El Guerrouj 2k WR - Incredible 3:49 Mile pace

rekrunner wrote:

High-Octane Dopers wrote:

Wasn't Jama Aden and his athletes at an altitude training camp at Sabadell, Spain (2016) when the hotel was raided and a bunch of EPO was confiscated? So, the question is that if altitude increases your RBCs, then what was the EPO going to be used for?

This is a question best directed at the Saudi physio-therapist -- I haven't seen any answer yet.

Maybe it was not intended for use by Jama Aden's athletes.

Remember not one single athlete tested positive at the Sabadell raid.

Maybe not intended for Aden's athletes? Lol. C'mon rekrunner...it doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to figure this out. Lol. A little common sense can go a long way.

There was a large quantity of pre-packaged rEPO syringes and also a large quantity of androgens. The dope is being stored at the main hotel of the altitude camp. I believe one of the athletes there had some of the EPO in his personal suitcase and was later hit with a 4 yr ban. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming in this case.

Since you "believe" the PEDs were not intended for use by any of Aden's athletes - who in the heck do you think they were intended for? If they weren't intended for Aden's athletes - then why was the PEDs being stored in the altitude camp's hotel? Who brought the dope up there? Who paid for the dope? What was the ulterior motive of having the dope up there in the first place?

Sometimes I think you just troll for the fun of it - kinda to liven up these threads and get under people's skin. You've always defended Aden at Sabadell and believe there is nothing nefarious that went on there. But you can't provide any alternative theories as to why the dope was there in the first place, and who it was intended for. That's why I think you're becoming a troll and enjoy obfuscating things.

The more you write the more vacuous you become.

A simple point - yes or no - does a higher RBC enable greater transfer of oxygen for each breath? If you require a citation for this you are in the Guinness Book of Records for sporting ignorance.

When you keep quoting your experts I know you are ducking the point.

So if an athlete needs to breath more to access their increased oxygen in the bloodstream why do we not see top athletes like El G gasping for air like an out of condition hobby jogger?

You are unable to address points that are made simply because they reveal your arguments to be unadulterated bullsh*t. Anyone who evades addressing the point as much as you do, with your stupid word games, is not a troll but a liar.

rekrunner wrote:

High-Octane Dopers wrote:

Realize rekrunner there's a lot of O2-vector doping going on in endurance sports.

I don't doubt that.

High-Octane Dopers wrote:

I imagine we don't know the half of it, and probably never will.

Completely agree.

And through the history of elite distance running & T&F, there's been a lot of blood doping going on, and still going on, that would indicate how efficacious it is for this continual high prevalence to exist. Athletes & coaches are not going to waste their money, time & effort over 3 + decades on a PED or method that isn't an effective performance enhancer. This is called the common sense doctrine.

Also, don't forget what top researcher, and one of my mentors, Prof Christer Malm, has stated:

"The discovery of erythropoietin (EPO) simplified blood doping in sports, but improved detection methods, for EPO has forced cheating athletes to return to blood transfusion. Autologous blood transfusion with cryopreserved red blood cells (RBCs) is the method of choice, because no valid method exists to accurately detect such event. In endurance sports, it can be estimated that elite athletes improve performance by up to 3% with blood doping, regardless of method."

"Initially, blood transfusion was used to enhance military aviation pilots’ work capacity to fly at high altitude during WWII, when pressurized cockpits were not used [21]. Later, submaximal [22] and maximal [23] running performance was shown to improve with blood transfusion. The discovery of erythropoietin (EPO) [24] simplified blood doping in sports, supplementing blood donation, storage and re-infusion. Similar performance enhancements of 6–12% could now be achieved by a simple recombinant human (rh) EPO injection [25–27]. In a review on blood doping published in 1989, Jones and Tunstall [28] describe increases in performance and VO2max ranging between 0% and 40%, depending on the subjects included and methods used for both testing and doping. From the summarized literature, it can be estimated that elite athletes may improve performance by up to 3% with blood doping, regardless of method [29–31]. This enhancement is equivalent to, for example, seven minutes faster winning time in the 90 km cross country ski race Vasaloppet, 20–30 seconds faster time in any given 5000 m run at world class level, and four minutes faster finishing time in a marathon race. In cycling, a 3% increase in performance translate to a more than two hour faster winning time in Tour de France 2014."

I am familiar with the speculation of the "not a Rhodes scholar" with "a little common sense" who is "overwhelmed" by the "circumstantial evidence".

All these questions seem best directed at the Saudi physio-therapist who brought the EPO to the camp.

I have not defended Aden at Sabadell but rather looked for the facts. Looking for the facts is the opposite of obfuscation. I believe "something" nefarious happened there, but just as I'm not interested in your theories, I am not all that interested in presenting alternative theories.

The EPO was found in the rooms of Balla (and Yemen roommate) and the Saudi physio-therapist Mounir. We can speculate many things about that, but these are the speculations of those with a little common sense easily over-whelmed by circumstantial evidence.

Unfortunately, even a guilty verdict from the Spanish criminal courts, for athlete endangerment, may not deliver the facts necessary to support these speculations.

Hes not a troll; he's a doping denier - the equivalent of a holocaust denier. His life depends on believing the lies he tells himself about this stuff.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The more you write the more vacuous you become.

A simple point - yes or no - does a higher RBC enable greater transfer of oxygen for each breath? If you require a citation for this you are in the Guinness Book of Records for sporting ignorance.

I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not. What do experts say?

You will get nowhere with this stuff. You are trying to reason with a fanatic.

Armstronglivs wrote:

When you keep quoting your experts I know you are ducking the point.

So if an athlete needs to breath more to access their increased oxygen in the bloodstream why do we not see top athletes like El G gasping for air like an out of condition hobby jogger?

You are unable to address points that are made simply because they reveal your arguments to be unadulterated bullsh*t. Anyone who evades addressing the point as much as you do, with your stupid word games, is not a troll but a liar.

If the point is to present the opinions and findings and data and observations and conclusions of experts in the field -- quoting the experts seems directly on point.

We must be arguing different points, and while I duck yours, you duck mine.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Hes not a troll; he's a doping denier ...

I don't deny doping happens and many athletes/coaches/fans believe in the powerful effects.

The rest of your post was out of line.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The more you write the more vacuous you become.

A simple point - yes or no - does a higher RBC enable greater transfer of oxygen for each breath? If you require a citation for this you are in the Guinness Book of Records for sporting ignorance.

I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not. What do experts say?

They say you will be in the Guinness Book of Records.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Hes not a troll; he's a doping denier ...

I don't deny doping happens and many athletes/coaches/fans believe in the powerful effects.

The rest of your post was out of line.

You do nothing but construct arguments to deny doping. That is no different from a holocaust denier. They lie just as you do.

High-Octane Dopers wrote:

And through the history of elite distance running & T&F, there's been a lot of blood doping going on, and still going on, that would indicate how efficacious it is for this continual high prevalence to exist. Athletes & coaches are not going to waste their money, time & effort over 3 + decades on a PED or method that isn't an effective performance enhancer. This is called the common sense doctrine.

Also, don't forget what top researcher, and one of my mentors, Prof Christer Malm, has stated:

Yes there has been a lot of blood doping going on.

"indicate how efficacious it is " and "Athletes & coaches are not going to waste their money, time & effort" looks like your speculation.

Has top researcher Malm published any of his own data and observations that support your speculation? I think I made it clear earlier, I am also not so interested in the opinions of "top researchers", per se, but their data, and observations which support such opinions.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

When you keep quoting your experts I know you are ducking the point.

So if an athlete needs to breath more to access their increased oxygen in the bloodstream why do we not see top athletes like El G gasping for air like an out of condition hobby jogger?

You are unable to address points that are made simply because they reveal your arguments to be unadulterated bullsh*t. Anyone who evades addressing the point as much as you do, with your stupid word games, is not a troll but a liar.

If the point is to present the opinions and findings and data and observations and conclusions of experts in the field -- quoting the experts seems directly on point.

We must be arguing different points, and while I duck yours, you duck mine.

The point is not to present the findings of experts but to present and resolve arguments. You have no arguments - just doping denial. Even when others here present the findings of experts you reject them if it doesn't suit your views.

I presented a point above to you that you ducked previously and you just ducked it again, like you always do, because you have no answer.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You do nothing but construct arguments to deny doping.

This conclusion looks like it is caused by a limited ability of perception. It is like the hammer who doesn't understand the screw, because he only sees the nail.

It is also a lie.

I have often confirmed doping prevalence, and acknowledge the strong, widely held, belief in the powerful effect of doping.

What I seek is the data and controlled observations that support such beliefs.

You're not interested in their data. That is a mere smokescreen. Your mind is made up and you cannot depart from any of your predetermined conclusions. Your pretence to be open to discussion and persuasion is just that- a mere pretence. I dont think I have encountered a more dishonest commenter on these boards.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The point is not to present the findings of experts but to present and resolve arguments. You have no arguments - just doping denial. Even when others here present the findings of experts you reject them if it doesn't suit your views.

I presented a point above to you that you ducked previously and you just ducked it again, like you always do, because you have no answer.

It is absolutely the point -- are your opinions shared by experts in the field?

I presented no arguments here, because that is not my point.

I "ducked" your question because it is beside the point.

Who has presented the findings of experts here? Just now, "High Octane" and Malm did not present "findings". I do not reject them, but accept them for what they are: inappropriate estimates extrapolated from non-representative data.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You're not interested in their data. That is a mere smokescreen. Your mind is made up and you cannot depart from any of your predetermined conclusions. Your pretence to be open to discussion and persuasion is just that- a mere pretence. I dont think I have encountered a more dishonest commenter on these boards.

More misperceptions -- and more opinions from a non-expert in the field.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You do nothing but construct arguments to deny doping.

This conclusion looks like it is caused by a limited ability of perception. It is like the hammer who doesn't understand the screw, because he only sees the nail.

I know when someone is a screw loose.

It is also a lie.

Your specialty.

I have often confirmed doping prevalence, and acknowledge the strong, widely held, belief in the powerful effect of doping.

There it is again - doping exists but people only "believe" it works. Behind the semantic contortions is the view that doping doesn't actually work, people only think it does. That is a denier.

What I seek is the data and controlled observations that support my beliefs.

Fixed.