rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Your previous comment referring to WADA was essentially the same as what I had said. What is different is not the statement, that included WADA's inclusion of the term "potentially performance enhancing", but your interpretation of it, to mean that a prohibited drug may not be performance enhancing at all. And that is your consistent approach to doping in elites - they don't gain from doping. For the reasons I gave above, that is an incorrect inference from the use of the term as it is employed by WADA.
The only area in which I could possibly agree with anything you have said is that studies of doping offer only limited information, and the reason for that is because elite athletes and doped athletes - who may be the same - don't offer themselves up as subjects for study.
What I don't agree with is your drawing firmer conclusions than are valid from the data i.e. that highly-trained elites won't gain an advantage from doping. It is because the data derived from the studies is limited that WADA and other anti-doping experts turn to wider evidence, from doctors, pharmacologists and others involved in the sport, to determine whether a given drug is likely to enhance performance. The approach is more like a court case, where the evidence will include anything that is considered relevant. Very few court cases will be based on a single item of evidence - like an academic study - to discharge an onus of proof.
But by maintaining that the studies are really the only evidence that you consider relevant (along with your historical data), you set up the case against the dopers to fail. And then you effectively use it to prove the obverse argument, that doping for top elites doesn't help them. Both arguments are false.
The most telling argument against your position is the sheer prevalence of doping amongst elites that has occurred over many years. If only a few athletes doped we might infer that doping was not seen by most as effective (excluding the other argument that they were ethically against it), but when thousands have done it over generations of athletes and still do it - and with professional guidance - the best inference we can make is they find it works for them. What we don't have is an exact measure but only estimates for how much it benefits them.
No -- adding the word "potential", and adding two other factors "dangerous to health" and "spirit of the sport" changes the essence.
This isn't about what you think my interpretations are. You want to conclude, from the fact that WADA bans it, and that so many athletes take it, that blood doping must be a significant factor in the fastest elite times. For the reasons you gave, this is not a strong basis to draw any conclusions.
You appeal to physicians, pharmacologists, and scientists, but they are not saying blood doping has pushed elite times beyond the reach of the most talented clean athletes. In fact, most scientists who have researched this agree with me, and not you, when they say it would be incorrect to draw any conclusions on elite athlete performance.
I don't maintain that studies are really the only evidence. I also used public data such as historical performances, and doping statistics by country, from official sources like WADA's website.
The best inference from your telling argument is that faith in doping to achieve what clean training cannot is widespread. You think it is only a question of positive magnitude and we are quibbling about degree of benefit, but the question is still open as to whether the net physical benefit is positive, zero, or negative, for the elite athletes in question, when they are in their top shape.
It's going to be a lot more than just "potential" when sufficient evidence of doping exists at or near competition(s). I mentioned this to you before that satisfactory evidence of doping will result in the disqualification of results under the "unfair advantage" clause:
Ugarova CAS hearing (CAS 2016/0/4463):
"141. The Sole Arbitrator does not deem it appropriate to entirely dispose of any disqualification of results as he is convinced that the Athlete doped and because the main purpose of disqualification of results is not to punish the transgressor, but rather to correct any unfair advantage and remove any tainted performances from the record (LEWIS / TAYLOR (Eds.), Sport: Law and Practice, 2014, para. C.162, with further references). The Sole Arbitrator, considering that neither a doping scheme, nor a doping plan has been established in the present case, deems it adequate and proportionate comparing to other cases where a single anti-doping rule violation could have been established through the analysis of a positive sample, to disqualify the results of the Athlete for a period of six months. Six months seem to be a period long enough for an anti-doping organization to perform results management including a possible disciplinary proceeding."
"Correct any unfair advantage and remove any tainted performances" sounds more conclusive of performance enhancing then the "potential" of the possiblity. If it was only "potential," I would think an athlete could legally challenge any annulment of performances since the case statue states that the purpose of the disqualification is not to punish the the transgressor but to correct an unfair advantage ("punishment" would be the length of the ban, e.g. 2 yrs, 4 yrs, etc.). Unfair advantage would simply mean you doped at or near the event and therefore had an unfair advantage in performance over your competition.
Btw, this case is where Dr. Schumacher had testified that "High HGB values enhance sporting performance." Ugarova had a single ABP flag for high Hb, RET% & Off-score on a pre-comp test a couple of days before the 2012 EC 1500m (her 7th place in the final was DQ based on one abnormal sample at 99.99 specificity)