Your post is loaded with estimates and surveys but no facts. Please provide the statistics regarding US distance runners. I doubt that you are willing to do that because you hate facts.
Your post is loaded with estimates and surveys but no facts. Please provide the statistics regarding US distance runners. I doubt that you are willing to do that because you hate facts.
Yo Sara ian wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
how EPO makes a runner transport more oxygen while breathing less oxygen?
Nobody has ever put it this way except you. Maybe this is why you don't understand how it works. Your definition of how it "doesn't work" is not how everyone else knows how it does work.
Actually it's Armstronglivs who said it. And kept saying it, on the El Gerrouj 2000m thread.
But now you are saying it too?
So please tell us, how EPO delivers more oxygen for the same amount of air intake?
How does that work?
Between the 2 of you, perhaps you can explain it?
The most rational explanation is actually finding her best event and training. The two things that are most rational for anybody really. Doping does not create talent.[/quote]
You think the "most rational explanation" is that it has taken her the better part of 15 years to find her best event. 15 years can be twice the length of many top athletes' careers. I can't think of any champions who wasted their 20's on events that weren't their strength only to realise their talent for another event well into their 30's. It suggests that she is either not very bright - I have no reason to think that - or that her coaches weren't. Really?
The same reasoning would apply to her training; that over 15 years were spent in failing to train to bring out the best in her talent. You're not talking about a hobbyjogger here but a national level runner.
As for "doping does not create talent" - no, it doesn't but it can significantly add to the talent that is there, and can take an athlete to a higher level than they would otherwise have attained. Remember Rasheed Ramzi? Similarly, an Al Jazeera report on doping showed that a Russian female 800m runner who had run 1.56 doped couldn't break 2.01 clean. The gains from doping can be spectacular.
florida informant wrote:
Your post is loaded with estimates and surveys but no facts. Please provide the statistics regarding US distance runners. I doubt that you are willing to do that because you hate facts.
So "facts" are only those athletes who incur a doping violation - and that no other athletes are doping, even though it is a known fact that the incidence of doping is far higher?
Armstronglivs wrote:
florida informant wrote:
Your post is loaded with estimates and surveys but no facts. Please provide the statistics regarding US distance runners. I doubt that you are willing to do that because you hate facts.
So "facts" are only those athletes who incur a doping violation - and that no other athletes are doping, even though it is a known fact that the incidence of doping is far higher?
Yada yada...please tell us how EPO delivers more oxygen without breathing more air?
You were going to explain it to me, but I didn't understand your explanation. Something about more red blood cells picking up more oxygen from the same amount of air.
So how does that work?
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs, you haven't explained how EPO makes a runner transport more oxygen while breathing less oxygen?
Even though you keep saying it, you haven't explained how?
Jon, I am not interested in your bleating of the same question again and again on every thread you pop up on. I suggest if the explanations offered don't penetrate the concrete that is your cranium that you go away and do your own research and then come back and enlighten us when you have. But then you've been pushing your loony-tunes theories here for the last 20 years, haven't you?
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So "facts" are only those athletes who incur a doping violation - and that no other athletes are doping, even though it is a known fact that the incidence of doping is far higher?
Yada yada...please tell us how EPO delivers more oxygen without breathing more air?
You were going to explain it to me, but I didn't understand your explanation. Something about more red blood cells picking up more oxygen from the same amount of air.
So how does that work?
The only correct part of that statement is that you didn't understand the explanation. I know an exercise in futility when I see one, so I will concede your ignorance will always emerge victorious over any effort to enlighten you.
Yo Sara ian wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Your questions show you don't know anything about doping. An athlete could dope at any time in their career - it could be years ago or last week. The improvements from some drugs will be felt in a very short period - a few weeks would demonstrate the benefits of some, like EPO or blood doping, while other stimulants could have an effect the day they were taken.
I am not interested in when Hall may have commenced doping - if she has - as it is irrelevant to the question of whether the level she has attained at 37 could possibly be the result of doping or be clean. If she had doped she could have done so a few weeks before her 2.20 race, taken stimulants that day, or commenced micro-dosing some years ago. All are possible.
My only point, which I reiterate in response to the thread title, is that doping could explain the remarkable increase in her performance levels at the age of 37. Only someone who is naive and knows nothing of sports doping would not see that. I guess that is you.
So you are unwilling to actually truly commit to your argument.
There is a point where you are OK with her performances as an old woman but you won't say when.
You never mentioned her when she was running high 2;20s and didn't even know she ran 2;22 twice and yet here you are now.
My point is that what she has done is very possible clean.
I presented an argument - if that is "committing to it" - but that doesn't require that it be posed as you think it should. Yes - I get that you think what she has done is "very possibly clean". Possible? Maybe. Very? No. But doped? More likely. We will have to agree to disagree.
how does that work? wrote:
Yo Sara ian wrote:
Nobody has ever put it this way except you. Maybe this is why you don't understand how it works. Your definition of how it "doesn't work" is not how everyone else knows how it does work.
Actually it's Armstronglivs who said it. And kept saying it, on the El Gerrouj 2000m thread.
But now you are saying it too?
So please tell us, how EPO delivers more oxygen for the same amount of air intake?
How does that work?
Between the 2 of you, perhaps you can explain it?
The same way anemia causes less. Dummy.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Yo Sara ian wrote:
So you are unwilling to actually truly commit to your argument.
There is a point where you are OK with her performances as an old woman but you won't say when.
You never mentioned her when she was running high 2;20s and didn't even know she ran 2;22 twice and yet here you are now.
My point is that what she has done is very possible clean.
I presented an argument - if that is "committing to it" - but that doesn't require that it be posed as you think it should. Yes - I get that you think what she has done is "very possibly clean". Possible? Maybe. Very? No. But doped? More likely. We will have to agree to disagree.
As long as you still harbor some belief that it is possible then we're on the same page, just to varying degrees.
Now lets see if you can trigger the one brain cell Jon has into understanding how EPO works.
Armstronglivs wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
Yada yada...please tell us how EPO delivers more oxygen without breathing more air?
You were going to explain it to me, but I didn't understand your explanation. Something about more red blood cells picking up more oxygen from the same amount of air.
So how does that work?
The only correct part of that statement is that you didn't understand the explanation. I know an exercise in futility when I see one, so I will concede your ignorance will always emerge victorious over any effort to enlighten you.
Answer the question, how EPO delivers more oxygen from the same volume of air?
How does that work?
Yo Sara ian wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I presented an argument - if that is "committing to it" - but that doesn't require that it be posed as you think it should. Yes - I get that you think what she has done is "very possibly clean". Possible? Maybe. Very? No. But doped? More likely. We will have to agree to disagree.
As long as you still harbor some belief that it is possible then we're on the same page, just to varying degrees.
Now lets see if you can trigger the one brain cell Jon has into understanding how EPO works.
I thought you were going to tell us all how EPO delivers more oxygen from the same volume of air?
How does that work?
how does that work? wrote:
Yo Sara ian wrote:
As long as you still harbor some belief that it is possible then we're on the same page, just to varying degrees.
Now lets see if you can trigger the one brain cell Jon has into understanding how EPO works.
I thought you were going to tell us all how EPO delivers more oxygen from the same volume of air?
How does that work?
A truck load of EPO arrives at a Moroccan training camp. The vials are offloaded on a conveyer belt and the athletes line up to grab the vials off the conveyer belt. But there is so much EPO that a considerable amount goes past and falls off the conveyer belt.
Somebody puts out a call and a whole bunch of Kenyans show up and grab their share. Much less EPO falls off the belt.
The truck represents a lungful of air, the conveyer belt is the bloodstream, the vials are the Oxygen the Moroccans are the RBCs, the phone call is the EPO and the Kenyans are the increased RBCs from the phone call .
As a metaphor.
Your statement is completely illogical as is typical of most of your posts. Provide the numerical data to prove the percentage that are doping. I can present the data to show the percentage of Americans that are doping but you won't like it because you live in world of opinions.
florida informant wrote:
Your statement is completely illogical as is typical of most of your posts. Provide the numerical data to prove the percentage that are doping. I can present the data to show the percentage of Americans that are doping but you won't like it because you live in world of opinions.
No you can't present that data. It is only your estimate - and not shared by any official antidoping source. But believe in the "purity" of Americans, by all means.
Yo Sara ian wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
I thought you were going to tell us all how EPO delivers more oxygen from the same volume of air?
How does that work?
A truck load of EPO arrives at a Moroccan training camp. The vials are offloaded on a conveyer belt and the athletes line up to grab the vials off the conveyer belt. But there is so much EPO that a considerable amount goes past and falls off the conveyer belt.
Somebody puts out a call and a whole bunch of Kenyans show up and grab their share. Much less EPO falls off the belt.
The truck represents a lungful of air, the conveyer belt is the bloodstream, the vials are the Oxygen the Moroccans are the RBCs, the phone call is the EPO and the Kenyans are the increased RBCs from the phone call .
As a metaphor.
But he will still ask, how does that work?
Yo Sara ian wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I presented an argument - if that is "committing to it" - but that doesn't require that it be posed as you think it should. Yes - I get that you think what she has done is "very possibly clean". Possible? Maybe. Very? No. But doped? More likely. We will have to agree to disagree.
As long as you still harbor some belief that it is possible then we're on the same page, just to varying degrees.
Now lets see if you can trigger the one brain cell Jon has into understanding how EPO works.
Sadly, one brain cell is not enough- it never has been for poor Jon. If there was ever an argument for doping to improve intelligence, he would be it. Now I've raised that, he will ask - how does it work?
Armstronglivs wrote:
Yo Sara ian wrote:
As long as you still harbor some belief that it is possible then we're on the same page, just to varying degrees.
Now lets see if you can trigger the one brain cell Jon has into understanding how EPO works.
Sadly, one brain cell is not enough- it never has been for poor Jon. If there was ever an argument for doping to improve intelligence, he would be it. Now I've raised that, he will ask - how does it work?
Incidentally EPO is used for brain injuries . Jon could use some.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4829112/Incidentally EPO is used for brain injuries . Jon could use some.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4829112/[/quote
]
He will still ask, how does it work? Some conditions may be incurable.