Performance doesn't need to be measured by academics who have no data from doped athletes in order to know the athletes' performances will improve through the use of drugs - and that is proven by the continued use of these drugs by thousands of athletes over decades in every sport. If it didn't do what they thought or believed it did it would have long been discontinued. You are seriously the most stupid commenter ever on this subject - and the most arrogant, because you presume to know better than the countless athletes who use the drugs, their coaches, trainers and physicians, the experts who develop the drugs, and the antidoping experts who are trying to do something about this scourge in the sport. You are a truly brainless narcissist.
But performance does need to be measured by anyone and everyone who wants to confirm a hypothesis about performance. Otherwise it remains a hypothesis lacking data. Nothing you say or want to believe can change that basic truth.
And until they speak, no one can really know what "the countless athletes who use the drugs, their coaches, trainers and physicians, the experts who develop the drugs, and the antidoping experts who are trying to do something about this scourge in the sport" really know. And if they did speak about performance without having measured performance, it would remain speculative, and should be taken with an appropriate degree of skepticism by every intelligent non-naive, non-gullible listener.
I only presume to know better than the person who believes "continued use" can prove "performance" without needing to measure performance, and confuses himself with long held beliefs about "drugs" "in every sport" in a thread about "EPO era records falling".
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
Classic headstronglivs
Performance doesn't need to be measured by academics who have no data from doped athletes in order to know the athletes' performances will improve through the use of drugs - and that is proven by the continued use of these drugs by thousands of athletes over decades in every sport. If it didn't do what they thought or believed it did it would have long been discontinued. You are seriously the most stupid commenter ever on this subject - and the most arrogant, because you presume to know better than the countless athletes who use the drugs, their coaches, trainers and physicians, the experts who develop the drugs, and the antidoping experts who are trying to do something about this scourge in the sport. You are a truly brainless narcissist.
But performance does need to be measured by anyone and everyone who wants to confirm a hypothesis about performance. Otherwise it remains a hypothesis lacking data. Nothing you say or want to believe can change that basic truth.
And until they speak, no one can really know what "the countless athletes who use the drugs, their coaches, trainers and physicians, the experts who develop the drugs, and the antidoping experts who are trying to do something about this scourge in the sport" really know. And if they did speak about performance without having measured performance, it would remain speculative, and should be taken with an appropriate degree of skepticism by every intelligent non-naive, non-gullible listener.
I only presume to know better than the person who believes "continued use" can prove "performance" without needing to measure performance, and confuses himself with long held beliefs about "drugs" "in every sport" in a thread about "EPO era records falling".
The typical argument of a plodding statistician. Without studies of doped athletes an exact measure of the effects of doping will not be possible. That does not in any way enable a conclusion that doping does not enhance performance; it simply means we cannot definitively measure what it will be; we have to estimate it. It will be an approximation. It is also the case that the effects of doping will vary because some athletes are greater responders than others. None of that changes the irrefutable fact that doping enables improvements in performance. That is why so many banned drugs are known as "performance enhancing drugs". That they do that is no mere fantasy. Doping has been practiced for decades and in increasing numbers - as the violations in Kenya have lately shown. It is a world-wide industry. It would have long ago been discontinued if it hadn't produced significant results. You are completely unable to understand that point, and are reduced to characterizing athletes and their teams as gullible idiots for engaging in an illicit and risky practice that you argue gives them no advantage. You have nothing that could support such a conclusion. You really are hopeless on this subject and are unable to see beyond your vain wish to believe doping hasn't transformed your favorite sport. It wouldn't exist without it.
The typical argument of a plodding statistician. Without studies of doped athletes an exact measure of the effects of doping will not be possible. That does not in any way enable a conclusion that doping does not enhance performance; it simply means we cannot definitively measure what it will be; we have to estimate it. It will be an approximation. It is also the case that the effects of doping will vary because some athletes are greater responders than others. None of that changes the irrefutable fact that doping enables improvements in performance. That is why so many banned drugs are known as "performance enhancing drugs". That they do that is no mere fantasy. Doping has been practiced for decades and in increasing numbers - as the violations in Kenya have lately shown. It is a world-wide industry. It would have long ago been discontinued if it hadn't produced significant results. You are completely unable to understand that point, and are reduced to characterizing athletes and their teams as gullible idiots for engaging in an illicit and risky practice that you argue gives them no advantage. You have nothing that could support such a conclusion. You really are hopeless on this subject and are unable to see beyond your vain wish to believe doping hasn't transformed your favorite sport. It wouldn't exist without it.
I didn't ask you for a list of reasons why you believe the speculative hypothesis with no data.
But performance does need to be measured by anyone and everyone who wants to confirm a hypothesis about performance. Otherwise it remains a hypothesis lacking data. Nothing you say or want to believe can change that basic truth.
And until they speak, no one can really know what "the countless athletes who use the drugs, their coaches, trainers and physicians, the experts who develop the drugs, and the antidoping experts who are trying to do something about this scourge in the sport" really know. And if they did speak about performance without having measured performance, it would remain speculative, and should be taken with an appropriate degree of skepticism by every intelligent non-naive, non-gullible listener.
I only presume to know better than the person who believes "continued use" can prove "performance" without needing to measure performance, and confuses himself with long held beliefs about "drugs" "in every sport" in a thread about "EPO era records falling".
The typical argument of a plodding statistician. Without studies of doped athletes an exact measure of the effects of doping will not be possible. That does not in any way enable a conclusion that doping does not enhance performance; it simply means we cannot definitively measure what it will be; we have to estimate it. It will be an approximation. It is also the case that the effects of doping will vary because some athletes are greater responders than others. None of that changes the irrefutable fact that doping enables improvements in performance. That is why so many banned drugs are known as "performance enhancing drugs". That they do that is no mere fantasy. Doping has been practiced for decades and in increasing numbers - as the violations in Kenya have lately shown. It is a world-wide industry. It would have long ago been discontinued if it hadn't produced significant results. You are completely unable to understand that point, and are reduced to characterizing athletes and their teams as gullible idiots for engaging in an illicit and risky practice that you argue gives them no advantage. You have nothing that could support such a conclusion. You really are hopeless on this subject and are unable to see beyond your vain wish to believe doping hasn't transformed your favorite sport. It wouldn't exist without it.
The audacity of you still posting after saying that the moon may well be green cheese and all medical books are wrong.
The typical argument of a plodding statistician. Without studies of doped athletes an exact measure of the effects of doping will not be possible. That does not in any way enable a conclusion that doping does not enhance performance; it simply means we cannot definitively measure what it will be; we have to estimate it. It will be an approximation. It is also the case that the effects of doping will vary because some athletes are greater responders than others. None of that changes the irrefutable fact that doping enables improvements in performance. That is why so many banned drugs are known as "performance enhancing drugs". That they do that is no mere fantasy. Doping has been practiced for decades and in increasing numbers - as the violations in Kenya have lately shown. It is a world-wide industry. It would have long ago been discontinued if it hadn't produced significant results. You are completely unable to understand that point, and are reduced to characterizing athletes and their teams as gullible idiots for engaging in an illicit and risky practice that you argue gives them no advantage. You have nothing that could support such a conclusion. You really are hopeless on this subject and are unable to see beyond your vain wish to believe doping hasn't transformed your favorite sport. It wouldn't exist without it.
I didn't ask you for a list of reasons why you believe the speculative hypothesis with no data.
I quite understand that you don't want to be brought in touch with reality.
The typical argument of a plodding statistician. Without studies of doped athletes an exact measure of the effects of doping will not be possible. That does not in any way enable a conclusion that doping does not enhance performance; it simply means we cannot definitively measure what it will be; we have to estimate it. It will be an approximation. It is also the case that the effects of doping will vary because some athletes are greater responders than others. None of that changes the irrefutable fact that doping enables improvements in performance. That is why so many banned drugs are known as "performance enhancing drugs". That they do that is no mere fantasy. Doping has been practiced for decades and in increasing numbers - as the violations in Kenya have lately shown. It is a world-wide industry. It would have long ago been discontinued if it hadn't produced significant results. You are completely unable to understand that point, and are reduced to characterizing athletes and their teams as gullible idiots for engaging in an illicit and risky practice that you argue gives them no advantage. You have nothing that could support such a conclusion. You really are hopeless on this subject and are unable to see beyond your vain wish to believe doping hasn't transformed your favorite sport. It wouldn't exist without it.
The audacity of you still posting after saying that the moon may well be green cheese and all medical books are wrong.
Go troll an other forum.
I didn't say the moon is made of green cheese, you moron, but that rekrunner's arguments used in denying the effects of doping are equivalent. I also accept what the medical textbooks say about you.
The typical argument of a plodding statistician. Without studies of doped athletes an exact measure of the effects of doping will not be possible. That does not in any way enable a conclusion that doping does not enhance performance; it simply means we cannot definitively measure what it will be; we have to estimate it. It will be an approximation. It is also the case that the effects of doping will vary because some athletes are greater responders than others. None of that changes the irrefutable fact that doping enables improvements in performance. That is why so many banned drugs are known as "performance enhancing drugs". That they do that is no mere fantasy. Doping has been practiced for decades and in increasing numbers - as the violations in Kenya have lately shown. It is a world-wide industry. It would have long ago been discontinued if it hadn't produced significant results. You are completely unable to understand that point, and are reduced to characterizing athletes and their teams as gullible idiots for engaging in an illicit and risky practice that you argue gives them no advantage. You have nothing that could support such a conclusion. You really are hopeless on this subject and are unable to see beyond your vain wish to believe doping hasn't transformed your favorite sport. It wouldn't exist without it.
I didn't ask you for a list of reasons why you believe the speculative hypothesis with no data.
You construct a hypothesis that can only be proven or disproven by "data" (from doped elites) that isn't available. Good little doping denier.
The audacity of you still posting after saying that the moon may well be green cheese and all medical books are wrong.
Go troll an other forum.
I didn't say the moon is made of green cheese, you moron, but that rekrunner's arguments used in denying the effects of doping are equivalent. I also accept what the medical textbooks say about you.
You said there was no evidence that it was not made of green cheese.
And yet more vile insults.
And I remind you that all doctors think you are very wrong for persistently asserting the bladder is part of the digestive system.
Read any Karl Popper yet? Of course not you refuse to read anything.
I didn't ask you for a list of reasons why you believe the speculative hypothesis with no data.
You construct a hypothesis that can only be proven or disproven by "data" (from doped elites) that isn't available. Good little doping denier.
You are wrong to say I constructed a hypothesis.
It is the scientific method which dictates the steps between hypothesis and proof.
You are right to agree that the "data" isn't available. With this single concession, you are in complete agreement with the only point I made. The rest is you arguing with yourself that your beliefs without data extracted from reality can be considered knowledge, because it is popular. The mandatory consequence of no "data" available is that this popular belief must still be considered hypothesis.
You are wrong to say "from doped elites". The data you really need, that doped non-elites can run faster "with" blood-doping, than "without", is also not available. Looking at short term gains from an unknown starting point of training does not provide the right data to conclude that blood-doping can make one super-naturally faster, for these non-elites.
I am not denying your beliefs in the power of doping, but just calling them beliefs without data. For some reason it offends you to know that what you have accumulated over five decades is not mature enough to be considered proven knowledge. You do not speak from a position of superior knowledge, but a position of a strongly held conviction in a series of myths you've been told, or that you tell yourself. As someone who has not had a similar five decades of brain-washing, I find your conviction curious and uncompelling.
You construct a hypothesis that can only be proven or disproven by "data" (from doped elites) that isn't available. Good little doping denier.
You are wrong to say I constructed a hypothesis.
It is the scientific method which dictates the steps between hypothesis and proof.
You are right to agree that the "data" isn't available. With this single concession, you are in complete agreement with the only point I made. The rest is you arguing with yourself that your beliefs without data extracted from reality can be considered knowledge, because it is popular. The mandatory consequence of no "data" available is that this popular belief must still be considered hypothesis.
You are wrong to say "from doped elites". The data you really need, that doped non-elites can run faster "with" blood-doping, than "without", is also not available. Looking at short term gains from an unknown starting point of training does not provide the right data to conclude that blood-doping can make one super-naturally faster, for these non-elites.
I am not denying your beliefs in the power of doping, but just calling them beliefs without data. For some reason it offends you to know that what you have accumulated over five decades is not mature enough to be considered proven knowledge. You do not speak from a position of superior knowledge, but a position of a strongly held conviction in a series of myths you've been told, or that you tell yourself. As someone who has not had a similar five decades of brain-washing, I find your conviction curious and uncompelling.
You have no "data" from doped elites to support your "hypothesis" that doping doesn't help them whereas I have generations of top athletes from every country and in every sport who have doped and continue to do so. None of this could have occurred without performance gains from doping. However, I am not surprised you don't see this, with your head stuck so firmly where the sun doesn't shine.
It is the scientific method which dictates the steps between hypothesis and proof.
You are right to agree that the "data" isn't available. With this single concession, you are in complete agreement with the only point I made. The rest is you arguing with yourself that your beliefs without data extracted from reality can be considered knowledge, because it is popular. The mandatory consequence of no "data" available is that this popular belief must still be considered hypothesis.
You are wrong to say "from doped elites". The data you really need, that doped non-elites can run faster "with" blood-doping, than "without", is also not available. Looking at short term gains from an unknown starting point of training does not provide the right data to conclude that blood-doping can make one super-naturally faster, for these non-elites.
I am not denying your beliefs in the power of doping, but just calling them beliefs without data. For some reason it offends you to know that what you have accumulated over five decades is not mature enough to be considered proven knowledge. You do not speak from a position of superior knowledge, but a position of a strongly held conviction in a series of myths you've been told, or that you tell yourself. As someone who has not had a similar five decades of brain-washing, I find your conviction curious and uncompelling.
You have no "data" from doped elites to support your "hypothesis" that doping doesn't help them whereas I have generations of top athletes from every country and in every sport who have doped and continue to do so. None of this could have occurred without performance gains from doping. However, I am not surprised you don't see this, with your head stuck so firmly where the sun doesn't shine.
You are an uneducated troll of the highest order.
Have you bothered to read any of the methods of how we accumulate knowledge ?
But then you have just said we have no evidence that the moon is not green cheese.
Your above post is a tautology and one constructed to support your prejudice.
Go troll elsewhere and take your vile insults with you.
You have no "data" from doped elites to support your "hypothesis" that doping doesn't help them whereas I have generations of top athletes from every country and in every sport who have doped and continue to do so. None of this could have occurred without performance gains from doping. However, I am not surprised you don't see this, with your head stuck so firmly where the sun doesn't shine.
You are an uneducated troll of the highest order.
Have you bothered to read any of the methods of how we accumulate knowledge ?
But then you have just said we have no evidence that the moon is not green cheese.
Your above post is a tautology and one constructed to support your prejudice.
Go troll elsewhere and take your vile insults with you.
The troll obviously owns you. You do nothing but follow him around.
You have no "data" from doped elites to support your "hypothesis" that doping doesn't help them whereas I have generations of top athletes from every country and in every sport who have doped and continue to do so. None of this could have occurred without performance gains from doping. However, I am not surprised you don't see this, with your head stuck so firmly where the sun doesn't shine.
I'm not looking for emotional wishful self-serving rationalizations but intelligently supported arguments about the hypothetical relation between two variables (doping and performance) based on real world data. You always seem to agree with me that such performance data for elite performances do not exist, but for some reason you keep trying to substitute this lack of collective intelligence with arguments for the gullible.
You are still wrong to call it *my* "hypothesis". For every hypothesis, the "null hypothesis" - i.e., that there is no relation between the independent and dependent variables - always exists as a possibility that must be addressed and rejected.
In order to support "elite athletes" "performance gains from doping", it is up to you to support this unproven hypothesis, and/or to reject the "null hypothesis". You simply don't have the necessary data sufficient to draw the conclusions you want me to believe. No one does. You seem to agree with that. The best you can do is construct artificial wishful self-serving rationalizations of the style "if it were not so ..." These are essentially new hypotheses presented as de-facto facts, again without supporting data. This only creates more null hypotheses, for example: "All of this could have occurred without performance gains from doping." How you may ask? Belief. Belief has existed long before Jesus, and continues to exist today. Funny you mention the sun shining, because before Jesus, people believed in the sun, praising gods like Horus and Ra. But make no mistake, this new claim is also your claim and it is your burden to support your claims, as well as reject the corresponding null hypotheses.
While you talk about generations of all doping in all sports, my primary topic of interest here is the hypothesized blood-doping performance benefit for distance runners. What further tells me you lack supporting data is your persistent need to muddy and widen the goalposts to include all doping and all sports, so you can include examples like Armstrong (cycling with a half-dozen or so drugs) and Canseco (baseball with steroids), and East-German/Russian/Chinese women, as if that were relevant to the discussion.
You are also wrong to say I have no data. I have six decades of alltime elite performance data. You claim "generations of top athletes from every country and in every sport have doped and continue to do so". I used six decades of historical performance data to test an "EPO worked in the EPO-era for top elite performances" hypothesis, finding that the fastest non-African performances worldwide generally stopped getting faster in the EPO-era.