You keep touting studies that reached conclusions on the effects of doping on elite athletes without studying any. What would a similar study on the effects of training on elites achieve if it didn't study any? You are either a very slow learner at discerning the flaw in your argument or a poor scientist. The two are of course not mutually exclusive.
This is your strawman. That is where the flaw originates. I do not tout studies that do not exist. I tout studies by name and quote relevant conclusions and limitations directly from the paper, showing the views of the researchers themselves.
Regarding studies, like the researchers in the paper you didn't read, I say existing studies on blood doping are not well designed, and take uncontrolled looks at the wrong things on the wrong people, and from these not well designed studies, the effects are surely over-estimated (forming one of the reasons scientists/coaches/agents/athletes believe in the power of blood doping for distance running).
I also say one of the better designed studies on altitude training showed us that hi-lo training has a similar "proven" benefit on amateurs as any blood-doping study. In their published data, they also showed that hemoglobin and VO2max can improve (in hi-hi training) without any improvement in time-trial performance. My conclusion is that, at least among amateur study volunteers, there are legal ways to extract the gains that blood doping provides (if any).
To the extent I draw conclusions about whether doping can potentialy impact elite distance performance, I have explained at length in other threads that this is based on comparing progress in some groups to the relatively significant lack of progress in other groups, based on both quality and quantity. For example, not only comparing East Africans to North Aricans to sea-level non-Africans, but comparing Russia to Japan, or Spain to the rest of Europe.
Still mere wind, as none of the studies you rely on for your views used elite athletes who had doped as their subjects. There are none that have. So it is ultimately inconclusive speculation to claim doping doesn't aid top endurance athletes - who have long doped and continue to do so.
You seem oblivious to the fact that EPO is but only one of many drugs used by athletes. Many of those being busted in Kenya are using a variety of drugs. But set yourself up a straw man so you can shoot it down.
It is "whataboutery" who said "Times of elite marathon runners to the introduction of EPO correlation is high". Apparently you disagree with him too.
If there is any strawman and any obliviousness about the role of other drugs, it is in the post I responded to.
But in any case, the point is only made stronger -- marathon times do not correlate to any of the many drugs used by athletes.
I'm sure you would have trouble seeing that coffee, bananas and chocolate bars are performance enhancing. Where are the studies showing that, too? Who could possibly imagine that drugs could be even more potent than a boost in caffeine, potassium or sugar?
If you want to conduct that investigation, there are no shortage of studies on the ergogenic effects of caffeine and sugar and the beneficial role of potassium. Oddly enough (according to Jack Daniels) while caffeine is ergogenic, coffee is not.
I have no doubt that many can "imagine" that drugs are more potent. That's one of my points -- the myths become larger in the imagination, where there are fewer boundaries and constraints imposed by realities. The next step is to make reliable observations.
Still mere wind, as none of the studies you rely on for your views used elite athletes who had doped as their subjects. There are none that have. So it is ultimately inconclusive speculation to claim doping doesn't aid top endurance athletes - who have long doped and continue to do so.
You don't realize you are just echoing "my views", but you just don't go far enough.
My view is that you can not only not find substantial basis for the popular doping/performance myths in the scientific literature, you cannot find them in elite distance running performances either, and there are no athletes/coaches stepping forward in distance running, like we had in cycling and baseball and weightlifting, etc. The knowledge and experience you keep suggesting that scientists/coaches/athletes/doctors/experts have is incomplete and/or unreliable, and the knowledge gaps are filled in with fallacies/rumors/myths/beliefs/speculation/hope/etc.
You seem oblivious to the fact that EPO is but only one of many drugs used by athletes. Many of those being busted in Kenya are using a variety of drugs. But set yourself up a straw man so you can shoot it down.
It is "whataboutery" who said "Times of elite marathon runners to the introduction of EPO correlation is high". Apparently you disagree with him too.
If there is any strawman and any obliviousness about the role of other drugs, it is in the post I responded to.
But in any case, the point is only made stronger -- marathon times do not correlate to any of the many drugs used by athletes.
The argument about doping isn't confined to EPO. You haven't looked at the banned list for a while, have you? What corresponds to marathon performances is the number of runners who have used drugs, especially in Kenya. That, too, you overlook.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Still mere wind, as none of the studies you rely on for your views used elite athletes who had doped as their subjects. There are none that have. So it is ultimately inconclusive speculation to claim doping doesn't aid top endurance athletes - who have long doped and continue to do so.
You don't realize you are just echoing "my views", but you just don't go far enough.
My view is that you can not only not find substantial basis for the popular doping/performance myths in the scientific literature, you cannot find them in elite distance running performances either, and there are no athletes/coaches stepping forward in distance running, like we had in cycling and baseball and weightlifting, etc. The knowledge and experience you keep suggesting that scientists/coaches/athletes/doctors/experts have is incomplete and/or unreliable, and the knowledge gaps are filled in with fallacies/rumors/myths/beliefs/speculation/hope/etc.
So athletes and coaches who have doped are expected to "step forward"? (They didn't in cycling - a few were caught. The same with the other sports you mentioned).
I'm sure you would have trouble seeing that coffee, bananas and chocolate bars are performance enhancing. Where are the studies showing that, too? Who could possibly imagine that drugs could be even more potent than a boost in caffeine, potassium or sugar?
If you want to conduct that investigation, there are no shortage of studies on the ergogenic effects of caffeine and sugar and the beneficial role of potassium. Oddly enough (according to Jack Daniels) while caffeine is ergogenic, coffee is not.
I have no doubt that many can "imagine" that drugs are more potent. That's one of my points -- the myths become larger in the imagination, where there are fewer boundaries and constraints imposed by realities. The next step is to make reliable observations.
We can all take coffee, bananas and chocolate bars and see for ourselves their effects. But we don't use banned drugs unless we are doping. Yet without any evidence for it you maintain there is no basis for concluding those drugs could even enable what a cup of coffee can. You are the ultimate flat-earther on these boards.
EPO freely available in Kenya over the counter. Easy to take and bloody hard to get caught.
Anyone who knows knows. There are other drugs but they're mostly complementary compared to the obvious.
Anyone arguing the uptick in times isn't correlated to the EPO evolution in running (not cycling) isn't working to the right timelines.
The argument around why it isn't helping worldwide is also a bit weak. It has , look at a long standing women's WR...then look at availability, risk of testing and play the pure numbers game .
Anyway, those who know know and those arguing against, nothing I can say will change your minds
Yes - how can you be clean and beat the best, most talented dopers of them all?
I go with the middle ground here, somewhere between your downplaying the 1500's past and Kipyegon's performances and connections to "any fast time can be looked upon with suspicion" and Kelsall's "they are nothing more than a fake sport-cringing variety of runners".
“Yes - how can you be clean and beat the best, most talented dopers of them all?“ -I have thought this through, and here is my suggestion to an answer:
It all depends on doping prevalence. If f.ex the prevalence is below 10% of the top elite, we could have a situation like this: El Guerrouj clean, Lagat clean, Kiprop dirty and really a 3.29 man who has cheated himself down to 3.26 (him as an example is only theoretical, but chosen because of his conviction -that might be a false positive), Ingebrigtsen clean, Morceli clean, Kiplagat clean, Ngeny clean, Cheruiyot clean, Manangoi clean, some 3.31 man doping down to 3.28 (I don’t know who, and the whole list is anyways only paraphrased after memory). If the prevalence is more than 10% El Guerrouj could still be clean and the best, but only if none of the natural clean guys on 3.26, 27 or 28 did dope +-they would then surpass him. (Some say Lagat doped, because of his positive A sample -I’m not among them - but if true that would f.ex make him a 3.29 who doped down to 3.26…) The point here is that if none of the nearest to El Guerrouj isn’t clean, he can’t be either -the gap would be to o unnatural huge…. So prevalence matters -90 % doping among top elite would of course increase the probability of the Goat being a doper…
Lastly: Choosing the middle ground will sometimes be wrong!
Any other country with that many bans would be barred from competing globally. It is only because the powers that be think Kenyan shouldn’t be held to as high a standard as other countries. Mostly the soft bigotry of low expectations.
In my home country Norway there’s been a huge problem with hobby lifters and hobby “bodybuilders” using anabolic steroids in the training studios but almost none in the elite. Do you propose Jakob Ingebrigtsen and the whole Norwegian team should be banned because of this!?
You don't realize you are just echoing "my views", but you just don't go far enough.
My view is that you can not only not find substantial basis for the popular doping/performance myths in the scientific literature, you cannot find them in elite distance running performances either, and there are no athletes/coaches stepping forward in distance running, like we had in cycling and baseball and weightlifting, etc. The knowledge and experience you keep suggesting that scientists/coaches/athletes/doctors/experts have is incomplete and/or unreliable, and the knowledge gaps are filled in with fallacies/rumors/myths/beliefs/speculation/hope/etc.
So athletes and coaches who have doped are expected to "step forward"? (They didn't in cycling - a few were caught. The same with the other sports you mentioned).
You are the one who says that athletes and coaches have the knowledge and experience. But in athletics, unlike all these other sports, they are not sharing their knowledge and experience.
You presume too much without any facts and evidence and observations.
I am simply not persuaded by your beliefs in what others believe.
We can all take coffee, bananas and chocolate bars and see for ourselves their effects. But we don't use banned drugs unless we are doping. Yet without any evidence for it you maintain there is no basis for concluding those drugs could even enable what a cup of coffee can. You are the ultimate flat-earther on these boards.
Are you surprised that, without evidence, I maintain there is no basis? Just provide the requested evidence for the relation between doping and elite distance running performance.
Flat-earthers are superior to you, because they at least try to produce evidence and observations for their strongly held beliefs.
Sure there is a potential for drugs to enable performance improvement -- I agree with WADA about potential. But whether the potential can be realized depends on 1) the dope, 2) the athlete, 3) the event, and 4) the state of training of the athlete.
Note again, according to Jack Daniels, coffee doesn't seem to have the ergogenic effect that caffeine does.
The argument about doping isn't confined to EPO. You haven't looked at the banned list for a while, have you? What corresponds to marathon performances is the number of runners who have used drugs, especially in Kenya. That, too, you overlook.
You are preaching to the choir here. I have already accepted your suggestion that no WADA banned PED exists that can be correlated to elite marathon performance. No need to beat that dead horse.
It seems like you need to get together with "whataboutery" and get the story straight about EPO and other drugs for the marathon. He is the one suggesting it maps to the EPO timeline, if we chose the right one, and the other drugs are just complementary compared to the obvious.
As it is, a hundred believers have a hundred different theories, which are not coherent with and often contradict each other (not unlike flat-earth youtube "researchers"). That is what happens when there are too few facts, data, and observations to narrow down and exclude the contradicted possibilities.
Any other country with that many bans would be barred from competing globally. It is only because the powers that be think Kenyan shouldn’t be held to as high a standard as other countries. Mostly the soft bigotry of low expectations.
In my home country Norway there’s been a huge problem with hobby lifters and hobby “bodybuilders” using anabolic steroids in the training studios but almost none in the elite. Do you propose Jakob Ingebrigtsen and the whole Norwegian team should be banned because of this!?
just wow. norway is one of the worst doping countries, starting with xcountry skiing and ending with the ingebrigtsens.
EPO freely available in Kenya over the counter. Easy to take and bloody hard to get caught.
Anyone who knows knows. There are other drugs but they're mostly complementary compared to the obvious.
Anyone arguing the uptick in times isn't correlated to the EPO evolution in running (not cycling) isn't working to the right timelines.
The argument around why it isn't helping worldwide is also a bit weak. It has , look at a long standing women's WR...then look at availability, risk of testing and play the pure numbers game .
Anyway, those who know know and those arguing against, nothing I can say will change your minds
Those who know know -- cute. I have played the numbers game, and too many things just don't add up. For one, we have the incoherency between you and Headstrong about whether EPO, and therefore the EPO timeline, is important, because WADA bans 23 classes of drugs. This is not the only incoherency.
Everyone who knows, knows that EPO has always been available worldwide, to those who want it. Availability has never been a problem, so getting EPO from a pharmacy is not a unique solution in Kenya. We saw that in cycling, and from busted athletes, and investigative journalism. You can smuggle it into the USA from Mexico, or order it online from China, or easily get it from a team doctor, or a local rogue doctor. Some countries simply give it to all of their athletes.
The "right timeline" seems to be rather fluid, depending on the thread, and who is arguing which personal pet theory. I've been told that with mass production, EPO was introduced as early as 1987, and that EPO was used by Kenyans/Ethiopians in the 1990s to produce the huge improvements in track times.
Yet more knowledgeable "experts" -- those who know -- tell me that in 2000-2012, high blood values were relatively insignificant for winning world and Olympic marathon medals, and that the Kenyan doping problem started on the roads, not the track.
The worldwide argument is stronger than you say. If you want to see where doping works, Russia is surely the best place to look: the men did nothing in running, and were relegated to walking; about a dozen or so women produced fast times (I looked at the numbers), with a cocktail of blood doping and steroids. If we exclude the East and North Africans, and only look at non-Africans compared to each other, countries like Russia and Spain, rumored to be heavy EPO and doping users, did not really even stand out among non-Africans. The non-doping nation of Japan was superior than the state-sponsored doped Russians.
If you tell me to look at long standing women's WR, I will concede that steroids work for women.
What you can say that would change my mind comes in the form of objective facts, data, and observations, and not far-fetched conclusions which simply conclude the assumptions.
The argument about doping isn't confined to EPO. You haven't looked at the banned list for a while, have you? What corresponds to marathon performances is the number of runners who have used drugs, especially in Kenya. That, too, you overlook.
You are preaching to the choir here. I have already accepted your suggestion that no WADA banned PED exists that can be correlated to elite marathon performance. No need to beat that dead horse.
It seems like you need to get together with "whataboutery" and get the story straight about EPO and other drugs for the marathon. He is the one suggesting it maps to the EPO timeline, if we chose the right one, and the other drugs are just complementary compared to the obvious.
As it is, a hundred believers have a hundred different theories, which are not coherent with and often contradict each other (not unlike flat-earth youtube "researchers"). That is what happens when there are too few facts, data, and observations to narrow down and exclude the contradicted possibilities.
You are an idiot. I made no suggestion that "no WADA banned PED exists that can be correlated to marathon performance". I said the opposite, that marathon runners have been caught using banned peds. Only a denier such as yourself then tries to argue it will have had no effect on their performance.
I'm sure you would have trouble seeing that coffee, bananas and chocolate bars are performance enhancing. Where are the studies showing that, too? Who could possibly imagine that drugs could be even more potent than a boost in caffeine, potassium or sugar?
If you want to conduct that investigation, there are no shortage of studies on the ergogenic effects of caffeine and sugar and the beneficial role of potassium. Oddly enough (according to Jack Daniels) while caffeine is ergogenic, coffee is not.
I have no doubt that many can "imagine" that drugs are more potent. That's one of my points -- the myths become larger in the imagination, where there are fewer boundaries and constraints imposed by realities. The next step is to make reliable observations.
How ridiculous Rek! This is complete garbage. Stop endlessly posting this nonsense and go and do something constructive like running or perhaps invent something!
We can all take coffee, bananas and chocolate bars and see for ourselves their effects. But we don't use banned drugs unless we are doping. Yet without any evidence for it you maintain there is no basis for concluding those drugs could even enable what a cup of coffee can. You are the ultimate flat-earther on these boards.
Are you surprised that, without evidence, I maintain there is no basis? Just provide the requested evidence for the relation between doping and elite distance running performance.
Flat-earthers are superior to you, because they at least try to produce evidence and observations for their strongly held beliefs.
Sure there is a potential for drugs to enable performance improvement -- I agree with WADA about potential. But whether the potential can be realized depends on 1) the dope, 2) the athlete, 3) the event, and 4) the state of training of the athlete.
Note again, according to Jack Daniels, coffee doesn't seem to have the ergogenic effect that caffeine does.
Correlation: elite distance runners have been caught using banned PEDS. It is a false argument to then argue, as you do, that the drugs may have had no effect on their performance because we can't measure it.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
