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.
Apparently it's doesn't take much of a performance boost from EPO/blood transfusions to make a huge impact at the top elite level.
Check this video out - this is mindblowing! 🤯
In the 5000 final of the last Olympics the separation between 1st & 3rd place was a mere 1.5 seconds! If the 5th place finisher used EPO or a transfusion and received a very modest 1% boost in performance - that would translate to ~7.8 second faster time & he leapfrogs into 1st place!
And microdosing could easily produced a ~1% performance boost. Cut that down to say - just a .5% boost & that's still 3.4 seconds faster.
No wonder there's so much doping at the highest elite level when these athletes are just separated by seconds from Gold to Bronze.
Stakes are high at the top level: There's no room for losers -- only winners. The pressure on these athletes to dope must be unreal.
EPO is quite possibly the most widely used kind of doping in the endurance world, (cycling, running, olympics etc) lets take a look and see how much it costs...
Apparently it's doesn't take much of a performance boost from EPO/blood transfusions to make a huge impact at the top elite level.
Check this video out - this is mindblowing! 🤯
In the 5000 final of the last Olympics the separation between 1st & 3rd place was a mere 1.5 seconds! If the 5th place finisher used EPO or a transfusion and received a very modest 1% boost in performance - that would translate to ~7.8 second faster time & he leapfrogs into 1st place!
And microdosing could easily produced a ~1% performance boost. Cut that down to say - just a .5% boost & that's still 3.4 seconds faster.
No wonder there's so much doping at the highest elite level when these athletes are just separated by seconds from Gold to Bronze.
Stakes are high at the top level: There's no room for losers -- only winners. The pressure on these athletes to dope must be unreal.
I don't find the video all that mind-blowing -- it is just another Youtuber repeating many of the same myths in video format.
But sure, it is no wonder, with hypothetical mathematical arguments like that, that many would buy into the myths and start believing and hoping that EPO and blood doping could transform them into superhumans.
Hypothetically and mathematically, a 0.5% marginal boost could make this marginal difference between fifth and first. But in reality these athletes in question are elite athletes, already highly trained at altitude, trained to peak for Olympics. Any further gains on top of this optimally peaked state is purely hypothetical.
Apparently it's doesn't take much of a performance boost from EPO/blood transfusions to make a huge impact at the top elite level.
Check this video out - this is mindblowing! 🤯
In the 5000 final of the last Olympics the separation between 1st & 3rd place was a mere 1.5 seconds! If the 5th place finisher used EPO or a transfusion and received a very modest 1% boost in performance - that would translate to ~7.8 second faster time & he leapfrogs into 1st place!
And microdosing could easily produced a ~1% performance boost. Cut that down to say - just a .5% boost & that's still 3.4 seconds faster.
No wonder there's so much doping at the highest elite level when these athletes are just separated by seconds from Gold to Bronze.
Stakes are high at the top level: There's no room for losers -- only winners. The pressure on these athletes to dope must be unreal.
I don't find the video all that mind-blowing -- it is just another Youtuber repeating many of the same myths in video format.
But sure, it is no wonder, with hypothetical mathematical arguments like that, that many would buy into the myths and start believing and hoping that EPO and blood doping could transform them into superhumans.
Hypothetically and mathematically, a 0.5% marginal boost could make this marginal difference between fifth and first. But in reality these athletes in question are elite athletes, already highly trained at altitude, trained to peak for Olympics. Any further gains on top of this optimally peaked state is purely hypothetical.
So many top athletes engaged in seeking only "hypothetical" and not real gains. When it comes to pro athletes, the better you are the dumber you are, you are effectively saying.
But since you must have tried it yourself to make such a claim perhaps you can enlighten us from your own experience?
This post was edited 9 minutes after it was posted.
Athletes arent micro dosing.Theyre still industrial strength doping.Nothing has changed.
Have you been reading nothing.
An other non reading poster.
So ; how in 2023 do they get away with it?
The drugs continue to change, which is why WADA has to keep revising its list of banned substances, and those who manufacture them know how to "mask" them with other drugs. Howman has said they realized dopers have known how to do this over twenty years ago, in the Marion Jones era, when athletes would be able to test negative at the height of their doping cycle. Doping is a science - a very sophisticated science - and professional sport couldn't exist without it. There are huge amounts of money that go into it. Antidoping is now largely window-dressing, to make it appear sports are still largely clean. They aren't. That was lost years ago.
They get away with it,easily.Lets see,theres money to be made in sport,as well as sponsorship.While ever its lucrative,and theres money to be made,and prestige to be had, there will be mass doping.All countries are complicit.Its called corruption.Most positive drugs tests are hidden,unless athletes come from russia.
So many top athletes engaged in seeking only "hypothetical" and not real gains. When it comes to pro athletes, the better you are the dumber you are, you are effectively saying.
But since you must have tried it yourself to make such a claim perhaps you can enlighten us from your own experience?
So many top athletes engaged in seeking only "hypothetical" and not real gains. When it comes to pro athletes, the better you are the dumber you are, you are effectively saying.
But since you must have tried it yourself to make such a claim perhaps you can enlighten us from your own experience?
There is a reason they call it "dope".
But you haven't understood that it isn't the one you have settled on.
So, tell us, what has your own experience taught you about the effects of doping, since you know its effects are only "hypothetical" on top athletes?
Apparently it's doesn't take much of a performance boost from EPO/blood transfusions to make a huge impact at the top elite level.
Check this video out - this is mindblowing! 🤯
In the 5000 final of the last Olympics the separation between 1st & 3rd place was a mere 1.5 seconds! If the 5th place finisher used EPO or a transfusion and received a very modest 1% boost in performance - that would translate to ~7.8 second faster time & he leapfrogs into 1st place!
And microdosing could easily produced a ~1% performance boost. Cut that down to say - just a .5% boost & that's still 3.4 seconds faster.
No wonder there's so much doping at the highest elite level when these athletes are just separated by seconds from Gold to Bronze.
Stakes are high at the top level: There's no room for losers -- only winners. The pressure on these athletes to dope must be unreal.
I don't find the video all that mind-blowing -- it is just another Youtuber repeating many of the same myths in video format.
But sure, it is no wonder, with hypothetical mathematical arguments like that, that many would buy into the myths and start believing and hoping that EPO and blood doping could transform them into superhumans.
Hypothetically and mathematically, a 0.5% marginal boost could make this marginal difference between fifth and first. But in reality these athletes in question are elite athletes, already highly trained at altitude, trained to peak for Olympics. Any further gains on top of this optimally peaked state is purely hypothetical.
A very marginal .5% to 1% boost in performance from EPO isn't transforming anyone into "superhumans." Lol
But to reiterate, there's so much parity at the highest level of elite distance running where medalists are separated by seconds -- a mere .5% to 1% boost in performance would be a game changer for a doper.
Remember the Spanish marathoners that dominated the WC from 1995-99 that were linked to a EPO doping program?
IF NOBODY expected the Spanish Inquisition then nobody was disappointed writes Simon Turnbull in Seville. Seville happens to be where the first Court of the Inquisition was held. But there was no tightening of thumb screws, n...
Take the 97 WC - Abel Anton & Martin Fiz -- 1 & 2 -- with almost identical times (2:13:16/2:13:21). Their margin of victory over 3rd place Steve Moneghetti & 4th place Goffi was less than minute!
In the 99 WC - Anton beat Modica of Italy by only 27 seconds! (2:13:36/2:14:03).
And what about the highly trained top elites who prefer live & train at sea level not interested in altitude training for whatever reasons. A modest .5% to 1% boost in performance from EPO could be a game changer for them considering the parity that exists at the highest level of the sport
A very marginal .5% to 1% boost in performance from EPO isn't transforming anyone into "superhumans." Lol
But to reiterate, there's so much parity at the highest level of elite distance running where medalists are separated by seconds -- a mere .5% to 1% boost in performance would be a game changer for a doper.
Remember the Spanish marathoners that dominated the WC from 1995-99 that were linked to a EPO doping program?
Take the 97 WC - Abel Anton & Martin Fiz -- 1 & 2 -- with almost identical times (2:13:16/2:13:21). Their margin of victory over 3rd place Steve Moneghetti & 4th place Goffi was less than minute!
In the 99 WC - Anton beat Modica of Italy by only 27 seconds! (2:13:36/2:14:03).
And what about the highly trained top elites who prefer live & train at sea level not interested in altitude training for whatever reasons. A modest .5% to 1% boost in performance from EPO could be a game changer for them considering the parity that exists at the highest level of the sport
I don't doubt 0.5% to 1% boost would be significant for elite distance runners. This doesn't address that even these marginal proposed gains are pure speculation for these elite distance runners.
We could also hypothesize EPO and blood doping helping sea-level athletes achieve what they can also achieve at altitude. One thing to consider is that analyzing all time historical performances does not show signficant performance progress for these sea-level non-Africans during the EPO-era.
You can intepret this many ways, but at the end of the day, we are lacking real data.
They get away with it,easily.Lets see,theres money to be made in sport,as well as sponsorship.While ever its lucrative,and theres money to be made,and prestige to be had, there will be mass doping.All countries are complicit.Its called corruption.Most positive drugs tests are hidden,unless athletes come from russia.
The drugs continue to change, which is why WADA has to keep revising its list of banned substances, and those who manufacture them know how to "mask" them with other drugs. Howman has said they realized dopers have known how to do this over twenty years ago, in the Marion Jones era, when athletes would be able to test negative at the height of their doping cycle. Doping is a science - a very sophisticated science - and professional sport couldn't exist without it. There are huge amounts of money that go into it. Antidoping is now largely window-dressing, to make it appear sports are still largely clean. They aren't. That was lost years ago.
Please explain what drug revisions there was in the last banned list.?
Have you read how masking might work and how collection procedures stop this.
Why do you refer to matters 25 years ago when things have changed.
You have been asked to explain what is meant by masking and how it might work but you keep coming up with uneducated waffle.
But you haven't understood that it isn't the one you have settled on.
So, tell us, what has your own experience taught you about the effects of doping, since you know its effects are only "hypothetical" on top athletes?
I don't understand the gibberish that is your first statement.
My experience has taught me that no one has ever done what is required to confirm the hypothesis with real data.
The reason you think it is gibberish is because you conform to the meaning you have chosen for the word - you are a "dope". But that isn't the meaning of the word for dopers. Another of your stupid word games to duck a question. What did doping do for you?
Oh, I see you duck that question and interpret "experience" of doping to mean reading a bunch of academic studies that have no data from actual dopers. Sorry - that doesn't cut it; it isn't "experience" with doping - of which you have none, like everything you prattle on about. But your "experience" of doping - of which we see you have none - enables you to say the benefits from doping at the top level are only "hypothetical". It takes a jaw dropping level of stupidity to not realize how really stupid that claim is. But that is you. You are an expert on that which you have never done. What a "dope".
The drugs continue to change, which is why WADA has to keep revising its list of banned substances, and those who manufacture them know how to "mask" them with other drugs. Howman has said they realized dopers have known how to do this over twenty years ago, in the Marion Jones era, when athletes would be able to test negative at the height of their doping cycle. Doping is a science - a very sophisticated science - and professional sport couldn't exist without it. There are huge amounts of money that go into it. Antidoping is now largely window-dressing, to make it appear sports are still largely clean. They aren't. That was lost years ago.
Please explain what drug revisions there was in the last banned list.?
Have you read how masking might work and how collection procedures stop this.
Why do you refer to matters 25 years ago when things have changed.
You have been asked to explain what is meant by masking and how it might work but you keep coming up with uneducated waffle.
I suppose it is too much to expect you to have any knowledge of this when when you have been an inmate of an institution for the last twenty years.
I don't understand the gibberish that is your first statement.
My experience has taught me that no one has ever done what is required to confirm the hypothesis with real data.
The reason you think it is gibberish is because you conform to the meaning you have chosen for the word - you are a "dope". But that isn't the meaning of the word for dopers. Another of your stupid word games to duck a question. What did doping do for you?
Oh, I see you duck that question and interpret "experience" of doping to mean reading a bunch of academic studies that have no data from actual dopers. Sorry - that doesn't cut it; it isn't "experience" with doping - of which you have none, like everything you prattle on about. But your "experience" of doping - of which we see you have none - enables you to say the benefits from doping at the top level are only "hypothetical". It takes a jaw dropping level of stupidity to not realize how really stupid that claim is. But that is you. You are an expert on that which you have never done. What a "dope".
Duck a question !!!
You have never answered one in 20,000 posts but nearly always have loads of insults.
You have zero understanding of science believing that major research is wrong because you yourself have seen no ill effects of the drugs you take.
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.