Another Kenyan busted!

Looking at it like a black and white false dichotomy just reflects shallow one-bit thinking.

First, you are wrong because I do think doping is a serious issue in the sport. I think anti-doping should be equally serious.

Second, you seem to think it all can be boiled down to one of us is right, and the other wrong for arguing the opposite. We are not having the same argument. I am not arguing the opposite -- that is just your shallow black and white false dichotomy of interpreting my requests for supporting data. You think you are right, and I think your statements are unsupported, necessarily requiring favorable inferences and faith and fallacies to bridge the gaps in the evidence and data and observations. Regarding performance, I am reserving any judgements of right or wrong until better performance data can be provided.

Don't be so thin-skinned, after all, you know who I am, so why are you so concerned about unregistered posters like the one above. Who are you?

And anyway it was me who convinced you to not believe what the poster above believes.

Hey it's me again, VfBSt. Yes, like you I am an anonymous user. Did you really look up my history? Oh my...

Why did you start with all these elaborate games and name calling? Oh right, that's your tacit concession that there are no better substantial arguments to be made. Actually you have made 0 arguments here, other than outright trolling + accusing + asking stupid questions, right from the start.

BTW it's 2026 now. There are lots of performance data. See for example this analysis published in late 2025:
Front. Sports Act. Living, 20 November 2025
The effect of doping, anti-doping measures, and sociological factors on the annual distribution of all-time top performances in short, middle, and long-distance running

Using refined proxy variables, we identified measurable associations between the availability of substances like THG and Epo and increased prevalence of top performances, particularly in events aligned with their physiological influence. Anti-doping interventions, including the ABP modules and OOC testing, appeared to mitigate these effects. Testosterone regulations in women's middle—distance running events were also linked to diminished performance levels

Yes, marathon wasn't included, but the 5000 m were, for which you'd make the same "arguments".

Could you outline your reasons for your belief in the PED concept?

The reason I ask is because I want to find out who is genuinely anti-doping and who has an ulterior motive?

Because I believe that Coevett has an ulterior motive.

Your ulterior motive is obviously to continue to allow Africans to dope freely.

No it's not. I want people to learn some important things about Bioenergetics which aren't being taught in the mainstream. All we get is a lot of misinformation that contributes to the doping problem.

So what are your intentions?

Am I missing something, or is this thread full of people claiming that doping doesn't do anything?

If the latter, what's the claim? Elite athletes take EPO and testosterone for fun?

The reason why they take that stuff is because their coach told them it 'enhances performance' Also people like you re-affirming the same belief.

Do you actually want to debate the subject seriously or just go along with the herd?

Steroids are given to people with muscle wasting and to burn victims with great success. People with kidney disease are given EPO and Mircera with great success. If these people are helped by these drugs, then there’s a chance those effects might just help athletes as well. There’s actually no ‘might’ about it. But people want to obfuscate because it’s becoming more and more clear that Africa has the worst doping problem in athletics. Fact. They were right. Your agenda is to cover for Africans.

Again with "I'm rubber, you're glue"?

Let's make it untacit. I made no arguments because there are no substantial arguments to be made when there is no relevant data. Does there exist any substantial arguments for Canova's hypothetical thought about steroids and Moses Mosop and the marathon? This is not a stupid question, but a fundamental one that should go without saying.

Yes those drugs are effective for patients who have a deficit. Why is that so hard to understand?

Also, do you really not know the physiological reason why Kenyans do so well in endurance running?

It's really simple. But go ahead and give me the broscience andwer?

Stop pretending that you're anti-doping. You're being disingenuous by not engaging in some really basic phyiology. You're just adding to the problem.

Let's be real. You are the one who first started calling posters troll, ironically right after you started trolling. You are also the one who started with these weird assumptions about what is most likely regarding all coaches worldwide, without any argument whatsoever. Good for you to now admit that you have no arguments here, however.

Not to mention the nonsense you wrote under different troll names right on the first page.

It is 2026 now. This contrarian agrees with you. Thanks for that update.

You could have started with this instead of playing games. While I appreciate the effort, here's my instant reaction:

- The 5000m is not the marathon, so we still have no performance data for the marathon. Physiologically they are different events with the 5000m significantly faster, for a much shorter duration, while for the marathon we have to consider other limiting factors such as heat accumulation and dissipation, and glycogen depletion, where the role of drugs like EPO and steroids are not so clear (no pun intended).

- While times slowed down in the men's 5000m after the introduction of the ABP, they sped up in the men's marathon. The "negative effect" observed for the 5000m from the ABP would be measured as a "positive effect" for the marathon, paradoxically suggesting the ABP implementation made athletes run the marathon faster! Historically, these were both well explained by the money drying up on the track, prompting many athletes to skip the track and hit the roads at a much younger age, in their prime.

- Since I like to compare performance by different ancestries, had they done the same exercise for the marathon, the top 250 performances would be almost exclusively East African. I count about 5 non-African performances (2 USA, 2 JPN, and 1 BRA) as of today (as opposed to Dec. 2023). Since I did this exercise twice already, I already have some of the numbers and trends as far back as 1967. About 58 would be before the widespread impacts in the supershoe era (before Jan. 1, 2018), with about 192 occurring since Jan. 1, 2018 -- after all of the identified anti-doping milestones. With every significant anti-doping milestone which could potentially introduce a negative effect, we would paradoxically see a positive effect in the marathon in both quantity and top-quality.

- The paper itself warns us about several limitations: "(Due to its design) causal relationships cannot be established", "The complex nature of sports performance (...) limits the ability to isolate individual effects and may conceal potential confounders.", "Proxy variables (...) did not directly measure actual usage or enforcement." "There are certainly many other factors that could be confounding factors (e.g., super shoe era, track changes, pacing tactic), so these results require further scientific analysis."

Really? Seems like right before that, I was called disengenous, contrarian, obtuse, and misleading. I have to wonder why so many (or is it really just the same one?) feel the need to smear me, rather than engage in intellectual discussion. Is it insecurity? Lack of knowledge? Regardless, these are typical deflections to avoid providing substantial data. And here you are still deflecting.

I admit I did say what I thought "seems unlikely" -- unarguably my opinion based on my limited observations rather than a "weird assumption". I emphasized the inconclusive nature by saying "That's how it seems to me, but I'm happy to see any candidate counter-examples or other arguments ..." You are free to disagree with what seems likely to me, and invited to provide a counter-example.

Otherwise, I'm not really making any claims here that need to be argued, or which are not self-evident. Again, feel free to disagree with or disregard all of my unargued opinions. If you want to read in to my question an implied claim that there exists no performance data linking testosterone to better marathon performance, this is easily disproved by answering the question that provides such data, rather than calling it stupid, or turning it into a claim I did not make.

You are right "not to mention the nonsense (I) wrote" on the first page, as I didn't post anything on the first page, or in this thread, under any other name. I was trolled already by "rekbot 427" in post #3.

Oh, I'm not concerned. I just noticed a significant uptick in the past week or so.

I still don't like this word believe -- I try to look at this topic as a science stripped of beliefs, and not use descriptions reserved for religions.

If you want partial credit, go ahead and take it, but much of what I think about blood doping and world class distance running performance actually comes from Renato, and much of what I think about all doping and top distance performances was something I confirmed by looking at top performances dating as far back as the 1960s in many distance events looking at men and women separately. What convinces me not to "believe" most posters is the inability to provide any substantial data, and the reliance on faithful assumptions and the frequent use of obvious logical fallacies.