Armstronglivs wrote:
I know you're not very bright but there is this: if doping didnt aid training athletes wouldn't dope while training - yet many do, as we see from doping busts - and nor would doping be banned in training, but only in competition. But it is banned also in training because performance enhancement doesn't simply and magically occur when drugs are taken on race day. Welcome to the real world.
Insulting my intelligence -- that is not the winning argument of the intellectual.
Recall we are in a thread about Cheptegei's performance, and no credible link to doping has been established.
Similarly, you have not established any unnatural training load.
Making up more "if it were so" relations is just pure personal conjecture -- declarations of your fantastic world view that may or may not be linked to reality.
This looks like the kind of elaborate rationalization necessary when you have no real data or observations to support fantastic claims.
I'm keenly aware that the real world of faith and myth and gossip and rumors is not the same world as intellectual scientists and philosophers.
Here are your real world intellectual challenges:
"Use" is only evidence of prevalence and emotions like hope, and belief
Drugs are banned on a subjective a priori determination that a substance can 1) potentially aid, 2) potentially harm, and/or 3) violate the spirit of sport
Attempting to appeal to athletes' use is simply not sufficient to show that increased training and improved performance resulted from such use.
If you want to make a point about increased training loads, you need data and real world observations that measure training loads.
If you want to make a point about performance, you need data and real world observations that measure performance.
If you want to associate either of these with doping, you need carefully controlled observations to avoid spurious relation, or a sufficiently large set of representative observations to at least show correlations (which may still be spurious).
Lacking at least a showing of correlation is not a very strong position.
But let's suppose that you establish beyond reasonable intellectual challenge that doping increases training loads, and that training loads improve performance, and that doping improves all performances for all athletes.
This is still not sufficient to suspect Cheptegei, based on performance alone.
You have not established the essential link between Cheptegei and doping, to show that such unchallengeable proofs are applicable.
To make the point without establishing that link, based on some notion of increased likelihood, requires showing that such performances cannot be as likely achieved without doping. This similarly requires a sufficiently large set of observations (which may be spurious).