i am a disciple!!!!! EPO AND PEDS DONT WORK!!!
i want to get into the white pearly gates!
i am a disciple!!!!! EPO AND PEDS DONT WORK!!!
i want to get into the white pearly gates!
lets go again ,
Is Doping A level Playing Field .......
1.
Professor ross tucker pushing usual nonsense , no agenda here , misdirection nah . help out buddies at wada .
Rupp is the big bad boggie man and ever so dirty , must give him a 10 out of 10 .
when are you going to open eyes to how doping is really being conducted by these elite groups .
bolt for me should be very near the top measure of the dirty dopers scale of track from the recent past
rupp might be dirty but the level of dishonesty/doping and backing is vastly different .
gets tested the whole time due to location and as result can rarely push his doping too far .
sure has been given green light from higher ups within federation or nike to come into races pretty fully loaded with no fear of tests , when assume set many of his pb's .
has availability of non tested epo / the sauce but can only take dope so far within tests unlike that ethiopian glow .
that 9-10 month window is all important or even just 2-3 month one that see with mo , his kick does rest .
2.
whereas bolt and jamicans had only to fear tester on afew occasions during short summer window up till 2013 /14
and assume with the backers he has ,a failed test easily remedied . if got the keys to kingdom get alot and can do alot .
falls under the queen or british imperialism and ones subjects must be rewarded and empire pushed anyway can .
again if well connected get all the best dope whether needs it
as know 9 months of untested unlimited testosteone , nontested epo variant , and speed peptide would nearly do job.
and with igf-1 your androgen profile would rebound real quick unlike in previous roid regimes , keep gains and form .
with a nice strong nontested androgen to cut and try keep top form would then be run during summer .
now we have wayde and south african wave done very much same way
wayde did i see him in a visa add , he is definitely well backed . infact imagine exactly same people .
whereas other sprinters have not quite done a jamica as starting from a different natural level and doping one .
and hard to compare or find athlete with the height as bolt and to dope them from teen years with speed peptide.
and then have a wingman similar doper in blake pop up at same time , quite young enough to gain big from it too at time .
now that is real doping way up the scale , like they have tried with several teens since but only go so far without
the tactics used by jamicans in past and upping androgens way up not quite 110 mh w.r level and destroy kidneys level
i know east germans in past doping teens/ even younger with roids would be even higher up doping scale but as know better nowadays that usually ends badly and destroy health ,growth and longevity . no fear of that with other means .
And Again ,..
Backed verses not backed by a power federation
carl lewis v ben johnson .
carl i was so well backed and connected that i could be one of only athletes
to avail of HGH for at least 2- 3 years before another and way before got approved ., califorication .
that was the next paradigm shift in sprint hgh + roids and later shift again with ben throw in heavy lifting .
I do believe that johnson was simply taken out because was in way of a made man in carl
just didnt have the powerful backers only afew local doctors and his coach and a piss weak federation
so achieved alot from alot less but the heavy lifting was key with roids and ahead of time by afew years
Regarding casual obsever, we only have to look at how he interprets Ross Tucker to see evidence of both. What he over interprets: - Steroids in the '80s for all events, including long distance, rather than just sprints and strength events - Steroid testing in the '90s reducing WR dramatically for all events, including long distance, rather than just sprints and strength events What he ignores: - These were Ross's "observations" supported by records surviving from the '80s, and a dramatic drop in the number of records in the '90s and '00s. - The strong performances in the '80s, and the dramatic drop can be seen only in women's sprints and field events, and in men's field events - This thread is about distance events between 1500m to the marathon - Ross's data (remember table 2) shows that these events did not have a dramatic drop, but in some cases, a rather dramatic increase, with the exception of the women's 1500m - Three studies that show no effect on improving endurance, or VO2max So for the purpose of this thread, looking at distance events, steroids in the '80s did not produce strong times, except women's 1500m, and "squeezing down on doping" in the '90s did not produce a dramatic drop in the number of WRs, except for women's 1500m. Despite disowning his own hypothesis, "casual obsever" has brought this up multiple times to help explain why "5 continents" did not produce faster times. Regarding what you understand of "my agenda" -- I can only agree with you that I must post things that you can not even understand. First, I do not generally talk about PEDs, except to say it is a bad term. PEDs work -- if they didn't we would call them Ds. Second, if EPO is more than marginally effective for elites, why doesn't that show up in my data of performances for "5 continents"? After all, performance is the main goal, not blood values. If my agenda is anything, it is that "PEDs" are not the only explanation for fast times. We would have to believe that Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Uganda, are all countries have a particularly rich combination of high resources, access to the best doctors, using the highest dosages, evading testing, etc., on a scale never seen before in any other sport, for decades, while at the same time all of the best athletes from all of the countries from "5 continents", including the United States, Europe, Russia, China, Australia have low resources, little access to doctors, who are anyway not the best, unable to use high doses, unable to evade testing, etc., even during a decade where no testing for EPO existed. You may find it credible, but I find it incredible. Rather we should recognize, in addition to the role of drugs, the role of other factors outside of drugs and develop a more complete understanding of what causes elite performance.
On the outside looking in wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
"casual obsever" should know better, but I'm cannot be sure he does, as he does have a habit of over-interpreting half the facts the way he wants, while ignoring any factual contradictions.
It's such a trivial matter want your name is anyway. Who cares if you're Gary, Harry or Larry - inconsequential since we're all anonymous here for the most part anyway.
Secondly, I don't see "casual observer" in the "habit of over-interpreting half the facts the way he wants, while ignoring any factual contradictions." On the contrary he provides well researched facts and insightful information that I can even understand - more than I can say for what you post most of time. But I understand...you're agenda driven in trying to establish that PEDs are benevolent & basically ineffective/marginally effective with elites. However, the evidence just doesn't support that no matter how hard you try to frame your argument statistically or otherwise. What type of PEDs, or combination of PEDs affect different disciplines is whole different debate.
You seem to be caught up in some frame of the mind that PED use is uniformed across the board and that dopers are all using the same dosages, have the same resources, all using a doping doctor, have weak OOC testing, etc., and therefore performances should all be consistent with everyone running the faster times at the top that you want to see. It never worked that way and never will - individual variances depended on a lot of factors.
Ms. Paula Radcliffe offered to put up TAKE A LIE DETECTOR TEST a LIE detector test to convince doubters, declaring: "I am innocent, I swear. I have never taken drugs."
"This is after we’d already had to explain in the summer why we were so upset because there were bad people trying to write things that were not true about Mummy."
"They looked at the figures and came to the wrong conclusions.
"There are lots of reasons why a figure could be high, but the main reason is altitude."
...
" A sample collected at altitude will have different values to one collected at sea level.
...
....
..."Or it could be because you’re ill....
..." You could have been dehydrated when you took the test, or have drunk litres of water."
https://news.sky.com/story/radcliffe-give-athletes-lie-detector-tests-10340201
The IAAF, mired by an ongoing criminal corruption investigation and facing allegations they failed to follow up suspected doping cases, effectively cleared themselves of blame in a 38-page report.
They also concluded there was no doping case to answer for Radcliffe, who talks exclusively in the Mail on Sunday about that verdict, insisting that she is prepared to do anything prove her innocence, including putting up £1million for an MRI brain scan lie detector test.
IAAF anti-doping personnel and president Lord Coe will be questioned by a House of Commons select committee on Wednesday on allegations that the IAAF did not act on the results of elevated blood levels in some athletes.
The IAAF’s 38-page report, which was released on Friday, was prepared for the select committee and it attempts to rebut serious allegations of negligence made in the summer by anti-doping experts Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto, both specialists in blood analysis.
The report is hugely critical of Ashenden and Parisotto’s analysis of the IAAF’s approach and both men defended themselves and hit back yesterday.
‘The irony of a disgraced federation casting aspersions [on me] is not lost on me,’ said Ashenden.
‘The Independent Commission has identified corruption and bribery practices at the highest levels of international athletics, currently under investigation by Interpol.
‘The Independent Commission said that the IAAF was inexplicably lax in following up suspicious blood profiles. I witnessed symptoms of that disgraceful behaviour when I inspected a database drenched with suspect blood profiles. And I made comment accordingly.’
‘The IAAF pleads that it could not have done more. But the blood values were so extreme, over such an extended period, that they should have tried to do something — anything.
‘The IAAF were legally timid when they should have been morally strong.’
Parisotto went on to reveal that the findings he was asked to analyse from a huge database of IAAF blood test results was, in his words, ‘jaw-dropping data [that] drove me — in fact compelled me — to review the database’.
He added: ‘As a health professional, the data revealed to me that so many athletes were at real risk of suffering heart attacks, strokes and even death.
‘While initially driven for the need to identify potential cheats, there was a real underlying concern for athletes who may have been harming themselves, or were being harmed by others.’
IT TURNS OUT THAT MS. PAULA RADCLIFFE NEVER DID THE LIE DETECTOR TEST.
It is just a Coincidental Synchronicity™.
aduck2022 wrote:
lets go again ,
Is Doping A level Playing Field .......
2.
whereas bolt and jamicans had only to fear tester on afew occasions during short summer window up till 2013 /14
.
So true, now the spotlight is on them OOC, they ain't as good.
Things have evolved since Nov. 2015. The Daily Mail updated their stance in Jan. 2016: "Paula Radcliffe effectively cleared of wrongdoing by WADA report" "Paula Radcliffe was effectively exonerated of any wrongdoing"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-3399961/Paula-Radcliffe-effectively-cleared-wrongdoing-WADA-report-marathon-world-record-holder-backs-Lord-Coe.html She made the offer, but no one took her up on it, and it appears it is no longer necessary.
ReKreational Vehicle Runner wrote:
Ms. Paula Radcliffe offered to put up TAKE A LIE DETECTOR TEST a LIE detector test to convince doubters, declaring: "I am innocent, I swear. I have never taken drugs."
...
IT TURNS OUT THAT MS. PAULA RADCLIFFE NEVER DID THE LIE DETECTOR TEST.
rekrunner wrote:
I agree with Ross's full statement, about steroids for men. Steroids did not drive men's performance in the '80s to unreachable limits. I agree with that.
Did I argue here that the performance effect of steroids for men was zero? I agree with Ross with "less effective". Did I say "zero" when I summarized the three studies "Rocket Fuel Rick" found showing steroids is not a factor for endurance?
Well, you continue to imply it was zero by arguing that one should ignore it.
If you finally admit that the steroid effect is not zero for distance running, then stop arguing.
Also, distance running? Why did you then choose and include the mid-distance 1500, but not the mid-distance 800? Shows your agenda/trolling.
rekrunner wrote:
Things have evolved since Nov. 2015. The Daily Mail updated their stance in Jan. 2016:
"Paula Radcliffe effectively cleared of wrongdoing by WADA report"
"Paula Radcliffe was effectively exonerated of any wrongdoing"
Correct, but to be fair, all WADA did, was to accept the IAAF report. That report claimed - while ignoring several facts and instead taking Paula's word as fact - that Paula's outrageously suspicious blood values might have been caused by effects other than doping. With the emphasis on "might".
But, didn't you want to ignore the Daily Mail because of its tabloid character? Your agenda is showing, again.
casual obsever wrote:
Correct, but to be fair, all WADA did, was to accept the IAAF report. That report claimed - while ignoring several facts and instead taking Paula's word as fact - that Paula's outrageously suspicious blood values might have been caused by effects other than doping. With the emphasis on "might".
But, didn't you want to ignore the Daily Mail because of its tabloid character? Your agenda is showing, again.
It's amazing her 15yr old marathon WR hasn't been beaten by the dozens of doped to the max Russians and some of the Kenyan dopers. Shobukhova came close but no cigar (remember her blood values, when she ran the 2nd fastest time ever behind Radcliff, were so high it was deemed a "medical emergency" by the anti-doping experts reviewing her ABP). So, the second fastest marathon ever ran is from a doped to the max Russian but yet the WR is supposedly clean?
I picked 6 men's events and 5 women's events, over a range of events that usually come up in EPO threads, to see how the performances evolved during the EPO era. I gave my method for anyone interested in repeating it for other events as they wish. In most EPO threads, I don't recall the 800m ever coming up, or any famous "busted for EPO" anecdotes. I did not expect EPO to help 800m. Nevertheless, you can see the results for 800m on page 2 confirm this expectation.
casual obsever wrote:
Well, you continue to imply it was zero by arguing that one should ignore it.
If you finally admit that the steroid effect is not zero for distance running, then stop arguing.
Also, distance running? Why did you then choose and include the mid-distance 1500, but not the mid-distance 800? Shows your agenda/trolling.
After dozens of failures, when does it become time to review and confirm your assumptions?
Barrel of Laughs wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
Correct, but to be fair, all WADA did, was to accept the IAAF report. That report claimed - while ignoring several facts and instead taking Paula's word as fact - that Paula's outrageously suspicious blood values might have been caused by effects other than doping. With the emphasis on "might".
But, didn't you want to ignore the Daily Mail because of its tabloid character? Your agenda is showing, again.
It's amazing her 15yr old marathon WR hasn't been beaten by the dozens of doped to the max Russians and some of the Kenyan dopers. Shobukhova came close but no cigar (remember her blood values, when she ran the 2nd fastest time ever behind Radcliff, were so high it was deemed a "medical emergency" by the anti-doping experts reviewing her ABP). So, the second fastest marathon ever ran is from a doped to the max Russian but yet the WR is supposedly clean?
Of course, it is correct. I ignore the Daily Mail, but "rjm" doesn't. He's posting stuff that is out of date. The British tabloids have moved on, but he hasn't. Sad.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Things have evolved since Nov. 2015. The Daily Mail updated their stance in Jan. 2016:
"Paula Radcliffe effectively cleared of wrongdoing by WADA report"
"Paula Radcliffe was effectively exonerated of any wrongdoing"
Correct, but to be fair, all WADA did, was to accept the IAAF report. That report claimed - while ignoring several facts and instead taking Paula's word as fact - that Paula's outrageously suspicious blood values might have been caused by effects other than doping. With the emphasis on "might".
But, didn't you want to ignore the Daily Mail because of its tabloid character? Your agenda is showing, again.
Did I misunderstand you arguing that steroids in the '80s, and testing in the '90s, are important to consider for distance events? I think I understood you correctly. But if you agree that they are actually not significant, then I apologize for my misunderstanding. A personal attack would be calling you ignorant. Here I just say what it is that you ignored.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Regarding casual obsever, we only have to look at how he interprets Ross Tucker to see evidence of both.
What he over interprets:
...
What he ignores:
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Typical for you to make stuff up, again, instead of reading (and citing, and - gasp - maybe even understanding) what I wrote.
Why do you lie so much, while pretending to not have an agenda?
Why all these personal attacks?
Of course, we all know the answer: you gotta keep trolling.
rekrunner wrote:
In most EPO threads, I don't recall the 800m ever coming up, or any famous "busted for EPO" anecdotes.
Well...here's some:
Amine Laâlou/1:43.25/gold & bronze Med Games (EPO)
Rashid Ramzi/1: 44.06/WC gold (CERA)
Fouad Chouki/1:45.77 (EPO)
Yassine Bensghir/1:45.89 (ABP - hematological anomalies)
rekrunner wrote:
I did not expect EPO to help 800m.
Why would you think that rekrunner? ? Aerobic capacity is an important component of the 800...no surprises there:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11194103Rocket Fuel Rick wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
In most EPO threads, I don't recall the 800m ever coming up, or any famous "busted for EPO" anecdotes.
Well...here's some:
Amine Laâlou/1:43.25/gold & bronze Med Games (EPO)
Rashid Ramzi/1: 44.06/WC gold (CERA)
Fouad Chouki/1:45.77 (EPO)
Yassine Bensghir/1:45.89 (ABP - hematological anomalies)
rekrunner wrote:
I did not expect EPO to help 800m.
Why would you think that rekrunner? ? Aerobic capacity is an important component of the 800...no surprises there:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11194103
None of these slow 800m runners ran under 1 min 30 for 800m so this is hardly evidence that EPO "works" as people were running those times in the 70s before EPO was used ....
rekrunner wrote:
Did I misunderstand you arguing that steroids in the '80s, and testing in the '90s, are important to consider for distance events? I think I understood you correctly. But if you agree that they are actually not significant, then I apologize for my misunderstanding.
Yes, I do think that that is important to consider. Among other things discussed here on page 2!
No, I did not ignore what you falsely, without evidence, claim I ignored. For example, the fact that women gain more benefit from steroid doping than men does not mean that men do not benefit. It also does not mean that I ignored that fact. Come on, you can't be that dense.
You, on the other hand, chose to not consider steroids for men. Beyer, Baumann, Kisorio, ...
rekrunner wrote:
A personal attack would be calling you ignorant. Here I just say what it is that you ignored.
A personal attack is to - out of nowhere - claim I ignore stuff that I didn't ignore. Same goes for the "over interpretation". Also, it's yet another lie from you.
Ok, I admit you trolled me again. Obviously. Oh well. Let's have a look at the Tucker-Radcliffe twitter exchange now.
rekrunner wrote:
Things have evolved since Nov. 2015. The Daily Mail updated their stance in Jan. 2016:
"Paula Radcliffe effectively cleared of wrongdoing by WADA report"
"Paula Radcliffe was effectively exonerated of any wrongdoing"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-3399961/Paula-Radcliffe-effectively-cleared-wrongdoing-WADA-report-marathon-world-record-holder-backs-Lord-Coe.htmlShe made the offer, but no one took her up on it, and it appears it is no longer necessary.
ReKreational Vehicle Runner wrote:
Ms. Paula Radcliffe offered to put up TAKE A LIE DETECTOR TEST a LIE detector test to convince doubters, declaring: "I am innocent, I swear. I have never taken drugs."
...
IT TURNS OUT THAT MS. PAULA RADCLIFFE NEVER DID THE LIE DETECTOR TEST.
I really don't think any of this matters when she refused to open her blood data to analysis by an independent panel (not some hired guns from the IAAF) of qualified people to determine doping or not. That would be the best way to remove suspicion. And even then this matter has dragged on for so long now that it looks suspicious in itself. The thing could have been cleaned up from the very beginning in this way rather than having potentially incriminating information being forced out drip by drip.
So Rekrunner's hypothesis is that countries with OOC testing performed worse than countries without OOC testing during the EPO era. Yep, solid proof epo doesn't work.
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
So Rekrunner's hypothesis is that countries with OOC testing performed worse than countries without OOC testing during the EPO era. Yep, solid proof epo doesn't work.
Yep...that's Gary for ya - always connecting the dots and drawing logical conclusions. ?