So you quote someone for their "beliefs" but not because they are an authority on what those beliefs are? So what purpose or value is there in quoting them? No one cares what a doping cheat has to say about ethics - except you. But you shouldn't concern your little head about the ethics of doping; you can't find any dopers and if there are any athletes doping it doesn't help them, they only "believe" it does.
To understand the purpose of my posts requires reading comprehension skills you don't seem to possess or exercise. I explained the purpose quite clearly as I was faced with two contradictory beliefs, asking for direction: "Which Salazar should we believe, and which Salazar should we dismiss ...?" You unwittingly did as I predicted, dismissing the 2013 quote, and launching into an unrelated discussion about ethics.
But if you read Salazar's quote from 2013, when heeded by all athletes, it should discourage them from unethical doping, by encouraging the psychology of believing in themselves. If you choose to disregard this message, as apparently you are arguing is the ethical path, ironically this opens the doors to the unethical behavior you abhor. It is the lack of self-belief, combined with the belief in the power of doping to create supernatural performance, that tempts many athletes to turn to doping.
Any reliance now on Salazar for how athletes should conduct themselves has been discredited by his doping (and SafeSport) convictions. But that is the part of his record you either ignore or even deny.
You show your inability to understand what motivates top athletes, or indeed any athletes, when you claim without foundation that it is lack of self-belief that leads athletes to dope. Lance Armstrong lacked self belief? The reasons to dope are simple; the desire to succeed and the awareness that doping will likely increase that possibility, combined with the knowledge others will be doping. It doesn't take a sense of inferiority to make that choice; only the motivation to get to the top. Add to that the chances of being caught are slim. Doping has become the business of experts. So the sport is now full of it.
To understand the purpose of my posts requires reading comprehension skills you don't seem to possess or exercise. I explained the purpose quite clearly as I was faced with two contradictory beliefs, asking for direction: "Which Salazar should we believe, and which Salazar should we dismiss ...?" You unwittingly did as I predicted, dismissing the 2013 quote, and launching into an unrelated discussion about ethics.
But if you read Salazar's quote from 2013, when heeded by all athletes, it should discourage them from unethical doping, by encouraging the psychology of believing in themselves. If you choose to disregard this message, as apparently you are arguing is the ethical path, ironically this opens the doors to the unethical behavior you abhor. It is the lack of self-belief, combined with the belief in the power of doping to create supernatural performance, that tempts many athletes to turn to doping.
Any reliance now on Salazar for how athletes should conduct themselves has been discredited by his doping (and SafeSport) convictions. But that is the part of his record you either ignore or even deny.
You show your inability to understand what motivates top athletes, or indeed any athletes, when you claim without foundation that it is lack of self-belief that leads athletes to dope. Lance Armstrong lacked self belief? The reasons to dope are simple; the desire to succeed and the awareness that doping will likely increase that possibility, combined with the knowledge others will be doping. It doesn't take a sense of inferiority to make that choice; only the motivation to get to the top. Add to that the chances of being caught are slim. Doping has become the business of experts. So the sport is now full of it.
Agreed. Doping is now a calculated business decision, not a sign of weakness.
In reference to Stray-Gundersen study, what were the blood values reached & how long did they stay elevated upon return to sea-level? And what was the performance improvement measured with the test subjects?
...
Really rekrunner...what do you not understand about this? A top elite & a marathon NR record holder was caught!
I do understand that a "top elite & a marathon NR record holder was caught!" I was already persuaded that Dazza's blood values were not likely due solely to exposure to altitude. I understood all of that 4 years ago.
Regarding Levine and Stray-Gundersen, here is some of the blood data, oxygen data, and corresponding performance data:
After 4 weeks at altitude (2500m), the blood values increased by about 10% (Hgb from ~13.5 mg/dl to ~15.0 mg/dl) for both high-low and high-high groups. Similarly VO2max increased about 3.5%-4% from ~64-65 to ~66-67 ml/kg/min.
They didn't publish blood values post-altitude phase.
Performance in the high-low group improved by ~2.5% while performance in the high-high group actually got worse by ~0.3% (despite higher HgB and VO2max!). After returning to sea-level, both groups improved over the next three weeks: high-low ~0.6% and high-high ~1.75%.
Any reliance now on Salazar for how athletes should conduct themselves has been discredited by his doping (and SafeSport) convictions. But that is the part of his record you either ignore or even deny.
You show your inability to understand what motivates top athletes, or indeed any athletes, when you claim without foundation that it is lack of self-belief that leads athletes to dope. Lance Armstrong lacked self belief? The reasons to dope are simple; the desire to succeed and the awareness that doping will likely increase that possibility, combined with the knowledge others will be doping. It doesn't take a sense of inferiority to make that choice; only the motivation to get to the top. Add to that the chances of being caught are slim. Doping has become the business of experts. So the sport is now full of it.
No one needs to rely on Salazar to choose self-belief over doping. Nothing about Salazar's convictions gives any athlete an excuse to choose doping.
You continue to try to speak for what motivates top athletes, but you have no real knowledge. I'm not persuaded when you put your gospel in their mouths.
Lance Armstrong clearly lacked self-belief, and ethics, in 1995.
"You continue to try to speak for what motivates top athletes, but you have no real knowledge. I'm not persuaded when you put your gospel in their mouths.
Lance Armstrong clearly lacked self-belief, and ethics, in 1995."
And there you immediately contradict yourself, by presuming to speak for Armstrong and know what motivated him. You are also wrong. He believed in himself but he wanted to make sure if winning.
I have known many sportsmen and women, some of them professional, as well as high achievers in other parts of life. I have read autobiographies and listened to their interviews. I have a pretty good idea of what drives them. You, on the other hand, on your near-autistic spectrum, have no idea how other people think about anything. Which is why you have no understanding of sports and athletes and are completely reliant on "data" and statistics. People are a complete mystery to you - including yourself. It is why you try to compel anyone you are in a dialogue with to enter a world defined exclusively and narrowly by your semantic terms - your rabbit-hole. You show it with everything you say and at the same time you are utterly unaware you do this.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
No one needs to rely on Salazar to choose self-belief over doping. Nothing about Salazar's convictions gives any athlete an excuse to choose doping.
You continue to try to speak for what motivates top athletes, but you have no real knowledge. I'm not persuaded when you put your gospel in their mouths.
Lance Armstrong clearly lacked self-belief, and ethics, in 1995.
Armstrong's doping can't be reduced to a simple lack of self-belief. He made choices within a system where the illusion of choice was pervasive; win by any means necessary or be left behind. Factors like cycling's toxic culture, Armstrong's fierce determination, and the pressure to succeed blurred the lines between right and wrong.
"You continue to try to speak for what motivates top athletes, but you have no real knowledge. I'm not persuaded when you put your gospel in their mouths.
Lance Armstrong clearly lacked self-belief, and ethics, in 1995."
And there you immediately contradict yourself, by presuming to speak for Armstrong and know what motivated him. You are also wrong. He believed in himself but he wanted to make sure if winning.
I have known many sportsmen and women, some of them professional, as well as high achievers in other parts of life. I have read autobiographies and listened to their interviews. I have a pretty good idea of what drives them. You, on the other hand, on your near-autistic spectrum, have no idea how other people think about anything. Which is why you have no understanding of sports and athletes and are completely reliant on "data" and statistics. People are a complete mystery to you - including yourself. It is why you try to compel anyone you are in a dialogue with to enter a world defined exclusively and narrowly by your semantic terms - your rabbit-hole. You show it with everything you say and at the same time you are utterly unaware you do this.
The fact that Armstrong turned to doping shows he lacked belief in his own ability. But even before 1995, there is a story (sworn testimony under oath) from one of your countrymen about a 1993 series of races, when Armstrong bribed his competitors not to attack, so Armstrong could win a $1,000,000 prize, again, demonstrating a lack of self-belief in his ability to win ethically.
In any case, nothing in your history of posting suggests that you have any relevant knowledge in any relevant field. Just now, you say you have known many sportsmen and women, and have read autobiographies and listened to their interviews. And yet, there is nothing specific or verifiable. No names, no quotes, or anything else, nothing but your words that say "trust me". I also know many sportsmen and women, including a national champion, and have read autobiographies and listened to interviews. By your standard, if these athletes told you themselves they doped based on knowledge rather than belief, then they lose credibility (your standard) as dopers are cheaters, and cheaters are liars.
Rekrunner - Armstrong turned to EPO because he had no choice if he wanted to be a competitive GC guy. The prevalence of EPO in the peleton was the biggest of any sport that I've ever seen. It was literally EPO madness from the mid-90s on up!
Three-time Tour winner Greg LeMond (87, 89, 90) has said in many interviews that he couldn't keep up with the EPO-juiced peleton anymore in the mid-90s. In fact, in1994, a Belgian doctor told LeMond that if he wanted to be competitive again - go see Dr Michelle Ferrrari for EPO. Lol. LeMond said he chose to retire instead of going on rocket fuel:
Advice from celebrities and experts about the best gear and travel destinations plus guides to men's fitness, food, drinks, style and outdoor adventure from Men's Journal
And cycling powerhouse Gewiss-Ballan produced 96 Tour winner Barjne Riis (also known as "Mr. 60 percent" for his heavy use of EPO). Guess who the team doctor was for Gewiss-Ballan? If you guessed Michelle Ferrari...you gueses right! Here's the published hematocrit variations with the top riders of Gewiss-Ballan in reference to the team's systemically doping program in the mid-1990s (some of these numbers just blew me away! 😲).
"More importantly for Lance Armstrong, during the 7-year window where he won every Tour de France (1999-2005), 87% of the top-10 finishers (61 of 70) were confirmed dopers or suspected dopers."
And LA's chief rival was Jan Ulrich (97 Tour winner) who was an EPO user & has stated that he used PEDs throughout his career starting when he turn professional in 1995.
No sense in going into the performance boost that Armstrong has said he recieved from O2-vector doping (~10%) - as you have stated previously that LA is a "pathological liar" (is this your diagnosis? Lol). So, if you're not going to believe one of the most prolific dopers in the history of the sport, then there's no sense in discussing the performance boost he got from doping. 😉
No one needs to rely on Salazar to choose self-belief over doping. Nothing about Salazar's convictions gives any athlete an excuse to choose doping.
You continue to try to speak for what motivates top athletes, but you have no real knowledge. I'm not persuaded when you put your gospel in their mouths.
Lance Armstrong clearly lacked self-belief, and ethics, in 1995.
Armstrong's doping can't be reduced to a simple lack of self-belief. He made choices within a system where the illusion of choice was pervasive; win by any means necessary or be left behind. Factors like cycling's toxic culture, Armstrong's fierce determination, and the pressure to succeed blurred the lines between right and wrong.
You're largely right. But it's against rekrunner's religion to accept that.
"You continue to try to speak for what motivates top athletes, but you have no real knowledge. I'm not persuaded when you put your gospel in their mouths.
Lance Armstrong clearly lacked self-belief, and ethics, in 1995."
And there you immediately contradict yourself, by presuming to speak for Armstrong and know what motivated him. You are also wrong. He believed in himself but he wanted to make sure if winning.
I have known many sportsmen and women, some of them professional, as well as high achievers in other parts of life. I have read autobiographies and listened to their interviews. I have a pretty good idea of what drives them. You, on the other hand, on your near-autistic spectrum, have no idea how other people think about anything. Which is why you have no understanding of sports and athletes and are completely reliant on "data" and statistics. People are a complete mystery to you - including yourself. It is why you try to compel anyone you are in a dialogue with to enter a world defined exclusively and narrowly by your semantic terms - your rabbit-hole. You show it with everything you say and at the same time you are utterly unaware you do this.
The fact that Armstrong turned to doping shows he lacked belief in his own ability. But even before 1995, there is a story (sworn testimony under oath) from one of your countrymen about a 1993 series of races, when Armstrong bribed his competitors not to attack, so Armstrong could win a $1,000,000 prize, again, demonstrating a lack of self-belief in his ability to win ethically.
In any case, nothing in your history of posting suggests that you have any relevant knowledge in any relevant field. Just now, you say you have known many sportsmen and women, and have read autobiographies and listened to their interviews. And yet, there is nothing specific or verifiable. No names, no quotes, or anything else, nothing but your words that say "trust me". I also know many sportsmen and women, including a national champion, and have read autobiographies and listened to interviews. By your standard, if these athletes told you themselves they doped based on knowledge rather than belief, then they lose credibility (your standard) as dopers are cheaters, and cheaters are liars.
You keep demonstrating your autistic traits. You have no idea what drives or motivates people. Only yourself.
The choice to cheat (as in Armstrong's case) does not show lack of self belief; it rather shows a sense of entitlement - that rules are for others. That is in accordance with the highly narcissistic traits of Lance Armstrong's personality.
Of course I can't "prove" to you what I understand about people; it cannot be demonstrated through "data" and statistics - your only measure. But since that is your only way of trying to understand anything it shows you haven't a clue about people. But you show that in every post.
Rekrunner - Armstrong turned to EPO because he had no choice if he wanted to be a competitive GC guy. The prevalence of EPO in the peleton was the biggest of any sport that I've ever seen. It was literally EPO madness from the mid-90s on up!
Three-time Tour winner Greg LeMond (87, 89, 90) has said in many interviews that he couldn't keep up with the EPO-juiced peleton anymore in the mid-90s. In fact, in1994, a Belgian doctor told LeMond that if he wanted to be competitive again - go see Dr Michelle Ferrrari for EPO. Lol. LeMond said he chose to retire instead of going on rocket fuel:
And cycling powerhouse Gewiss-Ballan produced 96 Tour winner Barjne Riis (also known as "Mr. 60 percent" for his heavy use of EPO). Guess who the team doctor was for Gewiss-Ballan? If you guessed Michelle Ferrari...you gueses right! Here's the published hematocrit variations with the top riders of Gewiss-Ballan in reference to the team's systemically doping program in the mid-1990s (some of these numbers just blew me away! 😲).
"More importantly for Lance Armstrong, during the 7-year window where he won every Tour de France (1999-2005), 87% of the top-10 finishers (61 of 70) were confirmed dopers or suspected dopers."
And LA's chief rival was Jan Ulrich (97 Tour winner) who was an EPO user & has stated that he used PEDs throughout his career starting when he turn professional in 1995.
No sense in going into the performance boost that Armstrong has said he recieved from O2-vector doping (~10%) - as you have stated previously that LA is a "pathological liar" (is this your diagnosis? Lol). So, if you're not going to believe one of the most prolific dopers in the history of the sport, then there's no sense in discussing the performance boost he got from doping. 😉
If you want me "to believe one of the most prolific dopers in the history of the sport", just stop for a moment and pay special attention to your frequent use of the verb "believe". This is a red flag for me every time. We are simply not playing the same game. You want to follow the prophets of your choosing, preselected because you like what they say. I am not interested in the beliefs of others, unless they can back it up with "tons of data". Even then, it is the data that interests me, more than the belief, as even expert beliefs can be skewed by personal or hidden agendas. I see the expressed belief as a speculative hypothesis of one possibility that explains the data.
I don't doubt that many cyclists used EPO, and many cyclists competed with high blood values, and that Dr. Ferrari was prominent in doping much of the peloton.
But if you seriously want to attempt to assess the beneficial effect of EPO, by studying the case of Armstrong, you quickly hit a wall of confounders, as Lance was also taking growth hormone, cortisone, steroids and testosterone, and Actovegin and who knows what else, in a sophisticated plan with a detailed timing intricately integrated with training, designed by Dr. Ferrari to theoretically maximize the benefits. Lance also built a large team of strong soldiers, solely dedicated to Lance's victory, in order to draft him, allowing Lance to conserve energy for the mountain victories and time trials. I don't consider Lance's victories an individual achievement, but a comprehensive strategic team effort. Also, unlike most riders, Lance only seriously raced in 1 grand tour each year, while his competitors raced in 2 or 3 each year (mainly Italy and Spain). What everyone, including Lance, wants to attribute his success to EPO, I see as a product of many factors:
EPO (and transfusions) x HGH x Testosterone x Cortisone x Steroids x (???) x Drafting x Placebo
Greg Lemond was coming towards the end of a long successful career before his hunting accident. If he hadn't been shot, he would have likely won 5 TdF's in a row (if not more). Can cyclists still compete at the top ten years after taking 2nd in the UCI World Championship? I can't think of (m)any examples with careers that long. There was also the question of lead poisoning (or leaked toxins) from the pellets still in his body, and the diagnosis of mitochondrial myopathy.
So you can choose to play the game of choosing who to believe and who to follow and cherry-pick the data you like, based on the criteria of least intellectual resistance, or you can collect all the known data and attempt to perform your own consistency checks.
You keep demonstrating your autistic traits. You have no idea what drives or motivates people. Only yourself.
The choice to cheat (as in Armstrong's case) does not show lack of self belief; it rather shows a sense of entitlement - that rules are for others. That is in accordance with the highly narcissistic traits of Lance Armstrong's personality.
Of course I can't "prove" to you what I understand about people; it cannot be demonstrated through "data" and statistics - your only measure. But since that is your only way of trying to understand anything it shows you haven't a clue about people. But you show that in every post.
Nothing convinces me that "you have (any) idea what drives or motivates people." You cannot speak for Lance, just like you cannot speak for Kenyans.
You only understand what you want to understand about people.
You cannot "prove" anything about anything because you never provide anything specific or verifiable. No names, no quotes, nor anything else -- nothing but your empty words that say "trust me because I'm old and cynical and want to spread gospels about a religion 50 years in the making".
All you do is constant projection, playing childish games, and displaying superficially false arrogance with quippy non-witticisms.
No one needs to rely on Salazar to choose self-belief over doping. Nothing about Salazar's convictions gives any athlete an excuse to choose doping.
You continue to try to speak for what motivates top athletes, but you have no real knowledge. I'm not persuaded when you put your gospel in their mouths.
Lance Armstrong clearly lacked self-belief, and ethics, in 1995.
Armstrong's doping can't be reduced to a simple lack of self-belief. He made choices within a system where the illusion of choice was pervasive; win by any means necessary or be left behind. Factors like cycling's toxic culture, Armstrong's fierce determination, and the pressure to succeed blurred the lines between right and wrong.
I don't reduce it to one simple factor, but say it is clearly one of the factors.
You keep demonstrating your autistic traits. You have no idea what drives or motivates people. Only yourself.
The choice to cheat (as in Armstrong's case) does not show lack of self belief; it rather shows a sense of entitlement - that rules are for others. That is in accordance with the highly narcissistic traits of Lance Armstrong's personality.
Of course I can't "prove" to you what I understand about people; it cannot be demonstrated through "data" and statistics - your only measure. But since that is your only way of trying to understand anything it shows you haven't a clue about people. But you show that in every post.
Nothing convinces me that "you have (any) idea what drives or motivates people." You cannot speak for Lance, just like you cannot speak for Kenyans.
You only understand what you want to understand about people.
You cannot "prove" anything about anything because you never provide anything specific or verifiable. No names, no quotes, nor anything else -- nothing but your empty words that say "trust me because I'm old and cynical and want to spread gospels about a religion 50 years in the making".
All you do is constant projection, playing childish games, and displaying superficially false arrogance with quippy non-witticisms.
Of course you aren't convinced. You can't see anything beyond your highly selective and self-serving "data". You certainly can't see people.
Armstrong's doping can't be reduced to a simple lack of self-belief. He made choices within a system where the illusion of choice was pervasive; win by any means necessary or be left behind. Factors like cycling's toxic culture, Armstrong's fierce determination, and the pressure to succeed blurred the lines between right and wrong.
I don't reduce it to one simple factor, but say it is clearly one of the factors.
Lying again - as always. You said his doping showed lack of self belief. You offered nothing more.
I don't reduce it to one simple factor, but say it is clearly one of the factors.
Lying again - as always. You said his doping showed lack of self belief. You offered nothing more.
Your attention span is so short, you forgot it was an answer your own question: "Lance Armstrong lacked self belief?"
And my answer offered "ethics": "Lance Armstrong clearly lacked self-belief, and ethics."
And you are the one who reduced it to one factor, responding to: "It is the lack of self-belief, combined with the belief in the power of doping to create supernatural performance, that tempts many athletes to turn to doping."
So I offered three factors.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
Power of three
Lying again - as always. You said his doping showed lack of self belief. You offered nothing more.
Your attention span is so short, you forgot it was an answer your own question: "Lance Armstrong lacked self belief?"
And my answer offered "ethics": "Lance Armstrong clearly lacked self-belief, and ethics."
And you are the one who reduced it to one factor, responding to: "It is the lack of self-belief, combined with the belief in the power of doping to create supernatural performance, that tempts many athletes to turn to doping."
So I offered three factors.
J*sus Chr*st, you think you are offering a reason for Armstrong's doping to say he "lacked ethics" when by definition doping is an ethical offence? You are seriously the most ****** stupid poster on these doping threads.
And then you trot out an even greater idiocy, that Armstrong only "believed" doping aided him, that it couldn't have done so as a fact and he took all those risks without knowing what he was doing - which had nothing to do with the "supernatural" but simply increasing his performance level. 7 yellow jerseys says it worked. Actually, your sanity is seriously in question.
