3 of the top 6 USSR 1500m times were from the Ukraine or Bylorussia, including Kirov the best known and 800m Olympic bronze winner.
Look at the anti-racist so concerned for the welfare of young East African athletes that he supports a shill who is trying to convince us all that EPO is a harmless substance that has no effects other than a positive placebo one.
not many world class male runners from the Sovier Union - wonder why...
Are you talking to a mirror? You are the one who doesn't know the difference between proven effectiveness for drugs trialed for medicinal purposes, but not for drugs used for doping purposes, as well as the fundamental biological and hormonal differences between men and women.
This isn' t just theory, but matches observation. Recall I looked for fast performances post-1990. We can look at the country known to have doped the most, and compare Russian women versus their men.
At that time, I found no Russian men faster than the 1990's thresholds in any of 6 different distance events from 1500m to the marathon.
I did find about a dozen Russian women across 4 events, but curiously, in the 1500m, there were no Russian women on the post-1990 list, while there were two pre-1990, with their fastest performances in 1980 and 1982.
This would seem to confirm that doping didn't help the Russian men run better than 1990, and that steroids for their women in the '80s helped more than EPO did post-1990.
Until 1989, the Soviet Union had one of the most advanced state sponsored doping systems known to man. In the 90's, the EPO era, it was mostly chaos.
But you think that because Russian 1500m runners didn't improve in the 90's, then it proves that EPO doesn't work and the scientific consensus that it does, needs to be overturned?????????????????????????????
The belief is that EPO can boost aerobic metabolism beyond human limits. Which by definition is impossible.
But you're trolling anyway so you won't reply honestly.
No, EPO is far easier to administer than blood transfusions, and can be done by any athlete entirely by himself (at least if he doesn't have to worry about testing).
Not sure what point you are trying to make in your 2nd and 3rd claims. Is the 3rd sentence your personal view or are you asking me a question??
There is scientific consensus that performance enhancers work. That is why they are called performance enhancers and why they are banned.
Are you suggesting that EPO was so easy to use and, because there was no testing for EPO at all in the'90s, that athletes from all countries took it?
I'm not really asking anything of you, except to use your brain enough to understand the post you are responding too, and not overreacting to something that wasn't said. I made a point about the differences of men versus women, from the top doping nation known to have doped both their men and women using blood doping and steroids for at least 4 decades, because Armstronglivs can't tell men and women apart, and you respond with some irrelevant point about USSR versus Russia.
What is your point? Are you suggesting that doping doesn't work in Russia?
Sorry to have to repeat myself -- there is no scientific consensus about elite distance running performance -- just speculation. You have to do more than give a substance a name, to show its effectiveness for distance running performance. WADA bans substances for some combination of "potential to enhance performance", "potential to harm health", and "against the spirit of the sport".
It is you who are astonishing -- forgetting why we are even talking about the differences between doping and medicine. You were wondering if I would doubt medicinal drugs for illnesses. I don't because they are proven effective using the gold-standard of clinical trials on large populations wth controls.
Drugs used for doping are widely believed to have a boosting effect on the healthy.
We don't really know the "numbers they do", but they would take it in those numbers based on that wide belief without any guarantee that it would or did boost performance. But I do not say they gain no result. Placebo effect would confirm that belief, and the athlete would be none the wiser.
You are equally astonishing not knowing the difference between males and females.
I argued men and women were different biologically and hormonally, but now that you bring it up, their physiologies are different too. Note that the best women tend to run about 10% slower than men.
A lot of medicinal drugs used by athletes are stimulants. That is why they are performance enhancing. They are not placebos. You are a medical ignoramus.
Men and women share the same human physiology. They are not different species. That is why drugs will have a similar effect in them - and why they use the same drugs.
It's a shame there isn't a drug that can cure your mental deficiencies.
Improved sports performance is not a medical question, and it is obvious that any and all fields of science are not your strong suit.
First you conflate unproven doping performance effectiveness, with proven effectiveness of medicines for illness.
Now you argue that medicine, unproven for performance, nevertheless can enhance sports performance.
And, in response to the undisputed and indisputable biological and hormonal differences between men and women, you argue something completely different -- that their physiologies are the same. This is both quite irrelevant and quite wrong:
An abundance of recent research indicates that there are multiple differences between males and females both in normal physiology and in the pathophysiology of disease. The Refresher Course on Gender Differences in Physiology...
Eastern European women dominated in the 1970s and 1980s any running event. There also have been some world class men coming from the Eastern Bloc, but they never were dominant at all.
Same holds true for the Russians from the 2000s.
Would be nice to hear the explanation from Coevett and Armstronglivs to this fact.
Same with the pills. If they only had a placebo effect, why say 'vitamins' when you are injecting something that actually makes women into something more closely approximating men? Wouldn't that actually decrease the placebo effect?
A lot of medicinal drugs used by athletes are stimulants. That is why they are performance enhancing. They are not placebos. You are a medical ignoramus.
Men and women share the same human physiology. They are not different species. That is why drugs will have a similar effect in them - and why they use the same drugs.
It's a shame there isn't a drug that can cure your mental deficiencies.
Improved sports performance is not a medical question, and it is obvious that any and all fields of science are not your strong suit.
First you conflate unproven doping performance effectiveness, with proven effectiveness of medicines for illness.
Now you argue that medicine, unproven for performance, nevertheless can enhance sports performance.
And, in response to the undisputed and indisputable biological and hormonal differences between men and women, you argue something completely different -- that their physiologies are the same. This is both quite irrelevant and quite wrong:
The medical drugs used are stimulants - which, by definition, can enhance performance. That is why they are used. That is why they are banned.
Male and female physiologies share the same basic human features, subject to differences in degree and detail, in the way that people will differ according to age, for example. They are not, however, different species - and even there with our fellow primates there will be striking similarities with humans. It means that our bodies process and respond to drugs in much the same way. That is how vaccines work, for example.
You are so entrenched in your doping denial that the simplest of explanations for these things are beyond you. You are living in a warehouse somewhere in Arizona.
If doping were mere placebo effect, why'd the Eastern European authorities typically lie about what they were injecting the athletes with?
Rekrunner is making a claim without proof - as he always does - when he says doping can only have a placebo effect. He denies that it can have any direct effect on enhancing performance - for male distance runners only, strangely - as against the experience of countless athletes, coaches and physicians involved in its use. He has no problem in asserting facts he does not have in matters he has no experience of. He is a clown - the Giuliani "election fraud" equivalent of doping.
Same with the pills. If they only had a placebo effect, why say 'vitamins' when you are injecting something that actually makes women into something more closely approximating men? Wouldn't that actually decrease the placebo effect?
To maintain, as rekrunner does, that the drugs athletes use can only have a placebo effect is a) medically ignorant, and b) a claim that billions are therefore spent on the manufacture and use of drugs that offer none of the benefits they are purported to produce. He effectively thinks modern medicine and pharmaceuticals are still in the realm of witch doctors and their "magic" potions. But there is only one fraud here - and it is him.
If doping were mere placebo effect, why'd the Eastern European authorities typically lie about what they were injecting the athletes with?
It may be confusing to follow because Armstronglivs will blur the distinction between EPO/blood-doping versus all doping, and the distinction between elite distance running performance, versus unspecified generic performance.
Armstronglivs disputes "no effect", arguing "if that were so, athletes wouldn't take it", to which my response is that I do not argue "no effect". Even drugs that would have "no effect" can still have a "placebo effect". Athletes will often see effects, but cannot determine if the effect they see is placebo effect, as their doping is usually not blinded or double-blinded.
This does not mean that all doping for all events for all athletes is pure placebo.
To answer your question, Eastern European authorities lie because doping is banned.
The medical drugs used are stimulants - which, by definition, can enhance performance. That is why they are used. That is why they are banned.
Male and female physiologies share the same basic human features, subject to differences in degree and detail, in the way that people will differ according to age, for example. They are not, however, different species - and even there with our fellow primates there will be striking similarities with humans. It means that our bodies process and respond to drugs in much the same way. That is how vaccines work, for example.
You are so entrenched in your doping denial that the simplest of explanations for these things are beyond you. You are living in a warehouse somewhere in Arizona.
Stimulants might have the potential to enhance elite distance running performance.
Why are you still rambling about physiology? Men produce large amounts of performance enhancing male hormones naturally. Women do not. The differences in degrees is orders of magnitude, and precisely what makes men and women different. Women will be high responders to supplemental male hormones, for events that require muscular strength, while men are naturally responding to naturally produced male hormones. For distance running, any effect will be marginal, if at all, or if not negative.
If doping were mere placebo effect, why'd the Eastern European authorities typically lie about what they were injecting the athletes with?
To answer your question, Eastern European authorities lie because doping is banned.
I think he means why would they lie to their athletes? Clearly they don't believe that the benefits of peds are purely 'placebo'. All the resources the GDR and the Soviet Bloc put into state sponsored doping, but they got it entirely wrong and a guy on LetsRun has showin it by quoting an anonymous poll on El G and the 'fact' that Russians didn't get faster at 1500m with EPO than the runners under the collective might of the Soviet Union blood transfusion and steroid program.
To answer your question, Eastern European authorities lie because doping is banned.
I think he means why would they lie to their athletes? Clearly they don't believe that the benefits of peds are purely 'placebo'. All the resources the GDR and the Soviet Bloc put into state sponsored doping, but they got it entirely wrong and a guy on LetsRun has showin it by quoting an anonymous poll on El G and the 'fact' that Russians didn't get faster at 1500m with EPO than the runners under the collective might of the Soviet Union blood transfusion and steroid program.
Same answer, because doping is banned.
But the initial premise was wrong, as I don't ever say all doping is "mere placebo effect".
Eastern Bloc doping worked very well for women in the '70s and '80s, unlike EPO doping in the EPO-era.
Russia and China only ever had success with their women, who are generally high responders to male hormones.
"Women will be high responders to supplemental male hormones, for events that require muscular strength, while men are naturally responding to naturally produced male hormones. For distance running, any effect will be marginal, if at all, or if not negative."(quote)
Manangoi - who once ran 3.28 while doped but currently can't beat 3.38 - says you are talking out of your a*se again - as usual.
It's interesting to see that Manangois fall-off in performance is almost exactly the same as for a Russian woman 800m runner. She lost 5secs at her distance when she went clean, while Manangoi has lost 10secs at nearly double the distance. But a fool who lives in a warehouse in Arizona says doping doesn't work on males. Except for "the placebo effect". (10secs of it, apparently.)
"Women will be high responders to supplemental male hormones, for events that require muscular strength, while men are naturally responding to naturally produced male hormones. For distance running, any effect will be marginal, if at all, or if not negative."(quote)
Manangoi - who once ran 3.28 while doped but currently can't beat 3.38 - says you are talking out of your a*se again - as usual.
You have the unintellectual habit of projecting your faults on others.
Speaking of talking out your a*se, do you really believe Manangoi once ran 3:28 while doped? How thick are you? As you are responding to my comment about supplemental male hormones, which male hormones do you think Manangoi took, that would bring 10 seconds in the 1500m?
Or maybe there is an unpublished study which says that a repeated failure to update your calendar is a form of doping far more powerful than steroids, while the triple offense is just worth half the ban.
If supplemental male hormones can bring 10 seconds, then the times of Coe and Cram and Ovett and Willis must surely be unnatural, or else many others would be running 3:19 by now.
"Women will be high responders to supplemental male hormones, for events that require muscular strength, while men are naturally responding to naturally produced male hormones. For distance running, any effect will be marginal, if at all, or if not negative."(quote)
Manangoi - who once ran 3.28 while doped but currently can't beat 3.38 - says you are talking out of your a*se again - as usual.
You have the unintellectual habit of projecting your faults on others.
Speaking of talking out your a*se, do you really believe Manangoi once ran 3:28 while doped? How thick are you? As you are responding to my comment about supplemental male hormones, which male hormones do you think Manangoi took, that would bring 10 seconds in the 1500m?
Or maybe there is an unpublished study which says that a repeated failure to update your calendar is a form of doping far more powerful than steroids, while the triple offense is just worth half the ban.
If supplemental male hormones can bring 10 seconds, then the times of Coe and Cram and Ovett and Willis must surely be unnatural, or else many others would be running 3:19 by now.
You really have lost the plot. Why is it 'thick' to believe a man suspended for breaking doping rules ran one of the fastest times in history doped - a time he can't get within 10 seconds of now he's returned from suspension after effectively missing one season and still only 28?
You can't get over your value judgement assumption that everybody dopes equally everywhere, no matter the wildly diverging financial situations, standards of anti-doping testing, everyday corruption etc.
