'We Can Now Estimate the Effect of Blood Doping'

Israeli jogger wrote:

Haven't read the all thread.

rek you claim that EPO works only because people believe in it.

That logically may be true.

In fact if we replaced "belief" with "fairy dust" your argument would still be logically true, because fairy dust, just like belief, was never shown not to be the cause of the PE in PEDS.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that a substance that has proven physiological changes that promote oxygen transport and utilization, is the cause ?

Can you purpose a mechanism by which EPO doesn't work?

An argument can be logically true and yet false - if the premises are false. In rekrunner's case, he uses "belief" both as a false premise and as a false conclusion. Because blood-doping doesn't improve performance amongst certain athletes, he says - without proof, and assuming the clean athletes used for this comparison are in fact clean - the belief that it aids performance is not supported by the facts. Hence the fallacy that "a false belief in the efficacy of blood doping leads to blood doping, which proves that the practise of blood doping is based on belief not fact". It is a circular argument that assumes that which has to be proven. Logic fail. Not to mention the facts are wrong.

Belief:

- an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof

- trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something)

rekrunner wrote:

Belief:

- an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof

- trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something)

"Especially" does not mean exclusively.

I'd say it meets the definition. No further proof is required.

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Belief:

- an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof

- trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something)

"Especially" does not mean exclusively.

So, without proof, or with proof, it still meets the definition.

rekrunner wrote:

I'd say it meets the definition. No further proof is required.

I believe you are wrong.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

"Especially" does not mean exclusively.

So, without proof, or with proof, it still meets the definition.

This might be your worst one so far.

Keep flailing.

rekrunner wrote:

Keep flailing.

Translation:

You've finally backed yourself into a corner and are at a loss to re-word in a way where you feel you still won.

Now even proof is still just a belief.

Whoops.

Israeli jogger wrote:

Can you purpose a mechanism by which EPO doesn't work?

I can't speak for rekrunner, but one regular issue is whether the performance boost is similar with elites and can it be close to zero with some groups.

Many specialists claim that the effect is lower in elites, and it is interesting that when similar amount of blood (900 ml) was infused into athletes of different fitness levels in different studies (x-axis, Vo2max), the % boost (Y-axis) tends to be 4-5 times lower in elite athletes vs. recreational athletes. (It is reasonable that the real difference is somewhat lower for a few reasons, e.g. slightly lower increase in total hemoglobin in elites):

It is also noteworthy that Vo2max is only one of many factors affecting running speed, and in the double-blind studies even over 10 percent increases (on average) in Vo2max haven't increased running speeds of non-elites by more than 1-3 percent. In fact, in the first rHuEPO-study, four out of twenty-four subjects didn't perform better in the treadmill tests after the extra red blood cells despite having significantly higher Vo2max values.

The interesting question is this -- if the non-elites tend to get only less than 5 percent boost in their running speed with blood doping (in the few studies), do elites get on average only a fraction of that boost and are there elite groups for whom the boost is close to or zero?

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Keep flailing.

Translation:

You've finally backed yourself into a corner and are at a loss to re-word in a way where you feel you still won.

Now even proof is still just a belief.

Whoops.

No need to change any words.

Belief:

- an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof

- trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something)

"The practise of blood doping is based on belief" by definition.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

Translation:

You've finally backed yourself into a corner and are at a loss to re-word in a way where you feel you still won.

Now even proof is still just a belief.

Whoops.

No need to change any words.

Belief:

- an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof

- trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something)

"The practise of blood doping is based on belief" by definition.

Ah, but even WITH proof it's still belief according to your word salad producer. So a long EPO study involving elites and covering every possible scenario and coming out with a concrete performance enhancement percentage would still just be belief.

2 plus 2 equals 5 in other words.

Aragon wrote:

The interesting question is this -- if the non-elites tend to get only less than 5 percent boost in their running speed with blood doping (in the few studies), do elites get on average only a fraction of that boost and are there elite groups for whom the boost is close to or zero?

The principle of diminishing return is quite logical here too, but to argue it down to zero stands against all practical experiences (see Sumgong, Jeptoo, Kiptum, Kiprop, Boulami, Jebet, Aden, Salazar, Armstrong, Ullrich, Pantani, Riis, etc. etc.), including your nice graph, and the many informed expert opinions ranging from 1% to 4% for elite runners.

However, rekrunner pretends that it's zero at the top:

rekrunner wrote:

I claim that EPO works, if and only if, there is a weakness, and EPO serves to strengthen that weakness.

... unless that was meant philosophically in the sense that it always works because there is always a weakness because nobody is perfect.

That's only half of the equation.

physics defiant wrote:

Ah, but even WITH proof it's still belief according to your word salad producer. So a long EPO study involving elites and covering every possible scenario and coming out with a concrete performance enhancement percentage would still just be belief.

You are arguing with a dictionary. You said yourself especially doesn't mean exclusively.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

Ah, but even WITH proof it's still belief according to your word salad producer. So a long EPO study involving elites and covering every possible scenario and coming out with a concrete performance enhancement percentage would still just be belief.

You are arguing with a dictionary. You said yourself especially doesn't mean exclusively.

Mmmmm. More Narc Salad.

Someone who perpetually resorts to dictionary definitions of simple words in order to explain what he means has no idea what he really means, or is incapable of constructing statements whose meaning can be clearly understood.

But there is also method to this. A person who continually argues that others never properly understand what he means is someone who must always find a way to be right - especially when he has been shown to be wrong. And what kind of person wishes to be invariably right - about everything - at least in his own eyes? Welcome to the world of the narcissist.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

"Especially" does not mean exclusively.

So, without proof, or with proof, it still meets the definition.

The remarkable stupidity in your argument is that if you apply a particular word to a set of facts you think it will make the facts conform to the word you have chosen. You say the word, so you think it must be true - like an incantation. Your use of the word "belief" as a description for a set of facts about blood-doping is little different and no more persuasive than attempting to label a cow as a horse. Words don't make it true - however often one might appeal, as you do, to a dictionary for support.