Aras Kaya, "turkish" x-kenyan gets 3 years for EPO.

I would think if you believe altitude works then you must also believe epo works.

Wouldn't epo be more effective on athletes with hereditary adaptation to altitude?

Loot at this event. The last time a Brit won was in 1984/1985.
compare the contrast in results that happened in the 70s.

en.wikipedia.org

San Silvestre Vallecana

The San Silvestre Vallecana is an annual 10 km road race held on 31 December in Madrid since 1964, in the borough of Vallecas, Spain. It has two editions: a fun run for amateur athletes and an elite race for professional athl...

Open link

Who was "doping" at that time?

Do you have any quotes from athletes, coaches, management, and doctors? Without specific quotes, it would be hard to judge whether they are right, and about what. I know a certain coach of some of the fastest atheltes here who many fans want to claim is wrong.

If the standard is to support what you say with facts and evidence, then many fans still have some homework to do.

Actually my claim is that you lack "deep knowledge". I have taken a deeper look at historical performances, looking for trends.

You are the first one to say that athletes from all countries dope, because they "know" better than I do, and they would all be stupid not to. In fact, you'd have to be a full-fledged doping denier to think that non-Africans were not also full-throttle doping with EPO, especially in the 1990s, when there was no test for EPO or transfusions and no WADA and no USADA, and they were getting spanked on the track for nearly a decade before the first test.

Now you speak of 30 years the drug has been on the market. What I do know about performances is that in those 30 years, non-Africans struggled to beat the (doped or non-doped) pre-EPO performances of the 1980s. Whenever I asked "why so few, and then by so little", everyone agreed there were so few, and by so little, despite 30 years of EPO, and the ease with which to avoid detection, but there was no common agreement as to why -- just about a dozen personal pet theories.

i cant think of any,apart from the dsd runners,who dont need to dope.

Trends are that - trends, not all encompassing absolutes. There were , in the period between when EPO was first used to boost endurance performance, to when tests to prove it had been used as PED, many elite enduros from many countries who didn't use it. No of course I can't prove a negative 30+ years after the event. Probably some of the non-dopers I refer to have seen this thread. Many people reading this thread will know the non-dopers involved. It's largely about moral compass. An off the cuff, and admittedly imperfect analogy; does EVERYONE cheat on taxes as far as they possibly can because they assess the risk of being caught as so small that they should get away with everything they possibly can?

Leave the non-video related stuff out of this thread you stupid idiots. This is why we can’t have nice things.

Jesus, you are a f*cking moron. It is known that thousands of athletes have doped over the years but you expect them to go on the public record and talk about the benefits of a practice that would earn them disgrace as well as a ban. In the end, every post you make is an attempt to maintain the lies you tell yourself about doping.

You base all your arguments on data that you do not have, which is that you don't know which athletes were clean and which were doped. And then you seek to draw conclusions on the effects of doping based on that ignorance, that crucial lack of data. But most ignorant of all, you think your mere speculations enable you know better than the countless athletes who have the very experience of doping that you lack. When anyone who uses a simple antiinflammatory or painkiller can experience and observe its effect, that you don't think they would also experience and observe the effects of vastly more powerful substances like EPO shows what a stupid arrogant b*stard you are.

Is EPO a performance enhancing drug? Yes or no.

The answer might blow away the childlike mind, but ... it can be, but it depends. Can you be more specific?

For example, if the athlete training for a length of time at altitude has already achieved the scientifically observed average enhancement of 3%-6.5% from altitude training, which stimulates natural production of EPO, will synthetic EPO enhance performance further? I have some doubt.

It is you and Coevett who have both said "thousands of athletes", appealing to their alleged knowledge and experience and some alleged benefit, yet not providing anything specific. Here we don't have the words of these athletes, just the words of Coevett and Armstronglivs.

I cannot judge if these athletes (or coaches/management/doctors) are "right" without a specific statement from them, and the basis for it, if any.

Participation levels in athletics plummetted after the mid 80's when doped up Africans started to dominate. The emergence of ultra-proffessional sports such as football and rugby did not help either. You seem to be arguing that the emergence of hundreds of doped up Africans dominating athletics in the late 80's proves that athletes before them were doping?

You are confusing my arguments with your own fabricated strawmen, and as usual, just handwaving generalisms without specificity.

One of my arguments is that you have not yet done your homework to support your mythological beliefs in the power of potions with real world data and observations. This is indeed my conclusion based on data I don't have.

Otherwise, I base all of my arguments and ideas about performance on the data I have. With respect to 30 years of the best non-African performances, my conclusion of "so few, and then by so little", doesn't require knowing if the best few are doped, or not doped. This is a property of the entire set combined, and each subset, including the set of doped runners, and the set of non-doped runners, shares the same property, and the same conclusion "so few, and then by so little".

I’ll take falsehoods for $800, Alex.

Have you asked any of the altitude-trained runners who are using it - as well as any other form of doping they employ?

There are billions of people in this planet. Millions engage in competitive sport. If only a fraction of them are doping that means they will number in their thousands. For many athletes, they will be as fanatical about succeeding as you are with trying to prove they aren't doping.

It depends on the fraction, doesn't it?

I don't try to prove "they aren't doping" -- this is one of many strawmen, which suggests you must agree with what I say, or else why fabricate what I don't say, if it is not just to have something to disagree with.

Like you, I accept that prevalence is also some fraction, that even experts like Howman do not know.

It's uncanny how much we have in common.

Is that the standard?

I guess that means both you and Coevett have you asked each and everyone of the "thousands of athletes (who) have doped over the years" what was their actual experience and what they really learned and what was their motivation?

It should be straightforward then for you to provide some of the best "quotes from athletes, coaches, management, and doctors", rather than blaspheming personal insults.

Surely you are not just some hypocritical "f*cking moron" pretending that the knowledge and experience of the doped athletes and anti-doping experts coincidentally overlaps with your wishful but unfounded beliefs, without actually asking some of them.