A closer look at EPO-era performances

The number of doping positives are indeed facts. I'm also inclined to agree the detection rate is not 100%. But this is a thread about performance. Athletes use EPO and/or blood doping, because they (or their coach) believe it will help performance, and they do not believe in themselves and their training. Imagine that.

Can't Believe What I'm Hearing wrote:

rekrunner have you lost your mind? You honestly can't be serious? "Believing in EPO requires a lot of IMAGINATION?" You're kidding...right?

There are over 100 doping positives for rEPO & ESAs and another ~79 ABP sanctions for hematological anomalies in athletics. That's almost 180 positive cases for oxygen-vector doping!

What's mind-boggling about this is that, unless you believe in a 100% detection rate, these are "only" the positive cases - actual usage could be many times this number.

So, why on Earth would so many athletes use rEPO and/or blood dope if only "imagination" & "believing" were required? Why not just take a placebo and get the same performance benefits if "imagination" & "believing" were the only two catalysts needed? Sure would have saved a lot of bans, sanctions & ruined careers. ?

rekrunner wrote:

An absence of data doesn't make anecdotes more compelling.

Rocket Fuel Rick wrote:

So, absent studies with elites, I think anecdotal evidence can be quite compelling.

I'm going to send you some Sherlock Holmes books. I want to train you in the art (or science) of deduction.

OMG deleted again. this is more annoying than your rants

rekrunner wrote:

Athletes use EPO and/or blood doping, because they (or their coach) believe it will help performance, and they do not believe in themselves and their training.

Imagine that.

[]

You've been hacked by Jon Orange. NOBODY else can be this dumb too.

Be sure to put post-its or otherwise highlight the examples of proofs by example.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

An absence of data doesn't make anecdotes more compelling.

I'm going to send you some Sherlock Holmes books. I want to train you in the art (or science) of deduction.

Because they took EPO without believing it would help?

Juicing with Orange wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Athletes use EPO and/or blood doping, because they (or their coach) believe it will help performance, and they do not believe in themselves and their training.

Imagine that.

[]

You've been hacked by Jon Orange. NOBODY else can be this dumb too.

I feel sorry for you -- but it wasn't me.

m!ndweak wrote:

OMG deleted again. this is more annoying than your rants

rekrunner wrote:

Be sure to put post-its or otherwise highlight the examples of proofs by example.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

I'm going to send you some Sherlock Holmes books. I want to train you in the art (or science) of deduction.

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

rekrunner wrote:

Because they took EPO without believing it would help?

Juicing with Orange wrote:

You've been hacked by Jon Orange. NOBODY else can be this dumb too.

Their beliefs are correct every time.

I'm surprised to hear this - I thought you'd be one of those guys that believes in a 100% detection rate. Curious: Given the ~180 EPO/ESAs positives & ABP sanctions, what do you think the percentage is on the use of 02-vector doping? IOW, for everyone who's caught, how many do you think avoid detection & get away with it?

I have a problem with that because you've framed it to only look at top-end speed in each event and not an individual's performance improvement & accomplishments with the many confirmed doping cases. Very, very few runners clean or doped with be running near an all-time best in their respective disciplines. Also, performance can be measured in competition results, especially at the Olympic & WC level. Here's one defintion of performance:

"Someone's or something's performance is how successful they are or how well they do something."

This doesn't make any sense at all rekrunner: ~180 02-vector doping positives/sanctions over the decades for merely a "belief" that it helped their performances? C'mon man...you can't be serious? I'm sure the dopers believe in their training and the fact they can train above & beyond what they could do clean. More RBCs, improved VO2max, improved endurance, better recovery, etc.......ya what a belief! ?

And man, that belief sure helped Ramzi at Beijing, glowing IC with CERA, where he beat KIPROP & destroyed a WORLD class field that contained several sub-3:30 guys! Probably just a coincidence that he was doped? Perhaps none of the other guys brought their "A-game" to the World's biggest stage that Olympic year? (I know...I know...he's only a "3:29.14" guy ?).

OK have it your way. They took EPO without believing it would help, and their beliefs are correct every time. Imagine that.

Juicing with Orange wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Because they took EPO without believing it would help?

Their beliefs are correct every time.

What I think, is whether the detection rate is 100% or 0.01%, non-Africans have not performed much faster since 1990. That's what this thread was about -- a rather large performance "anomaly" in the EPO-era. The lower the detection rate (the higher the prevalence), the stronger the case of "EPO didn't work" becomes. If you have a problem with the way I've defined performance -- you could start your own thread that measures medal wins. Define your metric, and make measurements, that show O2-vector doping increases your chance of winning medals, despite not making you run times faster than 1990. Good luck trying to do this without relying on your IMAGINATION. The main problem with "individual performance improvement" with EPO is the impossibility of measuring it. Cherry picking a "clean baseline", is self-serving. How does it not make sense that athletes taking EPO believe in it, and they turned to EPO because they did not believe in their own ability and training? Are you suggesting they took EPO but didn't believe in it, and they did believe in themselves and their training, but turned to EPO despite this belief?

rekrunner wrote:

What I think, is whether the detection rate is 100% or 0.01%, non-Africans have not performed much faster since 1990.

That's what this thread was about -- a rather large performance "anomaly" in the EPO-era.

This is problematic only to complete idiots who assume that 'everybody cheats equally' and who can't get their heads round all the other multiple reasons why non-African running has declined (including the loss of motivation that comes from competing against hordes of African EPO cheats).

Did you directly catch the 'if I throw lots of psudeo-stats and calculations around I'll look smart and my insane argument appear scientific' virus from Calculo?

Coevett wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

What I think, is whether the detection rate is 100% or 0.01%, non-Africans have not performed much faster since 1990.

That's what this thread was about -- a rather large performance "anomaly" in the EPO-era.

This is problematic only to complete idiots who assume that 'everybody cheats equally' and who can't get their heads round all the other multiple reasons why non-African running has declined (including the loss of motivation that comes from competing against hordes of African EPO cheats).

Did you directly catch the 'if I throw lots of psudeo-stats and calculations around I'll look smart and my insane argument appear scientific' virus from Calculo?

+1

rekrunner wrote:

OK have it your way. They took EPO without believing it would help, and their beliefs are correct every time.

Imagine that.

Juicing with Orange wrote:

Their beliefs are correct every time.

I guess you are even dumber than him if that's even possible.

Well I guess that excludes me, as I made no such assumption. On the contrary, it is you making some rather strong, and unproven, assumptions about doping, both in and out of Africa. I did not consider doping at all when concluding that very few non-Africans could run faster than 1990, and then not by very much. Afterwards, I considered the results of recent surveys, suggesting "up to 57%" doped in the previous 12 months, among other common EPO assumptions. It's a pretty big, and unproven, assumption that EPO usage was insignificant globally among the best non-Africans for 2-3 decades, considering the availability, untestability, and promise of a large performance benefit, an an era where the gap between the world best was growing significantly.

Coevett wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

What I think, is whether the detection rate is 100% or 0.01%, non-Africans have not performed much faster since 1990.

That's what this thread was about -- a rather large performance "anomaly" in the EPO-era.

This is problematic only to complete idiots who assume that 'everybody cheats equally' and who can't get their heads round all the other multiple reasons why non-African running has declined (including the loss of motivation that comes from competing against hordes of African EPO cheats).

Did you directly catch the 'if I throw lots of psudeo-stats and calculations around I'll look smart and my insane argument appear scientific' virus from Calculo?

I'm dumb because I agreed with you?

Juicing with Orange wrote:

I guess you are even dumber than him if that's even possible.

rekrunner wrote:

I'm dumb because I agreed with you?

Juicing with Orange wrote:

I guess you are even dumber than him if that's even possible.

No, you're dumb because you don't think EPO works on a physical level and have proven so on an endless thread.

rekrunner wrote:

Well I guess that excludes me, as I made no such assumption.

On the contrary, it is you making some rather strong, and unproven, assumptions about doping, both in and out of Africa.

I did not consider doping at all when concluding that very few non-Africans could run faster than 1990, and then not by very much.

Afterwards, I considered the results of recent surveys, suggesting "up to 57%" doped in the previous 12 months, among other common EPO assumptions.

It's a pretty big, and unproven, assumption that EPO usage was insignificant globally among the best non-Africans for 2-3 decades, considering the availability, untestability, and promise of a large performance benefit, an an era where the gap between the world best was growing significantly.

You posted this on another thread. It talks about the performance gain with the 5k/10k distances from the perspective of anti-doping experts: