'We Can Now Estimate the Effect of Blood Doping'

Aragon wrote:

If you knew from the title of the thread that it was 100 % about estimating the performance boost, why don't just ignore thread altogether in the first place?

Being informed means being aware of views that you don't agree with or that may be wrong. But I do find it reassuring when the better-informed views hold sway. As they do with anti-doping.

Discussions with you always founder on your inability to grasp nuance or even the obvious.

I did not say the thread was about the legality of blood-doping; that observation was simply to underscore that views like yours carry no official weight. That is because to those who are charged with eradicating doping in sport your views are considered highly-partial ill-informed and wrong. Which they are.

To put the debate in perspective, it is the accepted position in the anti-doping world - which is guided by the advice of sports physicians - that blood-doping confers a demonstrable and thus unfair advantage. Your attempts to argue that this isn't so for some athletes is not accepted; it is specious exceptionalism.

The exact benefit of blood-doping, while it may be of academic interest to some, can never be established, for the reason that no two human beings are exactly the same physiologically. We see this demonstrated with the coronavirus epidemic, when people are affected very differently. But the official conclusion arrived at with blood-doping, as with other forms of banned doping, is that it has a very high likelihood (not a "maybe" - even coffee is more than that) of aiding performance.

There is a further methodological reason why we may never gain the clearest picture of the effects of blood-doping: it is a clandestine practice; the data will not be available, as the studies - such as they are - will be too limited. I can hear the same point being made by Dr Fauci about studies that purport to show that certain drugs work on COVID-19. But in the case of blood-doping, lack of exactitude doesn't alter the general picture that has emerged and been accepted for over 30 years, that it enhances performance. I prefer that that anti-doping authorities act on that which is indicative, even if it can't be absolutely definitive. If it were otherwise, nothing could be done. But that would suit you. After all, doping is merely "belief" in your universe.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

You can lead a horse to water....

This shows the same pattern. You start a thought, but don't complete it nor support it.

Your use of "..." similarly raises many unanswered questions, as you leave everything open to the interpretation and imagination of the reader.

Have you led the horse to water? Or was the trough dry?

Did the horse drink? Why or why not? You must show your work for credit.

Did it help? Why or why not? You must show your work for credit. You must also define "help" in this context.

Are you leading a horse, or are you the blind leading (or following) the blind, judging the one that sees things differently?

Yes, you are a blind horse.

rekrunner wrote:

But often these threads, before having reliably established cause and effect at elite levels, go much further than that, turning cause and effect around to say that any great performance, e.g. world record performances from the '90s, is only possible doped, as if doping were the only cause that leads to that effect.

This thinking is particularly extremely damaging to the sport, as every athlete who succeeds in their lifelong goal of being the best in the world, becomes villains, instead of heroes, by these "fans" of the sport.

Complete strawman.

But why even bring up legality at all, if it is neither an interesting discussion, nor relevant to the thread?

WADA bans substances on a mere potential to improve performance, and also for the athletes' health. It would be foolish to extrapolate from that information alone, the conclusion that some world records must be doped.

If it was just a question of legality, and what sports physicians believe about the effect of doping for those who chose to dope, why the popular interest in concluding that El G, Bekele, Komen, Geb, Kipchoge, Mo, Paula, Rupp, etc. doped?

Shifting the goalposts again. This thread isn't about whether wr's are doped - it is about the effects of blood-doping, as demonstrated by a study of Russian athletes. You're like Trump - you can't remember what you were just saying.

The illegality of blood-doping confirms two things: that it is held to be unfairly performance enhancing, and that your views differing with that are therefore in an irrelevant minority. I would understand why you would not wish to be reminded of that.

Legality is important because it inhibits the release of documentation of doping regimes which is good for you.

As noted dozens of times before those guys became radically faster when EPO came out and then slipped or vanished when testing got better.

Or they hang around coaches and athletes who are shady AF.

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

This shows the same pattern. You start a thought, but don't complete it nor support it.

Your use of "..." similarly raises many unanswered questions, as you leave everything open to the interpretation and imagination of the reader.

Have you led the horse to water? Or was the trough dry?

Did the horse drink? Why or why not? You must show your work for credit.

Did it help? Why or why not? You must show your work for credit. You must also define "help" in this context.

Are you leading a horse, or are you the blind leading (or following) the blind, judging the one that sees things differently?

Yes, you are a blind horse.

You are too kind. I would say horse's a*rse. That is certainly blind.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Shifting the goalposts again. This thread isn't about whether wr's are doped - it is about the effects of blood-doping, as demonstrated by a study of Russian athletes. You're like Trump - you can't remember what you were just saying.

The illegality of blood-doping confirms two things: that it is held to be unfairly performance enhancing, and that your views differing with that are therefore in an irrelevant minority. I would understand why you would not wish to be reminded of that.

It's not about legality either.

The illegality confirms neither of these two things. WADA bans a substance for its potential to unfairly enhance performance, and/or risk to athlete health, and/or violating the spirit of the sport. WADA makes this decision for all Olympic sports.

physics defiant wrote:

As noted dozens of times before those guys became radically faster when EPO came out and then slipped or vanished when testing got better.

Or they hang around coaches and athletes who are shady AF.

As noted dozens of time, when you look deeper, these associations disappear.

It would be more convincing if Spain, or Europe, or America, or Russia, became radically faster too, after EPO came out, and before testing got better.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Shifting the goalposts again. This thread isn't about whether wr's are doped - it is about the effects of blood-doping, as demonstrated by a study of Russian athletes. You're like Trump - you can't remember what you were just saying.

The illegality of blood-doping confirms two things: that it is held to be unfairly performance enhancing, and that your views differing with that are therefore in an irrelevant minority. I would understand why you would not wish to be reminded of that.

It's not about legality either.

The illegality confirms neither of these two things. WADA bans a substance for its potential to unfairly enhance performance, and/or risk to athlete health, and/or violating the spirit of the sport. WADA makes this decision for all Olympic sports.

I said:- "The illegality of blood-doping confirms ... that it is held to be unfairly performance enhancing".

And then you said:- "WADA bans a substance for its potential to unfairly enhance performance".

I realise you didn't mean to confirm what I said. But you just did.

But now you will try to argue that WADA doesn't really think blood-doping is performance enhancing, even while it bans the practice. You should be a press officer for Trump.

As I said, that the practice is banned also shows that your views are of an irrelevant minority. Up there with abduction by aliens.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

As noted dozens of times before those guys became radically faster when EPO came out and then slipped or vanished when testing got better.

Or they hang around coaches and athletes who are shady AF.

As noted dozens of time, when you look deeper, these associations disappear.

It would be more convincing if Spain, or Europe, or America, or Russia, became radically faster too, after EPO came out, and before testing got better.

They did relative to their chosen discipline.

And Spain, or Europe, or America, or Russia, became radically faster after blood doping became widespread.

The difference here is not so much the blood doping in the 90s but in the 80s, where it was next to impossible in Africa.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I said:- "The illegality of blood-doping confirms ... that it is held to be unfairly performance enhancing".

And then you said:- "WADA bans a substance for its potential to unfairly enhance performance".

I realise you didn't mean to confirm what I said. But you just did.

But now you will try to argue that WADA doesn't really think blood-doping is performance enhancing, even while it bans the practice. You should be a press officer for Trump.

As I said, that the practice is banned also shows that your views are of an irrelevant minority. Up there with abduction by aliens.

So I see it is you floundering with an inability to grasp nuance.

You seem particularly comforted with belonging to a majority -- which I interpret as insecurity.

I don't decide questions by popular vote, but by a scientific methodology.

casual obsever wrote:

And Spain, or Europe, or America, or Russia, became radically faster after blood doping became widespread.

The difference here is not so much the blood doping in the 90s but in the 80s, where it was next to impossible in Africa.

Was also not so much in the '80s. And it assumes that blood doping that existed in the '80s was widespread among the fastest runners in order to conclude that the fastest runners were blood doped.

rekrunner wrote:

I don't decide questions by popular vote, but by a scientific methodology.

That is a ridiculous lie.

Fortunately you do not decide question at all, except within the confines of your own mind.

rekrunner wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

And Spain, or Europe, or America, or Russia, became radically faster after blood doping became widespread.

The difference here is not so much the blood doping in the 90s but in the 80s, where it was next to impossible in Africa.

Was also not so much in the '80s. And it assumes that blood doping that existed in the '80s was widespread among the fastest runners in order to conclude that the fastest runners were blood doped.

No. Several of them admitted it. But you can console yourself with the fact that Cova never really ran a fast time.

physics defiant wrote:

No. Several of them admitted it. But you can console yourself with the fact that Cova never really ran a fast time.

You said "radically faster". "casual obsever" said it happened in the 1980s.

Cova is your best example?

"casual obsever" said widespread, and now you say "several of them".

Honestly I'm amazed at how little it takes to convince you.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

No. Several of them admitted it. But you can console yourself with the fact that Cova never really ran a fast time.

You said "radically faster". "casual obsever" said it happened in the 1980s.

Cova is your best example?

"casual obsever" said widespread, and now you say "several of them".

Honestly I'm amazed at how little it takes to convince you.

Cova blood doped, Vainio blood doped, Antibo blood doped. You can console yourself that it was hard to test for at the time.

Cova is an excellent example. Did he not win a couple of big ones in a row? Hello!

You can also console yourself with the fact that non-African countries switched their interest to other endurance sports which isn't really an option for Africans.

And EPO etc. let them light it up at those sports. I know, I know, running is different from other endurance sports. lol