Please, do not force this Armstrong guy to study testing of the null hypothesis. It will just get worse. First he ought to study the Dunning Kruger Effect. With great bravado he has claimed that it is not possible to run sub 3:29 without PED, and probably not even sub 3:29. How does he know? May be by heavenly inspiration.
Please, do not force this Armstrong guy to study testing of the null hypothesis. It will just get worse. First he ought to study the Dunning Kruger Effect. With great bravado he has claimed that it is not possible to run sub 3:29 without PED, and probably not even sub 3:29. How does he know? May be by heavenly inspiration.
Armstrong guy,alias Moon Cheese , has argued that the absence of evidence for his stance means that he is correct because this proves that all the evidence has been suppressed.
Absence of evidence for his stance is thus evidence that he is right.
Actually it wasnt armstrong who said 3.29 was impossible without drugs.It was another poster who mentioned that 3.33 is about the natural limit,for a male 1500 runner.That poster also said that anything under 3.35 would be very hard to run,clean,and that for women the cut off is 4.03.Armstrong never gave an exact ballpark figure,or cut off point.
Actually it wasnt armstrong who said 3.29 was impossible without drugs.It was another poster who mentioned that 3.33 is about the natural limit,for a male 1500 runner.That poster also said that anything under 3.35 would be very hard to run,clean,and that for women the cut off is 4.03.Armstrong never gave an exact ballpark figure,or cut off point.
Armstrong is never to hot on facts ; ie he persistently argued that all medical books are just quite simply wrong.
Please, do not force this Armstrong guy to study testing of the null hypothesis. It will just get worse. First he ought to study the Dunning Kruger Effect. With great bravado he has claimed that it is not possible to run sub 3:29 without PED, and probably not even sub 3:29. How does he know? May be by heavenly inspiration.
Oh -- I'm pretty sure he will argue he knows all about the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Actually it wasnt armstrong who said 3.29 was impossible without drugs.It was another poster who mentioned that 3.33 is about the natural limit,for a male 1500 runner.That poster also said that anything under 3.35 would be very hard to run,clean,and that for women the cut off is 4.03.Armstrong never gave an exact ballpark figure,or cut off point.
For the women's 800 he stated that sub 1:55 is clearly doped territory and that Athing Mu with a 1:55.04 PB at age 19 might be clean.
Please, do not force this Armstrong guy to study testing of the null hypothesis. It will just get worse. First he ought to study the Dunning Kruger Effect. With great bravado he has claimed that it is not possible to run sub 3:29 without PED, and probably not even sub 3:29. How does he know? May be by heavenly inspiration.
Oh -- I'm pretty sure he will argue he knows all about the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Based on some ideas on the maturing of Moon Cheese is what I gather is his understanding.
Please, do not force this Armstrong guy to study testing of the null hypothesis. It will just get worse. First he ought to study the Dunning Kruger Effect. With great bravado he has claimed that it is not possible to run sub 3:29 without PED, and probably not even sub 3:29. How does he know? May be by heavenly inspiration.
Oh -- I'm pretty sure he will argue he knows all about the Dunning-Kruger effect.
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.
As always, the longer your posts the less you have to say. They can be safely ignored.
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.
As always, the longer your posts the less you have to say. They can be safely ignored.
And your belief that the moon may be green cheese will be ignored as uneducated and low intelligence garbage .
Please, do not force this Armstrong guy to study testing of the null hypothesis. It will just get worse. First he ought to study the Dunning Kruger Effect. With great bravado he has claimed that it is not possible to run sub 3:29 without PED, and probably not even sub 3:29. How does he know? May be by heavenly inspiration.
I didn't say that. But you can be relied upon, like the other excitable fleas here, to not understand anything that doesn't already swirl around your fevered little brain. Also, your pretensions to intellectual philosophy are just that - empty pretensions. If you want to understand the Dunning-Kruger effect you need look no further than yourself.
However the position in which you leave yourself, by not finding a point at which only doping can achieve or surpass a given time, is that any level of performance is therefore possible clean. That would certainly include 3:26 for the 1500m, but also anything faster - 3:25, or 3:24. The same would apply to the women's 800m record. If there is no clean limit then 1:53.2 is not doped, and nor would be 1:52, 1:51, and so on. Everything is possible in your world, that knows nothing of the sport or human physiology. But with such limitations you are at least are not troubled by what you don't know - even if others can see it.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Please, do not force this Armstrong guy to study testing of the null hypothesis. It will just get worse. First he ought to study the Dunning Kruger Effect. With great bravado he has claimed that it is not possible to run sub 3:29 without PED, and probably not even sub 3:29. How does he know? May be by heavenly inspiration.
Armstrong guy,alias Moon Cheese , has argued that the absence of evidence for his stance means that he is correct because this proves that all the evidence has been suppressed.
Absence of evidence for his stance is thus evidence that he is right.
The "absence of evidence proving his stance is right" is a perfect summation of rekrunner's position but you aren't smart enough to realise it.
Actually it wasnt armstrong who said 3.29 was impossible without drugs.It was another poster who mentioned that 3.33 is about the natural limit,for a male 1500 runner.That poster also said that anything under 3.35 would be very hard to run,clean,and that for women the cut off is 4.03.Armstrong never gave an exact ballpark figure,or cut off point.
You are correct, but everyone who disagrees with them becomes the same person to them. Discernment isn't part of their tool-kit.
Actually it wasnt armstrong who said 3.29 was impossible without drugs.It was another poster who mentioned that 3.33 is about the natural limit,for a male 1500 runner.That poster also said that anything under 3.35 would be very hard to run,clean,and that for women the cut off is 4.03.Armstrong never gave an exact ballpark figure,or cut off point.
Armstrong is never to hot on facts ; ie he persistently argued that all medical books are just quite simply wrong.
Not all of them. The books on psychiatric disorders describe your condition perfectly.