'We Can Now Estimate the Effect of Blood Doping'

After yet another thread and 37 pages no one is the wiser about what rekrunner/shapeshifter says. Ever. I am waiting for him to supply his dictionary definitions of "and", "the", "but", and "a".

One longs for a performance enhancing drug that would cure his problems with language. Blood doping clearly gives him a mental block but perhaps hydrocychloroquine has unexplored potential.

Fresh batch of waffles coming soon......

rekrunner wrote:

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.

You are advocating for acceptance of your position, rather than realistically seeking truth—and by that, I mean that your dogmatic resistance to anything other than the “purely scientific” is in this inquiry unrealistic, if truth is the goal.

I hope you understand that “scientific inquiry” is a way to investigate phenomena that is itself not completely sure of the conclusions it achieves—indeed, not only is it imprecise by its own terms, it is sometimes entirely inaccurate, while yet remaining internally consistent.

You are not realistically seeking to reveal or conclude the truth of this proposition; you are instead advocating a position you wish to have accepted—a position that artificially forecloses meaningful and in this case indispensable avenues of inquiry. Your limited argument, although potentially somewhat useful, is in no way dispositive.

Do you understand this?

And the argument over word definition begins.

Vaporfly Wang wrote:

You are advocating for acceptance of your position, rather than realistically seeking truth—and by that, I mean that your dogmatic resistance to anything other than the “purely scientific” is in this inquiry unrealistic, if truth is the goal.

I hope you understand that “scientific inquiry” is a way to investigate phenomena that is itself not completely sure of the conclusions it achieves—indeed, not only is it imprecise by its own terms, it is sometimes entirely inaccurate, while yet remaining internally consistent.

You are not realistically seeking to reveal or conclude the truth of this proposition; you are instead advocating a position you wish to have accepted—a position that artificially forecloses meaningful and in this case indispensable avenues of inquiry. Your limited argument, although potentially somewhat useful, is in no way dispositive.

Do you understand this?

I understand the words.

Who here would you say is the role model for realistically seeking truth?

It seems most everyone here has already made up their mind.

If we must abandon scientific method, reliable observations, and other best practices, what is the better method for seeking the truth?

Should I be persuaded by ideas presented without basis, that have never been reliably observed? By cherry picked examples presented as the general rule? By alleged associations that have not yet been established? By circular arguments that assume the conclusion in order to conclude the assumption?

These look like ways to settle the discussion in order to stop seeking the truth.

I'm glad to see you say sometimes science is entirely inaccurate.

This makes me feel better about being sceptical of expert statements from scientists like Malm and Schumacher, preferring instead to see the original source of these statements, to understand the nature of the observations, and whether it is based on weak science.

There it is again.

"Do you understand this?"

"I understand the words".

In other words - no.

Armstronglivs wrote:

After yet another thread and 37 pages no one is the wiser ...

This is only one symptom of the larger issue.

It should not be that difficult to understand concepts like "over-estimated" and "diminishing returns" and "spurious associations" and "lacks basis", but I can imagine when I write "similar effect" and you understand "same or greater result", many simple things must seem confusing.

I am not the root cause of your lack of wisdom.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

After yet another thread and 37 pages no one is the wiser ...

This is only one symptom of the larger issue.

It should not be that difficult to understand concepts like "over-estimated" and "diminishing returns" and "spurious associations" and "lacks basis", but I can imagine when I write "similar effect" and you understand "same or greater result", many simple things must seem confusing.

I am not the root cause of your lack of wisdom.

Define "wisdom", "root cause" and "simple things". And "I". Add "the meaning of life".

Actually, no need.

As I have said previously, I am qualified in law so learned a thing or two about how words and texts can be understood through rules of interpretation. You are like a first year law student who has been told about these rules but is no more successful in applying them than pinning a tail on the donkey. It explains why all meaning deserts your posts once they have been subject to examination, and you then spend the rest of your time trying to reconstruct what you were unable to say in the first place - though with no more success.

So is it your law qualification that causes you to re-interpret the real meaning of "similar effect" as "same or greater result"? I was thinking more along the lines of a poor capacity for comprehension, or perhaps early signs of dementia and senility.

I guess I need to study some law to help make my points more readable in such a learned forum. With only my university education and native English skills and my clarity of writing, if I had meant "greater" or "better" results, I would naively have said "same or greater/better results" rather than "similar effect".

In other words, I always thought 2+2=4, but I guess with a law qualification, 2+2=5.

rekrunner wrote:

2+2=5.

This is how EPO works. Maybe you are starting to get it after all.

Yes...it's common knowledge for those who pay attention - see the doping products confiscated at Sabadell and at all the numerous doping rings that have been broken up over the years. OTOH, do you have any direct knowledge that doping coaches/doctors only use androgens, GH, etc., and not EPO that is always found at these at these doping rings?

What a rhetorical question - see the Moroccans, Kiprop, Driouch, Chouki, etc.

Right...I said androgens and blood doping were the staple of the Russian women mid-d doping programs. That's not a groundbreaking discovery and it's used to some variation with most of the women mid-d dopers as well. Blood doping played a significant role with the Russian mid-d women, particularly in their signature event the 1500:

- 21 women worldwide ran sub-4:00 between 2004-2012: Russians ran *7* of those! (33%)

- 29 Russian women ran the 1500 "A" standard between 2004-2012 (15 were busted for doping with the vast majority for ABP hematological-anomalies violations).

Ah hah! Eureka! It all becomes much clearer to realize I have been arguing against some Orwellian doublethink all along.

"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" is how a normal person would view it but naturally you have to go off on long winded word contorting, even though the words are not your own this time.

I don't mean common knowledge of using or being caught with doping products, but direct knowledge that allows us to separate whether decisions are based on belief, or experience. You said very specific things like " the "risks vs benefits" is always evaluated by these coaches & doctors", and "they're not going to administer a banned substance or method if it's ineffective", as opposed to administering it based on a popular belief that their athletes will be able to achieve more.

Do you have any "direct knowledge" that pertains to the evaluation process, the criteria, and the conclusions leading to the decision to dope athletes? Or are you just telling me your own personal belief...

The "rhetorical question" (that you answered anyway) was not rhetorical, and a short list of Africans busted for doping is not enough to answer the question. Recall the statement was "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". Your answer should demonstrate comparable magnitude of the "benefits" for the men. In the study on Russian women, the degradation was 5.26 seconds, or 2.2% -- an average of the top-8. Where do we see that kind of benefit for the men for the 1500m?

Interestingly, and ironically, your long list of Russian women taking steroids and blood doping before 2012 seems to underscore both of my points, and your previous prediction that it the benefits are only attributable to blood doping..

physics defiant wrote:

"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" is how a normal person would view it but naturally you have to go off on long winded word contorting, even though the words are not your own this time.

Maybe, but an educated person would have understood the Orwellian doublethink reference, and a small amount of them would have recalled the role of "2+2=5" in Nazi and Russian propoganda.

"2 + 2 = 5 is the archetypical untruth—is attested at least as early as 1728."

Perhaps you need some training in law.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" is how a normal person would view it but naturally you have to go off on long winded word contorting, even though the words are not your own this time.

Maybe, but an educated person would have understood the Orwellian doublethink reference, and a small amount of them would have recalled the role of "2+2=5" in Nazi and Russian propoganda.

"2 + 2 = 5 is the archetypical untruth—is attested at least as early as 1728."

Perhaps you need some training in law.

An educated person would have understood my quote. Perhaps you need some training in logic and physiology?

rekrunner wrote:

So is it your law qualification that causes you to re-interpret the real meaning of "similar effect" as "same or greater result"? I was thinking more along the lines of a poor capacity for comprehension, or perhaps early signs of dementia and senility.

I guess I need to study some law to help make my points more readable in such a learned forum. With only my university education and native English skills and my clarity of writing, if I had meant "greater" or "better" results, I would naively have said "same or greater/better results" rather than "similar effect".

In other words, I always thought 2+2=4, but I guess with a law qualification, 2+2=5.

"Similar" is not an exact term. It is only an approximation of those things that are somewhat alike - or, if you like, "the same or better". It therefore does not equate to 2+2=4, which is invariably exact. Synonyms are clearly not part of your tool kit, but that you mistake them for numeracy reveals yet another of the limitations of your mind. I don't think any qualification is going to cure that.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" is how a normal person would view it but naturally you have to go off on long winded word contorting, even though the words are not your own this time.

Maybe, but an educated person would have understood the Orwellian doublethink reference, and a small amount of them would have recalled the role of "2+2=5" in Nazi and Russian propoganda.

"2 + 2 = 5 is the archetypical untruth—is attested at least as early as 1728."

Perhaps you need some training in law.

I'm glad you choose 2+2=5; it is the formula that underlies everything you say.