casual obsever wrote:
But, as you know, that only proves that he would have gotten more points if he had competed clean.
Lolz. These doper apologists crack me up.
Too funny...I can just hear rekrunner saying something like that. ?
casual obsever wrote:
But, as you know, that only proves that he would have gotten more points if he had competed clean.
Lolz. These doper apologists crack me up.
Too funny...I can just hear rekrunner saying something like that. ?
The wild 80s wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
But, as you know, that only proves that he would have gotten more points if he had competed clean.
Lolz. These doper apologists crack me up.
Too funny...I can just hear rekrunner saying something like that. ?
Yes because if he wasn't hitting up he'd have time to train properly.
I have to laugh when you are trolled by an obvious imposter.
Rocket Fuel Madness wrote:
rekrunnr wrote:
This is all speculation. Why don't you look at the evidence like me instead of using mythology?
I've looked at the evidence many times from your EPO-performance thread and the Africans experienced significant improvement in performance post-90s. Do you think those big jumps in performance in a relatively short period of time was done on bread and water alone?
rekrunner wrote:
I have to laugh when you are trolled by an obvious imposter.
Rocket Fuel Madness wrote:
I've looked at the evidence many times from your EPO-performance thread and the Africans experienced significant improvement in performance post-90s. Do you think those big jumps in performance in a relatively short period of time was done on bread and water alone?
if i remember correctly from "train hard EPO easy" i mean train hard win easy....it was milk mixed with bull blood that was the "secret" elixir
If you want to make a case for steroids not working for women, be my guest. I guess one main difference with the GDR athletes is that the observed subjects were the very elite athletes that performed well and set records. We don't have to project and extrapolate observations from untrained non-elite subjects to draw conclusions about elite athletes. Didn't the IAAF also just complete testing to be able to ban women producing high levels of testosterone? I can't believe there are no studies on women and steroids, as was claimed. Regarding the Kenyan and Scottish studies, these are actually not "observational studies" but poorly designed studies unable to draw the conclusions you want to. I don't want a gold star for pointing out they are uncontrolled, but it is undisputable that you cannot say it was all EPO effect without controls. It's not the kind of study you need to conduct to accurately measure how much additional benefit came from EPO, rather than other sources. Funny you mention "if the study were to show no improvement with EPO", because a controlled and double-blinded study did just that for cycling, a sport where I didn't express doubt about the positive benefit of EPO for elites. Funny you say "I don't know if it's significant over-estimates" -- that is precisely the point -- we cannot say without controls. This makes the studies pretty much worthless, as it adds very little to our knowledge. I am confident that the lack of controls will lead to an over-estimate, because it will credit all performance improvements to EPO, when this would be contradicted by a control group that also improves, like we saw in the altitude study improving by 2.3%. That's why I say we are discussing your faith, rather than knowledge, because I say you don't know, and you say I don't know. Your suggestion that "they could have ..." is just injecting a new hypothesis to compensate for the poor study design, just to still be able to say "it is possible that I am still right, because you don't KNOW that I'm wrong" -- you could have said that without the study. Is it well known that EPO effect is dose dependent? Some of you seem to want to convince me that even micro-dosing can still produce a similar benefit. And you are relying an an Hct/performance correlation that has not yet been established.
Lets Tell It Like It Is wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Didn't they recently release GDR files documenting the effects of steroids for women?
Yes they did and it's all observational with improvements seen in training & competition. There isn't any "blinded studies" with "control groups" and all that...just observational (review the paper and see for yourself) This is no different then what athletes, coaches & doping doctors have reported over the years with observations in improvement with EPO use.
rekrunner wrote:
One attribute that elite athletes have is that they have undergone extensive training to become elite -- elite subjects are already close to their ideal physiologically limited potential. We cannot say the same thing for the subjects in a study where training was not controlled. A (controlled) study on non-elite subjects where training is emphasized, and clean performance is maximized, before the intervention would be better.[quote]All elites don't have the same physiological attributes. There's variation in VO2max, LT, time to exhaustion, etc. There's even a strong genetic component for injury propensity, which is why some elites get trashed with injuries early on and have shortened careers (probably one of the main reasons why some use androgens & HGH). Btw, non-elites/sub-elites are also at their "ideal physiological limited potential"...it's called genetic limitation (i.e. the "haves" & "haves nots"), otherwise coaches should be able to take every HS & college runner and with right combination of training, strength training, nutrition, etc., turn them all into Olympic qualifiers. ?
[quote]rekrunner wrote:
The Kenyan study you mentioned lacked controls. This is no small criticism. There is no attempt to isolate training effects (e.g. from two TTs that are part of the study, in addition to regular training) from the EPO effects. (This reminds me of Heisenberg -- the study itself can affect the observed result.) We know from another, better designed study (1997 altitude study with controls, and a 4 week pre-conditioning training phase), that training alone, just over 4 weeks, produced a 2.3% improvement, BEFORE the altitude intervention under study. The control subjects improved by 2.3%.
Yeah...no kidding it "lacks controls" - it's an observational study...so do you want a reward or something for constantly pointing this out? It's funny that if the study were to show no improvement with EPO you would probably be preaching something all the lines of how can EPO work for elites if it doesn't even work for athletes who "don't run as fast as HS girls." Lol.
rekrunner wrote:
This means that figures like 4.5% (for Kenyan athletes as fast as the best 1970's high school girls) and 5.7% (for Scots 2 minutes slower than the Kenyans) from uncontrolled studies, are surely significant over-estimates, even for these non-elite subjects. Let's say that 2.3% is a good estimate for the improvement that would have occurred without EPO -- then these figures become closer to 2.2% and 3.4%, respectively.
You don't know if it's "significant over-estimates." They're non-elites and could have easily reached their "physiological limited potential," and EPO allowed them to go beyond those genetic limitations, i.e., run faster than their physiology would allow clean.
rekrunner wrote:
Once we obtain accurate results for non-elite subjects (something uncontrolled studies do not give us), it is important to build an accurate model to project these results onto elites. For example, should it follow a linear model, i.e. should we apply the same magnitude of percentages we found to elites? To my knowledge, no one has attempted to build such a model. I suspect (assumption on my part) a "diminishing return" model is probably more accurate than a "linear model", as there is likely less room for improvement for those who have already obtained a high level of performance, when compared to some ideal physiological limit. Yet we can already see with the Scots and Kenyan studies, a significant reduction in improvement for the faster Kenyans, supporting a diminishing return model, and counter-indicating a linear model. If we say (one more speculative assumption on my part) that the reduction in improvement is linear, then projecting 3.4% and 2.2% to 7:30 runners predicts about 1%, or 4-5 seconds, of effect.
It is well known that the effects of rEPO are dose-dependent. Both the Scots & Kenyans utilized the same identical low-dose schedule. The Scots had a baseline Hct of ~42 vs ~46 for the Kenyans at altitude. So, the Scots experienced a ~17% increase in Hct vs only ~7% for the Kenyans, who had a much higher baseline. The Kenyans would need to use a higher dose to match the 17% increase the Scots experienced at sea level given the significant differances in baseline Hcts.
Did they dope with EPO? East German women times survived, but what about the men?
Subway Surfers wrote:
rekrunnr wrote:
This is all speculation. Why don't you look at the evidence like me instead of using mythology?
Looks to me like evidence, what JO and Rekrunner miss is that the East Germans doped and their athletes did phenomenal times. Take out the drugs and the phenomenal times disappeared. It really is that simple.
I wouldn't say that about a decathlete doping in 1988. I primarily concern myself with male distance events.
The wild 80s wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
But, as you know, that only proves that he would have gotten more points if he had competed clean.
Lolz. These doper apologists crack me up.
Too funny...I can just hear rekrunner saying something like that. ?
rekrunner wrote:
Did they dope with EPO? East German women times survived, but what about the men?
Subway Surfers wrote:
Looks to me like evidence, what JO and Rekrunner miss is that the East Germans doped and their athletes did phenomenal times. Take out the drugs and the phenomenal times disappeared. It really is that simple.
I seem to recall that Germans improved their national 5000m record during the EPO era to 12:54, this was well up and beyond the unlimited steriod and blood transfusion era times that preceded it. Ouch!
So your best example of an East German that took EPO is a West German busted for nandrolone? That's two swings and two misses for you.
Subway Surfers wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Did they dope with EPO? East German women times survived, but what about the men?
I seem to recall that Germans improved their national 5000m record during the EPO era to 12:54, this was well up and beyond the unlimited steriod and blood transfusion era times that preceded it. Ouch!
rekrunner wrote:
So your best example of an East German that took EPO is a West German busted for nandrolone?
That's two swings and two misses for you.
Subway Surfers wrote:
I seem to recall that Germans improved their national 5000m record during the EPO era to 12:54, this was well up and beyond the unlimited steriod and blood transfusion era times that preceded it. Ouch!
Do tell us, was there an epo test when he ran 12:54?
Another swing, another miss. Recall, (in response to an imposter) you accused me of missing "the East Germans doped and their athletes did phenomenal times". First it is plainly wrong -- it is not something I missed. I'm the one who brought up the example of the GDR as documented evidence of steroids working for women. Besides being plainly wrong, outside of confirming women responding to steroids, what is the relevance? Did the East Germans dope with EPO? You are avoiding that question. For all these allegations of me obfuscating and goalpost moving, this is what you are doing now. Apparently you also think it is not relevant, as you want to change the subject again to a West German who was busted for nandrolone two years after running 12:54. Even if you could establish that he took EPO (you can't), or that he even doped to run 12:54 (you can't), this will not make "East Germans doped" a relevant observation, and nothing can make "Rekrunner missed that" a true statement.
Subway Surfers wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
So your best example of an East German that took EPO is a West German busted for nandrolone?
That's two swings and two misses for you.
Do tell us, was there an epo test when he ran 12:54?
rekrunner wrote:
I have to laugh when you are trolled by an obvious imposter.
Why imposter? Similar username, talking obvious nonsense?
If it walks like a duck, ... but wait! Usually you call such observations coincidence, or lately, mythology.
Looks like you have forgotten your own shtick.
rekrunner wrote:
Another swing, another miss.
Recall, (in response to an imposter) you accused me of missing "the East Germans doped and their athletes did phenomenal times".
First it is plainly wrong -- it is not something I missed. I'm the one who brought up the example of the GDR as documented evidence of steroids working for women.
Why not for men (Schlenk was just discussed), and why only steroids (see Cierpinski)?
As for their overall success with men and running, just look how many German records from the wild 80s are still their NRs - including both sides of the dirty curtain. Others, like the East German marathon record, stood for decades but are not in that list anymore. Schildhauer's 10000 m record was only beaten once in 35 years, namely by drug cheat Baumann.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_records_in_athleticsLet me guess: to you, that looks like a coincidence, actually like several coincidences, right? To others, it shows that doping works for men too.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Another swing, another miss.
Recall, (in response to an imposter) you accused me of missing "the East Germans doped and their athletes did phenomenal times".
First it is plainly wrong -- it is not something I missed. I'm the one who brought up the example of the GDR as documented evidence of steroids working for women.
Why not for men (Schlenk was just discussed), and why only steroids (see Cierpinski)?
As for their overall success with men and running, just look how many German records from the wild 80s are still their NRs - including both sides of the dirty curtain. Others, like the East German marathon record, stood for decades but are not in that list anymore. Schildhauer's 10000 m record was only beaten once in 35 years, namely by drug cheat Baumann.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_records_in_athleticsLet me guess: to you, that looks like a coincidence, actually like several coincidences, right? To others, it shows that doping works for men too.
+1
Interesting info!
rekrunner wrote:
I guess one main difference with the GDR athletes is that the observed subjects were the very elite athletes that performed well and set records. We don't have to project and extrapolate observations from untrained non-elite subjects to draw conclusions about elite athletes.
No difference in observing confirmed athletes using rEPO and/or blood doping who were "very elite athletes that performed well and set records" such as; Boulami, Ramzi, Mourhit, García, Estévez, Shobukhova, Jeptoo, Sumgong, etc. ?
rekrunner wrote:
Regarding the Kenyan and Scottish studies, these are actually not "observational studies" but poorly designed studies unable to draw the conclusions you want to. I don't want a gold star for pointing out they are uncontrolled, but it is undisputable that you cannot say it was all EPO effect without controls. It's not the kind of study you need to conduct to accurately measure how much additional benefit came from EPO, rather than other sources.
It's an unblinded observational-cohort (Durussel et al.), which was published in a peer-reviewed journal. The authors note the limitations of the study but point out some key findings from the research.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26757800rekrunner wrote:
Funny you say "I don't know if it's significant over-estimates" -- that is precisely the point -- we cannot say without controls. This makes the studies pretty much worthless, as it adds very little to our knowledge. I am confident that the lack of controls will lead to an over-estimate, because it will credit all performance improvements to EPO, when this would be contradicted by a control group that also improves, like we saw in the altitude study improving by 2.3%. That's why I say we are discussing your faith, rather than knowledge, because I say you don't know, and you say I don't know. Your suggestion that "they could have ..." is just injecting a new hypothesis to compensate for the poor study design, just to still be able to say "it is possible that I am still right, because you don't KNOW that I'm wrong" -- you could have said that without the study.
If you prefer some double-blinded RCTs that will make you feel better, here's some for your reading pleasure: Wilkerson et al., Birkeland et al., Parisotto et al.
rekrunner wrote:
Is it well known that EPO effect is dose dependent? Some of you seem to want to convince me that even micro-dosing can still produce a similar benefit. And you are relying an an Hct/performance correlation that has not yet been established
Yes...clinically it's well known the the increase in Hct by rEPO is dose dependant (i.e. "the dose makes the poison").
And a Hct/performance correlation has been established reference the RBC infusion with 10k runners study (double-blind, placebo, crossover, experimental design):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3573270From the comments:
"The improved performance was related to increased Hct, facilitating aerobic metabolism in the working muscles. The identical pattern of interaction between RBC reinfu-sion and order seen for Hct and 10-k race time effectively excludes a psycho-logical effect. Thus, only with elevation in Hct was the improvement in the 10-km running time."
Because the words don't fit in the context. In this case, I said GDR documented steroids in women, and "Lets Tell It Like It Is" basically agreed with me, and provided the link. He also "looked at the evidence", so I would not say "look at the evidence".
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I have to laugh when you are trolled by an obvious imposter.
Why imposter? Similar username, talking obvious nonsense?
If it walks like a duck, ... but wait! Usually you call such observations coincidence, or lately, mythology.
Looks like you have forgotten your own shtick.
Because these men are very far down the list of all time top performers. This is not the case with the women in 800m and 1500m and sprint events and field events. That is no coincidence.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Another swing, another miss.
Recall, (in response to an imposter) you accused me of missing "the East Germans doped and their athletes did phenomenal times".
First it is plainly wrong -- it is not something I missed. I'm the one who brought up the example of the GDR as documented evidence of steroids working for women.
Why not for men (Schlenk was just discussed), and why only steroids (see Cierpinski)?
As for their overall success with men and running, just look how many German records from the wild 80s are still their NRs - including both sides of the dirty curtain. Others, like the East German marathon record, stood for decades but are not in that list anymore. Schildhauer's 10000 m record was only beaten once in 35 years, namely by drug cheat Baumann.
Let me guess: to you, that looks like a coincidence, actually like several coincidences, right? To others, it shows that doping works for men too.
There is still a big difference. We don't have the same level of documented detail and control for "Boulami, Ramzi, Mourhit, García, Estévez, Shobukhova, Jeptoo, Sumgong, etc." While you try to poke a hole in the first example, I also gave a second example -- the IAAF testing testosterone on women to show an advantage in response to Caster Semenya. I think we must be working with different definitions of "observational study". Intervening with EPO makes it "experimental": "Cohort studies are observational. The researchers observe what happens without intervening. In experimental studies, such as RCTs, the scientists intervene, for example, by giving participants a new drug and assessing the outcomes." Looks like you missed giving a link to: "Wilkerson et al., Birkeland et al., Parisotto et al." Ah -- once again we see the blood transfusion study which lacked control subjects, that concludes the intervention caused all of the performance improvement.
Lets Tell It Like It Is wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I guess one main difference with the GDR athletes is that the observed subjects were the very elite athletes that performed well and set records. We don't have to project and extrapolate observations from untrained non-elite subjects to draw conclusions about elite athletes.
No difference in observing confirmed athletes using rEPO and/or blood doping who were "very elite athletes that performed well and set records" such as; Boulami, Ramzi, Mourhit, García, Estévez, Shobukhova, Jeptoo, Sumgong, etc. ?
rekrunner wrote:
Regarding the Kenyan and Scottish studies, these are actually not "observational studies" but poorly designed studies unable to draw the conclusions you want to. I don't want a gold star for pointing out they are uncontrolled, but it is undisputable that you cannot say it was all EPO effect without controls. It's not the kind of study you need to conduct to accurately measure how much additional benefit came from EPO, rather than other sources.
It's an unblinded observational-cohort (Durussel et al.), which was published in a peer-reviewed journal. The authors note the limitations of the study but point out some key findings from the research.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26757800rekrunner wrote:
Funny you say "I don't know if it's significant over-estimates" -- that is precisely the point -- we cannot say without controls. This makes the studies pretty much worthless, as it adds very little to our knowledge. I am confident that the lack of controls will lead to an over-estimate, because it will credit all performance improvements to EPO, when this would be contradicted by a control group that also improves, like we saw in the altitude study improving by 2.3%. That's why I say we are discussing your faith, rather than knowledge, because I say you don't know, and you say I don't know. Your suggestion that "they could have ..." is just injecting a new hypothesis to compensate for the poor study design, just to still be able to say "it is possible that I am still right, because you don't KNOW that I'm wrong" -- you could have said that without the study.
If you prefer some double-blinded RCTs that will make you feel better, here's some for your reading pleasure: Wilkerson et al., Birkeland et al., Parisotto et al.
rekrunner wrote:
Is it well known that EPO effect is dose dependent? Some of you seem to want to convince me that even micro-dosing can still produce a similar benefit. And you are relying an an Hct/performance correlation that has not yet been established
Yes...clinically it's well known the the increase in Hct by rEPO is dose dependant (i.e. "the dose makes the poison").
And a Hct/performance correlation has been established reference the RBC infusion with 10k runners study (double-blind, placebo, crossover, experimental design):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3573270From the comments:
"The improved performance was related to increased Hct, facilitating aerobic metabolism in the working muscles. The identical pattern of interaction between RBC reinfu-sion and order seen for Hct and 10-k race time effectively excludes a psycho-logical effect. Thus, only with elevation in Hct was the improvement in the 10-km running time."
rekrunner wrote:
Another swing, another miss.
Recall, (in response to an imposter) you accused me of missing "the East Germans doped and their athletes did phenomenal times".
First it is plainly wrong -- it is not something I missed. I'm the one who brought up the example of the GDR as documented evidence of steroids working for women.
Besides being plainly wrong, outside of confirming women responding to steroids, what is the relevance?
Did the East Germans dope with EPO? You are avoiding that question.
For all these allegations of me obfuscating and goalpost moving, this is what you are doing now.
Apparently you also think it is not relevant, as you want to change the subject again to a West German who was busted for nandrolone two years after running 12:54.
Even if you could establish that he took EPO (you can't), or that he even doped to run 12:54 (you can't), this will not make "East Germans doped" a relevant observation, and nothing can make "Rekrunner missed that" a true statement.
Subway Surfers wrote:
Do tell us, was there an epo test when he ran 12:54?
Well they didn't use epo (though I can't rule it out), but every idiot knows that they were using transfusions in probably a highly sophisticated manor.
I think that you will also find in the archives of the old GDR, evidence that distance runners from 800m to the marathon were on a monitored diet of steriods.
rekrunner wrote:
So your best example of an East German that took EPO is a West German busted for nandrolone?
That's two swings and two misses for you.
Subway Surfers wrote:
I seem to recall that Germans improved their national 5000m record during the EPO era to 12:54, this was well up and beyond the unlimited steriod and blood transfusion era times that preceded it. Ouch!
Now let us assume that Baumann didn't use epo to magically run 12:54 as you (what's the word? Um fantasize, no) theorize. If Baumann was a user of autologous transfusions in combination with Nandrolone and he was subject to a primitive mid 1990s urine test. What would he get busted for? Um ?
In a sport called cricket if you bowl (pitch) too wide of the mark the batter gets a point and the bowler has to do it all again. ?