Amby Burfoot says it out loud - Chepngetich is doping

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Technically, blood doping was always doping but it wasn't banned until 1985. That's a distinction you didn't get.

It wasn't in sports in 1947 and the first instances where it was believed to occur was the late '60's in alpine events. It wasn't a known feature in track till the '70s.

Athletes aren't ahead of the scientists. They can only use what the scientists enable or create. It also has escaped you that doping is a science, which is why it is always developing.

When it comes to "limited knowledge" you're the expert. Your limitations exceed just about everyone else's.

Not only do I get the distinction -- I was the one who made it.

Much of what we believe about doping in sport is not built on known features, but on what we don't know. This is because of the clandestine nature of doping.

Now you are saying that the athletes were about 23 years behind the scientists.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

As I was able to read it in published information (you, know, accredited academic publications on the internet) so was anyone else - even you, if you had made the effort. It wasn't a second-hand account relayed to me by someone of something someone else said.

First hand accounts of blood doping are blood dopers admitting publicly to their doping. Actually, first hand would be their admitting it to me. They tend not to do that. If you think the only information you can rely on is those sort of confessions you will never find any doping. But that would suit you.

I was thinking first-hand accounts would be to a journalist, or to these scientists in accreditied academic publications. But have it your way -- have you read any second hand accounts?

But to summarize, we don't have much first-hand information because doping is typically clandestine, and you won't accept third-hand information, e.g. from Snell to intermediary to HRE. These are some strict limitations, leaving very little reliable information available to the public. But as you mention it, what other kinds of information can we rely on?

Note that in the '60s Czechoslovakia was part of the Eastern Bloc, and any experiments or trials there are not likely to have been contributed to academic publications.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Published information and not private conversations indicate that blood doping entered sports in the late sixties and running in the early seventies. It is possible individuals may have tried it a little earlier than is known but that is when it became observed or suspected as a practice.

I do not say that I don't accept what it is claimed Snell said about Odlozil because it is third hand but the fact it was third hand makes the claim unreliable. We can't be sure of what exactly he said. However even if Snell made that claim the question arises, how would he know Odlozil blood doped in Tokyo '64 - would Odlozil have admitted it to him? - and if Odlozil did so why is blood doping not known as a practice then by E Bloc athletes at that time, which it undoubtedly would have been if Odlozil had been blood doping? Odlozil could have been doping on steroids or amphetamines, say - as other E Bloc athletes were - but less likely he was blood doping in that era. Athletes hadn't yet appeared to know of its possibilities at that time. By the late sixties and early seventies we know they had.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It wasn't the purpose of the scientists to aid sports doping. That is more what some do today.

We know doping exists and has long done so and is extensive today without our being able to measure it with exactitude. It is the same with any kind of black market.

You are just repeating what I'm saying. We know blood doping exists, and has long done so. We just don't know when and where and how early.

According to an article by Esko Gronroos, Heikki Roiko-Jokela and Sergei Iljukov, interest in blood doping in sports was piqued in 1963, when Mexico City was chosen as the venue for the 1968 Olympics, with some scientists proposing transfusions to accelerate altitude adaptation. Swedish exercise physiologists had been looking at blood doping since the late '40s, and increasingly so in the '60s, presenting their results at an international scientific conference in 1966 in Finland.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Published information and not private conversations indicate that blood doping entered sports in the late sixties and running in the early seventies. It is possible individuals may have tried it a little earlier than is known but that is when it became observed or suspected as a practice.

I do not say that I don't accept what it is claimed Snell said about Odlozil because it is third hand but the fact it was third hand makes the claim unreliable. We can't be sure of what exactly he said. However even if Snell made that claim the question arises, how would he know Odlozil blood doped in Tokyo '64 - would Odlozil have admitted it to him? - and if Odlozil did so why is blood doping not known as a practice then by E Bloc athletes at that time, which it undoubtedly would have been if Odlozil had been blood doping? Odlozil could have been doping on steroids or amphetamines, say - as other E Bloc athletes were - but less likely he was blood doping in that era. Athletes hadn't yet appeared to know of its possibilities at that time. By the late sixties and early seventies we know they had.

I suppose I should offer positive constructive feedback that you are finally showing skepticism about things based on information which is less reliable. After all that demonstrates intellectual growth. The next big step would be to apply this higher standard, not just to others, but to yourself, and your inferences based on similarly unreliable information.

Here you are essentially repeating what HRE says from the very beginning. He is more sure that Snell actually said it, through a mutual personal acquaintance, but wasn't sure what or how Snell knows what he (allegedly) said, and that a few individuals may have blood doped with transfusions before Mexico 1968, following early research dating back to the late '40s, but then the practice only became more widespread in the late sixties and seventies.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I suppose I should offer positive constructive feedback that you are finally showing skepticism about things based on information which is less reliable. After all that demonstrates intellectual growth. The next big step would be to apply this higher standard, not just to others, but to yourself, and your inferences based on similarly unreliable information.

Here you are essentially repeating what HRE says from the very beginning. He is more sure that Snell actually said it, through a mutual personal acquaintance, but wasn't sure what or how Snell knows what he (allegedly) said, and that a few individuals may have blood doped with transfusions before Mexico 1968, following early research dating back to the late '40s, but then the practice only became more widespread in the late sixties and seventies.

I am not "repeating" what HRE said; I am questioning its veracity, on both counts: did Snell actually say what HRE claims he did (second hand) and was Odlozil blood-doping when the practice had yet to be recorded in sports and especially running in the early sixties?

The irony in your presuming to lecture me about scepticism - I am sceptical about all sports today - is that you are requiring I accept something for which there is no convincing evidence, that there was blood-doping in running in the early sixties - because HRE appears to say so on the basis of what a man in a bar said to him that Snell said about Odlozil. Quite a reversal of your usual position - but you only ever argue what is convenient for what you wish to believe rather than what is likely to be true.

HRE wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I am not "repeating" what HRE said; I am questioning its veracity, on both counts: did Snell actually say what HRE claims he did (second hand) and was Odlozil blood-doping when the practice had yet to be recorded in sports and especially running in the early sixties?

The irony in your presuming to lecture me about scepticism - I am sceptical about all sports today - is that you are requiring I accept something for which there is no convincing evidence, that there was blood-doping in running in the early sixties - because HRE appears to say so on the basis of what a man in a bar said to him that Snell said about Odlozil. Quite a reversal of your usual position - but you only ever argue what is convenient for what you wish to believe rather than what is likely to be true.

It wasn't in a bar. It was a phone conversation. And no one is requiring you to accept it as true. I mentioned it because to me it's an interesting story from a credible source relayed from another credible source. It's entirely possible that in each retelling information was added, removed, confused, or even that the story is a fabrication. It also could be true. We'll probably never know but that story and others make it seem reasonable to believe that blood doping has longer history in the sport than is commonly believed. But no one is requiring you to accept that so you really could relax and think of it as maybe an athletic version of Schroedinger's Cat.