have used make it clear that is exactly what you were doing, your arguments amount to the same. Everyone is wrong except you. That is Trump.
It isn't resolved by popular vote- it is resolved by popular usage, which has numbered thousands of athletes world-wide and over decades. Despite the fact that you continue to deny actually claiming superior knowledge to those athletes (and of course everyone involved in anti-doping), when the words you have used make it clear that is exactly what you were doing, your arguments amount to the same. Everyone is wrong except you. That is Trump.
I said I agreed with your words -- just especially noting that they were your words.
You are wrong again -- popular usage alone is insufficient to resolve the question, and is only sufficient to show popular belief.
Popular usage, combined with a showing of effect coming from that usage, and not from other sources.
It isn't resolved by popular vote- it is resolved by popular usage, which has numbered thousands of athletes world-wide and over decades. Despite the fact that you continue to deny actually claiming superior knowledge to those athletes (and of course everyone involved in anti-doping), when the words you have used make it clear that is exactly what you were doing, your arguments amount to the same. Everyone is wrong except you. That is Trump.
I said I agreed with your words -- just especially noting that they were your words.
You are wrong again -- popular usage alone is insufficient to resolve the question, and is only sufficient to show popular belief.
Popular usage, combined with a showing of effect coming from that usage, and not from other sources.
You agree with my "words" - but not what I say? The English language is clearly a very fraught experience for you. It is as though I accept your numbers but not your figures. You are starting to sound like Gollum and his divided personality.
The high incidence of doping isn't the only factor that establishes the effects of doping but prevalence - and doping is everywhere - would defy all reason if doping were ineffective at enhancing performance. Athletes' reasoning powers don't suddenly desert them when they choose to dope - just as the capacity for reason remains with athletes who don't choose to dope, because they know it is performance enhancing and therefore cheating. But fortunately there is ample tangible evidence of the effects of doping to reinforce that athletes' views are, in this respect, rational. It is your rationality that we have reason to doubt.
You agree with my "words" - but not what I say? The English language is clearly a very fraught experience for you. It is as though I accept your numbers but not your figures. You are starting to sound like Gollum and his divided personality.
The high incidence of doping isn't the only factor that establishes the effects of doping but prevalence - and doping is everywhere - would defy all reason if doping were ineffective at enhancing performance. Athletes' reasoning powers don't suddenly desert them when they choose to dope - just as the capacity for reason remains with athletes who don't choose to dope, because they know it is performance enhancing and therefore cheating. But fortunately there is ample tangible evidence of the effects of doping to reinforce that athletes' views are, in this respect, rational. It is your rationality that we have reason to doubt.
Why do you add the phrase "but not what I say"?
If your assertion is that I am smarter than thousands of athletes and coaches and physicians, I will not dispute your words.
What I did say earlier is that you are attempting to palm off the beliefs of thousands of athletes and coaches and physicians as knowledge. I have not accepted you speak for their knowledge.
The decision to dope is not a purely rational one.
You agree with my "words" - but not what I say? The English language is clearly a very fraught experience for you. It is as though I accept your numbers but not your figures. You are starting to sound like Gollum and his divided personality.
The high incidence of doping isn't the only factor that establishes the effects of doping but prevalence - and doping is everywhere - would defy all reason if doping were ineffective at enhancing performance. Athletes' reasoning powers don't suddenly desert them when they choose to dope - just as the capacity for reason remains with athletes who don't choose to dope, because they know it is performance enhancing and therefore cheating. But fortunately there is ample tangible evidence of the effects of doping to reinforce that athletes' views are, in this respect, rational. It is your rationality that we have reason to doubt.
Why do you add the phrase "but not what I say"?
If your assertion is that I am smarter than thousands of athletes and coaches and physicians, I will not dispute your words.
What I did say earlier is that you are attempting to palm off the beliefs of thousands of athletes and coaches and physicians as knowledge. I have not accepted you speak for their knowledge.
The decision to dope is not a purely rational one.
I don't speak for athletes. Their experiences - which you lack - speak for themselves.
The decision to dope is a rational one: an athlete makes a choice to gain an advantage not possible to them through training and talent alone, and they typically do it on expert advisement as to the best means from coaches, trainers and physicians. They wouldn't do it in the numbers that do choose to dope if it didn't obtain results.
Jose Canseco, the pro baseball player, said doping makes an "ordinary athlete good, a good athlete outstanding, and an exceptional athlete invincible".
One of the sadder parts of the doping story is to see athletes busted for doping trying to regain the same level of performance clean. They can't get near to that level.
BTW, on your first point, it is basic English that you can't agree with the words I use - as you say you are - if you are not also agreeing with what I am saying. They mean the same thing. You are tying yourself in linguistic knots - not to say contradiction - when you imagine they are different.
So "3 of the most suspicious" was just something from your standpoint, based on the nations they are from. Armstronglivs painted a very different picture about needing to know the detailed histories of the athletes in question. In contrast, for you it is guilt by association based on sweeping generalizations requiring nearly no knowledge of the history of individuals.
"Generalizations" from doping nations?...too funny. Both Ukraine & Belarus are on the "most at risk for doping" list - same as Morocco. Two Slavic nations here who basically follow Russia's lead in doping methodology. I bet you don't have a problem with generalizations made with these two nations? And I concur with most of Armstronglivs' posts (he's also a lot easier to comprehend than your weird style of posting. Lol).
rekrunner wrote:
"most at risk of doping" tells me that the AIU is concerned about ensuring adequate testing.
Yes but also: most/high = great & risk = degree of probability. The probability of doping with these countries is very high (no surprises there). Morocco, Kenya, Ukraine, Belarus, Bahrain & Nigeria are all placed on "Category A: "Countries with a high doping risk and likely chance of international success." (Also, Morocco currently has 33 athletes serving doping bans!). You should quit trying to undermine the true meaning.
We have seen figures that Kenyan blood doping is around the global average. This while (relative to a 1990 benchmark) Kenyans roughly outnumber the remaining East Africans combined by a factor of 2, North Africans by a factor of 7, and the rest of the world by a factor of 7.
Doesn't account for other PEDs such as HGH, androgens, SARMs, GHRP-2, GW1516, etc. Also, Poistagova admitted to using EPO in the summer lead up to the London Olympics where her passport was deemed normal - so her doping wouldn't have been reflected on any analysis such as that.
rekrunner wrote:
Some of your household names are more famous for being popped than for running fast.
Nope - the aforementioned names are either former WR holders, Olympics/WC medalists, Top 50 all-time performances or NR holders.
rekrunner wrote:
Morocco has been doping this whole time, and it is particularly bad now, but after El G. retired, their best performances have regressed to non-African levels.
Disagree and your ad nuseam "non-African" levels is getting old. Since El G retired they've had a few sub 3:30s with one 3:28 (Iguider) plus Ramzi's double at Helsinki (1:44 800 PB in the final) and 3:29.14 PB later that year. Plus Iguider is also an Olympic medalist. El G's time was insane and will never be touched. And whether you believe it or not, sub 3:30 is very fast (no one in the U.S could do it). You must think nations with a doping problem should be turning out WR performances left & right or something crazy like that. Lol.
I don't speak for athletes. Their experiences - which you lack - speak for themselves.
BTW, on your first point, it is basic English that you can't agree with the words I use - as you say you are - if you are not also agreeing with what I am saying. They mean the same thing. You are tying yourself in linguistic knots - not to say contradiction - when you imagine they are different.
Historical performances speak for themselves, and I have analyzed the alltime historical performances, from highly doped nations and clean nations alike.
I said I agreed with the words you use. There is no contradiction. Independent of this agreement, I did not use the words you used. Independent of the words you use, we disagree what to call the experience of the athletes/coaches.
I don't speak for athletes. Their experiences - which you lack - speak for themselves.
BTW, on your first point, it is basic English that you can't agree with the words I use - as you say you are - if you are not also agreeing with what I am saying. They mean the same thing. You are tying yourself in linguistic knots - not to say contradiction - when you imagine they are different.
Historical performances speak for themselves, and I have analyzed the alltime historical performances, from highly doped nations and clean nations alike.
I said I agreed with the words you use. There is no contradiction. Independent of this agreement, I did not use the words you used. Independent of the words you use, we disagree what to call the experience of the athletes/coaches.
Your English is amongst the most strained I have ever encountered. In that respect, it reflects your thought processes. Where meaning is lost, the casualty is truth. Alas, you murdered it some time ago.
Morocco has been doping this whole time, and it is particularly bad now, but after El G. retired, their best performances have regressed to non-African levels.
Morocco ... Morocco ... Morocco?
You, Thoughsholder and El Keniano to a lower extend... always sing the same song...
Despite the fact I have always tried to elevate the value of Kenyans in this forum against all attacks.
But the realistic fact is the following:
In this AIU global list, there are currently only 17 cases from Morocco while there are 68 cases from Kenya.
We don't get our results by fraudulation, this is the game that try to past the weak and you know who they are. The nations in nostalgia with their past.
Morocco has been doping this whole time, and it is particularly bad now, but after El G. retired, their best performances have regressed to non-African levels.
Morocco ... Morocco ... Morocco?
You, Thoughsholder and El Keniano to a lower extend... always sing the same song...
Despite the fact I have always tried to elevate the value of Kenyans in this forum against all attacks.
But the realistic fact is the following:
In this AIU global list, there are currently only 17 cases from Morocco while there are 68 cases from Kenya.
We don't get our results by fraudulation, this is the game that try to past the weak and you know who they are. The nations in nostalgia with their past.
You responded to a three year old post when I was responding to "Let's tell it like it is" who often tries to convince me that there is a strong doping-performance correlation because Moroccans are "smoking fast" and also "doping".
The point I was making that, regardless of doping, which includes EPO and ABP violations, the performance of Moroccan male athletes after El G (whose world records might just have been clean) retired has regressed to pre-EPO era level of performances.
You say "We don't get our results by fraudulation" while I am saying "After El G retired, (You) don't get (your) results" period.
But let's compare your "AIU global list" metric to my performance metric. For the Kenyan men in all distance events, they have outnumbered North Africans (Morocco+Algeria) by a factor of 7.
On the "AIU global list", Kenyans outnumber Moroccans by a factor of 68/17 = 4.
Now consider, the 68 Kenyans are roughly 50/50 both men and women -- not sure how that breaks down for Morocco, but there are very few high level Moroccan women in distance running.
However it breaks down, relative to peformance, the Moroccan ratio of doping/performance is much higher than the Kenyan ratio, by at least a factor of 7/4 (already nearly the double). Once you correct for Algerians, and Moroccan women, Moroccans are outdoping the Kenyans much more than outperforming them.