You clearly don't mix with the elk of the DoD, Pentagon, NSA, FBI, CIA because you are so indoctrinated to be fixated on the safety of limited public knowledge. What happens if there is infinte non-public or secret knowledge then? You don't have a way to know them.
If I have no way of knowing them, then I cannot be influenced by such non-public or secret knowledge. It effectively doesn't exist. When robust information becomes public and no longer a secret, I will consider it in context, and adapt my ideas as necessary to accomodate it.
Meanwhile, we have decades of performance data for sea-level and altitude based athletes alike, in the public domain.
Actually in the space-time spirit world where every entity is a spirituality entity your statement "if i have no way of knowing them then it effectively doesn't exist" is false.
Since this is a spirit mind universe it then follows that 'if there is a will (a mind/spirit) there always exist a way'. You clearly have reached that level of enlightenment that CIA and DoD has achieved since the 1950s after WW2 where they imported all the Nazi criminals and employed them for zersektung operations against worldwide civilians.
If I'm right about this which I have been proven by science, psychology and Christianity to be right, then it follows that it's not about the 'robustness' of information but the robustness of your spirit. Another way of looking at this is if your God Given spirit mind is robust enough, to quote brandon iglesias ex NSA contractor, no amount of information is un-robust for your robust spiritual eyes and ears.
Sun Tze once said that the art of war lies in the 'knowing' despite un-robust information. Basically he is saying you cannot blame un-robust information for lacking confidence in your plans and schemes, a powerful and robust spirit mind can slice through the most ambiguous set of evidence and circumstances and still make the right prediction and win the war.
If you want my opinion on altitude factor in training I will say it does not exist. I subscribe to the law of buoyancy by archimedes. At altitude there is less buoyancy or lift on athlete but less drag but at sea level there is more buoyancy or lift but more drag. All things being equal all the laws of physics cancel each other out no matter whether you are at altitude or sea level. The altitude guy is no fairer than the sea level guy assuming short-term adaptation effects have stabilized and are negligible.
Any perceived benefit is as the late Jack Daniels has said it's all an illusion of the mind.
Edward Snowden was an ex top defense contractor at DoD and CIA. He mentions that these Nazi inspired idiots are corrupting everything between the ionosphere and the earth with high frequency microwave beam energy. It's synced to Trapwire and the global cellular grid. Trapwire has AI in it to detect target individual through the cell system and information relayed straight to Alaska HAARP antennas. These antennas position themselves such that when they fire the microwave beams it reflected off of the ionosphere and arrive at a price longitude and lattitude on earth where the target human is situated. Edward himself was targeted with HAARP beams when he fled to Hong Kong and Russia. He almost lost his life fleeing the NSA. Later on in Russia, he build his home using copper meshes which is the best material to block powerful HAARP beams. Copper is diamagnetic and when these beams arrive it will be filtered out. Ed is alive today, so it works and he is a genius.
Whether you believe me or not it's up to you. I told you exactly as it is.
These might seem like reasonable questions, but what are the answers. In the case of this athlete, according to the video "... he just heard of so many athletes that were taking this. Didn't know what it was and just thought let me get my hands on some of it. I'll be able to run a little bit quicker."
This athlete took it on pure faith alone, without any knowledge -- probably thinking like most, "if athletes are willing to take the risk, it must work", or "if WADA bans it, it must work". I wonder if that describes most, if not all, athletes/coaches/agents/pharmacists/doctors/etc.
The kind of performance data I'm looking for is "any". A reasonable question is why make claims that a benefit exists, when there is no data showing any benefit. It's like the emperors clothes. In four decades of studies, no one has studied the marathon -- this includes your two Ex. Phys PhDs.
I thought it was reasonable to look at nearly three decades of marathon performances, especially for sea-level athletes who theoretically should benefit more, surprised to find that, while there were many fast East Africans, there were so few non-Africans and North Africans running faster than Steve Jones and Carlos Lopes, and then by about a minute, to a minute and a half at best. Similar story for the women, compared to Ingrid Kristiansen, at most 3 minutes faster, except for Paula.
How do you propose getting "any" performance data? I just don't see any way to validate or invalidate claims of a benefit performance given by a substance when we usually don't know if performers are using it or not.
Why do we think training at altitude improves distance running performances? Because we know it increases red blood cell count which increases a body's oxygen flow and that should improve endurance. But in the 70s when distance runners were migrating to Boulder for altitude training the best marathon group in the country was training around Boston.
It's the same with EPO. What we know it does seems like it should help endurance athletes. The high number of fast East Africans getting caught using it suggests this to be the case. But we don't know what those athletes would have done were they not using it. For all we know some of them might have been faster without it. I just cannot imagine how one would go about getting these performance data you're talking about. You'd need control group studies.
I don't bother with Tylenol much because it does me no good as a rule and my wife doesn't bother with it much because she rarely gets headaches.
All those research are mired in inconsistencies and internally conflicting premises. I bet also lots of poor design, haphazard data analytics, biases and blinding problems. The rigor of science in these domain are usually not as stringent as in the hard science like physics. None of them can be believed but only what the laws of physics say. It says that at altitude the production of more red blood cells is almost always opposed, by Lenz's law, its reduction. You then have a ratio hematocrit which reflects Lenz's law. This ratio rarely fluctuates in the long -term and you find that altitude athletes still retain almost the same ratios as when at sea level. Their increased O2 capacity could then only come not from increased red blood cells per se but increased surface area of red blood cells. See that subtlety there that I made? Moreover, there is less upthrust higher up in altitude and so much less buoyancy or lift to propel you forward while running. All the pros are cancelled out somewhere by all the cons. That's how it is when you apply the laws of physics. You never win, you thought you won or got an edge but it's just your delusion.
The benefit came from passing one's body through scenic mountains while running and immersing one's quantum bioelectromagnetic field with the mountain's soothing and regenerating quantum magnetic field. That's what Kilian Jornet said, he said the mountains and forests energize his heart and lungs and he f*cks with it and that's the reason why till this day he continues to f*ck with the mountains and all the ultra-trail races. It's sexual, being alive is a sexual electromagnetic thing, trying to go closer to the Creator and the Source, trying to f*ck with him because we he gave us all our breaths and lives. he made us in his image.
Runners wanna go to altitude to train also because they desire to gain that sexual electromagnetic fulfilment with the mountains life-giving source-inspiring quauntum field. I once lived on a mountain for 3 months with farmers in South America and I can tell you the feeling is exhilarating. I returned with a BANG and a SKIP. The energy was just so sexual, so raw and yet so soft and fluid.
It's not about red blood cells, never was. Don't listen to Ross Tucker and whoever else.
I'm very sorry you feel this way. But I personally don't copulate with your comment at all. I'm a fan of Renato Canova and Stephen Cherono, you could say the same for El G. These are all good clean boys. You are quite bias in your 'coinciding' theory and omit to add that directed energy HAARP in Alaska only because weaponized in 2015 around the same time that Renato's and all kenyan athletes also started to decline as the whole earth became blanketed with mind altering directed energy attacks.
You limit your scope of 'coinciding' evidence to just AIU when there may have been more factors at work that were incident to the loss of East African dominance.
So do you want to let people take EPO until there's some sort of evidence that you think is conclusive enough?
I don't want to change the subject. WADA can ban it for health risk reasons. Whatever they decide doesn't seem materially relevant to whether a basis exists for popular claims about endurance performance benefit.
So do you want to let people take EPO until there's some sort of evidence that you think is conclusive enough?
I don't want to change the subject. WADA can ban it for health risk reasons. Whatever they decide doesn't seem materially relevant to whether a basis exists for popular claims about endurance performance benefit.
I don't want to go on with this forever but I do think banning it for performance as well as health is a good thing to dop even if there isn't a clear basis for the claims about endurance benefits because it is very reasonable to believe such benefits exist based on observation. So you'd want it out of the sport. But if there really are no performance benefits ban it anyway. Why would anyone need to use it?
You paint a picture as if the Western athlete who wants EPO would always be foiled by all the systems and roadblocks preventing it.
Where there is a will, there is always a way. Lance Armstrong didn't go to Walgreens. Christian Hesch just went to Mexico and walked back with it. Albuquerque was rumored as a hotbed of EPO abuse, including Eddy Hellebuyck. You can mail order it from China and have it delivered straight to your door, like BBC's Scottish reporter Marc Daly. Or, if you don't have a team doctor, you just need to know somebody who knows somebody who works at a pharmacy or hospital.
Access to EPO is not the barrier you seem to think it is for most athletes in many countries.
No he didn't.
Nobody ever said EPO wasn't available for people who really wanted to get their hands on it outside of Kenya.
But if you are legitimately sitting here and suggesting that on a scale or spectrum that a place like Kenya with third world infrastructure isn't far easier to acquire drugs than many other nations, then your "doping expert" charade is really reinforced.
Hilariously you even gave example yourself of the differences. "Christian Hesch just went to Mexico". Traveling across a border and back again with any significant quantity of pharmaceutical is a considerable barrier for most people. "Mailing it from China" where there is some customs record/paper trail of what you have purchased if far different from rolling into some ramshackle clinic, handing over money and walking out with your drugs. You basically gave a number of reasons how an athlete could get implicated without even taking the drug they purchased - a number of which serve as at least some barrier to the procurement and use of such substances.
I don't want to change the subject. WADA can ban it for health risk reasons. Whatever they decide doesn't seem materially relevant to whether a basis exists for popular claims about endurance performance benefit.
I don't want to go on with this forever but I do think banning it for performance as well as health is a good thing to dop even if there isn't a clear basis for the claims about endurance benefits because it is very reasonable to believe such benefits exist based on observation. So you'd want it out of the sport. But if there really are no performance benefits ban it anyway. Why would anyone need to use it?
Well I don't really want to talk about whether it should be banned, so we don't need to nitpick why it should be banned. I can accept for discussion that it is rightfully banned, and should remain banned.
But if you say you want to ban it for performance reasons, then performance needs to be established as a reason. You say "based on observation", which is precisely the ask. Where are the observations of the claimed performance benefit, for the 2:04 marathoner? Or the 3:04, or 4:04 marathoner?
Observations of "use", also by fast marathoners, is not observation of "benefit". Nor are theoretical rationalizations involving RBC, O2, VO2max, sub-VO2max, or time to exhaustion.
I can't explain why anyone would need to use it, unless they are ill and anemic and need it for medical reasons. If athletes were as skeptical as I am about an alleged benefit that hasn't been observed, they would not consider it.
Well the topic was "How Kenyans get EPO" until you changed it once again into your, ummm, theory.
You give me too much credit. I did not change the topic, but joined existing discussions, responding to HRE, and to "dollar conversion" as early as post #11. "The grim locator" in post #3 introduced the popular but ambiguous acronym "PED".
But even they did not change the topic. Performance was part of the original post #1, as the linked video alleged a performance benefit as the athlete's motivation: "Didn't know what it was and just thought let me get my hands on some of it. I'll be able to run a little bit quicker."
You need to brush up on your history biffy, not revise it.
Nobody ever said EPO wasn't available for people who really wanted to get their hands on it outside of Kenya.
But if you are legitimately sitting here and suggesting that on a scale or spectrum that a place like Kenya with third world infrastructure isn't far easier to acquire drugs than many other nations, then your "doping expert" charade is really reinforced.
Hilariously you even gave example yourself of the differences. "Christian Hesch just went to Mexico". Traveling across a border and back again with any significant quantity of pharmaceutical is a considerable barrier for most people. "Mailing it from China" where there is some customs record/paper trail of what you have purchased if far different from rolling into some ramshackle clinic, handing over money and walking out with your drugs. You basically gave a number of reasons how an athlete could get implicated without even taking the drug they purchased - a number of which serve as at least some barrier to the procurement and use of such substances.
Speaking of served, that will be all.
I find it essentially a non-topic because the barrier is so easy to overcome, for those with the will. It is easy enough everywhere. I don't see the value of alleging it would be easier in Kenya, when it is not a formidable barrier anywhere else.
Can you imagine Lance Armstrong saying, "I wanted to take EPO like everyone else in the peloton, but I just didn't have a prescription, and Walgreens and Rite Aid wouldn't give me any when I asked. Everything I tried was foiled by all the barriers in the system."
I don't want to go on with this forever but I do think banning it for performance as well as health is a good thing to dop even if there isn't a clear basis for the claims about endurance benefits because it is very reasonable to believe such benefits exist based on observation. So you'd want it out of the sport. But if there really are no performance benefits ban it anyway. Why would anyone need to use it?
Well I don't really want to talk about whether it should be banned, so we don't need to nitpick why it should be banned. I can accept for discussion that it is rightfully banned, and should remain banned.
But if you say you want to ban it for performance reasons, then performance needs to be established as a reason. You say "based on observation", which is precisely the ask. Where are the observations of the claimed performance benefit, for the 2:04 marathoner? Or the 3:04, or 4:04 marathoner?
Observations of "use", also by fast marathoners, is not observation of "benefit". Nor are theoretical rationalizations involving RBC, O2, VO2max, sub-VO2max, or time to exhaustion.
I can't explain why anyone would need to use it, unless they are ill and anemic and need it for medical reasons. If athletes were as skeptical as I am about an alleged benefit that hasn't been observed, they would not consider it.
Again, if it does give a performance boost it should be illegal because it's putting non users at a disadvantage and there's harm being done . If it doesn't give a performance boost there's no harm being done but also no harm being done by banning it. Obviously some athletes and their coaches and agents are much less skeptical about its performance benefits than you are.
There are barriers to doping in the western world that do not exist in Kenya. You need to be a troll or just dumb to not understand the difference.
Free access for everyone with absolutely no consequences in Kenya is why they are completely dominant. It's a free for all with free for all access that guarantees success .
You cannot compare that to a few people willing to take the risks in other countries where you become a social pariah if caught and you have to try and access it without leaving a trace. You can't just pop down the pharmacy like in Kenya.
I mean how dumb are people, the whole genetics B's was always nonsense .
There are barriers to doping in the western world that do not exist in Kenya. You need to be a troll or just dumb to not understand the difference.
Free access for everyone with absolutely no consequences in Kenya is why they are completely dominant. It's a free for all with free for all access that guarantees success .
You cannot compare that to a few people willing to take the risks in other countries where you become a social pariah if caught and you have to try and access it without leaving a trace. You can't just pop down the pharmacy like in Kenya.
I mean how dumb are people, the whole genetics B's was always nonsense .
Some people can be pretty dumb, when they believe things lacking tangible evidence or controlled observations are uncontestable facts with no room for doubt.
Where there is a will, there is always a way. Athletes can easily jump over these barriers, or simply walk around them. There may be a difference in details, but it is not important enough to prevent any doping in the west.
Your speculation that doping is "why they are completely dominant", and that it "guarantees success" remains baseless. Kenyans and Ethiopians dominated the world as far back as the 1980s in World Cross Country, long before EPO was discovered by cyclists.
Again, if it does give a performance boost it should be illegal because it's putting non users at a disadvantage and there's harm being done . If it doesn't give a performance boost there's no harm being done but also no harm being done by banning it. Obviously some athletes and their coaches and agents are much less skeptical about its performance benefits than you are.
EPO arguably violates all three of WADA's criteria for banning substances, and there is really no reason for any healthy athlete to take it.
I realize that athletes, coaches, agents, pharmacists, doctors, researchers, and fans around the world believe EPO can provide endurance performance benefits.
There are barriers to doping in the western world that do not exist in Kenya. You need to be a troll or just dumb to not understand the difference.
Free access for everyone with absolutely no consequences in Kenya is why they are completely dominant. It's a free for all with free for all access that guarantees success .
You cannot compare that to a few people willing to take the risks in other countries where you become a social pariah if caught and you have to try and access it without leaving a trace. You can't just pop down the pharmacy like in Kenya.
I mean how dumb are people, the whole genetics B's was always nonsense .
"Hi my name is Rekrunner. Despite people overwhelmingly disagreeing with my takes, it doesn't matter because I'm the smartest person so simply know better. Thanks. RR"