I'm not sure what I'm supposed to find in this tweet, or in points 6) and 7).
Ross Tucker didn't talk about testing at all.
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to find in this tweet, or in points 6) and 7).
Ross Tucker didn't talk about testing at all.
You can "learn" that athletes in the 80s benefited greatly from virtually unlimited steroids (just look at old pictures, and times of the strength and shorter distance events), and had to cut back in the 90s. In quotation marks, because it's old, well established news.
Quite comparable to EPO actually, which was unlimited in the 90s, and since then one had to be increasingly careful with it.
Neither implies that one can't use those drugs anymore. You are arguing too black and white here.
If you look back at Boulami when he was on a tear, really on fire, Steve Ovett was commentating and he said a classic line that was something like, 'I don't know what he injected into his leg...but it seems to have worked.' Somebody can find it, I can't seem to find many of his races on youtube, just his 7:55.
casual obsever wrote:
As often, Tucker gathered useful data, for example summarized here:
https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/756872770093473792
The event that gets little attention is the 400m hurdles, there have been a lot of drugs in that event over the years. Look how old the WR is. We joke about no clean sub 10 (100m) or sub 13 but I doubt that there has ever been a clean sub 48s 400H.
Nothing in Ross' tweet, even points 6) and 7) help us understand how, or even if, testosterone testing was different for non-Africans, assuming that testosterone even mattered, and why "unlimited EPO use" of the '90s had a rather small impact on non-African performances. More than that, we learned which "athletes in the 80s benefited greatly from virtually unlimited steroids", and which did not. If you look at the distance events that I analyzed, you can plainly see from both my data and Ross's data, which athletes in the '80s benefited from the "unlimited steroids": - The 1990 women's record for the 1500m (and 800m) is strong - The remaining 1990s records, for both men and women, were weak Historically, steroids of the 1980's, wasn't a huge factor in distance events, and especially not for the men. Ross seems to agree: "(steroid) doping then, drives women’s performances (in power events and field events) to unreachable limits. At least, in some events, for 30 years. It doesn’t do this for men. Why? Because the effect of testosterone (and similar anabolic androgens) is significantly larger for women than for men." This is why earlier, I acknowledged the effect for women, but not for the men. How does EPO compare? Here's what he says about EPO between 1990 and 2004: "But what of the 1990s and endurance events? In the third table above, I showed the ranking of the WR in 1990 and 2004. That cutoff date of 2004 was chosen because it represents more or less the back end of an era in which EPO is known to have been used and undetectable in endurance sport. We don’t know this for track and field, mind you, but cycling. Track running had very few EPO positives, whereas cycling had a ton of investigations and confessions (most of which were also not detected)." "...the arrow indicates when EPO became commercially available. Does this mean that all those performances were doped? Of course not. It could well be a group of exceptional athletes who drove performances down without any illegal assistance." Keep in mind Ross Tucker wants to be the first word, and not the last word. He wants to stimulate discussion with data and his "high level observations", not finish the discussion with definitive conclusions. He describes his analysis as "superficial". In his own words: "I am also not trying to offer any rules, only general, ‘high-level’ observations, so please forgive me if I leave out a piece of the puzzle that you see. I hate to be superficial, but I offer this post mostly as data and a discussion starter." "Anyway, that’s not causal in any way, it’s just observational,"
casual obsever wrote:
You can "learn" that athletes in the 80s benefited greatly from virtually unlimited steroids (just look at old pictures, and times of the strength and shorter distance events), and had to cut back in the 90s. In quotation marks, because it's old, well established news.
Quite comparable to EPO actually, which was unlimited in the 90s, and since then one had to be increasingly careful with it.
Neither implies that one can't use those drugs anymore. You are arguing too black and white here.
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
The event that gets little attention is the 400m hurdles, there have been a lot of drugs in that event over the years. Look how old the WR is. We joke about no clean sub 10 (100m) or sub 13 but I doubt that there has ever been a clean sub 48s 400H.
Bang on. It did come up a number of times here, when looking at the lenient USADA. We all know who the Chair of their Board of Directors is.
rekrunner wrote:
Nothing in Ross' tweet, even points 6) and 7) help us understand how, or even if, testosterone testing was different for non-Africans, assuming that testosterone even mattered, and why "unlimited EPO use" of the '90s had a rather small impact on non-African performances.
What now? Not another straw man discussion please. If you would have read what I wrote (hint: I didn't mention African/non-African, impact, ...), you could have responded to that.
For simplicity, here it is again:
casual obsever wrote:
You can "learn" that athletes in the 80s benefited greatly from virtually unlimited steroids (just look at old pictures, and times of the strength and shorter distance events), and had to cut back in the 90s. In quotation marks, because it's old, well established news.
Quite comparable to EPO actually, which was unlimited in the 90s, and since then one had to be increasingly careful with it.
Neither implies that one can't use those drugs anymore. You are arguing too black and white here.
Is your attention span so short that you forgot why you wrote it, and what you were actually responding to? For simplicity, here it is again:
rekrunner wrote:
But for athletics, one of the suggestions is that, in the 1990s steroid and blood transfusion testing became so effective, that any large effect from EPO, was severely reduced by the inability to take steroids and blood transfusions that were so popular in the 1980s, like taking 3-steps forward, and 2-steps back. And this near 100% effective steroid testing was virtually world-wide, even in closed countries like Russia, and in China, for the Chinese (except for Chinese women in two Chinese meets), for a decade, while 0% effective for remote villages in East Africa, and in Morocco, who were able to combine steroids and EPO, without any limit.
This is your hypothesis (funny you thought it was a 12-year old), and Ross Tucker's tweet doesn't support it.
If your saying that your response has nothing to do with the previous context, then I agree, I don't see the connection either.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Nothing in Ross' tweet, even points 6) and 7) help us understand how, or even if, testosterone testing was different for non-Africans, assuming that testosterone even mattered, and why "unlimited EPO use" of the '90s had a rather small impact on non-African performances.
What now? Not another straw man discussion please. If you would have read what I wrote (hint: I didn't mention African/non-African, impact, ...), you could have responded to that.
For simplicity, here it is again:
casual obsever wrote:
You can "learn" that athletes in the 80s benefited greatly from virtually unlimited steroids (just look at old pictures, and times of the strength and shorter distance events), and had to cut back in the 90s. In quotation marks, because it's old, well established news.
Quite comparable to EPO actually, which was unlimited in the 90s, and since then one had to be increasingly careful with it.
Neither implies that one can't use those drugs anymore. You are arguing too black and white here.
rekrunner wrote:
Is your attention span so short that you forgot why you wrote it, and what you were actually responding to?
For simplicity, here it is again:
0/10....Cheesy Gary.
rekrunner wrote:
Is your attention span so short that you forgot why you wrote it, and what you were actually responding to?
For simplicity, here it is again:
rekrunner wrote:
....
This is your hypothesis (funny you thought it was a 12-year old)
0/10, really.
Note that you cited your hypothesis, not mine. Hint: I says "rekrunner wrote"...
Come back when you can put a bit more thought into your trolling.
doping is it a level playing field
besides the obvious societal and environmental factors , altitude ,poor ,blah blah blah ..
that dont need to mention again and again
1.
the recent dubai marathon is beyond obvious epo use at very least,.........
the near orgy at end showes you usual rules dont apply here
ethiopians could be on a tear come the summer
got rid of meldonium and replaced with similar mildronate alpha , do you like to run at altitude .....
obviously needs to be used with igf-1 ., thought might see less of dibaba , iaaf enabled , no chance.
2.
a list of athletes that have ever visited Dr Hans
well connected ,backed by elite or some big group or team is only way seeing this fellow
if that does not indicate choosen status then what does. ..paula ,bolt.
these athletes are worth to much to their backers to be injured
and many are pushing various agenda's , like ruining a sport .
3.
always the usual suspects
that best dope finds its hands into .
again suggest that their is an agenda .by elite backers and corporations companies , nike etc
like what is happening within long distance in america at moment.
home grown scene was better than been in awhile but can not have that , m.a.g.a.
in come korir and afew others and he is doping like the best to top insult off.
not a once off athlete , or ncca thing . this was effort to bring in many at once
all honest americans should be repulsed by all invovled as should kenyans
he is nothing short of a mercenary .
4.
the whole MICERA cover up showes level of collusion between iaaf /wada and athletes and agents /backers .
it doesnt fit your epo timeline nor progression of records and fact only ever in few hands showes this fact
and its use was largely shut down as clearly too good at what does , ramzi , and never made it to widespread use .
as no one was supposed to be using it before 2008 if listem to wada amd refusal to retro test or find anything .
or
the fact that general public never heard of speed peptide now that its use is widespread but still largely controlled
or fact how made its way into certain hands and nations as in jamaica when first hits scene or teenagers hands .
the whole narrative is been controlled,
where was the chinese version of su bingtian before this ped and now if can use with mildronate alpha can get that bit more
watch out.
aduck2022 wrote:
doping is it a level playing field
besides the obvious societal and environmental factors , altitude ,poor ,blah blah blah ..
that dont need to mention again and again
1.
the recent dubai marathon is beyond obvious epo use at very least,.........
the near orgy at end showes you usual rules dont apply here
ethiopians could be on a tear come the summer
got rid of meldonium and replaced with similar mildronate alpha , do you like to run at altitude .....
obviously needs to be used with igf-1 ., thought might see less of dibaba , iaaf enabled , no chance.
2.
a list of athletes that have ever visited Dr Hans
well connected ,backed by elite or some big group or team is only way seeing this fellow
if that does not indicate choosen status then what does. ..paula ,bolt.
these athletes are worth to much to their backers to be injured
and many are pushing various agenda's , like ruining a sport .
3.
always the usual suspects
that best dope finds its hands into .
again suggest that their is an agenda .by elite backers and corporations companies , nike etc
like what is happening within long distance in america at moment.
home grown scene was better than been in awhile but can not have that , m.a.g.a.
in come korir and afew others and he is doping like the best to top insult off.
not a once off athlete , or ncca thing . this was effort to bring in many at once
all honest americans should be repulsed by all invovled as should kenyans
he is nothing short of a mercenary .
4.
the whole MICERA cover up showes level of collusion between iaaf /wada and athletes and agents /backers .
it doesnt fit your epo timeline nor progression of records and fact only ever in few hands showes this fact
and its use was largely shut down as clearly too good at what does , ramzi , and never made it to widespread use .
as no one was supposed to be using it before 2008 if listem to wada amd refusal to retro test or find anything .
or
the fact that general public never heard of speed peptide now that its use is widespread but still largely controlled
or fact how made its way into certain hands and nations as in jamaica when first hits scene or teenagers hands .
the whole narrative is been controlled,
where was the chinese version of su bingtian before this ped and now if can use with mildronate alpha can get that bit more
watch out.
insightful...rekrunner should pay attention to the this.
rekrunner wrote:
Nothing in Ross' tweet, even points 6) and 7) help us understand how, or even if, testosterone testing was different for non-Africans, assuming that testosterone even mattered, and why "unlimited EPO use" of the '90s had a rather small impact on non-African performances.
More than that, we learned which "athletes in the 80s benefited greatly from virtually unlimited steroids", and which did not. If you look at the distance events that I analyzed, you can plainly see from both my data and Ross's data, which athletes in the '80s benefited from the "unlimited steroids":
- The 1990 women's record for the 1500m (and 800m) is strong
- The remaining 1990s records, for both men and women, were weak
Historically, steroids of the 1980's, wasn't a huge factor in distance events, and especially not for the men. Ross seems to agree:
"(steroid) doping then, drives women’s performances (in power events and field events) to unreachable limits. At least, in some events, for 30 years. It doesn’t do this for men. Why? Because the effect of testosterone (and similar anabolic androgens) is significantly larger for women than for men."
This is why earlier, I acknowledged the effect for women, but not for the men.
How does EPO compare? Here's what he says about EPO between 1990 and 2004:
"But what of the 1990s and endurance events? In the third table above, I showed the ranking of the WR in 1990 and 2004. That cutoff date of 2004 was chosen because it represents more or less the back end of an era in which EPO is known to have been used and undetectable in endurance sport. We don’t know this for track and field, mind you, but cycling. Track running had very few EPO positives, whereas cycling had a ton of investigations and confessions (most of which were also not detected)."
"...the arrow indicates when EPO became commercially available. Does this mean that all those performances were doped? Of course not. It could well be a group of exceptional athletes who drove performances down without any illegal assistance."
Keep in mind Ross Tucker wants to be the first word, and not the last word. He wants to stimulate discussion with data and his "high level observations", not finish the discussion with definitive conclusions. He describes his analysis as "superficial". In his own words:
"I am also not trying to offer any rules, only general, ‘high-level’ observations, so please forgive me if I leave out a piece of the puzzle that you see. I hate to be superficial, but I offer this post mostly as data and a discussion starter."
"Anyway, that’s not causal in any way, it’s just observational,"
Tucker has a ranking scale for who he thinks is doping.
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
Tucker has a ranking scale for who he thinks is doping.
Yeah, and there was a fun thread here:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7610954Look at this comment for example on page 1:
Seventhly, I am not a cheat.:
Yeah, I'd think that even half the brojos would go higher than 7 for Radcliffe (on a "suspicion scale", not a likelihood scale).
aduck2022 wrote:
the fact that general public never heard of speed peptide now that its use is widespread but still largely controlled
Is the speed peptide GHRP-2 or the IGF-1 spectrum?
Just the same, the "suggestion" I wrote about came from you, as well as repeated criticisms, like I ignored steroids for men, or that I forgot about how unlimited steroid use in the 80s, and restricted steroid use post-1990 explains the observed lack of performance. If you claim your hypothesis is not yours, we can close this now without any further discussion. The hypothesis about steroids driving performance for distance events in the '80s, and improved steroid testing post-1990 hindering performance, is a failed hypothesis without evidence, with the exceptions of the women's 1500m and 800m.
casual obsever wrote:
Note that you cited your hypothesis, not mine. Hint: I says "rekrunner wrote"...
Come back when you can put a bit more thought into your trolling.
Noted and duly filed.
Let's Get To The Bottom Of This wrote:
aduck2022 wrote:
???
insightful...rekrunner should pay attention to the this.
So do I.
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
Tucker has a ranking scale for who he thinks is doping.
rekrunner wrote:
Just the same, the "suggestion" I wrote about came from you, as well as repeated criticisms, like I ignored steroids for men, or that I forgot about how unlimited steroid use in the 80s, and restricted steroid use post-1990 explains the observed lack of performance.
If you claim your hypothesis is not yours, we can close this now without any further discussion.
The hypothesis about steroids driving performance for distance events in the '80s, and improved steroid testing post-1990 hindering performance, is a failed hypothesis without evidence, with the exceptions of the women's 1500m and 800m.
You're in left field Gary - you have no idea what you're talking about on this. There are a few men's 800m specialists who have tested positive for roids over the decades, and even more men in long distance & the marathon. For example, here's a couple of notable 800m guys:
Hezekiél Sepeng (Nandrolone)
Khalid Tighazouine (Nandrolone)
Who can ya trust? wrote:
pariah wrote:
Those of you obsessed with drugs, that's who. And you people are a huge part of the doping problem.
Huh? The people who are the huge part of the problem are the cheaters themselves and the organized doping programs:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operaci%C3%B3n_Galgohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operaci%C3%B3n_Puerto_doping_casehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_in_Russiahttps://www.outsideonline.com/1966061/kenya-has-doping-problem-does-anyone-have-solution
I don't see it as cheating, just stupid pseudoscience. Young athletes will believe anything drug wise. So will most people when they are constantly bombarded with misinformation about athletic performance.
So spreading misinformation is part of the problem. With regard to EPO we are supposed to believe that the homeostatic limit of oxygen uptake can be exceeded to improve performance. This is nonsense, your body would overheat and glycogen depletion be more rapid.