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.
The discovery of erythropoietin (EPO) simplified blood doping in sports, but improved detection methods, for EPO has forced cheating athletes to return to blood transfusion. Autologous blood transfusion with cryopreserved red...
"From the summarized literature, it can be estimated that elite athletes may improve performance by up to 3% with blood doping, regardless of method [
–]. This enhancement is equivalent to, for example, seven minutes faster winning time in the 90 km cross country ski race Vasaloppet, 20–30 seconds faster time in any given 5000 m run at world class level, and four minutes faster finishing time in a marathon race. In cycling, a 3% increase in performance translate to a more than two hour faster winning time in Tour de France 2014."
The discovery of erythropoietin (EPO) simplified blood doping in sports, but improved detection methods, for EPO has forced cheating athletes to return to blood transfusion. Autologous blood transfusion with cryopreserved red...
The discovery of erythropoietin (EPO) simplified blood doping in sports, but improved detection methods, for EPO has forced cheating athletes to return to blood transfusion. Autologous blood transfusion with cryopreserved red...
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.
In terms of 02-vector doping? The 800m/1500m for females would definitely benefit from blood doping -probably more so then the longer distances.
The Russian's had a sophisticated State-sponsored doping program with a tactical blood-doping program for their middle-distance women.
Once the ABP was implemented in 2009, the Russian mid-D women were getting popped left & right for hematological anomalies every time they ran a fast time or won medals in either Olympic or WC competitions. If it was a good performance by a Russian Mid-D runner - you could take it to the bank that she was doped. Lol. Remember the Russians are the world leaders by leaps & bounds in bans for ABP hematological anomalies. Doping was the normal preparation for a Russian track & field athlete (nothing new there).
When the ABP came out, their performances slowed down primarily because they were getting caught. If they didn't want to get flagged, they'd have to back off the rocket fuel & employ a micro-dosing strategy.
The purpose of this research was to evaluate the performances of female middle- and long-distance runners before and after the implementation of a new antidoping strategy (the Athlete Biological Passport [ABP]) in a country a...
"From the summarized literature, it can be estimated that elite athletes may improve performance by up to 3% with blood doping, regardless of method [
–]. This enhancement is equivalent to, for example, seven minutes faster winning time in the 90 km cross country ski race Vasaloppet, 20–30 seconds faster time in any given 5000 m run at world class level, and four minutes faster finishing time in a marathon race. In cycling, a 3% increase in performance translate to a more than two hour faster winning time in Tour de France 2014."
Christer Malm:
Who are people going listen to - you or leading experts in the field like Malm & Schumacher. Lol
My question is, are you listening to your experts?
In the CAS hearing, Schumacher says "can ... take as much as", essentially predicting a possibility within an upper bound. He did not provide the CAS arbitrators any supporting data or evidence.
In his paper, Malm says "it can be" and "may improve ... up to", again, a prediction of what might be possible, within an upper bound, and further points us to three studies:
1) a 2000 study on EPO and cycling; cycling performance measured was Time to Exhaustion in a cycle ergometer and VO2max;
2) a 1987 study on blood transfusions for cross-country skiers performance was measured in a 15km cross-country skiing race;
3) a 1987 blood transfusion study on the 10,000 performance of 33-minute runners. These runners did improve by 1 minute, consistent with Schumacher's statement.
Of the three, it is only this third study, conducted by PhDs AJ Brien and TL Simon, that is applicable to running. The experts conducting that study say it has limitations: "The subjects in this study, although good-caliber runners, were not elite distance runners, and the results obtained in this study may or may not be applicable to the latter".
It isn't a "vague opinion"; it is an expression of contempt. For you.
On the contrary, it is vague, lacking both specificity and bases -- exactly the kind of superficial conclusion that fools the most gullible, who interprets the vague and baseless opinion to mean things not said.
I don't doubt that many posters are emotionally triggered when someone pokes at their religion. This has no real intellectual value, but seems to provide you emotional security and comfort.
Why don't you listen, and stop arguing that blood doping cannot help the elite by up to 1 minute over 10K? And relatively more over shorter distances? Would that be against your religion?
Passport Doping on the other hand never said that it does help all elite 1 minute over 10K.
In terms of 02-vector doping? The 800m/1500m for females would definitely benefit from blood doping -probably more so then the longer distances.
The Russian's had a sophisticated State-sponsored doping program with a tactical blood-doping program for their middle-distance women.
Once the ABP was implemented in 2009, the Russian mid-D women were getting popped left & right for hematological anomalies every time they ran a fast time or won medals in either Olympic or WC competitions. If it was a good performance by a Russian Mid-D runner - you could take it to the bank that she was doped. Lol. Remember the Russians are the world leaders by leaps & bounds in bans for ABP hematological anomalies. Doping was the normal preparation for a Russian track & field athlete (nothing new there).
When the ABP came out, their performances slowed down primarily because they were getting caught. If they didn't want to get flagged, they'd have to back off the rocket fuel & employ a micro-dosing strategy.
This would make sense only if these Russian women were not on steroids. For comparison, what happened to the men in 800m/1500m?
In the Russian women study, the suggested link to ABP implementation looks arbitrary and spurious, given the fact that 1) the Russian women surely took steroids; 2) after London and Sochi, Russia was under increasing pressure from the IAAF to enforce doping controls and sanctions; and 3) comparing women in 2008-2012, before "getting popped left & right", to the remaining women in 2013-2017 means that Russia's fastest women would appear in the first group but not the second. They are effectively comparing an A-team with B-team substitutes.
On the contrary, it is vague, lacking both specificity and bases -- exactly the kind of superficial conclusion that fools the most gullible, who interprets the vague and baseless opinion to mean things not said.
I don't doubt that many posters are emotionally triggered when someone pokes at their religion. This has no real intellectual value, but seems to provide you emotional security and comfort.
Are you triggered again?
Sage's opinion was neither vague nor baseless. It was specifically about you, and you being the least informed here (in the context of blood doping) based on your ridiculous posts. What else is there to say?
Why don't you listen, and stop arguing that blood doping cannot help the elite by up to 1 minute over 10K? And relatively more over shorter distances? Would that be against your religion?
Passport Doping on the other hand never said that it does help all elite 1 minute over 10K.
I am listening to the experts.
The experts are not "arguing that blood doping (can) help the elite by up to 1 minute over 10K. And relatively more over shorter distances".
This argument for elite performance benefits is always made by non-experts like "Passport Doping".
The experts say, maybe or maybe not, and concede that they don't really know anything about elite performance.
On the contrary, it is vague, lacking both specificity and bases -- exactly the kind of superficial conclusion that fools the most gullible, who interprets the vague and baseless opinion to mean things not said.
I don't doubt that many posters are emotionally triggered when someone pokes at their religion. This has no real intellectual value, but seems to provide you emotional security and comfort.
Are you triggered again?
Sage's opinion was neither vague nor baseless. It was specifically about you, and you being the least informed here (in the context of blood doping) based on your ridiculous posts. What else is there to say?
It completely lacked specificity and basis, not to mention character.
What else is to say? Which information? Which posts? What should I know by now that others do and I don't?
What information does Sage Canady have?
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
rekrunner, I want to ask you: Do you think that taking EPO has no effect for the elite distance runner? I mean with regard to improving performances by any physical means like better training or recovery or race efforts.
Do you think it has a little effect?
For me personally I think there are so many factors at play.
I believe there are factors that help more than EPO use, but I do believe that EPO use can help some people (not all). I also believe it can be harmful, obviously not just to performance there.
rekrunner, I want to ask you: Do you think that taking EPO has no effect for the elite distance runner? I mean with regard to improving performances by any physical means like better training or recovery or race efforts.
Do you think it has a little effect?
For me personally I think there are so many factors at play.
I believe there are factors that help more than EPO use, but I do believe that EPO use can help some people (not all). I also believe it can be harmful, obviously not just to performance there.
What do I think? I see it like this.
I don't make any difference between elite and amateur runners, except for an expectation of smaller benefits for naturally faster runners.
How much EPO works depends on where the distance runner is on their spectrum of his/her own level of aerobic fitness.
If any sea-level runner is 80% fit, then EPO and training will help him/her get 90% fit faster.
If any runner is 99% fit, especially after training for weeks, or months, or years, or decades, at altitude, I think any additional benefit of EPO is highly questionable.
Can synthetic EPO help high-altitude inhabitants? If so, they have a huge head-start with a lifetime of continuous stimulation, naturally. Artificially taking more seems superfluous to me.
I also think people ask the wrong question. I don't think looking for the magnitude of a local short term effect, like scientists do, is meaningful. In competition, the question is whether banned blood doping make athletes faster than they could have achieved with legal altitude training. Or the other way around, if an athlete runs 12:50, 26:30, or 2:03 -- should we assume that only EPO made that possible, and that legal training with altitude stimulated EPO would not?
Opinion posts specifically targeted at me seem like themselves a concession of a lack knowledge and information -- wouldn't it be far better to contribute the missing knowledge and information that I allegedly do not have or do not know?
What is most curious is that his trigger and first time contribution on the topic was responding to me calling a study on amateur subjects irrelevant for apparently not measuring running performance.
Is Sage Canady suggesting I lack information that posters like you have that would show how such a study with 24 men (VO2max 55) and 24 women (VO2max 46) that measured Hgb, Mean power output, and peak aerobic power is in fact highly relevant to establishing the effect of doping on elite distance running performance? By all means -- provide that information. Wouldn't that be intellectually superior?
Or maybe it was the part where I claimed being informed of all time historical performances dating back to the 1960s, and I'm unaware of other sources of historical performance.
Or maybe Sage Canady has personal knowledge of some elite runner who doped to higher performance -- and most posters here have that information except for me, yet won't share it here?
It's quite puzzling that someone would hide relevant information if he had it, and instead attack me personally.
Opinion posts specifically targeted at me seem like themselves a concession of a lack knowledge and information -- wouldn't it be far better to contribute the missing knowledge and information that I allegedly do not have or do not know?
What is most curious is that his trigger and first time contribution on the topic was responding to me calling a study on amateur subjects irrelevant for apparently not measuring running performance.
Is Sage Canady suggesting I lack information that posters like you have that would show how such a study with 24 men (VO2max 55) and 24 women (VO2max 46) that measured Hgb, Mean power output, and peak aerobic power is in fact highly relevant to establishing the effect of doping on elite distance running performance? By all means -- provide that information. Wouldn't that be intellectually superior?
Or maybe it was the part where I claimed being informed of all time historical performances dating back to the 1960s, and I'm unaware of other sources of historical performance.
Or maybe Sage Canady has personal knowledge of some elite runner who doped to higher performance -- and most posters here have that information except for me, yet won't share it here?
It's quite puzzling that someone would hide relevant information if he had it, and instead attack me personally.
Opinion posts specifically targeted at me seem like themselves a concession of a lack knowledge and information -- wouldn't it be far better to contribute the missing knowledge and information that I allegedly do not have or do not know?
What is most curious is that his trigger and first time contribution on the topic was responding to me calling a study on amateur subjects irrelevant for apparently not measuring running performance.
Is Sage Canady suggesting I lack information that posters like you have that would show how such a study with 24 men (VO2max 55) and 24 women (VO2max 46) that measured Hgb, Mean power output, and peak aerobic power is in fact highly relevant to establishing the effect of doping on elite distance running performance? By all means -- provide that information. Wouldn't that be intellectually superior?
Or maybe it was the part where I claimed being informed of all time historical performances dating back to the 1960s, and I'm unaware of other sources of historical performance.
Or maybe Sage Canady has personal knowledge of some elite runner who doped to higher performance -- and most posters here have that information except for me, yet won't share it here?
It's quite puzzling that someone would hide relevant information if he had it, and instead attack me personally.
It really stung, didn't it?
Knowing rekrunner for so many years, I'm sure it didn't. He is not an insecure narcissist like you :)
