'We Can Now Estimate the Effect of Blood Doping'

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

The past is relevant.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

The past is relevant.

When it suits you. You are full of sh*t.

rekrunner wrote:

I used the evidence of a fairly complete list of the best all-time performances, as well as known doping prevalence statistics by country from various sources.

A classical rekrunner. You have to do more than put two things side by side to show a link between them.

rekrunner wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Lol - that is exactly what you did here:

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

Lol -- this coming from the poster with one of the lowest bars for "evidence".

I used the evidence of a fairly complete list of the best all-time performances, as well as known doping prevalence statistics by country from various sources.

correlation is not causation in your world.

You have just (in your own methodology) mixed in a huge amount of faith and belief to jump from one to the other.

This is exactly the same thing you accuse other people of doing.

rekrunner is a liar wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Lol -- this coming from the poster with one of the lowest bars for "evidence".

I used the evidence of a fairly complete list of the best all-time performances, as well as known doping prevalence statistics by country from various sources.

correlation is not causation in your world.

You have just (in your own methodology) mixed in a huge amount of faith and belief to jump from one to the other.

This is exactly the same thing you accuse other people of doing.

But he's allowed to do that. But only him.

rekrunner is a liar wrote:

correlation is not causation in your world.

You have just (in your own methodology) mixed in a huge amount of faith and belief to jump from one to the other.

This is exactly the same thing you accuse other people of doing.

While it is true that "correlation is causation", not just in my world but every sane and logical world, this type of response is premature. It could make sense as a response, if anyone had already established correlation.

We are not there yet.

The better question is, what does "not correlation" show?

It is not wrong to use faith, but you should not deny you are doing so, or attempt to pawn off faith as knowledge, and you should not expect your faith to be able to change mine.

casual obsever wrote:

A classical rekrunner. You have to do more than put two things side by side to show a link between them.

Nice move of goalposts. You jumped from "no evidence" to "no link between evidence".

But it is fundamentally mistaken. I'm not trying to establish a link, but rather the opposite -- saying it seems that there is no link, based on the failure to observe one.

For a brief tutorial on how to show cause and effect:

rekrunner wrote:

rekrunner is a liar wrote:

correlation is not causation in your world.

You have just (in your own methodology) mixed in a huge amount of faith and belief to jump from one to the other.

This is exactly the same thing you accuse other people of doing.

While it is true that "correlation is causation", not just in my world but every sane and logical world, this type of response is premature. It could make sense as a response, if anyone had already established correlation.

We are not there yet.

The better question is, what does "not correlation" show?

It is not wrong to use faith, but you should not deny you are doing so, or attempt to pawn off faith as knowledge, and you should not expect your faith to be able to change mine.

YOUR CLAIM is that doping is not effective for non-African runners, based on their times in YOUR LIST.

You are the one that claimed a correlation and a causation.

Do you need me to bump YOUR POST?

rekrunner is a liar wrote:

YOUR CLAIM is that doping is not effective for non-African runners, based on their times in YOUR LIST.

You are the one that claimed a correlation and a causation.

Do you need me to bump YOUR POST?

No need, because you will probably get it wrong.

In response to this false caricaturization:

"doping doesn't help distance runners - especially Africans".

Here is what I said: "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 ineffective for non-Africans in distance events".

Note that this claim is what "I think" "historical observation" of performances "seems" to show for non-Africans.

Whether it is weak or strong, or right or wrong, is immaterial. The claim is that I think the African performance observation is less strong than the non-African one.

Nothing about this claim qualifies as "correlation" or "causation".

I've never seen someone go on for so long about being sure that they are unsure about something.

Can you even answer a yes or no question where you have to check a box?

rekrunner wrote:

Whether it is weak or strong, or right or wrong, is immaterial.

Weak or strong, right or wrong, the opposite is true.

Evidence: see the historic top performances, and doping prevalences.

physics defiant wrote:

I've never seen someone go on for so long about being sure that they are unsure about something.

Can you even answer a yes or no question where you have to check a box?

He is just trolling us. See above for abundant evidence.

Anyone who has to constantly explain what he really meant is someone caught out in his own falsehoods and contradictions. Words become escape routes. That is indeed you.

My words speak for themselves, in the context with which they were written.

I don't stand by anyone's re-wording of my words.

rekrunner wrote:

My words speak for themselves, in the context with which they were written.

.

And the language used is gibberish.

rekrunner wrote:

My words speak for themselves, in the context with which they were written.

I don't stand by anyone's re-wording of my words.

Of course you don't. It's your "re-wording of your words" that you stand by. Whatever that means. As I said previously, you have attained Olympic levels of bullsh*t.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

My words speak for themselves, in the context with which they were written.

I don't stand by anyone's re-wording of my words.

Of course you don't. It's your "re-wording of your words" that you stand by. Whatever that means. As I said previously, you have attained Olympic levels of bullsh*t.

Another myth you have created.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Of course you don't. It's your "re-wording of your words" that you stand by. Whatever that means. As I said previously, you have attained Olympic levels of bullsh*t.

Another myth you have created.

And you myth again.

If the percent drop results in these way faster times then I can see why the blood doping was rampant.