That's your evasion. Unless you are now trying to say you didn't make the false claim that you did - which would be a lie - you are trying to avoid facing the fact you have produced NOTHING to support your claim that athletes dope because they lack self-belief.
What you can't deal with is being called out on yet another obvious falsehood about doping.
On the point of EPO being more performance enhancing than the shoes, the shoes aren't banned. There is no way WA could justify allowing a new technology that results in greater performance gains than the most potent of peds. But it also shows you know nothing about how these drugs work and why so many athletes use them. You also lied when you said I evaded the question: I didn't. I referred to the example of a convicted drug cheat who ran 3:26.69 in the old shoes. It wasn't shoes that got him that close to El G's record. If it was only training he wouldn't have needed to dope.
In one of your never-ending series of erected goalposts, you wrongly accused me of not ever saying "why" -- something you later argued was a question that could only lead to absurd answers, but you asked anyway. After I corrected your wrong conclusion, you completely abandoned your wrong accusation, to erect a new goalpost. This sequence happens every time you find yourself unable to support your strongly held beliefs.
Your misguided notions of what WA would or wouldn't ban is not a measure, let alone proof, of performance benefits, either for shoes, or for drugs.
The question isn't how these drugs work, but how much. When we answer that, we can compare that to how much the shoes work. Only then can we say one is more than the other.
Your example of Kiprop is also not a proof. "Proof by example" is one of the most simple-minded logical fallacies there is. In any case, nothing proves the 3:26.69 performance was doped. I agree though he didn't need to dope (assuming for argument that he doped). No athlete needs to dope.
Just your semantic misuse of what was meant by "need" shows the interminable dishonesty in your arguments.
You still fail to back up your claim that dopers lack belief in themselves and their training and that is why they dope. What doper has said that?
This post was edited 8 minutes after it was posted.
You still fail to "prove that EPO enables more performance enhancement than the shoes".
Since your claim is "self-evident" that means you can produce no evidence.
It is just as self-evident that countless athletes have doped to gain an advantage.
You still fail to "prove that EPO enables more performance enhancement than the shoes".
Before we can compare two numbers, we need two numbers.
Every intential doping instance is evidence. Lance Armstrong told Oprah he didn't believe he could win without doping. He lacked confidence in his own ability and training, and sought external support.
One small correction: Countless athletes have doped, hoping to gain an advantage after all else has failed.
There are studies that show doping helps several percent, i.e., more than the shoes do reportedly.
Not really, once you scratch the surface.
Well, the shoe studies are even worse. Almost always no check for placebo, no racing, often done on hobby joggers and sometimes not even corrected for the different weights of the shoes. And like the doping studies, with only very few participants who show lots of variations in their improvements.
Well, the shoe studies are even worse. Almost always no check for placebo, no racing, often done on hobby joggers and sometimes not even corrected for the different weights of the shoes. And like the doping studies, with only very few participants who show lots of variations in their improvements.
That's also not so true. The doping/performance studies I've seen are notably worse than the shoe studies.
I have seen shoe studies looking for placebo effects, shoe studies looking at sub-2:08 marathoners, and many studies comparing AFT shoes against non-AFT shoes.
Back to the subject of Sawe: if he was doping, then how the hell did he pass all those extra tests? I don't trust his coach, but it's very hard to pull that off.
The only thing I can think of is a bit far-fetched: coordination with Kenya's airports and cell phone companies to know the locations of the AIU testers. Maybe molidustat could be microdosed most evenings in simulated high-altitude. The molidustat would reduce the time required, and the high-altitude chamber could be shown to the AIU to explain away issues with the biological passport. It would be interesting to see detection time for pegmolesatide, but I can't access the paper.
EPO is too detectable now with the updates. Same with anabolics unless there's something new like "the clear" used by BALCO years ago.
Also, WADA's technical documents don't mention AICAR or MOTS-c despite WADA having some advanced AICAR research elsewhere on their web site. Metabolic modulators probably wouldn't increase VO2 max in elite athletes, but the peripheral adaptations might bring lactate threshold closer to VO2 max.
That's your evasion. Unless you are now trying to say you didn't make the false claim that you did - which would be a lie - you are trying to avoid facing the fact you have produced NOTHING to support your claim that athletes dope because they lack self-belief.
What you can't deal with is being called out on yet another obvious falsehood about doping.
On the point of EPO being more performance enhancing than the shoes, the shoes aren't banned. There is no way WA could justify allowing a new technology that results in greater performance gains than the most potent of peds. But it also shows you know nothing about how these drugs work and why so many athletes use them. You also lied when you said I evaded the question: I didn't. I referred to the example of a convicted drug cheat who ran 3:26.69 in the old shoes. It wasn't shoes that got him that close to El G's record. If it was only training he wouldn't have needed to dope.
Ok, clearly incapable of understanding why the shoes 'work' , despite it being explained several times. You know Armstrong, there isn't a motor in there nor anything that gives outside assistance, but totally over your head.
But since you also say that others know nothing about 'how drugs work', how about you give a 'PED 101' right here.
You just see and hear stuff and then regurgitate it on a forum continuously as if you are an expert
Well, the shoe studies are even worse. Almost always no check for placebo, no racing, often done on hobby joggers and sometimes not even corrected for the different weights of the shoes. And like the doping studies, with only very few participants who show lots of variations in their improvements.
... and more to the point, we still cannot make any quantitive comparison of drugs versus shoes, with anything less than two quantities.
According to WADA reports, the sport is dirty. It is about as dirty as the global average of all WADA sports combined.
There is a scientifically approved way clean runners destroy previous marks -- a new generation of shoes which significantly improves running economy.
"Running economy" doesn't beat drugs or the shoes would be banned and the drugs wouldn't. Plus of course that there are world records still standing that were set long before supershoes.
Another performance factor is durability. That likely affects the marathon and maybe the half marathon. But also, the road races allow a taller stack height (40mm) than track races. Cheptegei's track records were set when the distance events allowed 25mm which has since dropped to 20mm. But also, the EPO test was updated after his records. And metabolic modulators may be more significant at longer distances. So many factors.
Well, the shoe studies are even worse. Almost always no check for placebo, no racing, often done on hobby joggers and sometimes not even corrected for the different weights of the shoes. And like the doping studies, with only very few participants who show lots of variations in their improvements.
That's also not so true. The doping/performance studies I've seen are notably worse than the shoe studies.
I have seen shoe studies looking for placebo effects, shoe studies looking at sub-2:08 marathoners, and many studies comparing AFT shoes against non-AFT shoes.
That ignores "almost always", "often", "no racing", "sometimes not even corrected for the different weights of the shoes", and "with only very few participants who show lots of variations in their improvements." So your "not so true" is pushing it, and you gave no examples...
Back to the subject of Sawe: if he was doping, then how the hell did he pass all those extra tests? I don't trust his coach, but it's very hard to pull that off.
The only thing I can think of is a bit far-fetched: coordination with Kenya's airports and cell phone companies to know the locations of the AIU testers. Maybe molidustat could be microdosed most evenings in simulated high-altitude. The molidustat would reduce the time required, and the high-altitude chamber could be shown to the AIU to explain away issues with the biological passport. It would be interesting to see detection time for pegmolesatide, but I can't access the paper.
EPO is too detectable now with the updates. Same with anabolics unless there's something new like "the clear" used by BALCO years ago.
I can also think of regular 100 - 200 mL transfusions. Those will only change the various blood parameters by 2% - 4% each time, while the ABP easily ignores 10% changes.
And testosterone with the right carbon isotope ratio - costly but doable. That cannot be detected either.
I have seen both options mentioned here quite regularly. presumably because they are so obvious.
Back to the subject of Sawe: if he was doping, then how the hell did he pass all those extra tests? I don't trust his coach, but it's very hard to pull that off.
The only thing I can think of is a bit far-fetched: coordination with Kenya's airports and cell phone companies to know the locations of the AIU testers. Maybe molidustat could be microdosed most evenings in simulated high-altitude. The molidustat would reduce the time required, and the high-altitude chamber could be shown to the AIU to explain away issues with the biological passport. It would be interesting to see detection time for pegmolesatide, but I can't access the paper.
EPO is too detectable now with the updates. Same with anabolics unless there's something new like "the clear" used by BALCO years ago.
I can also think of regular 100 - 200 mL transfusions. Those will only change the various blood parameters by 2% - 4% each time, while the ABP easily ignores 10% changes.
And testosterone with the right carbon isotope ratio - costly but doable. That cannot be detected either.
I have seen both options mentioned here quite regularly. presumably because they are so obvious.
That's interesting about the carbon ratios. Can something similar be done with EPO?
Transfusions from another person get flagged easily. That happened to Tyler Hamilton. I think he believed it was deliberate from Lance Armstrong to get him busted, if I remember correctly
There are studies that show doping helps several percent, i.e., more than the shoes do reportedly.
Not really, once you scratch the surface.
You have claimed the shoes wouldn't have offered El G more than a second improvement on his 1500/mile time. No one who understands what drugs do suggests EPO doesn't give more than a second improvement over that distance. Ramzi gained nearly 10 seconds over the 1500 and Katir dropped from 3:36 to 3:28 in a year. That has what drugs can do. Not shoes.