RE: If you believe in the concept of Performance Enhancing Drugs......

Was it a quality survey of over 5 people?

I would never do it. Where is the achievement if you win by cheating?

4-5% of the USA are atheists. I could see them answering that way.

Jed Clampett wrote:

Was it a quality survey of over 5 people?

I would never do it. Where is the achievement if you win by cheating?

4-5% of the USA are atheists. I could see them answering that way.

Of course. Are you saying most cheaters are religious?

You must be.

I think he's misquoting Goldman's dilemma

It's called require powerlifting and bodybuilding groups to conduct WADA and USADA like steroid tests as a LAW

That should be a LAW..

They should be required to conduct professional testing at all events..

That will reduce worldwide steroid use by over 85 percent..

And stop china from making them.

track400meters1 wrote:

It's called require powerlifting and bodybuilding groups to conduct WADA and USADA like steroid tests as a LAW

That should be a LAW..

They should be required to conduct professional testing at all events..

That will reduce worldwide steroid use by over 85 percent..

And stop china from making them.

Yes, because prohibition works so wel with all substances...

mlcollll wrote:

Jon Orange wrote:

You're welcome. Sir David John "Dave" Brailsford, CBE former performance director of British Cycling and currently general manager of Team Sky.

Professor Yianis Pitsiladis Professor of Sport and Exercise Science, Bristol University.

Brailsford is a politician / manager.

The other guy works for WADA

Ok, so Jon does believe in the concept of Performance Enhancing drugs as his mentor is a performance director. Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.

That explains it.

The Telegraph:

"Froome admitted he had been to see Dr Stéphane Bermon – who has convicted doper Alexandre Vinokourov among his former clients – “a couple of times” for pulmonary function tests as there was no Sky doctor based on the Cote d’Azur. There was no follow-up question, this link having already been long since established."

Yep, it was for a pulmonary function test. There was a problem caused by ........

Gigantic V12 wrote:

Viren had a huge heart which apparently expanded when he inhaled, was he not elite?

Those were his lungs.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

We are just going to use Jon's equations, which is merely multiplying usage rate times time. Although there is a very large assumption built into Jon's equations (which is why they work at all) that oxygen consumption scales linearly with along with intensity of running speed--so that running at 80% of velocity at VO2max means that you are using 80% of the oxygen that you use at VO2max. We will return to this point, as it is very critical. .

So, I said I would return to this point. I had to make this assumption to follow Jono's example. He has said my calculations are wrong. It is true I made up some numbers (much as Jon did) and I am more than willing to run the numbers with other assumptions if he will give them to me. Anyway, on to test this particular assumption:

Anyway. If a runner who is travelling at 80% of his velocity at VO2Max is using 80% of his VO2max, and a runner travelling at 70% of his velocity at VO2max is using 70% of his VO2max, well then a runner who stopped running and is then traveling at 0% of his velocity at VO2max would then be using ?? of his VO2max. Oh, dear, that can't be right? Surely. But it can't be wrong, can it? Jono has assured us that this is correct...

Is my math wrong? That would be strange, since it (total oxygen used) comes to the exact same conclusions your math does? Please show me where the math is wrong so that I can learn.It is true that I have made some assumptions. I had to put in some values in order to run the computations. I tried to make those assumptions so that they would be in line with your arguments, but perhaps I am still missing something. I would be happy to run the math again with different values if you would tell me what values you would prefer. I would need to know what distance the twins covered in their 2 and 3 hour races. Perhaps you would prefer a more distance for the faster runner? Perhaps your marathon pace is not fast enough to be considered elite? What would the weight of the two runners be? Wouldn't the twins have the same ankle length?

Cycling Weekly on Jon's buddy:

"Team Sky principal Dave Brailsford says that he would never have hired controversial doctor Geert Leinders if he knew the full extent of the Belgian’s past, but also admitted that he has doubts over what effect a ‘truth and reconciliation’ process would have on cleaning up the sport.

Leinders was employed on an 80-day-a-year contract with Sky until last October after he was linked to alleged doping practices during his time with the Rabobank team."

This is a joke. He would have known as an insider who the dirty guys were and who was supplying the Performance Enhancing Drugs.

Jon, are you ready to face your 'truth and reconciliation' process. Let it all hang out, bro.

Misplaced organs wrote:

Gigantic V12 wrote:

Viren had a huge heart which apparently expanded when he inhaled, was he not elite?

Those were his lungs.

He had three lungs? Sounds like an engine upgrade.

fred wrote:

mlcollll wrote:

You're welcome. Sir David John "Dave" Brailsford, CBE former performance director of British Cycling and currently general manager of Team Sky.

Professor Yianis Pitsiladis Professor of Sport and Exercise Science, Bristol University.

Brailsford is a politician / manager.

The other guy works for WADA

So Jon says that he was influenced by Dr. Pitsiladis, and Dr. Pitsiladis is doing work on testing for EPO use in athletes. Why would the doc be trying to develop tests for EPO if it wasn't a performance enhancer. Hey Jonny, this is some funny stuff.

"Pitsiladis, born in Australia but of Greek origin, is being funded by the World Anti-Doping Association (WADA) to develop a test which can detect the use of the banned drug EPO even weeks after the substance has left an athlete's body.

"The tests we are developing are based not on finding the drug itself but actually discovering what the drug is doing, which is much harder," Pitsiladis said. "At the same time, if it works, it is nearly impossible to tamper with."

EPO increases the production of red blood cells. Its use allows an athlete to transport more oxygen around their body which, in turn, improves their endurance capacity.

Pitsiladis is looking for "genetic expression" which proves the use of EPO and describes his findings so far as "the most exciting data of his career". The 46-year-old has already developed a test which can conclusively prove the use of larger doses of EPO and is in the process of researching whether the same effects occur when athletes administer micro-doses of the drug."

Hahaha. Jon's 2 influences are a manager in a sport rocked by performance enhancing drug use, and a prof designing new EPO tests.

ELITE RUNNERS USE LESS OXYGEN AND ENERGY TO RACE FASTER THAN SLOWER RUNNERS!

Just thought I'd update Jon's proof statement.

Gigantic V12 wrote:

Misplaced organs wrote:

Those were his lungs.

He had three lungs? Sounds like an engine upgrade.

this proves everything!

Mr. Obvious wrote:

What is JONO/wellnow/I have a theory 's VO2max?!

Obviously at least the same as Derek Clayton since Jon is just a lazy elite runner.

Jon ran 1500 in 4:00.xx at age 45.

"1500 meter Run - M 45 - 49 - World Rankings

Mark

Athlete

Nation

DOB Venue Date

3:48.53 Jesus Borrego Llamas ESP 16.07.1961 Monterrey 20.06.2008

3:54.28 David Heath GBR 22.05.1965 Carcassonne 27.06.2010

3:56.39 John Hinton USA 01.05.1962 Durham 06.05.2007

3:57.91 i Tony Young USA 12.04.1962 Boston 01.03.2009

3:58.3 Peter Molloy GBR 08.01.1949 Watford 09.08.1995

3:59.22 Wilfried Dubois BEL 01.09.1959 Oordegem 02.07.2005

3:59.24 Ken Sparks USA 25.01.1945 New York 29.07.1990

3:59.90 James McNamara IRL 17.04.1939 Dublin 27.05.1984

3:59.95 Tony McManaus NZL 02.10.1949 Christchurch 10.02.1995

3:59.97

Wieslaw Pietka

POL

19.10.1965 Sosnowiec

03.09.2011

(10)

4:00.14 Benjamin Romkes NED 05.02.1965 Oordegem 05.06.2010

4:00.2 Robert Schwerkolt AUS 11.12.1965 Melbourne 15.03.2011

4:00.43

Glen Grant GBR 16.07.1953 Otaniemi

21.07.1999

4:00.93 Peter Magill USA 19.06.1961 Los Angeles 09.07.2006

4:01.21 Rod Dixon NZL 13.07.1950 Buffalo 22.07.1995"

Which puts him ahead of Rod Dixon for age 45. I'll give him credit for that. And Dixon has world class genes which Jon doesn't believe in.

OK Jon,Here's the friendly advice. You are working hard to convince us something, yet you are not gaining any traction, so far as I can see, with anyone. In trying to sell us economy, you are extremely inefficient. You use the same techniques that you have for more than a decade at letsrun, and yet, from the beginning, you mostly provoke others to question many things about you, including your ability to grasp, interpret, and convey, the science you read, and occasionally why you weren't a better runner, or trained some leading runner yourself, if you were so smart. You are no doubt a great runner for your age, and better than many at any age. At the risk of lumping you with coaches that have achieved greatness, you now accuse Daniels, and you have accused Lydiard and Canova, of misunderstanding the science. You must concede that it is possible to achieve great performances, yet possess grave misunderstandings of how you achieved it.I cannot speak for others, but considering myself more like a scientist, here are some reasons I hesitate to accept your unique concepts that deviate from my own notions of basic physiology:- Where is your data? I see many conclusions, but very little data. The data you do present, representing "basic physiology" seems to always support, or reaffirm, rather than contradict, any conventional notions I had before. I have struggled for a decade to see your "aerobic dogma" as dogma, or factors that improve economy exclusively contradicting (rather than complementing) aerobic factors determining performance improvement. Jack Daniels published material based on real VO2 and speed measurements of a rather large population, including elite runners, and formed relations from the real measurements. You come up with an imaginary scenario, coupled with some assumptions, backed up by your personal assurance and re-assurance that it is realistic. Your scenario contradicts some of Daniels' statements derived from real data, and you presume that Daniels must have learned so much since then, and would agree with you today. I would be tempted to consider your claims further if you actually presented us with some real contradictory data, rather than fabricating scenarios with twins assuming the same absolute VO2max. You've effectively contradicted Daniels' real data, with your imagination, and you hope by now he has since come around to his senses.- Should Daniels recant his 1979 statements? I guess Daniels rightly stands by the VO2 measurements and the velocity measurements, and Gilbert stands by the math that generated a good curve-fit of VO2 to velocity. This data is still as real and the math still as applicable in 2016 as much as it was in 1979. What can change is the interpretation and implication of the data, in a larger exercise context, and perhaps the importance of the role of other non-oxygen factors which were lost as confounding noise during the curve-fitting exercise of VO2 to velocity. Maybe Daniels has other papers that explore economy further -- some of the "brilliant research" that you acknowledge that he has done. Maybe you could point us to a few of those, as part of your arguments supporting the points you want us to accept.- Who is presumptuous? I presume the point of a published work "Oxygen Power" was to show the role of "oxygen" in generating sustained "power". Economy briefly appears as something that reduces the correlation of the curve-fit of VO2 to velocity, influencing some comparable fit measure of "r" smaller than 1. While Daniels makes no secret that economy can vary widely between runners with the same VO2max measurements, the focus of "Oxygen Power" was the relation of Oxygen, and Power. Economy should be featured in a complementary paper "Non-oxygen Power" or "Economic Powers" -- maybe you would like to write this one, or find someone who wrote it, or will write it?- How do you respond to doubt? Despite me asking you 4 or 5 times, you have still not shown us where your 3 hour runner, fits in the Table 1 of your linked Economy paper. This helps illustrate whether we are struggling to meet the lowest bar of determining the mere existence of such a runner, or rather whether such an uneconomic runner is more the norm, numbering in the millions. Using your 85% figure, that you obtained from the same paper, your paper shows this athlete does not possess "representative VO2 values for different caliber of runners from the existing literature". I already know the answer, because I did read your paper, but can't help feel that you should do more of your own work when answering doubts. You actually have the data, and you have a choice. You chose not to use the data. You presented us with an economy paper with data showing us "representative VO2 values … from the existing literature", yet when questioned about the existence of such an uneconomic runner, you chose to personally reassure us that such a runner exists, and you chose to question my own links to reality. Maybe you really are "too lazy". If you want me (I don't speak for anyone else) to appreciate you as a scientist, you must make a scientific choice when responding to real doubt.- What is your imaginary scenario supposed to show us? I guess if someone has a measured 68 VO2max, and 20% bodyfat, and a 3-hour marathon time, they can make big improvements if I train, lose weight and improve technique. This is hardly a remarkable statement, and at best it is applicable to a small subset of the running population. There is no doubt that a measured VO2max of 68 indicates a huge potential for the 3 hour runner. Looking up a 3 hour marathon in a VDOT table could be a huge source of encouragement, by highlighting that economy is lacking. The doubt is how many there are that possess such a poor economy, and if this can be applied to runners who have elite performances. What about the other twin? Can your 2 hour twin further improve his economy? Can he improve his engine with PEDs? These doubts remain unaddressed, despite your conclusions to the contrary.- Are the conclusions from this illustrative imaginary scenario something exceptional, or something that we can generalize to a whole population? You already told me it was NOT something we could generalize (even asking where would I get such an idea?). How does this extreme example fit in a thread which seems to want to say that PEDs are not necessary for anyone and everyone, in order to be the "best that they can be". If this is NOT something we can generalize, how do you get from your imaginary scenario, to "my point still stands: ELITE RUNNERS USE LESS OXYGEN, GLYCOGEN AND FATS TO RACE FASTER." (Glycogen and fats? Yikes! More conclusions with missing data!).- What is the message from your scenario? I gather that it is something like, any of the millions of uneconomic athletes with a measured VO2max of 68, and a 3-hour marathon PB, could become the next Derek Clayton (measured VO2max of 69, marathon PB 2:08:33) without PEDs, just by training, losing weight and improving technique. And more generally, any athlete, regardless of their measured VO2max, can always improve economy factors, and therefore performance, rendering PEDs superfluous, or even worse, ineffective, as they don't target economy. It's a positive and hopeful message, but judging by the near universal reactions spanning more than a decade, you seem to be the wrong messenger. The first challenge you face is, "OK, but what if we increase the size of the engine, and economy"? You can personally reassure us again that this is a "false concept" contradicting basic physiology, or show us the science. The choice is yours.