rekrunner wrote:
.That's a scientifcally valid approach -- to look for confirmation of your "EPO works at the top for everyone" hypothesis by observing patterns in real world observations. Here are two possibilities:
1) if we do see better performances, then "maybe" it was drugs, and it's worth a further look; or
2) if we don't see "effective" performances, drugs or no drugs, for a large majority of the population, then we need to re-think the claim that EPO is effective at producing better performances "for everyone at the top".
Given the "universalness" and the assumed prevalence of abuse, "effective" performances shouldn't be restricted to East Africans and the odd North African. We shouldn't have to dig below the top 40 to find the best example we can find of EPO effectiveness, from a runner actually busted for a steroid.
I am sure other posters have pointed out the flaws in this. Your approach is not scientifically valid, and the argument that you are tyring to make is not at all coherent because you have no given for "universalness".
In the 1990s there was not even any test for EPO. And you do not know who was or who was not using EPO - unless you have some undisclosed evidence such as you witnessed every single elite in the EPO era injecting themselves with EPO - and that you personally tested the contents of the syringes in the lab as you and/or other posters seem to not believe the syringes lableled to contain EPO in the Jama Aden bust actualy contained EPO.
The only "scientific approach" to try and start from in this instance is to look at the cases where you know or have good reason to believe that some elite was using EPO and then to look at how their performances changed. Several people have pointed this out to you several times in this thread but you do not seem to understand it.