'We Can Now Estimate the Effect of Blood Doping'

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Because it is quite possible that more Africans dope than anyone else and they dope more. It's called a confounder.

That's what you would need to believe to perpetuate the myth.

Now, how would you proceed to show that?

You can't refute it. That's called sticking to your own personal myth.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

That's what you would need to believe to perpetuate the myth.

Now, how would you proceed to show that?

You can't refute it. That's called sticking to your own personal myth.

Refute it? Underlying all my arguments is the theme that there remain several possibilities to explain historical observations.

So of course "it is quite possible".

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You can't refute it. That's called sticking to your own personal myth.

Refute it? Underlying all my arguments is the theme that there remain several possibilities to explain historical observations.

So of course "it is quite possible".

Coming from you, that means nothing.

rekrunner wrote:

Underlying all my arguments is the theme that there remain several possibilities to explain historical observations.

Lol, no. You only consider those "possibilities" that fit your agenda.

Proof: you just wrote this nonsense a few days ago, outright ignoring historical facts:

rekrunner wrote:

In fact, on the contrary, I think one of my stronger historical observations, assuming doping is both widespread and highly effective, that doping seems largely inneffective for non-Africans in distance events, apart from steroids for women..

To be more precise, I should have said "might have had allegedly plausible" effect.

I've considered all possibilities that have been presented to me, and consider many possibilities less likely than others at explaining performance trends.

rekrunner wrote:

To be more precise, I should have said "might have had allegedly plausible" effect.

I've considered all possibilities that have been presented to me, and consider many possibilities less likely than others at explaining performance trends.

Precision obfuscating. Such a science.

Indeed -- I am a Master of Science.

And Jon Orange has a degree in Thermoregulation Physics.

physics defiant wrote:

And Jon Orange has a degree in Thermoregulation Physics.

Are sure he isn't a Professor in "blowing out hot-air?"

Subway Surfers wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

And Jon Orange has a degree in Thermoregulation Physics.

Are you sure he isn't a Professor in "blowing out hot-air?"

Oops this thread is putting me to sleep.

rekrunner wrote:

Indeed -- I am a Master of Science.

Yeah, right - and I'm a Jedi Master.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Subway Surfers wrote:

Are you sure he isn't a Professor in "blowing out hot-air?"

Oops this thread is putting me to sleep.

There are some here who ought to be put to sleep.

Armstronglivs wrote:

There are some here who ought to be put to sleep.

Some of us are woke.

There is one here whose thinking fell asleep in the 1970's, remaining asleep for half a century.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Underlying all my arguments is the theme that there remain several possibilities to explain historical observations.

Lol, no. You only consider those "possibilities" that fit your agenda.

Proof: you just wrote this nonsense a few days ago, outright ignoring historical facts:

rekrunner wrote:

In fact, on the contrary, I think one of my stronger historical observations, assuming doping is both widespread and highly effective, that doping seems largely inneffective for non-Africans in distance events, apart from steroids for women..

As we saw, I have argued as far back as 2016 that, for the fastest performances, "doping always remains a possibility".

I'm curious to know which historical facts you accuse me now of ignoring. I have considered all of the best, all-time performance data dating as far back as the '60s, and all of the doping information available, and I have considered suggestions that they are connected -- considered them as speculation and unargued hypotheses. In most cases, they fall far short of showing a strong correlation between doping and the fastest distance performances. You have to do more than put two things side by side to show a link between them, or propose novel hypotheses to explain them.

By the way, this is the same shortcoming of this study on Russian women. It attempts to associate two things, but much more needs to be done before we can say "We Can Now Estimate the Effect of Blood Doping"

And round and round and round we go ...

I'd like to go forward but you seem stuck in the past.

rekrunner wrote:

You have to do more than put two things side by side to show a link between them, or propose novel hypotheses to explain them.

Lol - that is exactly what you did here:

rekrunner wrote:

In fact, on the contrary, I think one of my stronger historical observations, assuming doping is both widespread and highly effective, that doping seems largely inneffective for non-Africans in distance events

That's not an observation, let alone a strong or historical one, that's an absurd postulation without any evidence whatsoever.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

There are some here who ought to be put to sleep.

Some of us are woke.

There is one here whose thinking fell asleep in the 1970's, remaining asleep for half a century.

The data does not add up to half a century.

Besides that's no way to talk about Jon Orange.

rekrunner wrote:

I'd like to go forward but you seem stuck in the past.

If you were on a cliff-top I would certainly encourage you to go forward.

If the past is irrelevant then so is your 40 or so years of comparative performance data.