Of course you are correct, and rekrunner knows this, but he gotta keep spreading his propaganda.
Ask Canady or Flanahan or Willis or Radcliffe whether any serious runner would ever fall for rek's PR that PEDs are basically useless for distance runners.
WTH? Criticizing & undermining Dr Schumacher's expert opinion as "more religion than science?"
Have you lost your mind or something? You're are so arrogant & pompous to make a statement as such!
We're talking about Olaf Schumacher here: A world-renowned anti-doping expert & sports scientist with decades of experience working with Olympic caliber athletes in Germany. A well-published researcher highly respected by his peers with one of the highest levels of expertise in altitude training. And his commendable hard work & dedication spending a lot of time on these anti-doping panels making sure there's sufficient evidence to prove the cases.
Quoted to highlight how outrageously stupid (or arrogant and pompous) rek's comments here are.
I don't think he (?) comes across as pompous. I actually found him quite calm and patient.
For example, I took the link to the news article (Leuden) at face value, mainly cos I was short of time and this is a message board so I don't actively research things or do general searches for the other work of the author. Obviously if I was writing any kind of report that would be a bit different but I am lazy on here. It turned out that this news article was published regarding the PhD student's thesis and he went on, after that, to publish further (in some journals that are pretty major). Rekrunner could have been really arrogant about that - taking it at face value instead of checking - but he wasn't. Yeah, he may have a different opinion but that's fine, it's not like he is expressing it in an obnoxious way from what I have seen.
I still think most people are doping though in elite sport! Sorry rek.
So you're saying that we can only draw conclusions on an individual athlete by measuring what they could have done without doping? Give me strength. You don't have to test literally every single competing athlete in the world to be able to draw conclusions about each individually. That's just asinine quite frankly. For example, we know that steroids have a pretty strong effect. We don't have to know everyone's before and after values to know that. We know that they artificially increase certain values and provide an advantage. You do not need to measure what someone could have done e.g. without steroids to establish that. You also seem to be misunderstanding certain aspects of the bio passport. There is a difference between fluctuations caused by e.g. altitude, dehydration and outrageous variations that are so unnatural or so indicative and correlated with PED use (or ceasing PED use actually).
I was asked specifically about the performance gain of the single case of Dazza, and earlier the specific cases of Kiptum and Wanjiru. You can draw conclusions if you want, but I cannot, and I cannot accept your conclusions. To answer these specific questions for these individuals requires two measures of performance -- something we do not have for any of these athletes. It is not only not asinine, but the only way.
"Before" versus "after" is also the wrong measure. To ideally determine any delta effect you need equivalent performances "with" and "without" doping -- with all other factors being equal, taking great care to avoid confounders.
I don't know why you think I misunderstand certain aspects of the bio passport, or why that is even relevant. The question here is not whether the blood variations are unnatural, but how much they helped Dazza's performance (or Kiptum or Wanjiru), if at all.
Whatever we think we know about steroids doesn't really help us understand blood doping.
If you want to generalize for elite athletes, then there are other ways to draw conclusions, but then you need way more than 3 cherry-picked examples, and you still need a way to accurately estimate "with" and "without", and you need to take care that the performances are representative of the athletes' best.
WTH? "3 cherry-picked examples?"
This thread is about Kipruto & his provisional-suspension for hematological anomalies...is it not?
Well then, I presented 3 recent cases of elite runners banned for hematological anomalies including two top KENYANS!
There have been some posters here, and other threads as well, who have said they don't understand the ABP process & how an athlete can be banned for not actually "testing positive for EPO." Well...here's 3 case studies where people can learn how it's done & how any confounders are refuted by the anti-doping panel (e.g., altitude training, dehydration, de-training, illness, etc). And I would have thought you all of people would have read these cases and shown some appreciation for the anti-doping experts who catching these cheaters.
But you just seem to be the consummate doping apologist & critic of the ABP.
It takes a lot of paragraphs from you but it is still simply another of your bald-faced lies. You posted the study and referred to it to suggest that the effects of doping are either nonexistent or at least much less than most would think - which is the view you have long expressed in thread after doping thread. You then admit the study has not included any top athletes - but only when this fundamental deficiency is pointed out - and so has no relevance to the topic of how doping may enhance elite performance, with athletes like Kipruto et al. So if the study has no relevance to that subject there was no point in your posting it - except to create an impression of that which is false. And there we have the typical modus of a liar.
My reason for posting Heuberger was exactly that -- to say that doping effectiveness for elites is not based on science. It's even in the title: "lack of evidence for efficacy".
If you understood something else, that's your fault.
None of us claims to know what is the "real world of the elite runner". You do. You constantly refer to it. You have never been an elite. It is like claiming to know what is the "real world" of a concert pianist or astronaut without any such experience of either. You are an empty verbose poseur.
On the contrary -- I only claimed the "real world" was not in a study on 48 amateurs that apparently only measured power, and it is you who repeatedly claim to know the experience of thousands of dopers.
From one who has never used EPO or any other performance enhancing drugs or trained at altitude, let alone been an elite athlete. The advice of a mere keyboard jockey. You're like the guy in the stands watching a professional tennis match who knows better than the players in front of him how they should play the game - but has never played it himself. You are a joke.
Altitude training is as "proven" as doping with EPO, and I'm repeating the advice of a successful coach of elite and world record setting athletes.
Not as many as I think? Total BS. There's plenty - casual observer & I presented plenty of researchers when we argue this issue with you ad nuseam a few years ago.
On Dr Solheim's study, try to understand the meaning of her last statement in the abstract:
"From an anti-doping perspective, the literature review demonstrates the need for methods to detect even small ABT volumes."
If small amounts of blood doping was ineffective in enhancing performance with elites - then why in heck would she implore anti-doping to improve their methods to detect small ABT volumes? 🤔
I think you misunderstood. I said "Not as much as you think", as in "the leading researchers do not disagree with Heuberger as much as you think".
I can't speak for Dr. Solheim, but what is missing is researchers looking for better methods to detect elite performance improvements.
This thread is about Kipruto & his provisional-suspension for hematological anomalies...is it not?
Well then, I presented 3 recent cases of elite runners banned for hematological anomalies including two top KENYANS!
There have been some posters here, and other threads as well, who have said they don't understand the ABP process & how an athlete can be banned for not actually "testing positive for EPO." Well...here's 3 case studies where people can learn how it's done & how any confounders are refuted by the anti-doping panel (e.g., altitude training, dehydration, de-training, illness, etc). And I would have thought you all of people would have read these cases and shown some appreciation for the anti-doping experts who catching these cheaters.
But you just seem to be the consummate doping apologist & critic of the ABP.
.
This thread may be about Kipruto's suspension, but you replied to me, as I was asking why the fastest non-Africans were not faster from EPO, and you advised me to "to examine the performance benefits of the individual confirmed doping cases". In response, you gave me examples of a slower Irishman, a North African, and two East Africans.
WTH? Criticizing & undermining Dr Schumacher's expert opinion as "more religion than science?"
Have you lost your mind or something? You're are so arrogant & pompous to make a statement as such!
We're talking about Olaf Schumacher here: A world-renowned anti-doping expert & sports scientist with decades of experience working with Olympic caliber athletes in Germany. A well-published researcher highly respected by his peers with one of the highest levels of expertise in altitude training. And his commendable hard work & dedication spending a lot of time on these anti-doping panels making sure there's sufficient evidence to prove the cases.
In the Karamasheva CAS hearing (CAS 2017/0/5268) - he testified on the record that EPO can increase oxygen supply by 6% - and as much as one (1) minute taken off the time to run 10k, even more over lesser distances (paragraph 77).
Need I remind you that was a hearing involving a hematological anomalies case with an ELITE runner. If that performance only applied to recreational runners, well-trained, sub-elites, etc, he wouldn't have a statement like that at a hearing involving an elite runner (btw, Karamasheva's defense team did not challenge that statement).
You say "opinion" and I say "religion".
His statement about 1 minute for 10,000m has nothing to do with Karamasheva -- an 800m/1500m runner.
With all due respect to Prof. Schumacher, his "opinion" only becomes significant to the extent he supplies the data behind it, and the conditions in which such data was collected.
I don't think he (?) comes across as pompous. I actually found him quite calm and patient.
For example, I took the link to the news article (Leuden) at face value, mainly cos I was short of time and this is a message board so I don't actively research things or do general searches for the other work of the author. Obviously if I was writing any kind of report that would be a bit different but I am lazy on here. It turned out that this news article was published regarding the PhD student's thesis and he went on, after that, to publish further (in some journals that are pretty major). Rekrunner could have been really arrogant about that - taking it at face value instead of checking - but he wasn't. Yeah, he may have a different opinion but that's fine, it's not like he is expressing it in an obnoxious way from what I have seen.
I still think most people are doping though in elite sport! Sorry rek.
You mean things like hope and faith... Human psychology is often irrational.
Even Armstronglivs vehemently argued that there is no scientific basis for elite athletes to dope.
I did not say that. Your lying simply never ceases. I said if a study lacked data from elites there was no scientific basis to any claim it made that doping has little effect on elite performance.
Oh look !
Some thoughts on Science from the man who thinks that bladder is part of the digestive system and all doctors are just wrong.
Have you not realised that medical research can start with animals and conclusions then drawn for humans?
Your lack of education is staggering and clearly is the basis of your super trolling.
It takes a lot of paragraphs from you but it is still simply another of your bald-faced lies. You posted the study and referred to it to suggest that the effects of doping are either nonexistent or at least much less than most would think - which is the view you have long expressed in thread after doping thread. You then admit the study has not included any top athletes - but only when this fundamental deficiency is pointed out - and so has no relevance to the topic of how doping may enhance elite performance, with athletes like Kipruto et al. So if the study has no relevance to that subject there was no point in your posting it - except to create an impression of that which is false. And there we have the typical modus of a liar.
My reason for posting Heuberger was exactly that -- to say that doping effectiveness for elites is not based on science. It's even in the title: "lack of evidence for efficacy".
If you understood something else, that's your fault.
You are wrong. Again. What you should have said is that DENIAL of doping effectiveness is not based on science. It doesn't have the data. Of course you form the exact opposite conclusion of what the research actually shows.
I don't think he (?) comes across as pompous. I actually found him quite calm and patient.
For example, I took the link to the news article (Leuden) at face value, mainly cos I was short of time and this is a message board so I don't actively research things or do general searches for the other work of the author. Obviously if I was writing any kind of report that would be a bit different but I am lazy on here. It turned out that this news article was published regarding the PhD student's thesis and he went on, after that, to publish further (in some journals that are pretty major). Rekrunner could have been really arrogant about that - taking it at face value instead of checking - but he wasn't. Yeah, he may have a different opinion but that's fine, it's not like he is expressing it in an obnoxious way from what I have seen.
I still think most people are doping though in elite sport! Sorry rek.
None of us claims to know what is the "real world of the elite runner". You do. You constantly refer to it. You have never been an elite. It is like claiming to know what is the "real world" of a concert pianist or astronaut without any such experience of either. You are an empty verbose poseur.
On the contrary -- I only claimed the "real world" was not in a study on 48 amateurs that apparently only measured power, and it is you who repeatedly claim to know the experience of thousands of dopers.
No, I don't. I have a view of why they dope and what it likely does for them. But I don't claim to know the "real world of the elite" as you - who has never been elite - so risibly do. A truly pompous ass.
From one who has never used EPO or any other performance enhancing drugs or trained at altitude, let alone been an elite athlete. The advice of a mere keyboard jockey. You're like the guy in the stands watching a professional tennis match who knows better than the players in front of him how they should play the game - but has never played it himself. You are a joke.
Altitude training is as "proven" as doping with EPO, and I'm repeating the advice of a successful coach of elite and world record setting athletes.
Altitude is not proven to be superior to peds. This is shown in the significant numbers of such athletes who use them. Kipruto et al.
I did not say that. Your lying simply never ceases. I said if a study lacked data from elites there was no scientific basis to any claim it made that doping has little effect on elite performance.
Oh look !
Some thoughts on Science from the man who thinks that bladder is part of the digestive system and all doctors are just wrong.
Have you not realised that medical research can start with animals and conclusions then drawn for humans?
Your lack of education is staggering and clearly is the basis of your super trolling.
My reason for posting Heuberger was exactly that -- to say that doping effectiveness for elites is not based on science. It's even in the title: "lack of evidence for efficacy".
If you understood something else, that's your fault.
You are wrong. Again. What you should have said is that DENIAL of doping effectiveness is not based on science. It doesn't have the data. Of course you form the exact opposite conclusion of what the research actually shows.
Au contraire self-deluded one. The research shows "lack of evidence for efficacy". It's in the title, and in the paper.
In science, the denial of cause and effect is the default starting point, when there is no data. And the assumption of cause and effect without data is called speculation, and hypothesis. I sometimes call it faith, myth, and religion.
Scientists actually have to do their homework to decide if there is a pattern, if there is a correlation, how weak or strong the correlation is, ensure it is not a spurious correlation, or if the correlation is actually causation.
Heuberger wrote a paper that shows that decades of doping/performance science has scored poorly in that regard, for elite performances in the real world.
On the contrary -- I only claimed the "real world" was not in a study on 48 amateurs that apparently only measured power, and it is you who repeatedly claim to know the experience of thousands of dopers.
No, I don't. I have a view of why they dope and what it likely does for them. But I don't claim to know the "real world of the elite" as you - who has never been elite - so risibly do. A truly pompous ass.
You have formed a belief. When I call your belief a belief, you pretend I'm challenging the experience and knowledge of thousands of dopers, when in fact, I am challenging your belief you are trying to pawn off as insider knowledge.
You just claimed 80% of athletes are dopers. This makes non-African progress from 85% of the world for nearly three decades all the more puzzling -- the only conclusion that makes sense when 80% of the athletes dope is that most doping is largely ineffective.
This post was edited 9 minutes after it was posted.