We like to have 1 thread per topic so we merged two threads together and kept the title of this thread. The other thread was entitled, "Assefa performance."
Yes we know people take drugs. That doesn't mean that those drugs improve performance. It's a false narrative endorsed by those with a vested interest.
But you have a big chip on your shoulder which has become an obsession.
The vested interest is with the athletes looking for gains. If they weren't getting them there would be no interest in doping and it wouldn't exist. Drugs are like any other product; if people don't get what they want from it they don't buy. You make it the only product on the free market that is sold in enormous quantities (over a billion dollars on the black market each year) but doesn't deliver results. The market doesn't work like that. What doesn't satisfy the customer disappears. No one wants it. But you have no understanding of any of this. You just want to believe doping doesn't work and your favourite athletes are clean. They won't be. They don't want to lose to those who also use drugs.
There are a lot of false premises and pseudo-relations proposed here. Your statements could be made stronger if you had substantial evidential support for them -- but you don't, and you won't, because you cannot. Nothing (except your faith in the athletes' faith) says that "athletes looking for gains" actually found them, and that they were attributable to doping.
If doping could produce these significant results for elite women's performances, you would not be able to hide it from the stopwatch. We should have already seen many examples of these significant results in most all countries that dope, and not just small regions in Africa, which may or may not dope. Instead we have seen very little evidence of significant elite performances, and very few candidates, since the days of Ingrid Kristiansen and Joan Benoit (say sub-2:21) -- until the new shoes. For example, as a nation, all time, Russian women (high doping prevelance for four decades) did not outperform Japanese women (estimated 0% prevelance) in the women's marathon.
There are vested interests in exagerrating doping benefits and keeping the myths alive from coaches, agents, doctors, pharmacists, who will take a percentage of any winnings, as well as pharmeceutical companies, as well as anti-doping authorities, etc.
You are mistaken when you say "people don't get what they want". What they are buying is "hope", and sometimes these hopes are realized, and performance results will improve, and this will be attributed to doping, ignoring other non-doping factors, for a whole host of psychological reasons.
Your constant faith in the size of the "black market" is massively misguided. This estimated amount of the market includes other sports, like body-building, weight-lifting, and non-distance events like sprints and field events, and non-WADA sports like baseball, rugby, football, etc. It's also not clear to what extent the "black market" estimate considers supplements and medication which are not banned by WADA. What would be relevant in this forum would be for you to use just the size of the market for WADA banned drugs, limited to distance running events, like the marathon in this thread.
The vested interest is with the athletes looking for gains. If they weren't getting them there would be no interest in doping and it wouldn't exist. Drugs are like any other product; if people don't get what they want from it they don't buy. You make it the only product on the free market that is sold in enormous quantities (over a billion dollars on the black market each year) but doesn't deliver results. The market doesn't work like that. What doesn't satisfy the customer disappears. No one wants it. But you have no understanding of any of this. You just want to believe doping doesn't work and your favourite athletes are clean. They won't be. They don't want to lose to those who also use drugs.
There are a lot of false premises and pseudo-relations proposed here. Your statements could be made stronger if you had substantial evidential support for them -- but you don't, and you won't, because you cannot. Nothing (except your faith in the athletes' faith) says that "athletes looking for gains" actually found them, and that they were attributable to doping.
If doping could produce these significant results for elite women's performances, you would not be able to hide it from the stopwatch. We should have already seen many examples of these significant results in most all countries that dope, and not just small regions in Africa, which may or may not dope. Instead we have seen very little evidence of significant elite performances, and very few candidates, since the days of Ingrid Kristiansen and Joan Benoit (say sub-2:21) -- until the new shoes. For example, as a nation, all time, Russian women (high doping prevelance for four decades) did not outperform Japanese women (estimated 0% prevelance) in the women's marathon.
There are vested interests in exagerrating doping benefits and keeping the myths alive from coaches, agents, doctors, pharmacists, who will take a percentage of any winnings, as well as pharmeceutical companies, as well as anti-doping authorities, etc.
You are mistaken when you say "people don't get what they want". What they are buying is "hope", and sometimes these hopes are realized, and performance results will improve, and this will be attributed to doping, ignoring other non-doping factors, for a whole host of psychological reasons.
Your constant faith in the size of the "black market" is massively misguided. This estimated amount of the market includes other sports, like body-building, weight-lifting, and non-distance events like sprints and field events, and non-WADA sports like baseball, rugby, football, etc. It's also not clear to what extent the "black market" estimate considers supplements and medication which are not banned by WADA. What would be relevant in this forum would be for you to use just the size of the market for WADA banned drugs, limited to distance running events, like the marathon in this thread.
The black market is in banned peds. Experts reported by Al Jazeera have estimated it at over a billion Euros annually. There isn't anything you can argue that minimises that figure.
You are ridiculous in trying to argue that we don't know if drugs are performance enhancing because we don't have exact data, when the reality is that no athlete that dopes submits to academic analysis of the effects of the drugs they use. But what we do know is that the drugs are banned because of their perceived likely effects on sporting performance - that is the main reason - and they are used by athletes in every sport. If athletes and coaches can reliably gauge the effects of training on performance they will certainly be able to do the same with drugs.
You show the extent of your absurdity when you think a practice as widespread and enduring as doping is could persist without producing results for those athletes that use drugs. The market in performance enhancing drugs is no different from any other kind of market, that flourishes because it delivers what its consumers want. Yet you persist with your nonsensical claim that coaches and athletes are effectively naive and gullible fools, who are somehow being duped into believing the drugs are helping them - as though they can't know if this is so through their own experiences of using them - and they have been doing this for generations.
I really worry that in the near future, no one will be able to break a World Record without being suspected of Drugs, I hope I am wrong and most will see new World Records as solely because of Hard Work, Consistency and Dedication in Training, proper amount of sleep and a fairly Healthy Diet
The vested interest is with the athletes looking for gains. If they weren't getting them there would be no interest in doping and it wouldn't exist. Drugs are like any other product; if people don't get what they want from it they don't buy. You make it the only product on the free market that is sold in enormous quantities (over a billion dollars on the black market each year) but doesn't deliver results. The market doesn't work like that. What doesn't satisfy the customer disappears. No one wants it. But you have no understanding of any of this. You just want to believe doping doesn't work and your favourite athletes are clean. They won't be. They don't want to lose to those who also use drugs.
There are a lot of false premises and pseudo-relations proposed here. Your statements could be made stronger if you had substantial evidential support for them -- but you don't, and you won't, because you cannot. Nothing (except your faith in the athletes' faith) says that "athletes looking for gains" actually found them, and that they were attributable to doping.
If doping could produce these significant results for elite women's performances, you would not be able to hide it from the stopwatch. We should have already seen many examples of these significant results in most all countries that dope, and not just small regions in Africa, which may or may not dope. Instead we have seen very little evidence of significant elite performances, and very few candidates, since the days of Ingrid Kristiansen and Joan Benoit (say sub-2:21) -- until the new shoes. For example, as a nation, all time, Russian women (high doping prevelance for four decades) did not outperform Japanese women (estimated 0% prevelance) in the women's marathon.
There are vested interests in exagerrating doping benefits and keeping the myths alive from coaches, agents, doctors, pharmacists, who will take a percentage of any winnings, as well as pharmeceutical companies, as well as anti-doping authorities, etc.
You are mistaken when you say "people don't get what they want". What they are buying is "hope", and sometimes these hopes are realized, and performance results will improve, and this will be attributed to doping, ignoring other non-doping factors, for a whole host of psychological reasons.
Your constant faith in the size of the "black market" is massively misguided. This estimated amount of the market includes other sports, like body-building, weight-lifting, and non-distance events like sprints and field events, and non-WADA sports like baseball, rugby, football, etc. It's also not clear to what extent the "black market" estimate considers supplements and medication which are not banned by WADA. What would be relevant in this forum would be for you to use just the size of the market for WADA banned drugs, limited to distance running events, like the marathon in this thread.
There are no reputable clinical studies on the efficacy of the most prevalent performance enhancing drugs (except caffeine - which has been proven to be a highly effective performance enhancer). To conduct such clinical studies would be unethical. The lack of such studies means that nether of you can claim to be correct. The fact is, neither of you have a clue - just conjecture.
But conjecture is what this whole forum is about... amirite?
Yet you have consistently failed to provide any personal experience that shows your drug use has helped you to run any faster compared to natural methods, along with examples of your training before and after using the drugs.
Personal attacks on other posters is not evidence that drugs help people to run faster.
There are a lot of false premises and pseudo-relations proposed here. Your statements could be made stronger if you had substantial evidential support for them -- but you don't, and you won't, because you cannot. Nothing (except your faith in the athletes' faith) says that "athletes looking for gains" actually found them, and that they were attributable to doping.
If doping could produce these significant results for elite women's performances, you would not be able to hide it from the stopwatch. We should have already seen many examples of these significant results in most all countries that dope, and not just small regions in Africa, which may or may not dope. Instead we have seen very little evidence of significant elite performances, and very few candidates, since the days of Ingrid Kristiansen and Joan Benoit (say sub-2:21) -- until the new shoes. For example, as a nation, all time, Russian women (high doping prevelance for four decades) did not outperform Japanese women (estimated 0% prevelance) in the women's marathon.
There are vested interests in exagerrating doping benefits and keeping the myths alive from coaches, agents, doctors, pharmacists, who will take a percentage of any winnings, as well as pharmeceutical companies, as well as anti-doping authorities, etc.
You are mistaken when you say "people don't get what they want". What they are buying is "hope", and sometimes these hopes are realized, and performance results will improve, and this will be attributed to doping, ignoring other non-doping factors, for a whole host of psychological reasons.
Your constant faith in the size of the "black market" is massively misguided. This estimated amount of the market includes other sports, like body-building, weight-lifting, and non-distance events like sprints and field events, and non-WADA sports like baseball, rugby, football, etc. It's also not clear to what extent the "black market" estimate considers supplements and medication which are not banned by WADA. What would be relevant in this forum would be for you to use just the size of the market for WADA banned drugs, limited to distance running events, like the marathon in this thread.
There are no reputable clinical studies on the efficacy of the most prevalent performance enhancing drugs (except caffeine - which has been proven to be a highly effective performance enhancer). To conduct such clinical studies would be unethical. The lack of such studies means that nether of you can claim to be correct. The fact is, neither of you have a clue - just conjecture.
But conjecture is what this whole forum is about... amirite?
What isn't conjecture is that doping has been widespread in the sport for decades and continues to develop. What practice based on science, in which countless individuals have based time, effort and money, can you think of that persists without achieving results?
Yet you have consistently failed to provide any personal experience that shows your drug use has helped you to run any faster compared to natural methods, along with examples of your training before and after using the drugs.
Personal attacks on other posters is not evidence that drugs help people to run faster.
The evidence is the fact that it has been practised by athletes in all sports for decades. If it had not achieved results it would have had no more adherents than those who seek the advice of a soothsayer.
There are no reputable clinical studies on the efficacy of the most prevalent performance enhancing drugs (except caffeine - which has been proven to be a highly effective performance enhancer). To conduct such clinical studies would be unethical. The lack of such studies means that nether of you can claim to be correct. The fact is, neither of you have a clue - just conjecture.
But conjecture is what this whole forum is about... amirite?
Pointing to a lack of clinical studies is a red-herring. I claim the substantial evidence is lacking. You seem to be arguing that I am right.
The black market is in banned peds. Experts reported by Al Jazeera have estimated it at over a billion Euros annually. There isn't anything you can argue that minimises that figure.
You are ridiculous in trying to argue that we don't know if drugs are performance enhancing because we don't have exact data, when the reality is that no athlete that dopes submits to academic analysis of the effects of the drugs they use. But what we do know is that the drugs are banned because of their perceived likely effects on sporting performance - that is the main reason - and they are used by athletes in every sport. If athletes and coaches can reliably gauge the effects of training on performance they will certainly be able to do the same with drugs.
You show the extent of your absurdity when you think a practice as widespread and enduring as doping is could persist without producing results for those athletes that use drugs. The market in performance enhancing drugs is no different from any other kind of market, that flourishes because it delivers what its consumers want. Yet you persist with your nonsensical claim that coaches and athletes are effectively naive and gullible fools, who are somehow being duped into believing the drugs are helping them - as though they can't know if this is so through their own experiences of using them - and they have been doing this for generations.
Again, I ask for substantial evidence, for any of your claims. You say "experts reported". Can you tell me any names of the experts who reported "the black market is in banned peds"? The Al Jazeera documentary I saw did not credit that claim to any expert. You say "banned" -- banned by whom? You say "PEDs" -- a term that is a vague, subjective and presumptuous.
While you talk about a figure I did not challenge (which you are still getting wrong), I argued that Al Jazeera did not explain what they counted in the black market, nor how they estimated the black market, and that it surely included many sports and events and drugs not relevant to distance running, and includes both amateurs and professional athletes.
The black market drugs delivers what it promises -- hope. It is not different than the flourishing supplement market (estimated globally at $160 billion in 2022). In a world looking for convenient solutions in a pill, athletes will take pills based on a promise. If the results were delivered as promised, and as widespread as you believe, we could see these signficant results with a stopwatch -- like we do today with the shoes. If they have been doing it for generations, we should be able to see these results across generations. It is ridiculous to suggest such widespread significant benefits, but not be able to distinguish them.
I don't argue that you don't have exact data, but that you have no data of substance. Academic analysis is a red-herring. You say "perceived effects" -- who perceived what effect? That's the kind of substance you consistently lack. What I know from WADA, because they explain it on their website, is that they ban substances based on subjective committee assessments of two out of three factors, one of which is "potential to improve performance" -- a promise without requiring confirmation in the results.
There are no reputable clinical studies on the efficacy of the most prevalent performance enhancing drugs (except caffeine - which has been proven to be a highly effective performance enhancer). To conduct such clinical studies would be unethical. The lack of such studies means that nether of you can claim to be correct. The fact is, neither of you have a clue - just conjecture.
But conjecture is what this whole forum is about... amirite?
Pointing to a lack of clinical studies is a red-herring. I claim the substantial evidence is lacking. You seem to be arguing that I am right.
The "substantial evidence" that you rely on is non-existent studies of doped elite athletes, and therefore in your view the "evidence" (or lack of it) doesn't show a performance advantage through doping. The evidence I and others in the real world rely on is the fact that athletes dope throughout sports and have done so for decades.
Your doping argument is essentially no different from those who argue trans females do not have an advantage over biological females because we don't have sufficient "data" of trans females competing as women. You ring-fence the doping argument in the same way to arrive at the conclusion you prefer, which is that the "data" doesn't show a performance advantage with doping. Of course - with no data you can argue what you wish. Meanwhile the sporting world laughs at you, as athletes continue their doping - as they long have.
The black market is in banned peds. Experts reported by Al Jazeera have estimated it at over a billion Euros annually. There isn't anything you can argue that minimises that figure.
You are ridiculous in trying to argue that we don't know if drugs are performance enhancing because we don't have exact data, when the reality is that no athlete that dopes submits to academic analysis of the effects of the drugs they use. But what we do know is that the drugs are banned because of their perceived likely effects on sporting performance - that is the main reason - and they are used by athletes in every sport. If athletes and coaches can reliably gauge the effects of training on performance they will certainly be able to do the same with drugs.
You show the extent of your absurdity when you think a practice as widespread and enduring as doping is could persist without producing results for those athletes that use drugs. The market in performance enhancing drugs is no different from any other kind of market, that flourishes because it delivers what its consumers want. Yet you persist with your nonsensical claim that coaches and athletes are effectively naive and gullible fools, who are somehow being duped into believing the drugs are helping them - as though they can't know if this is so through their own experiences of using them - and they have been doing this for generations.
Again, I ask for substantial evidence, for any of your claims. You say "experts reported". Can you tell me any names of the experts who reported "the black market is in banned peds"? The Al Jazeera documentary I saw did not credit that claim to any expert. You say "banned" -- banned by whom? You say "PEDs" -- a term that is a vague, subjective and presumptuous.
While you talk about a figure I did not challenge (which you are still getting wrong), I argued that Al Jazeera did not explain what they counted in the black market, nor how they estimated the black market, and that it surely included many sports and events and drugs not relevant to distance running, and includes both amateurs and professional athletes.
The black market drugs delivers what it promises -- hope. It is not different than the flourishing supplement market (estimated globally at $160 billion in 2022). In a world looking for convenient solutions in a pill, athletes will take pills based on a promise. If the results were delivered as promised, and as widespread as you believe, we could see these signficant results with a stopwatch -- like we do today with the shoes. If they have been doing it for generations, we should be able to see these results across generations. It is ridiculous to suggest such widespread significant benefits, but not be able to distinguish them.
I don't argue that you don't have exact data, but that you have no data of substance. Academic analysis is a red-herring. You say "perceived effects" -- who perceived what effect? That's the kind of substance you consistently lack. What I know from WADA, because they explain it on their website, is that they ban substances based on subjective committee assessments of two out of three factors, one of which is "potential to improve performance" -- a promise without requiring confirmation in the results.
Your flat-earthism knows no limits. No one has refuted the Al Jazeera report that the black market in ped's is over a billion Euros. Of course to be a black market it has to be in banned drugs - performance enhancing drugs and not recreational drugs - as that was the subject of their investigation.
Your claim that all doping offers athletes is "hope" is rebutted by the fact that countless coaches, trainers and athletes have used and are using peds. If these drugs had no more effect than roast peas there would be no industry in it.
Of course there will be no exact measure of the effect of these drugs for two reasons - like all drugs there will be some variation in response by those using them, just as the drugs themselves vary and are constantly changing, and secondly no doped athletes submit themselves to academic research on their doping. But we know enough about these drugs to ascertain they can enhance performance - this is the conclusion of experts that WADA relies on, and the drugs would not be used by the numbers of athletes who use them if they didn't - which is the primary reason they are banned and not because of the possible effects on health if they are abused, effects which are largely unknown. WADA is a sports governance agency, not a medical regulatory body.
Your comparison with the shoes is ridiculous. The shoes are not banned, we can easily attempt to measure what effect they may have - but even that remains highly speculative. Some athletes appear to benefit while others don't. But what an athlete puts on their feet has nothing like the impact of what they can do to change their body, as doping enables them to do. Just look at Ben Johnson. It wasn't shoes but his massively increased muscle power that made him a 9.79 runner from one who couldn't break 10.1 without drugs.
The "substantial evidence" that you rely on is non-existent studies of doped elite athletes, and therefore in your view the "evidence" (or lack of it) doesn't show a performance advantage through doping. The evidence I and others in the real world rely on is the fact that athletes dope throughout sports and have done so for decades.
Your doping argument is essentially no different from those who argue trans females do not have an advantage over biological females because we don't have sufficient "data" of trans females competing as women. You ring-fence the doping argument in the same way to arrive at the conclusion you prefer, which is that the "data" doesn't show a performance advantage with doping. Of course - with no data you can argue what you wish. Meanwhile the sporting world laughs at you, as athletes continue their doping - as they long have.
It is not me ring-fencing "substantial evidence" to just clinical studies. I gave no such restriction or limitation.
In the domain of trans females, I would say that there is plenty of substantial performance evidence that men have physical advantages over cisgender women, and that women on steroids also have an unnatural physical strength advantage over cisgender women.
If you want to make claims about performance (i.e. in the women's marathon), but fail to include any performance evidence (or for that matter, women's marathon doping prevalence estimates), they will remain baseless, regardless of what athletes in other sports decide to do, or have done for decades.
Although not a real double-blind study, wasn’t there a guy several years ago who documented his experimentation with EPO? I think it was a documentary and the results of using EPO were massive, iirc.
Your flat-earthism knows no limits. No one has refuted the Al Jazeera report that the black market in ped's is over a billion Euros. Of course to be a black market it has to be in banned drugs - performance enhancing drugs and not recreational drugs - as that was the subject of their investigation.
Your claim that all doping offers athletes is "hope" is rebutted by the fact that countless coaches, trainers and athletes have used and are using peds. If these drugs had no more effect than roast peas there would be no industry in it.
Of course there will be no exact measure of the effect of these drugs for two reasons - like all drugs there will be some variation in response by those using them, just as the drugs themselves vary and are constantly changing, and secondly no doped athletes submit themselves to academic research on their doping. But we know enough about these drugs to ascertain they can enhance performance - this is the conclusion of experts that WADA relies on, and the drugs would not be used by the numbers of athletes who use them if they didn't - which is the primary reason they are banned and not because of the possible effects on health if they are abused, effects which are largely unknown. WADA is a sports governance agency, not a medical regulatory body.
Your comparison with the shoes is ridiculous. The shoes are not banned, we can easily attempt to measure what effect they may have - but even that remains highly speculative. Some athletes appear to benefit while others don't. But what an athlete puts on their feet has nothing like the impact of what they can do to change their body, as doping enables them to do. Just look at Ben Johnson. It wasn't shoes but his massively increased muscle power that made him a 9.79 runner from one who couldn't break 10.1 without drugs.
Who would refute it? I'm not sure anyone has even seen the Al Jazeera report. Outside of you and me, I could only find one thread with one reply discussing it at letsrun forum. I am not refuting the Al Jazeera report, but rather your allegation that an "expert" said it was about "banned PEDs" -- not to mention that it treats all sports and all events collectively, saying nothing about distance running performance. Note that recreational drugs are also banned by WADA.
Saying something "can enhance performance" just describes a potential possibility, and ironically, completely undermines any suggestion that "we know enough about these drugs". WADA experts do not know whether it does enhance distance running performance, e.g. for the marathon, so their lawyers have inserted language about "potential to enhance performance", as well as making WADA's subjective banned substance list unilateral and final, with no right for athletes to question what makes the list, and what doesn't.
We are in a thread about the women's marathon -- why do you keep talking about all these other sports, or Ben Johnson? Answer: because you have no performance data for the women's marathon.
The vested interest is with the athletes looking for gains. If they weren't getting them there would be no interest in doping and it wouldn't exist. Drugs are like any other product; if people don't get what they want from it they don't buy. You make it the only product on the free market that is sold in enormous quantities (over a billion dollars on the black market each year) but doesn't deliver results. The market doesn't work like that. What doesn't satisfy the customer disappears. No one wants it. But you have no understanding of any of this. You just want to believe doping doesn't work and your favourite athletes are clean. They won't be. They don't want to lose to those who also use drugs.
No. You're obsession with drugs is silly. There are no magic metabolic bullets. There is no magic metabolism. You just keep repeating the same inane drug endorsements.
You aren't anti-doping at all it's just a smokescreen for your wilful ignorance.
Although not a real double-blind study, wasn’t there a guy several years ago who documented his experimentation with EPO? I think it was a documentary and the results of using EPO were massive, iirc.
Not sure.
There was a BBC reporter Marc Daly, who showed that he could (initially) defeat some ABP measures, but he didn't measure any performance. He just talked about how he felt (placebo?).
There was another cyclist in Icarus, by Brian Fogel, who suffered mechanical failures, and in the end, could not demonstrate doping made him finish faster.
I vaguely recall another French documentary where they did time trials on the track, but cannot recall any results.
I cannot recall anyone doing anything similar over the marathon distance.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.