'We Can Now Estimate the Effect of Blood Doping'

"legal" = "legal background"

Vaporfly Wang wrote:

Armstronglivs understands what is happening, rekrunner does not—or if he does, then he’s simply a strategic advocate.

And not a good one, at that. Rekrunner you might want to take a multi-faceted approach instead.

Strategic advocate? I don't know what you think I'm advocating, unless it is science.

The multi-faceted approach works for WADA, because guilt doesn't depend on performance improvement, so they do not need to, and have not settled the specific performance question here.

Like WADA, I have accepted the potential for performance improvement from blood doping.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Aragon wrote:

It would lead to nowhere, because altitude training (or being a resident there from birth) fits only one out of three doping criteria.

It doesn't have to satisfy all three criteria. One is sufficient. Performance enhancing would do the job.

Of course, it isn't a drug but it could theoretically invoke the same argument about what constitutes unfair advantage. (That is, if you believe altitude-training is more effective than doping. I dont. And neither does anyone else that I am aware of, other than rekrunner and Canova).

Why would you say "the same or better results" above, and now "more effective"?

Because he's giving you material to go on about for the next six months.

I didn't doubt the role of doping for Russian "mid-d" women. I would call that some success in 800/1500/SC events -- events where I would expect women on steroids to excel.

In a recent study on 2011 and 2013 World Championships, Japan came back with 0% for the women, in a CDF calculation of blood value distributions over the whole population (i.e. not gaming the ABP limits).

Kenyan women were significantly below average (10% and 9%, respectively for 2011 and 2013).

Russia was 73% in 2011, dropping significantly to 8% in 2013 (about as much as the Kenyans).

In your link, I can find 5 women from USA, and 9 women from Japan. Russia even falls behind USA.

In the same exercise, where Russia had more success, Russia has 9 in the 1500m versus USA with 7.

1) Again, you say "doping" when we were talking about altitude and EPO studies. How many times have I referenced the Stray-Gundersen hi-lo study, achieving the same order of improvement of virtually every EPO study? My view is that some of the fastest altitude athletes still believe in all doping, and will pursue doping on top of training at altitude. The position on the effects of blood doping haven't changed -- from the beginning, WADA considered it having the potential to improve performance. I thought we agreed that no one was arguing to make exceptions.

2) You are still dodging the question.

3) This broader picture is based on a relaxed standard. The justification is potential for improvement. If it is provable, why has it not been proven?

physics defiant wrote:

Because he's giving you material to go on about for the next six months.

So you think he is the troll?

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

Because he's giving you material to go on about for the next six months.

So you think he is the troll?

Nope. That's all you. You love to find statements that you can twist and distort endlessly.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It doesn't have to satisfy all three criteria. One is sufficient. Performance enhancing would do the job.

Of course, it isn't a drug but it could theoretically invoke the same argument about what constitutes unfair advantage. (That is, if you believe altitude-training is more effective than doping. I dont. And neither does anyone else that I am aware of, other than rekrunner and Canova).

Why would you say "the same or better results" above, and now "more effective"?

"Better" = "more effective" to anyone who understands English.

Aragon wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It doesn't have to satisfy all three criteria. One is sufficient. Performance enhancing would do the job.

From the WADA website:

For a substance or method to be added to the List, it must be determined that it meets two of the following three criteria:

- It has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance

- It represents an actual or potential health risk to the athletes

- It violates the spirit of sport.

Sorry dude, but this is 101 of anti-doping basics. For a self-described anti-doping specialist with legal you should know better.

I am not an anti-doping specialist; I have opinions on it, like anyone else here. But I was careless with that comment, because I took unfairness as a given in the criterion of considering what is performance enhancing, otherwise it would not be prohibited.

To clarify, the first and third criteria need to both apply (or the second, that it is harmful to health - but that doesn't factor with altitude training), which is when a performance enhancing method is seen as "unfair". An observation I made earlier was that improved training (and I did mention altitude training) is clearly performance enhancing but it is not (so far) deemed unfair. However, as I also explained previously, the third criterion also covers recreational drugs that are not performance enhancing.

That said, I wasn't seriously suggesting that altitude training was an unfair method, since I don't believe it has been shown to offer the same or better advantage as doping - which is why it has never been put on the banned list in over 50 years of anti-doping rules.

My point was rhetorical, that if rekrunner's own argument were accepted, that altitude training may offer the same or greater advantage than blood-doping, then it follows that it similarly offers unfair advantage and should therefore be prohibited - an outcome he has not apparently considered.

Of course the dialogue was hypothetical, not the point. But for a guy lecturing here the others about WADA-code based on your conversations with the WADA people, you are surprisingly clueless about the base of the code. Suddenly your deep almost first hand insights into the use of the word "potential" in the WADA code doesn't look that convincing.

In any case, your argument that WADA not allowing blood doping for elite high-altitude residents proving independently it benefits them is a joke:

- There is a difficulty in defining who fits that category (what is high-altitude? what is high-altitude resident? elite?) and no means to monitor that they do fit in the category.

- There is no prevalent extra-TUE system medical reason for any people to blood dope, so why even permit if it was likely some didn't get the benefit. Even Canova seems to think that high-altitude sub-elites and some elites get some benefit in some circumstances.

- There are even general non-TUE exceptions in the WADA List, but they are about in/out of competition or specific sports or medical procedures (e.g. dental work) etc. There are no residence/ethnic origin based exceptions in the banned list (there can be in the lab about who tests positive) in any category of drugs or methods, and it does look that the WADA couldn't care less whether about the issue or have no means to do anything about it even if it was a problem.

Armstronglivs wrote:

My point was rhetorical, that if rekrunner's own argument were accepted, that altitude training may offer the same or greater advantage than blood-doping, then it follows that it similarly offers unfair advantage and should therefore be prohibited - an outcome he has not apparently considered.

Take the word "altitude" out of that paragraph, and any training fits in the hypothetical "unfair advantage" by your logic and should be banned. (or you erroneously think rekrunner thinks it should be)

And blood doping has no special place in the WADA code as a threshold to judge what is beneficial or not, ie. if altitude training gave any potential benefit (likely the case) and was potentially dangerous or against the spirit of sports, it would fit the definition of doping regardless of whether any blood doping existed in the first place.

Armstronglivs wrote:

"Better" = "more effective" to anyone who understands English.

You misunderstand the question. While they are both equal, they are both equally wrong.

I did not and do not argue that optimal altitude training is "better" or "more effective" than an optimal regime of EPO. I argue both methods are similarly "proven" on similar subjects.

Once again, these are your own words of your own fabrication.

Why do you fabricate wrong ideas and try to attribute them to me?

Contrary to "physics defiant's" claim, this is you once again twisting and distorting my words.

If "Vaporfly Wang" is right, and you understand what is happening, then you are fabricating lies on purpose.

Armstronglivs wrote:

My point was rhetorical, that if rekrunner's own argument were accepted, that altitude training may offer the same or greater advantage than blood-doping, then it follows that it similarly offers unfair advantage and should therefore be prohibited - an outcome he has not apparently considered.

I haven't considered that outcome, because these are not my arguments. I don't argue "altitude training may offer the same or greater advantage than blood-doping". I don't base any argument on "unfair advantage" and, when I am discussing factors that contribute to performance, I don't discuss what should be prohibited or not, by WADA. This is a strawman of your own making, followed by a red-herring.

Are you able to stop?

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"Better" = "more effective" to anyone who understands English.

You misunderstand the question. While they are both equal, they are both equally wrong.

I did not and do not argue that optimal altitude training is "better" or "more effective" than an optimal regime of EPO. I argue both methods are similarly "proven" on similar subjects.

Once again, these are your own words of your own fabrication.

Why do you fabricate wrong ideas and try to attribute them to me?

Contrary to "physics defiant's" claim, this is you once again twisting and distorting my words.

If "Vaporfly Wang" is right, and you understand what is happening, then you are fabricating lies on purpose.

More bullsh*t. You have repeatedly maintained that you consider it possible for altitude-trained elites to achieve the same if not better results legally than through blood-doping. If you are not saying that then you are not saying anything.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

My point was rhetorical, that if rekrunner's own argument were accepted, that altitude training may offer the same or greater advantage than blood-doping, then it follows that it similarly offers unfair advantage and should therefore be prohibited - an outcome he has not apparently considered.

I haven't considered that outcome, because these are not my arguments. I don't argue "altitude training may offer the same or greater advantage than blood-doping". I don't base any argument on "unfair advantage" and, when I am discussing factors that contribute to performance, I don't discuss what should be prohibited or not, by WADA. This is a strawman of your own making, followed by a red-herring.

You "havent said" this, you "dont say" that, you dont say - anything. Your sentences, constructed of one bloviating denial after another, are nothing more than the steaming piles that fall from a horse's rear. No one cares what you didn't say. Actually, what you say falls into the same category.

Aragon wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

My point was rhetorical, that if rekrunner's own argument were accepted, that altitude training may offer the same or greater advantage than blood-doping, then it follows that it similarly offers unfair advantage and should therefore be prohibited - an outcome he has not apparently considered.

Take the word "altitude" out of that paragraph, and any training fits in the hypothetical "unfair advantage" by your logic and should be banned. (or you erroneously think rekrunner thinks it should be)

And blood doping has no special place in the WADA code as a threshold to judge what is beneficial or not, ie. if altitude training gave any potential benefit (likely the case) and was potentially dangerous or against the spirit of sports, it would fit the definition of doping regardless of whether any blood doping existed in the first place.

You miss my point. Any form of training offers advantage - including altitude training - as I have said, but gaining advantage of itself is not what is banned. All sport is about gaining advantage (as I have also previously said). Advantage is not ipso facto "unfair". It depends utterly how it is achieved. That is the point you have misconstrued.

I dont know what the test for unfairness would be - it may depend on a number of factors. We see that it clearly includes drugs that have the potential to be performance enhancing. But it could also include methods that enhance performance. We might infer that it would have to be a method that significantly of itself is a game-changer. Like a shoe perhaps that had a "trampolining" capacity that significantly improved pace.

I suggested that altitude training might reasonably be considered to be an unfair method if, of itself, it improved performance even beyond what was possible with blood-doping - or any form of doping. (I dont believe it does). It was a hypothetical point but the argument presented itself when rekrunner claimed it was possible that legal methods could achieve the same results or better in some instances than blood-doping. It is an argument of logic only; I am not saying either that blood-doping is the bar for determining what is unfair.

Your other point, that if altitude training was deleterious to health it could result in a ban under the code, is a separate argument. I dont dispute that conclusion.

If you dont agree with what I have said about the WADA code and how certain terms can be legally interpreted, perhaps you can explain how they are incorrect?

I made no argument that WADA should exempt athletes who live at high altitude. My point was that if blood-doping gave no benefit to such athletes (which follows from the point rekrunner made earlier that they can achieve legally what others might only do through blood-doping) then an argument could be made for exempting them from a ban under the code if found to have blood-doped because they gained no advantage. But of course WADA doesnt agree, for the obvious reason it doesn't accept that altitude trained elites may not also benefit from blood-doping. Yes - it was a joke, but perhaps not in the way you interpreted it. I understand English is not your first language.