'We Can Now Estimate the Effect of Blood Doping'

Aragon wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I made no argument that WADA should exempt athletes who live at high altitude...

I never claimed you did. You have only claimed that the fact that WADA hasn't exempted them proves that blood doping benefits them.

Regardless of what experts of WADA think, there are no ethnic/altitude residence/similar exemptions in the rules, exemptions which are borderline impossible even to define or implement.

I dont claim that WADA not exempting them is proof as such that blood-doping benefits all. I do say that WADA doesn't accept an argument that an exception might be made, for fairly obvious reasons.

Your other point simply indicates the difficulty of implementation if there was a credible argument in principle that might be made for exemption. It might include the question, at which "altitude" do the benefits of training supposedly outweigh those of blood-doping.

But all of this was hypothetical, based on what would be the implications if altitude-training was to be accepted as enabling greater performance enhancement than blood doping (or any other form of doping). The principle of unfair advantage could be invoked. If it were true.

I might add that I am not a WADA official and don't profess to that degree of detailed knowledge (although I do know some who were highly ranked in the organisation). I also know from my legal training how to read a document and understand its legal implications. My views are those of an interested amateur, who has participated in and followed sports for over half a century. It has also brought me into contact with quite a few elite and professional athletes and coaches. So everything I say can be taken with the appropriate grain of salt. As I do yours or anyone else's.

Again...the Russian mid-d runners are using steroids in combination with blood doping (no surprises there). The 1500 & SC are particularly going to benefit from blood doping with the high demand from the aerobic energy system:

"The relative aerobic energy system contribution (based on AOD measures) for the 3000 m was 86% (male) and 94% (female), while for the 1500 m it was 77% (male) and 86% (female)."

94% for the 3000/SC & *86%* for 1500 is getting up there. Must be why dozens of mid-d runners have gotten busted for ABP-hematological anomalies violations & EPO positives. Recall that dirty 1500 final at London where four were busted for IC ABP-hematological anomalies including both the gold & silver medalists! And as I mentioned before, if it was just "roids" that would benefit the 1500 then why blood doping with so many? That just adds another risk factor for getting caught. Surely, doping coaches/doctors would know that blood doping in combo with androgens and/or HGH gives more of a benefit than either one alone.

I'm aware of the research from the 2011 & 2013 WC. However, that was IC testing and doesn't take into consideration any pre-comp doping programs & schemes where the dopers shutdown in time to let the blood values reduce to a more normal appearing passport. Recall 800m specialist Poistagova, admitting per the ARD-recordings, to have utilized Anavar tablets & micro-dosing EPO in the lead-up to London where anti-doping experts said her ABP looked normal.

Not sure why you keep harping on the Russians only having four in the top-100 while always bringing up Japan and now the U.S. Are you implying that the Japanese are all clean (and also the U.S. now that you bring them up), and they have 9 clean runners (5 from the U.S.) vs the 4 doped Russians? If so, how do you know all the Japanese & American runners are clean? Because they're not testing positive or blowing their passports. In addition, the U.S. is twice the population of Russia and will have the numbers naturally. Japan seems to put their female distance running talent in the marathon because I don't recall over the years ever seeing any Japanese mid-d runners towing the line against the Russians.

physics defiant wrote:

Are you able to stop?

Are you? What are you even doing here?

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

The bullsh*t is entirely of your own making. I don't argue that altitude would be "better".

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

Are you able to stop?

Are you? What are you even doing here?

Yes. We're talking about how dope works.

You are interrupting and going on and on about how sure you are about being unsure.

I've already answered all of these questions. Why blood dope? Belief. Like you said -- simple answer.

What I bring up is that Russia leads by far the rest of the world in doping, but not in performance.

While other nations that are superior in performance, are generally average, if not below average, if not 0%, in blood doping prevalence.

Russian women succeed where I predict steroids would help women.

Russian men fail to succeed where I predict steroids and blood doping would fail to help them succeed.

Russia choses race-walking for their men, because they gained a lot of doping knowledge during the Cold War.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

The bullsh*t is entirely of your own making. I don't argue that altitude would be "better".

Liar

Proof - again - that you are liar.

"Why blood dope? Belief. "

In other words, it doesn't work. But altitude training does.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Proof - again - that you are liar.

"Why blood dope? Belief. "

In other words, it doesn't work. But altitude training does.

Strong words for someone who doesn't care what I say nor what I don't say. It shows your intellect, your character, your maturity, and your honesty.

The undisputed and indisputable fact remains that you are the one fabricating a false argument I never made, and falsely attributing it to me.

Once again, "it doesn't work" are your words. When you start a sentence with "in other words", that's when the magic happens, and you transform my words into what you want to believe I must be saying, or else you believe I am saying nothing.

Back here in the real world, the logical conclusion, given the comparable scientific evidence demonstrating improvements in sub-elites, is that either both work, or both fail. Which one is right varies depending on the athlete, the gender, the event, and the current state of physical and mental fitness.

rekrunner wrote:

Once again, "it doesn't work" are your words.

Possibly, but you just wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Russian men fail to succeed where I predict steroids and blood doping would fail to help them succeed.

And we know that according your measures, Russian men fail to succeed in all distances from 100 m to the marathon, thusly steroids and blood doping don't help them - as you predict - in either of those distances, according to your statement.

rekrunner wrote:

Back here in the real world, the logical conclusion, given the comparable scientific evidence demonstrating improvements in sub-elites, is that either both work, or both fail. Which one is right varies depending on the athlete, the gender, the event, and the current state of physical and mental fitness.

Also very strong words. What is the scientific evidence that the "physical and mental fitness" matters to the "working" of blood doping and altitude training?

So doping works. Or it doesn't work. It depends on gender. Or maybe not. Or it depends on the event. Or not. Or on an athlete's current state of physical and mental fitness. Or not. There may be a God. Or maybe not.

You have an opinion. Or maybe not. You appear to be saying something. Or maybe nothing. Whenever anyone thinks they know what you mean you say that isn't what you meant. No one puts as much effort into saying nothing as you do.

But your method is recognizable. Anyone who contorts what he said - or says he didn't say - as much as you do is avoiding the truth at all costs. It's called lying.

Sometimes simple and direct does the job. Except to liars.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Back here in the real world, the logical conclusion, given the comparable scientific evidence demonstrating improvements in sub-elites, is that either both work, or both fail. Which one is right varies depending on the athlete, the gender, the event, and the current state of physical and mental fitness.

Also very strong words. What is the scientific evidence that the "physical and mental fitness" matters to the "working" of blood doping and altitude training?

But that isn't what he meant. He is saying the exact opposite. Whatever you think he means, he means the exact opposite. If that means anything. Perhaps not.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Once again, "it doesn't work" are your words.

Possibly, but you just wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Russian men fail to succeed where I predict steroids and blood doping would fail to help them succeed.

And we know that according your measures, Russian men fail to succeed in all distances from 100 m to the marathon, thusly steroids and blood doping don't help them - as you predict - in either of those distances, according to your statement.

Almost correct. I use words like "fail to succeed" and "fail to help them succeed", finding it less ambiguous than "works".

"Why blood dope? Belief. "

Incorrect.

It is a conclusion reached by rational inquiry, And it is the ONLY way to decide. Vaporfly Wang’s and Armstronglivs’ posts are exactly right.

You remind me of expert witnesses who testify as to their area of expertise, but who are at a loss to explain when a judge or jury either does not accept their testimony as dispositive, or decides differently on the ultimate issue at bar.

You are either an advocate, or somewhat dim in your ability to understand what is happening in this discussion.

Oh...yea; I forgot your same old mantra of the "belief & faith" system of doping. It's your cover story to continue these discussions since hardly anyone else argues against any effect from doping (maybe that Jon Orange character? Lol).

Doping coaches over the decades have had a lot of experience with blood doping, therefore, they're not going to administer a banned substance or method if it's ineffective. Just like with any pharmaceutical, the "risks vs benefits" is always evaluated by these coaches & doctors. And take a coach you have high regard for and have defennded from doping allegations; Jama Aden, who was overseeing the altitude doping training camp at Sabadell. What he had there was large quantities of steroids and EPO. If EPO is ineffective and based soley on "belief & faith," then why didn't he just go with the roids? He probably could have saved some $$$ and reduce one risk factor of getting caught. Lol. But he went with EPO as part of the cocktail. I would think Aden, being an experienced and renowned coach, might know a little something about which PEDs are effective.

Russian women succeed where I predict blood doping would help. Their signature event, the 1500, derives 86% from the aerobic energy system where blood doping would help. Looking at the Iljukov et al study, the elite-level 1500m Russian women decreased an average of 5.26 seconds (2.1%) after the ABP. And the "A" standard qualifying time decreased 42.1 % post-ABP. Significant benefit of blood doping pre-ABP.

FTFY

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Back here in the real world, the logical conclusion, given the comparable scientific evidence demonstrating improvements in sub-elites, is that either both work, or both fail. Which one is right varies depending on the athlete, the gender, the event, and the current state of physical and mental fitness.

Also very strong words. What is the scientific evidence that the "physical and mental fitness" matters to the "working" of blood doping and altitude training?

It would be wrong, if not dishonest, to reduce my arguments to "it doesn't work", particularly after I have expressed my complex views about when doping works, and when doping can fail to work, depending on several factors.

Scientific evidence would be very broad, but anything that establishes placebo effect, and demonstrates the effect of psychological factors on performance, and results of training changes in unfit versus fit athletes should support these views. It seems like it should go without saying that when aerobic capacity is weak, there is more room to improve, than when aerobic capacity is strong.

For a better picture of my views, I refer you once again to an Endurance Model (see link below pages 3 and 4 for an electronic copy) proposed in some papers written by Exercise Physiologist Stephen Seiler.

You will see that one of many inputs is Maximal Oxygen Consumption. When physical fitness is poor, this value is low, and can be significantly artificially increased by blood doping and altitude, resulting in relatively large improvements in a short time, compared to the same athletes at sea level. When physical fitness is high, this value is high, the performance change diminishes and becomes marginal, and negligible. In extreme cases, there is an upper limit as to how many red blood cells you can add, before the blood gets too thick. Perhaps I should add dosage to the list.

You will also see that "Psychological Factors" are one component of "Achieved Performance Velocity". The decision to dope, or change your training and commit to going to high altitude, can have a positive psychological effect, changing your mentality. This can also include Placebo Effect.

Armstronglivs wrote:

So doping works. Or it doesn't work. It depends on gender. Or maybe not. Or it depends on the event. Or not. Or on an athlete's current state of physical and mental fitness. Or not. There may be a God. Or maybe not.

You have an opinion. Or maybe not. You appear to be saying something. Or maybe nothing. Whenever anyone thinks they know what you mean you say that isn't what you meant. No one puts as much effort into saying nothing as you do.

But your method is recognizable. Anyone who contorts what he said - or says he didn't say - as much as you do is avoiding the truth at all costs. It's called lying.

Sometimes simple and direct does the job. Except to liars.

Once again, when I show that your distorted statement "In other words, it doesn't work. But altitude training does" is nonsense, you abandon your previous stance completely and come up with new nonsense.

It would be simple and easy to understand that a simple trip to the pharmacy is all it takes for a nation's best athletes to find their way on the podium or in record books. But the real world is complex, and we need complex models to understand what is happening in the world of performance.

I don't know what is the acceptable response for you, when you make up demonstrably false lies like I argue that optimal natural legal altitude training can achieve "better" results than an optimal blood doping regimes. It only looks like I deny many things, because you make up so many lies, turning my arguments into caricatures that even I don't recognize.