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 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".
Lots of self-projection packed in here from the resident Mr. Pot. Your false arrogance and resorting to more insults only tells me you don't really know anything.
Since you have long run out of intelligent arguments, now you are creating a new false standard, while falling back to your comfy place of not-so-clever insults. Remind me again, where do rate by your own standard? What is your actual experience with doping elite athletes? Is it any more than "none"? Is it also something you have "ever done"? Have you regularly seen "up to 3%" gains never achieved without doping?
The question you accuse me of ducking is in fact a false question -- a red-herring.
If you can break away from your deep-rooted religion and beliefs for one instant, under the scientific method, the default, when data is lacking globally -- like here -- is that any proposal or educated guess is called a hypothesis. This requires no experience to determine.
It is not just academic studies which lacks the necessary data. The data can be found nowhere and has been provided by no one. The burden of providing such data confirming the proposed effect falls on those making the claim that some proposed relation exists. And it is not just providing the data -- they have to do the work to show the relation is not spurious, or confounded by other factors. Pointing to the existence of supporting data would be your burden, or "Passport Doping", or the "mind-blowing" youtuber, or the dozens of other pseudo-knowledgeable anonymous nobodies on this forum, or the academic researchers, or if we are lucky, some of the thousands of coaches and athletes. But tellingly, you are unable to provide any such supporting data, and yet you still believe so strongly, you are obliviotly unaware how heavily you rely on faith and fallacy, and resort to self-defensive emotions when your beliefs are challenged.
Regarding academic studies, it is not me, but posters like "Passport Doping" who give weight to the "informed opinions" of academic anti-doping "experts", like Malm, Schumacher, Ashenden, etc., and now Iljukov, often reminding me that I am unqualified to challenge such "experts" "in the field". Whether they are right or wrong, the question is, do they have any data confirming such predictions for elite distance running athletes running their best performances? If the answer is "no", and it is, then they are just speculating like everyone else. If we want to pretend the answer is "yes", then we need to consider the limitations of such data -- and often they themselves tell us it is too limited to project any conclusions onto elite athlete performance. When it comes to elite performance, they are at best making educated guesses -- in another word, hypothesis.
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".
Lots of self-projection packed in here from the resident Mr. Pot. Your false arrogance and resorting to more insults only tells me you don't really know anything.
Since you have long run out of intelligent arguments, now you are creating a new false standard, while falling back to your comfy place of not-so-clever insults. Remind me again, where do rate by your own standard? What is your actual experience with doping elite athletes? Is it any more than "none"? Is it also something you have "ever done"? Have you regularly seen "up to 3%" gains never achieved without doping?
The question you accuse me of ducking is in fact a false question -- a red-herring.
If you can break away from your deep-rooted religion and beliefs for one instant, under the scientific method, the default, when data is lacking globally -- like here -- is that any proposal or educated guess is called a hypothesis. This requires no experience to determine.
It is not just academic studies which lacks the necessary data. The data can be found nowhere and has been provided by no one. The burden of providing such data confirming the proposed effect falls on those making the claim that some proposed relation exists. And it is not just providing the data -- they have to do the work to show the relation is not spurious, or confounded by other factors. Pointing to the existence of supporting data would be your burden, or "Passport Doping", or the "mind-blowing" youtuber, or the dozens of other pseudo-knowledgeable anonymous nobodies on this forum, or the academic researchers, or if we are lucky, some of the thousands of coaches and athletes. But tellingly, you are unable to provide any such supporting data, and yet you still believe so strongly, you are obliviotly unaware how heavily you rely on faith and fallacy, and resort to self-defensive emotions when your beliefs are challenged.
Regarding academic studies, it is not me, but posters like "Passport Doping" who give weight to the "informed opinions" of academic anti-doping "experts", like Malm, Schumacher, Ashenden, etc., and now Iljukov, often reminding me that I am unqualified to challenge such "experts" "in the field". Whether they are right or wrong, the question is, do they have any data confirming such predictions for elite distance running athletes running their best performances? If the answer is "no", and it is, then they are just speculating like everyone else. If we want to pretend the answer is "yes", then we need to consider the limitations of such data -- and often they themselves tell us it is too limited to project any conclusions onto elite athlete performance. When it comes to elite performance, they are at best making educated guesses -- in another word, hypothesis.
You outdid yourself. There is a full toilet-roll there. However it doesn't change the fact that you have no data nor any experience of doping in which you can say with any authority that doping doesn't help the well-trained athlete.
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.
You outdid yourself. There is a full toilet-roll there. However it doesn't change the fact that you have no data nor any experience of doping in which you can say with any authority that doping doesn't help the well-trained athlete.
As did you. Your response to "no one has the data" is to say I "have no data". Classic Headstronglivs.
What I can say with full authority is that it will remain an unconfirmed hypothesis, and popular belief, until such data is provided, regardless of my experience.
You outdid yourself. There is a full toilet-roll there. However it doesn't change the fact that you have no data nor any experience of doping in which you can say with any authority that doping doesn't help the well-trained athlete.
As did you. Your response to "no one has the data" is to say I "have no data". Classic Headstronglivs.
What I can say with full authority is that it will remain an unconfirmed hypothesis, and popular belief, until such data is provided, regardless of my experience.
Medical science is based on various levels of experiments with increasing levels of certainty and thus it is reasonable to take evidence from the sub elite as one would assume the researchers and peer reviewers would be fully aware of the parameters.
Only a non reading non educated troll would ignore this.
Medical science is based on various levels of experiments with increasing levels of certainty and thus it is reasonable to take evidence from the sub elite as one would assume the researchers and peer reviewers would be fully aware of the parameters.
Only a non reading non educated troll would ignore this.
Is it reasonable? Researchers on sub-elites tell us it is not reasonable, because there are limitations.
In any case, we don't really even have the right data for sub-elites either. Usually the sub-elite data made available is "before intervention" versus "after intervention", or "doped" versus "controls". Neither of these kinds of data show that the sub-elite subjects can actually run faster "with blood-doping" than "without".
The speculated hypothesis is that blood-doping will result in superior super-natural performances, yet there is really no sub-elite evidence that blood doping enabled sub-elites to run 3-5% better than their personal bests in their best events.
You outdid yourself. There is a full toilet-roll there. However it doesn't change the fact that you have no data nor any experience of doping in which you can say with any authority that doping doesn't help the well-trained athlete.
As did you. Your response to "no one has the data" is to say I "have no data". Classic Headstronglivs.
What I can say with full authority is that it will remain an unconfirmed hypothesis, and popular belief, until such data is provided, regardless of my experience.
If "no one" has any data that necessarily includes you. And of course you have no experience. You have "full authority" of nothing in this discussion. You are a joke.
As did you. Your response to "no one has the data" is to say I "have no data". Classic Headstronglivs.
What I can say with full authority is that it will remain an unconfirmed hypothesis, and popular belief, until such data is provided, regardless of my experience.
Medical science is based on various levels of experiments with increasing levels of certainty and thus it is reasonable to take evidence from the sub elite as one would assume the researchers and peer reviewers would be fully aware of the parameters.
Only a non reading non educated troll would ignore this.
Rekrunner doesn't agree with you, that you can apply inferences from sub-elite doping experiments to elite and professional competitors.
The reason he says that is that sub-elite doping experiments show performance gains. That is what he wishes to deny with elites - who nonetheless continue to dope.
Medical science is based on various levels of experiments with increasing levels of certainty and thus it is reasonable to take evidence from the sub elite as one would assume the researchers and peer reviewers would be fully aware of the parameters.
Only a non reading non educated troll would ignore this.
Is it reasonable? Researchers on sub-elites tell us it is not reasonable, because there are limitations.
In any case, we don't really even have the right data for sub-elites either. Usually the sub-elite data made available is "before intervention" versus "after intervention", or "doped" versus "controls". Neither of these kinds of data show that the sub-elite subjects can actually run faster "with blood-doping" than "without".
The speculated hypothesis is that blood-doping will result in superior super-natural performances, yet there is really no sub-elite evidence that blood doping enabled sub-elites to run 3-5% better than their personal bests in their best events.
As I said above. In rekrunner's world doping doesn't aid top athletes - even though no top athletes have participated in any doping studies and he personally has no experience of doping.
Is it reasonable? Researchers on sub-elites tell us it is not reasonable, because there are limitations.
In any case, we don't really even have the right data for sub-elites either. Usually the sub-elite data made available is "before intervention" versus "after intervention", or "doped" versus "controls". Neither of these kinds of data show that the sub-elite subjects can actually run faster "with blood-doping" than "without".
The speculated hypothesis is that blood-doping will result in superior super-natural performances, yet there is really no sub-elite evidence that blood doping enabled sub-elites to run 3-5% better than their personal bests in their best events.
As I said above. In rekrunner's world doping doesn't aid top athletes - even though no top athletes have participated in any doping studies and he personally has no experience of doping.
As I have said before; you have no idea of the principles and methodology of medical and scientific research.
You think medical textbooks are wrong.
Go get an education and go away until you have one.