'We Can Now Estimate the Effect of Blood Doping'

An article on Gary's disorder. He will now explain why this is not him.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-squeaky-wheel/201811/why-certain-people-will-never-admit-they-were-wrong

This looks like just a long list of your beliefs. Do you have any direct knowledge about what you say about doping coaches?

If you are right to predict these large blood doping benefits for the 1500m, because of these aerobic contributions, we should see it in the men too, whereas with steroids, there would be a big difference in benefits between men versus women.

The Iljukov study ignores changes in steroids that occurred in that same timeframe -- you explained that to all of us at the beginning of this thread.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

"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.

It is a rational inquiry based on a perceived hope.

The few posters here are not judges or juries (or expert witnesses?), and decades of performance results have already been published.

This new word "advocate" seems awkward to me without an object.

I advocate altitude training, the WADA code, and the scientific method.

I struggle to see how a stance of "big risk and little reward" turns me into an advocate, while arguing for superhuman benefits does not.

physics defiant wrote:

Why does better need to be in quotes?

Is that a word that you have eight different interpretations of and are unsure of which one you mean?

"better" is a word I was falsely alleged to argue.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

Why does better need to be in quotes?

Is that a word that you have eight different interpretations of and are unsure of which one you mean?

"better" is a word I was falsely alleged to argue.

Confirmed the article.

You may now continue with your waffling.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/waffling

physics defiant wrote:

Confirmed the article.

You asked why I quoted "better".

Compare my original statement:

"studies show that legal methods like hi-lo altitude training can provide similar benefits as banned methods of blood transfusions and EPO."

To multiple accusations from Armstronglivs such as:

"rekrunner's own argument were accepted, that altitude training may offer the same or greater advantage than blood-doping"

"altitude-trained elites can obtain the same or better results than blood-doped athletes trained at sea-level"

"rekrunner claimed it was possible that legal methods could achieve the same results or better in some instances than blood-doping"

In all honesty, how does one go from my claim of "similar benefits" to false claims of "same or greater", or "same or better", or "same results or better", and then have the nerve to say I am the one lying?

Now let's see, based on this clear evidence, which can be found in this very thread, in the last few pages in plain black and white, who is prepared to admit they were wrong.

On one hand, you said:

1) "studies show that legal methods like hi-lo altitude training can provide similar benefits as banned methods of blood transfusions and EPO."

So, altitude provides similar benefits as blood doping.

and

2) "I advocate altitude training, the WADA code, and the scientific method."

So, altitude training provides benefits.

and

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

So, blood doping (and roids!) provides practically no benefit.

So, what now? Combined this means that in your opinion, altitude is superior to blood-doping. Slightly because "similar".

Then, why do you argue against Armstronglivs's statements like:

"rekrunner's own argument were accepted, that altitude training may offer the same or greater advantage than blood-doping"

"altitude-trained elites can obtain the same or better results than blood-doped athletes trained at sea-level"

"rekrunner claimed it was possible that legal methods could achieve the same results or better in some instances than blood-doping"

See above. That's not a false claim when considering more than more one of your statements.

Furthermore, you also wrote the following in this thread:

rekrunner wrote:

Sometimes doping works, like women and steroids in events requiring strength, or Russian men in racewalking.

rekrunner wrote:

In fact, on the contrary, I think one of my stronger historical observations, assuming doping is both widespread and highly effective, that doping seems largely inneffective for non-Africans in distance events, apart from steroids for women..

rekrunner wrote:

Again, I don't that Africans are different than non-Africans with respect to gains from doping.

So, "largely ineffective" for non-Africans and Africans alike.

Since you recommend altitude training, you must think that that is "better or similar" than blood doping. Why else would you recommend it?

rekrunner wrote:

Now let's see, based on this clear evidence, which can be found in this very thread, in the last few pages in plain black and white, who is prepared to admit they were wrong.

Not you as per your disorder.

I am going by what the experts say. You are coming up with your own personal interpretation of thinking you know better than them.

Much like Jon Orange.

casual obsever wrote:

Since you recommend altitude training, you must think that that is "better or similar" than blood doping. Why else would you recommend it?

I recommend altitude training for two reasons:

- similar "proven" effect for non-elites in studies

- it is legal

Interesting but stretched interpretation of two statements on two different qualities of runners.

The studies for both altitude and EPO were on non-elites, and suffer from the uncertainties of projecting results onto elites -- that was a point Armstronglivs emphasized repeatedly and I agreed repeatedly. It is one of the points where we both agreed with each other.

I expect the proven results on non-elites to be progressively smaller for national and world class runners.

Having said that, I did not say altitude training would help elite Russian men succeed, let alone better then with blood doping with steroids.

The only rational conclusion is that altitude training for the Russians would achieve similar results as blood doping alone, and potentially worse results than blood doping and steroids.

The reason I argue against Armstronglivs lies is because I did not say nor imply "better" or "greater".

I also did not say that for the Russian men.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

Confirmed the article.

You asked why I quoted "better".

Compare my original statement:

"studies show that legal methods like hi-lo altitude training can provide similar benefits as banned methods of blood transfusions and EPO."

To multiple accusations from Armstronglivs such as:

"rekrunner's own argument were accepted, that altitude training may offer the same or greater advantage than blood-doping"

"altitude-trained elites can obtain the same or better results than blood-doped athletes trained at sea-level"

"rekrunner claimed it was possible that legal methods could achieve the same results or better in some instances than blood-doping"

In all honesty, how does one go from my claim of "similar benefits" to false claims of "same or greater", or "same or better", or "same results or better", and then have the nerve to say I am the one lying?

To remind you of what you have previously said (on many occasions) in response to the question, "why do athletes blood dope?", your explanation is - "belief". But never "knowledge". Thus "belief", used in that sense, must be unfounded. They have no rational basis for thinking blood doping will enhance their performance - otherwise their decision must be based on something more than belief.

But if we asked the question, "why do athletes train at altitude?", you would never say "belief". That would suggest there is no rational basis for altitude training - and you have never argued that. Yet you continue to argue that altitude training and blood doping may achieve the same results - which suggests the question deserves the same response. "Belief". Or knowledge. This is despite the fact we have no examples of athletes who have chosen to do both, that might prove your claim of parity of performance.

You also now try to argue that altitude training doesn't produce "better" results than blood doping - because you are adamant you have never said that. But why draw the line only at parity? How can you be so sure - again, without examples of athletes who have both altitude trained and blood doped? It doesn't fit well with your previous comments, that you are prepared to believe the distance running world records could have been achieved legally. In that case, both fact and logic say they have to be better than any doped performance. So it appears you are saying it, after all.

I await a response in which you say - yet again - that you never said any of that, that you meant something else and I have put words in your mouth.

There's actually three groups to compare. Non- elites, elites, and then sub elites who magically become the best in the World.

Like Ramzi. Of course he's not a WR holder or even in the top 100 so he should be excluded. Whew.

casual obsever wrote:

Furthermore, you also wrote the following in this thread:

rekrunner wrote:

Sometimes doping works, like women and steroids in events requiring strength, or Russian men in racewalking.

rekrunner wrote:

In fact, on the contrary, I think one of my stronger historical observations, assuming doping is both widespread and highly effective, that doping seems largely inneffective for non-Africans in distance events, apart from steroids for women..

rekrunner wrote:

Again, I don't that Africans are different than non-Africans with respect to gains from doping.

So, "largely ineffective" for non-Africans and Africans alike.

Since you recommend altitude training, you must think that that is "better or similar" than blood doping. Why else would you recommend it?

Yes, that is a correct conclusion -- I wrote it "seems largely ineffective", my subjective opinion, for the fastest non-Africans, and similarly, I would (and did) argue, on that basis, it is largely ineffective for the fastest Africans too, and for other reasons, I would (and did) argue that the fastest Africans at altitude would stand to gain even less from blood doping.

Note that you also restated the issue -- "better", as used by Armstronglivs was "better results".

I would agree altitude training is "better" morally, by virtue of being legal, even if the benefit is "similar". But it would be dishonest to conclude "better results".

You should buy a Waffle House.

Au contraire. The question actually never came up, but if you ask me why athletes go to altitude to train, I will also say "belief" for many of the same reasons.

It is a fact that hi-lo training is "proven" in studies, at least on non-elites, so if you want to take EPO to raise your blood values, my advice is to put your faith in hi-lo training, and raise your blood values legally. I don't advocate EPO or blood transfusions, but do advocate training legally.

Note that our initial discussion was not at all about whether altitude training was "better" or not.

You faulted me for making conclusions without establishing a clean baseline, and I responded that such a clean baseline would be difficult to establish, given altitude studies (on non-elites) showing similar effect as EPO and blood doping studies (on non-elites).

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Yes, that is a correct conclusion -- I wrote it "seems largely ineffective", my subjective opinion, for the fastest non-Africans, and similarly, I would (and did) argue, on that basis, it is largely ineffective for the fastest Africans too, and for other reasons, I would (and did) argue that the fastest Africans at altitude would stand to gain even less from blood doping.

Note that you also restated the issue -- "better", as used by Armstronglivs was "better results".

I would agree altitude training is "better" morally, by virtue of being legal, even if the benefit is "similar". But it would be dishonest to conclude "better results".

You should buy a Waffle House.

He has now introduced "morality" into the argument about comparing results. "Better" means more virtuous, but not necessarily faster. Very scientific. I wonder if his use of "similar" also has moral connotations - that they are morally equivalent? Somehow I don't think the studies he frequently refers to were looking at the question from a moral perspective. But once again, the ground shifts as he speaks.