All dopers, everywhere, have a "belief" that doping will help them. They are mostly right. That's why they do it. If they are wrong - as you suggest - then we might infer that Kenyans are dumber than everyone else, because they dope more than anyone else in the sport. Is that what you're saying? Kenyans are stupid?
I agree with your first statement. The rest is you preaching your gospel to reinforce your own beliefs. As I just told Coevett, repetition does not make it more persuasive.
"Stupid" and "dumber" are your personal judgements based on limited and inconclusive and biased information.
Kenyans aren't the ones here trying to tell me that someone's "belief" in doping was right or that doping helped their performance. It is posters like you, "inferring" their experience and attempting to palm that off as "knowledge".
You claim that it is only a "belief" that doping enhances performance - especially amongst altitude-trained elites. If that is so there are thousands of ignorant athletes who believe what isn't true. From the numbers caught Kenyans have shown they are amongst the biggest believers in doping. If your claim is correct it follows then that Kenyans are amongst the dumbest in the sport for believing what isn't true. That is the logical inference of your claim. But it clearly isn't one that you have thought through or wish to acknowledge.
He improved 3 minutes over 10k after going on EPO. If he was able to train harder, that is what EPO enabled him to do. It's one of the significant benefits of peds.
This is part of the mythology. No one said Lombard trained "harder". His reduction of volume likely enabled fuller recovery.
And Lombard simply isn't that interesting in a discussion about today's elite running. His 27:33 would have been relevant in the 1960s or early 1970s.
It is the lack of better examples than Lombard during 28 years and during the EPO-era, among doping believing athletes worldwide that I find most telling.
So he didn't train harder but improved by 3 minutes? But that couldn't be the effect of doping, could it?
I'm sure Lombard "isn't very interesting" to you, as you say. It completely undercuts your view that EPO has at best a placebo effect on top athletes that we can observe a mediocre athlete become world-class after doping. But you know it wouldn't help a top athlete because of the definitive studies we have of top athletes who have doped. Oh, wait ...
In 2022, 28 Kenyans ran between 26:54.76 (R.Yator) and 27:30.
95%of those Kenyans running low 27:00 were young Kenyan boys aged 18-23, based in Japan, where it is impossible to dope or do anything illegal. Yator 26:54, Kibet 26:55, Kiplagat 27:07, Sawe 27:09, B.Kiplagat 27:09, Masai 27:10, Rono 27:11, Ebenyo 27:11, Ruto 27:11, Kiptum 27:11, Ndiku 27:12, Sitonik 27:14, Mwangi 27:15, Kosimbei 27:15, Mburu 27:19, etc....long list. These are mostly young kids from Kenya, sons of humble Kalenjin farmers (majority) living and racing in Japan. They are all clean as whistles and legit. Impossible to dope in Japan. IMPOSSIBLE.
The point we're making is that the best athletes are clean as whistles and these manga Kenya boys in Japan are direct proof of that.
Top 100 male 10000m runners 2022:
Kenya (born) 53
rest of East Africa 16
rest of the World 31
and many of the top Kenyans prefer the road inststead of the 10000m.
From the top 100 male Marathon runners in 2022, 10 are not East African born - around 3% of the world population produces 90% of the fastest Marathon runners.
This is just not explainable by "doping", impossible.
The claim isn't that Kenyans don't have talented runners. The fact is that many of their talented runners dope. That is beyond argument.
EPO and blood doping is in use for 30 and ~50 yrs respectively
There's only maybe 3 contrarians arguing against its effectiveness
Jon orange and rekrunner are 2 of them
It's widespread use is evidence of its effectiveness.
Ferrari and Rosa and Hermens(allegedly) are not using a placebo
There are way more than three. The only contributor here with a lifetime of personal experience training elite and world record setting athletes, says that nothing is better than living and training at altitude combined with a strong mentality. If it makes you feel better, say that is because of EPO triggered by altitude.
Here is a PhD researcher who argues that the performance effectiveness of most WADA banned substances, including EPO, are largely mythical:
He participated in a meta-study analyzing the strength of a collection of blood-doping performance studies dating as far back as 1991.
"Erythropoietin doping in cycling: lack of evidence for efficacy and a negative risk–benefit" Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2013 Jun.;75(6): 1406–1421
Jules A A C Heuberger, Joost M Cohen Tervaert, Femke M L Schepers, Adriaan D B Vliegenthart, Joris I Rotmans, Johannes M A Daniels, Jacobus Burggraaf, and Adam F Cohen
Here's another meta-study arriving at a similar conclusion, not based on an evidentiarly approach, but after conducting a mathematical analysis of the results:
"Overestimated Effect of Epo Administration on Aerobic Exercise Capacity: A Meta-Analysis" American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 2013, Vol. 1, No. 2, 17-27
Hein F.M. Lodewijkx,, Bram Brouwer, Harm Kuipers, René van Hezewijk
You can always find a study that will go against the consensus (like Covid denial), and the consensus is that doping enhances performance. If it were not so then the practice would have long been discontinued. Athletes are not idiots. But some "researchers" apparently are.
It "doesn't look relevant" that microdosing improved the performances of trained athletes? Yet if it didn't improve their performances I would expect you to embrace its "relevance". So you know for a fact that microdosing wouldn't have the same or similar effect on trained elites? That's a fine piece of completely unsupported guesswork from one who claims to base his theorizing on "real world experiences". It doesn't meet your persuasions so you simply dismiss it. You are so FOS.
Another foul insult from the 20,000 troll poster.
Armstrong never reads anything that he is directed to read.
This includes any of the rules.
Liar soorer, welcome back from your detainment. This must be your 10000th alter ego.
There are way more than three. The only contributor here with a lifetime of personal experience training elite and world record setting athletes, says that nothing is better than living and training at altitude combined with a strong mentality. If it makes you feel better, say that is because of EPO triggered by altitude.
Here is a PhD researcher who argues that the performance effectiveness of most WADA banned substances, including EPO, are largely mythical:
He participated in a meta-study analyzing the strength of a collection of blood-doping performance studies dating as far back as 1991.
"Erythropoietin doping in cycling: lack of evidence for efficacy and a negative risk–benefit" Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2013 Jun.;75(6): 1406–1421
Jules A A C Heuberger, Joost M Cohen Tervaert, Femke M L Schepers, Adriaan D B Vliegenthart, Joris I Rotmans, Johannes M A Daniels, Jacobus Burggraaf, and Adam F Cohen
Here's another meta-study arriving at a similar conclusion, not based on an evidentiarly approach, but after conducting a mathematical analysis of the results:
"Overestimated Effect of Epo Administration on Aerobic Exercise Capacity: A Meta-Analysis" American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 2013, Vol. 1, No. 2, 17-27
Hein F.M. Lodewijkx,, Bram Brouwer, Harm Kuipers, René van Hezewijk
You can always find a study that will go against the consensus (like Covid denial), and the consensus is that doping enhances performance. If it were not so then the practice would have long been discontinued. Athletes are not idiots. But some "researchers" apparently are.
Oh , an other insult from the super troll that NEVER bothers to read any evidence submitted.
and many of the top Kenyans prefer the road inststead of the 10000m.
From the top 100 male Marathon runners in 2022, 10 are not East African born - around 3% of the world population produces 90% of the fastest Marathon runners.
This is just not explainable by "doping", impossible.
The claim isn't that Kenyans don't have talented runners. The fact is that many of their talented runners dope. That is beyond argument.
Many dope!
Well ; meaningless platitudes yet again from the 20,000 troll poster.
and many of the top Kenyans prefer the road inststead of the 10000m.
From the top 100 male Marathon runners in 2022, 10 are not East African born - around 3% of the world population produces 90% of the fastest Marathon runners.
This is just not explainable by "doping", impossible.
The claim isn't that Kenyans don't have talented runners. The fact is that many of their talented runners dope. That is beyond argument.
And many don't.
Many of the non Kenyans also dope - and still Kenyans dominate the top lists in the long distance events. Sorry, 53 of the 100 fastest 10000m runners in 2022 - I think I should say they "dominate" the top lists.
In reading the hearing: Dazza's very first blood draw for his ABP was on May 4 2019 on the eve of the Prague marathon where he won in a time of 2:05.58 beating several Kenyans & Ethiopians (I know - these are probably recreational club-runners that come a dime a dozen. Lol).
His sample was flagged for hematological anomalies at 99.9% specificity (less than 1 in 1000 chance of undoped) for high Hgb (17.4), low RET% (0.32), with a corresponding OFF-score of 140.
His defense team had some contentions including altitude training & a down period of training for a few weeks in April due to injury.
So, I would take it your position wouldn't change that doping had absoluteky no effect on Dazza's winning performance at Prague?
So, in summary we have three cases presented here with top elites resulting in hematological anomalies bans: Kiptum sets the HR WR, Wanjiru finishes 3rd behind Bashir & Farah at the London Half & Dazza who smokes the Prague Marathon running his 2nd fastest time - and all of them just happen have high & exceeding high blood values resulting in 99.99% & 99.9% specificity levels.
Just coincidence? Lol
I did not say "doping had absoluteky no effect". Again, my position is that I cannot draw any conclusions with so many unknowns. If you want to know what effect it had on Dazza, you have to measure what he could have done without doping. That measurement is missing.
Given the popular belief in the power of EPO and blood doping, it is unsurprising that you are able to find three examples of athletes with high blood values.
I'll just note, in response to my point that EPO didn't make non-Africans all that much faster, over a period spanning 28 years before supershoes, than their pre-EPO predecessors, you gave me the examples of a low performing non-African, two East Africans and one North African. Non-African athletes represent 85% of the world.
I agree with your first statement. The rest is you preaching your gospel to reinforce your own beliefs. As I just told Coevett, repetition does not make it more persuasive.
"Stupid" and "dumber" are your personal judgements based on limited and inconclusive and biased information.
Kenyans aren't the ones here trying to tell me that someone's "belief" in doping was right or that doping helped their performance. It is posters like you, "inferring" their experience and attempting to palm that off as "knowledge".
Why do you think we have any interest in persuading you? Would be more profitable trying to persuade a Flat Earther that the world is round.
When you start a post with "How many times do we need to keep pointing out ...", this makes me think you are interested in persuading some misnomered group of "doping apologists".
I was not aware. It doesn't look relevant to the domain of elite running performance of highly trained athletes.
Scientists keep looking at the wrong things on the wrong people.
It "doesn't look relevant" that microdosing improved the performances of trained athletes? Yet if it didn't improve their performances I would expect you to embrace its "relevance". So you know for a fact that microdosing wouldn't have the same or similar effect on trained elites? That's a fine piece of completely unsupported guesswork from one who claims to base his theorizing on "real world experiences". It doesn't meet your persuasions so you simply dismiss it. You are so FOS.
You are twisting yourself in knots, pretending this represents the "real world". Extrapolation is a fallacy, and studies like this often caution against interpreting their results in real world contexts.
Recall the study took 24 men (VO2max 55) and 24 women (VO2max 46). What do they mean by performance? I see Hgb, Mean power output, and peak aerobic power. That is not the performance I'm interested in. What do they mean by "well trained"? Was this study on sea-level non-elite non-Africans or on East Africans already adapted to low-oxygen?
In the context of elite running performance, this study, like most studies, measured the wrong things on the wrong people, over a short period of 4 weeks. This doesn't seem particularly relevant back to the real world of elite distance running.
Why do you think we have any interest in persuading you? Would be more profitable trying to persuade a Flat Earther that the world is round.
When you start a post with "How many times do we need to keep pointing out ...", this makes me think you are interested in persuading some misnomered group of "doping apologists".
Just got back from France via London and I took the opportunity to go to Hyde Park and Speakers Corner yesterday Sunday, near Marble Arch, and listened to some of the speakers some of whom were Christians and some of whom were Muslims arguing and no matter how much they argued none of them would listen really with their hearts to The other and that is the fundamental problem that we have in life - once people have made up their minds they're not going to change it and even embrace denialism.
On another note, I was really impressed how good Hyde Park is for running right in the middle of Central London - that is a magical place. You can do most of your running there on soft ground if you choose your route carefully. Despite this, I was astonished by the number of people who completely ignored the softer ground and trails and ran smack bang in the middle of the roads and paths in Hyde Park. Strange? If you have a choice between apples and crisps/ chips what will you choose ? That is the question.
Rekrunner you're seriously arguing that Kenyan doping is recent because they started doping recently ?
And not because doping enforcement was stepped up ?
Anyway these doping debates are tiresome after a few postings
Rekrunner and Armstronglives eem.to have been arguing the same points forever
I argued with 12 years of data that blood doping suspicion in 2000-2012 was less than the global average, contrasted with significantly increasing performance results in the marathon in that same timeframe.
Sure increased testing also contributes in increased positive tests.
You claim that it is only a "belief" that doping enhances performance - especially amongst altitude-trained elites. If that is so there are thousands of ignorant athletes who believe what isn't true. From the numbers caught Kenyans have shown they are amongst the biggest believers in doping. If your claim is correct it follows then that Kenyans are amongst the dumbest in the sport for believing what isn't true. That is the logical inference of your claim. But it clearly isn't one that you have thought through or wish to acknowledge.
We've been through this before. To move beyond "belief" requires more conclusive evidence not yet collected over the last 30-40 years, in order to replace the faith.
Where were these thousands of non-Africans from the EPO-era? Based on your assumptions, there must be 10s of thousands. In 2018, I counted 32 men over 28 years. I guess the rest finished behind Cathal Lombard.
This is part of the mythology. No one said Lombard trained "harder". His reduction of volume likely enabled fuller recovery.
And Lombard simply isn't that interesting in a discussion about today's elite running. His 27:33 would have been relevant in the 1960s or early 1970s.
It is the lack of better examples than Lombard during 28 years and during the EPO-era, among doping believing athletes worldwide that I find most telling.
So he didn't train harder but improved by 3 minutes? But that couldn't be the effect of doping, could it?
I'm sure Lombard "isn't very interesting" to you, as you say. It completely undercuts your view that EPO has at best a placebo effect on top athletes that we can observe a mediocre athlete become world-class after doping. But you know it wouldn't help a top athlete because of the definitive studies we have of top athletes who have doped. Oh, wait ...
Once again, you are mistaken about a few things.
"harder" is the wrong goal in training. Effective training is not the hardest training.
Lombard isn't interesting to me in any discussion about the fastest performances post 1990 because his performances were not all time historically fast. Slower athletes have more to fix, and more potential to gain.
Lombard doesn't undercut my view that placebo could be one of the sources of his improvement. It could have been a major source. His use was not blinded, and the belief is strong.
Even blood doping scientists limit their estimated effect from blood doping to "up to 1 minute" -- which potentially includes placebo effect. It's foolish to suggest three minutes.
The impact of EPO, if any, on top non-African performances has yet to be established, neither in definitive studies, nor 28+ years of real world historical top performances.
If top athletes could expect three minute gains like Lombard, we would have seen it among "The great non east Africans in the EPO era were the Spanish Moroccans Algerians and Italians etc" who "were clearly doped to the eyeballs ( Fuentes look it up)".
Your study starts out with a concession that "it was reported that 4 of 28 studies can be considered of very high quality, i.e. placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover studies."
One of Heuberger's point is that most doping performance studies are of poor quality, and the field desparately needs higher quality studies. He limited his meta-search and performance findings to the highest quality studies.
Your study says "generally reported performance-enhancing effects of ABT" yet "The likely correlation between ABT volume and endurance performance was not evident in the few available studies".
The two meta-studies I referred to generally say "the correlation ... was not evident", and that any performance-enhancing effect has been over-estimated based on insufficient evidence.
Heuberger also conducted his own time trial study, where "lab" performance (blood and lactate and power and time to exhaustion) improved, while real-world performance (ascent of the Mont Ventoux) did not.
According to Heuberger, one of the problems with studies on "well trained" amateurs is that they measure wrong things (performance in the lab) on the wrong people. Your study doesn't really address these failures.