In view of how this thread has been rekrunnered this is worth quoting again, from a long time veteran runner on this site. It seems particularly apt.
"In all my years of posting on LetsRun "rekrunner" has got to take the cake as one of the most uninformed people I've ever seen. Like, how can you be so ignorant?"(quote)
The paper could be just as easily entitled, "lack of evidence that doping ISN'T effective". It simply lacks comprehensive evidence either way, full stop. However the evidence for doping effectiveness is widespread outside this very limited study and is suggested most strongly by the countless athletes who have doped over generations - none of whom participated in this insignificant piece of research, that added very little to the sum of knowledge on the topic. Mind you, it has exponentially added to yours, which wasn't hard to do.
That makes no sense, because then the title wouldn't match the substantive content of the paper.
Many studies attempt to provide scientific evidence of "efficacy", and this paper lists about a half-dozen or so reasons why these studies fall short of being able to explain elite performance.
The paper you are describing would be quite strange indeed -- decades of papers trying to provide scientific evidence of no effect, but failing to do so due to poor quality research.
Another way of saying "simply lacks evidence either way" is "belief".
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.
The slow Irishman dramatically improved his times enough to set the NR & qualify for the 2004 Olympics.
You contend that this remarkable improvement is solely from changing coaches, reducing training volume, etc. My question for you is why did Lombard go on EPO at about the same time he made those changes? Why didn't he at least wait & and see if he was improving in training?
Moroccan Dazza had his very first blood draw for the ABP on the eve of the Prague marathon - which he won beating several East Africans in the field. His sample was flagged for high blood values & a 99.99% specificity resulting in a ban & disqualification of results (and basically destruction of his career). The question for you is could Dazza have achieved that win undoped? If so, why did he dope then? (I don't think Dazza thought to himself that he could win Prague clean but "I'll take a worthless PED anyway just to be on the safe side." Lol).
Altitude-trained Kiptum & Wijuri had exceedingly high blood values & Off-scores resulting in 99.99% specificity in the days leading up to their performances at the Valencia HM (WR) & the London Half (podium finish behind Bashir & Farah) -resulting in bans & disqualification of results. Again, could these achievements be accomplished clean? If so, why did they dope then with EPO?
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.
Yes, definitely...I say "expert opinion" & so does CAS.
His opinion on the 1 min improvement in the 10k does have bearing on Karamasheva's case. Note in his opinion - he states even a greater benefit "proportionally over lesser distances."
The Arbitrator accepted Schumacher's opinion for the record.
Furthermore, Karamasheva's expert witness, Prof Victorova Anatolyevna of the renowned Omsk State Medical University in Russia, did not challenge Schumacher's opinion.
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.
"superior" is your word. I said "as proven". See 1997 Stray-Gundersen for example, where they reported 3% gains, and recorded up to 6% improvements for some groups during the course of the study.
A significant number of athletes train at altitude. I guess this "proves" that altitude works, as so many athletes wouldn't do it if it didn't.
Have you forgotten what one of your favorite coaches has opined on the issue?
In his article presented in SWEATELITE ("Locating the Line Between Acceptable Performance Enhancement and Cheating"), he states the following:
Regulating authorities in the sports world and the public need to recognise what all athletes striving to be their best have learned early in their careers, that everything they do to prepare for competition is with the hope...
I believe that it is currently difficult to be among the top 5 in the world in any of the distance events without using EPO or Human Growth Hormone. While some of the top athletes may be clean, so many athletes are running so fast that their performances are suspect. This is compounded for me by the fact that the times these athletes are running just happen to coincide exactly with what top exercise physiologists have calculated taking EPO would produce.
The slow Irishman dramatically improved his times enough to set the NR & qualify for the 2004 Olympics.
You contend that this remarkable improvement is solely from changing coaches, reducing training volume, etc. My question for you is why did Lombard go on EPO at about the same time he made those changes? Why didn't he at least wait & and see if he was improving in training?
Moroccan Dazza had his very first blood draw for the ABP on the eve of the Prague marathon - which he won beating several East Africans in the field. His sample was flagged for high blood values & a 99.99% specificity resulting in a ban & disqualification of results (and basically destruction of his career). The question for you is could Dazza have achieved that win undoped? If so, why did he dope then? (I don't think Dazza thought to himself that he could win Prague clean but "I'll take a worthless PED anyway just to be on the safe side." Lol).
Altitude-trained Kiptum & Wijuri had exceedingly high blood values & Off-scores resulting in 99.99% specificity in the days leading up to their performances at the Valencia HM (WR) & the London Half (podium finish behind Bashir & Farah) -resulting in bans & disqualification of results. Again, could these achievements be accomplished clean? If so, why did they dope then with EPO?
Agreed. Lombard used EPO to run almost as fast as Brendan Foster and David Bedford from the 1970s, but not quite as fast as Dick Quax and Emiel Puttemans and Marty Liquori from the 1970s. EPO works almost as good as Lydiard training in the 1970s. That seems extremely relevant in a post-1990 elite performance discussion setting the low bar at David Moorcroft's and Fernando Mamede's performances. Is Cathal Lombard the fastest non-African doper ever in 5000m and 10000m? That would be a mighty powerful endorsement.
Contrary to your mis-understanding, I do not "contend that this remarkable improvement is solely from changing coaches, reducing training volume, etc." If you had read more carefully, I said I could draw no conclusions because there are too many unknowns. Did EPO "work" for Cathal Lombard? I don't know. Did he gain 3 minutes? I don't know. Did he lose time. I don't know. I don't "contend" one way or another -- I just note there are significant confounders that render this "example" inconclusive. For this sub-elite athlete with sub-optimal training, he could possibly have gained "up to 1 minute" from EPO without changing his training, according to the opinion of a leading anti-doping expert with decades of experience. How would that translate for the 27:00 runner? I don't know.
I just wonder what this 28-year old Irishman could have done, had he found the right coach at 18, and trained optimally, perhaps at altitude, for those same 10 years?
You ask me why did Lombard dope? Someone believed.
Could Dazza have won undoped? Sure it's possible. Why did he dope? Someone believed.
Could Kiptum and Wanjiru have won undoped? Sure it's possible. Why did they dope? Someone believed.
My answer to the next one who asks "why do distance athletes dope with EPO?" -- belief.
Armstronglivs says "no comprehensive evidence either way full stop" -- what better way is there to argue belief.
Schumacher gives a wishy-washy "could be up to" 10,000m opinion for the case of a female 800m/1500m runner -- belief.
Belief.
Only when someone comes up with better, conclusive evidence, will I update my response.
Yes, definitely...I say "expert opinion" & so does CAS.
His opinion on the 1 min improvement in the 10k does have bearing on Karamasheva's case. Note in his opinion - he states even a greater benefit "proportionally over lesser distances."
The Arbitrator accepted Schumacher's opinion for the record.
Furthermore, Karamasheva's expert witness, Prof Victorova Anatolyevna of the renowned Omsk State Medical University in Russia, did not challenge Schumacher's opinion.
"Belief" has many synonyms. Speculation. Hypothesis. Opinion. Myth.
CAS arbitrators are typically lawyers who defer completely to the opinions of expert witnesses. Their acceptance is passive and means virtually nothing, intellectually. The relevant evidence of a rule violation -- the only question before arbitors -- is the table of blood values, and the blood expert interpretation of blood values. An athlete is guilty based on blood values alone regardless of performance gains or losses.
800m/1500m, especially for a female, has nothing to do with 10,000m. Surely Schumacher knows that, but CAS arbitors do not, and apparently you do not.
One of the areas identified for WADA reform is the question whether CAS arbitrators are completely independent and unbiased when evaluating "expert opinions" from familiar repeat WA/IAAF "experts", compared to foreign non-WADA experts like a Prof. from a Russian Medical University.
In any case "could be up to" is at best is a wishy-washy meaningless opinion. "Could be" means sometimes it "could not be". Would be much better if he had provided the data or source behind this "could be up to" possibility, so it can be evaluated whether such an opinion is applicable to other contexts.
This post was edited 15 minutes after it was posted.
I believe that it is currently difficult to be among the top 5 in the world in any of the distance events without using EPO or Human Growth Hormone. While some of the top athletes may be clean, so many athletes are running so fast that their performances are suspect. This is compounded for me by the fact that the times these athletes are running just happen to coincide exactly with what top exercise physiologists have calculated taking EPO would produce.
No I did not forget. "Opine": synonym for "state a belief".
The paragraph literally starts with "I believe ...".
Belief in doping is far and wide and deep and goes all the way to the top.
In view of how this thread has been rekrunnered this is worth quoting again, from a long time veteran runner on this site. It seems particularly apt.
"In all my years of posting on LetsRun "rekrunner" has got to take the cake as one of the most uninformed people I've ever seen. Like, how can you be so ignorant?"(quote)
What an ignorant post.
Quite the contrary. Sage Canaday is very aware of what you are.
The paper could be just as easily entitled, "lack of evidence that doping ISN'T effective". It simply lacks comprehensive evidence either way, full stop. However the evidence for doping effectiveness is widespread outside this very limited study and is suggested most strongly by the countless athletes who have doped over generations - none of whom participated in this insignificant piece of research, that added very little to the sum of knowledge on the topic. Mind you, it has exponentially added to yours, which wasn't hard to do.
That makes no sense, because then the title wouldn't match the substantive content of the paper.
Many studies attempt to provide scientific evidence of "efficacy", and this paper lists about a half-dozen or so reasons why these studies fall short of being able to explain elite performance.
The paper you are describing would be quite strange indeed -- decades of papers trying to provide scientific evidence of no effect, but failing to do so due to poor quality research.
Another way of saying "simply lacks evidence either way" is "belief".
The title is a misnomer. The paper proves nothing about doping efficacy.
That makes no sense, because then the title wouldn't match the substantive content of the paper.
Many studies attempt to provide scientific evidence of "efficacy", and this paper lists about a half-dozen or so reasons why these studies fall short of being able to explain elite performance.
The paper you are describing would be quite strange indeed -- decades of papers trying to provide scientific evidence of no effect, but failing to do so due to poor quality research.
Another way of saying "simply lacks evidence either way" is "belief".
The title is a misnomer. The paper proves nothing about doping efficacy.
So when exposed you now say “ The title is a misnomer”.
Are there any limits to your destroying all the rules of debate?
But super trolls don’t bother with educational rigour.
Quite the contrary. Sage Canaday is very aware of what you are.
For five decades you have been gullibly choosing who to believe without any real guidance, rather than developing a genuine understanding of topics. Over time, you have developed your skill of false arrogance as a way to mask your lack of understanding, when called out.
Sage Canady gave a vague and baseless opinion he failed to back up with substance.
In any case, you have finally identified the basic problem. Your widespread belief "lacks comprehensive evidence either way, full stop".
Whatever I am or am not, doesn't help you overcome this fundamental failing.
That makes no sense, because then the title wouldn't match the substantive content of the paper.
Many studies attempt to provide scientific evidence of "efficacy", and this paper lists about a half-dozen or so reasons why these studies fall short of being able to explain elite performance.
The paper you are describing would be quite strange indeed -- decades of papers trying to provide scientific evidence of no effect, but failing to do so due to poor quality research.
Another way of saying "simply lacks evidence either way" is "belief".
The title is a misnomer. The paper proves nothing about doping efficacy.
So which paper does prove doing efficacy for elite endurance athletes?
The whole purpose of Heuberger's paper is to show that all papers as far back as 1991 prove nothing about EPO doping efficacy for elite performance -- because they measure the wrong things on the wrong people, and often in a wrong way. There is only so much you can interpret from measuring VO2max and peak power and time to exhaustion on indoor stationary bicycles from a group of randomly selected students for 20-30 minutes.
The title is a misnomer. The paper proves nothing about doping efficacy.
So which paper does prove doing efficacy for elite endurance athletes?
The whole purpose of Heuberger's paper is to show that all papers as far back as 1991 prove nothing about EPO doping efficacy for elite performance -- because they measure the wrong things on the wrong people, and often in a wrong way. There is only so much you can interpret from measuring VO2max and peak power and time to exhaustion on indoor stationary bicycles from a group of randomly selected students for 20-30 minutes.
You're the one who likes to quote studies. That prove nothing. Like you.
Quite the contrary. Sage Canaday is very aware of what you are.
For five decades you have been gullibly choosing who to believe without any real guidance, rather than developing a genuine understanding of topics. Over time, you have developed your skill of false arrogance as a way to mask your lack of understanding, when called out.
Sage Canady gave a vague and baseless opinion he failed to back up with substance.
In any case, you have finally identified the basic problem. Your widespread belief "lacks comprehensive evidence either way, full stop".
Whatever I am or am not, doesn't help you overcome this fundamental failing.
Sage Canaday will have observed you here over the years - as I and others have. He sums you up in a nutshell.
So which paper does prove doing efficacy for elite endurance athletes?
The whole purpose of Heuberger's paper is to show that all papers as far back as 1991 prove nothing about EPO doping efficacy for elite performance -- because they measure the wrong things on the wrong people, and often in a wrong way. There is only so much you can interpret from measuring VO2max and peak power and time to exhaustion on indoor stationary bicycles from a group of randomly selected students for 20-30 minutes.
You're the one who likes to quote studies. That prove nothing. Like you.
You hardly ever refer to studies and when you do you misquote or the study is decades out of date.
So which paper does prove doing efficacy for elite endurance athletes?
The whole purpose of Heuberger's paper is to show that all papers as far back as 1991 prove nothing about EPO doping efficacy for elite performance -- because they measure the wrong things on the wrong people, and often in a wrong way. There is only so much you can interpret from measuring VO2max and peak power and time to exhaustion on indoor stationary bicycles from a group of randomly selected students for 20-30 minutes.
You're the one who likes to quote studies. That prove nothing. Like you.
So you are not aware of any scientific basis for EPO doping efficacy for elite endurance athletes either.
I guess that puts you in complete agreement with Heuberger.
For five decades you have been gullibly choosing who to believe without any real guidance, rather than developing a genuine understanding of topics. Over time, you have developed your skill of false arrogance as a way to mask your lack of understanding, when called out.
Sage Canady gave a vague and baseless opinion he failed to back up with substance.
In any case, you have finally identified the basic problem. Your widespread belief "lacks comprehensive evidence either way, full stop".
Whatever I am or am not, doesn't help you overcome this fundamental failing.
Sage Canaday will have observed you here over the years - as I and others have. He sums you up in a nutshell.
