Yeah, the glass was half full and half empty depending on the perspective.
Interesting that Dr. Tapio Videman has maintained that half of the medallists were clean despite him estimating that some lucky cross-country skiers could get a 10 % boost in racing speed with a clever blood manipulation. Yes, in one interview he indeed meant ~9 minutes faster finishing time in a hour and a half effort with ESAs and/or blood transfusions.
Interesting indeed (both)! Does it say how many of the 50% "clean" medalists had "abnormal hematologic" profiles? And why would they say that abnormal = clean?
In any case, apparently this is only about blood doping. So the roiders and SARMS users aren't included.
I also have trouble with the alleged "10 % boost in racing speed with a clever blood manipulation". What would that be based on?
24 of the 27 medallists submitted their blood samples that were collected and transported in a such a manner that they could be later analyzed:
- 12 had highly abnormal blood values.
- 0 had "moderately" abnormal blood values.
- 12 had "normal" blood values.
The authors do write in the paper that "[t]he hematologic results designated as normal also could come from skiers who have been doping but have stayed within 2 standard deviations of the mean values for the endurance athlete population", but both Videman and Stray-Gundersen have expressed publicly that 50 % were clean, ie. likely not systematically clustered just short of being classified as abnormal.
From some fragmentary material written by Videman I've seen, my understanding is that he extrapolated that if elevating Hb from 15 g/dl to 16 g/dl improved running performance by 2.5 % (as in one paper), likely going from 12 g/dl to 18 g/dl was 4-6 similar consequent increases adding up to ~10 %.
Much appreciated, Aragon. Considering that overall "17% had “highly abnormal” hematologic profiles, 19% had “abnormal” values"abnormal", I didn't expect 50% and 0% among the medalists.
The linear extrapolation from 15->16 to 12->18 doesn't sound convincing, right?
As a general rule, I'd consider the extrapolation dubious as well as the premise that elites generally even get a 2.5 % boost when going from 15 to 16 g/dl, the boost recreational runners got in the one study published in 1981.
As a general rule, I'd consider the extrapolation dubious as well as the premise that elites generally even get a 2.5 % boost when going from 15 to 16 g/dl, the boost recreational runners got in the one study published in 1981.
What appears to be debatable is the degree of improvement gained but not that there was some improvement. The proportion deemed not clean - the 50% - also reinforces that there will have been a gain. These athletes were not experimenting with doping on the basis that they might get a boost; they knew they would derive a benefit.
You don't realise it but you have just confirmed what I said above - albeit with your usual verbosity.
It isn't difficult to understand what reinforces the typical doping denial that characterises these threads. It is obvious. For many, to accept the reality of doping would end their belief in the sport. You are such a one. Your world would collapse if you came to see that doping has enhanced the performances of many altitude-trained Kenyan distance runners (many of whom dope) as well as enabling most of the best performances we see in the sport.
Doping only works on those with "psychological and physical weaknesses", you say. You presume to know this despite never having had any experience of doping while countless athletes have, and knowing no dopers. But that utterly unsubstantiated nonsense is how you preserve your fantasies.
Excuse the delayed response, but I was enjoying the holidays with family and friends.
I realize if I say "black and white", you will somehow find confirmation of "rainbow" proving you right. You are a master of seeing what is not written.
You keep appealing to reality, ironically unaware that I am only following facts, evidence, and observations.
You keep bringing up altitude-trained Kenyan performance when the source of my doubts arise from the relative scarcity or lack of comparable jumps in performance from doping non-Africans worldwide, for decades, in virtually all distance running events across the board, despite athletes knowing "it works" by personal experience and layman suggestions of likely more than half of athletes doping.
You keep injecting your own words like "only" and "presume to know", when I said what it is that I do not dispute or reject. This works in your favor, by limiting which of your beliefs I have not accepted. It brings no added value to argue with me that which I already accept.
You have long ago exchanged your belief in sport with a belief in the power of doping, gullibly buying into the hype and ex post rationalizations, even from known pathological serial liars. Contrary to your explanation, I would gladly do the same thing if only you could produce tanglible facts, evidence, and observations that confirm your beliefs connecting elite doping with elite performances with a high correlation. In fact, I have already done so for the case of women on steroids, one of those things I do not dispute or reject.
You don't realise it but you have just confirmed what I said above - albeit with your usual verbosity.
It isn't difficult to understand what reinforces the typical doping denial that characterises these threads. It is obvious. For many, to accept the reality of doping would end their belief in the sport. You are such a one. Your world would collapse if you came to see that doping has enhanced the performances of many altitude-trained Kenyan distance runners (many of whom dope) as well as enabling most of the best performances we see in the sport.
Doping only works on those with "psychological and physical weaknesses", you say. You presume to know this despite never having had any experience of doping while countless athletes have, and knowing no dopers. But that utterly unsubstantiated nonsense is how you preserve your fantasies.
Excuse the delayed response, but I was enjoying the holidays with family and friends.
I realize if I say "black and white", you will somehow find confirmation of "rainbow" proving you right. You are a master of seeing what is not written.
You keep appealing to reality, ironically unaware that I am only following facts, evidence, and observations.
You keep bringing up altitude-trained Kenyan performance when the source of my doubts arise from the relative scarcity or lack of comparable jumps in performance from doping non-Africans worldwide, for decades, in virtually all distance running events across the board, despite athletes knowing "it works" by personal experience and layman suggestions of likely more than half of athletes doping.
You keep injecting your own words like "only" and "presume to know", when I said what it is that I do not dispute or reject. This works in your favor, by limiting which of your beliefs I have not accepted. It brings no added value to argue with me that which I already accept.
You have long ago exchanged your belief in sport with a belief in the power of doping, gullibly buying into the hype and ex post rationalizations, even from known pathological serial liars. Contrary to your explanation, I would gladly do the same thing if only you could produce tanglible facts, evidence, and observations that confirm your beliefs connecting elite doping with elite performances with a high correlation. In fact, I have already done so for the case of women on steroids, one of those things I do not dispute or reject.
I see you have just confirmed what I said above although it wasn't necessary for you to say so at such length. But that you always do. You should have stayed on holiday.
I see you have just confirmed what I said above although it wasn't necessary for you to say so at such length. But that you always do. You should have stayed on holiday.
You tend to see what you want. It would be different if you ever supported your conclusions with tangible real-world facts, evidence, and observations. Then I would happily join you with your scepticism.
Changing the subject is the way for you to handle critic on your style of posting or posts that point out your nonsense.
Attacking me personally is a kind of filter here. It shows who are the bottom of the intellectual pile on these threads. Welcome.
The fact that you attack countless other posters personally every single day, shows that you are the bottom of the intellectual pile on these threads. Welcome.
As a general rule, I'd consider the extrapolation dubious as well as the premise that elites generally even get a 2.5 % boost when going from 15 to 16 g/dl, the boost recreational runners got in the one study published in 1981.
What appears to be debatable is the degree of improvement gained but not that there was some improvement. The proportion deemed not clean - the 50% - also reinforces that there will have been a gain. These athletes were not experimenting with doping on the basis that they might get a boost; they knew they would derive a benefit.
The first assertions appear to be true whereas the bolded statement doesn't follow at all.
It is equally possible that many of the most prepared teams and athletes used the most novel scientific methods in their preparation also when it came to doping and blood parameters.
It is reasonable for a Russian or Swedish athlete 3-10th in the world list to use blood doping even with an uncertain gain whereas it doesn't make sense to blood dope to improve potentially a few placings from 56th to 53rd for a more mediocre skier. It partly explains the prevalence of blood doping amongst the faster skiers.
"You tend to see what you want. It would be different if you ever supported your conclusions with tangible real-world facts, evidence, and observations."(quote)
Attacking me personally is a kind of filter here. It shows who are the bottom of the intellectual pile on these threads. Welcome.
The fact that you attack countless other posters personally every single day, shows that you are the bottom of the intellectual pile on these threads. Welcome.
What appears to be debatable is the degree of improvement gained but not that there was some improvement. The proportion deemed not clean - the 50% - also reinforces that there will have been a gain. These athletes were not experimenting with doping on the basis that they might get a boost; they knew they would derive a benefit.
The first assertions appear to be true whereas the bolded statement doesn't follow at all.
It is equally possible that many of the most prepared teams and athletes used the most novel scientific methods in their preparation also when it came to doping and blood parameters.
It is reasonable for a Russian or Swedish athlete 3-10th in the world list to use blood doping even with an uncertain gain whereas it doesn't make sense to blood dope to improve potentially a few placings from 56th to 53rd for a more mediocre skier. It partly explains the prevalence of blood doping amongst the faster skiers.
At the level we are discussing they are all elite athletes. I doubt any set their goal at improving from from 56th to 53rd but would hope to be amongst the very best. The differences at the top of the sport are very small and apparently minor improvements can make quite a difference in outcome.
As with other forms of doping in other sports, we have seen that it isn't confined to a handful at the top of the rankings. Even if an athlete isn't in contention for a medal, to be better than they would be if they are clean can be sufficient motivation to dope. If school kids and masters athletes dope, anyone will.
My point however is that whatever their level they can expect to improve on that if they dope. The drugs that are available to them are not neutral or even negative in their effect on performance, or they would not be prohibited - and blood doping has been long established as a performance booster. I don't think many here truly grasp the near-fanatical dedication to succeed that drives many elite athletes. They will seize on anything they think will help them. They don't have to look far.
The first assertions appear to be true whereas the bolded statement doesn't follow at all.
It is equally possible that many of the most prepared teams and athletes used the most novel scientific methods in their preparation also when it came to doping and blood parameters.
It is reasonable for a Russian or Swedish athlete 3-10th in the world list to use blood doping even with an uncertain gain whereas it doesn't make sense to blood dope to improve potentially a few placings from 56th to 53rd for a more mediocre skier. It partly explains the prevalence of blood doping amongst the faster skiers.
Maybe the first assertion appears to be true for blood doping for non-running sports like cross-country skiing, but for distance running, it has not been established that boosting your blood values through banned doping is any better than what the very same Dr. Jim Stray-Gundersen achieved through the legal method of altitude training.
"You tend to see what you want. It would be different if you ever supported your conclusions with tangible real-world facts, evidence, and observations."(quote)
Always, you end up describing yourself.
Oh, who can forget the "I know you are but what am I" retorts from way back in primary school.
Armstronglivs wrote:My point however is that whatever their level they can expect to improve on that if they dope. The drugs that are available to them are not neutral or even negative in their effect on performance, or they would not be prohibited - and blood doping has been long established as a performance booster. I don't think many here truly grasp the near-fanatical dedication to succeed that drives many elite athletes. They will seize on anything they think will help them. They don't have to look far.
I've read more than a few biographies of elite athletes and fail to see the point. They waste time, money and other effort on many things that are useless, borderline useless or where they can't even know if they are beneficial or not. IIRC, one discus thrower listed like 20 amino acid - derivatives and other fancy supplements he used of which most had next-to-no evidence to back up their efficacy.
When you wrote that "[t]he differences at the top of the sport are very small and apparently minor improvements can make quite a difference in outcome", I missed out whether you were arguing for someone using a doping substance or method with uncertain / unpredictable positive outcome or not, because minor differences would incentivice elite athletes to use financial resources on methods that might work or not. Why wouldn't you pay $1,000 for a possible 1.0 % boost that might or might not take place if the discounted future income flow from the boost would be like $50,000 in prize money and sponsorship revenue?
And likely most of the banned methods tend to work on most people on some disciplines even when the scientific evidence is non-exitent in some cases. I don't think anti-doping authorities have had any interest to figure out whether banned methods or substances work on each one of the few hundred billion different possible DNA-sequences in humans. They rewrote the code, but the old WADA-code (until 2015?) specifically explicitly stated that doping had occurred, when the use of a banned substance / method was proven to be used and it couldn't be argued that it didn't help the "doper" in a given discipline.
The first assertions appear to be true whereas the bolded statement doesn't follow at all.
It is equally possible that many of the most prepared teams and athletes used the most novel scientific methods in their preparation also when it came to doping and blood parameters.
It is reasonable for a Russian or Swedish athlete 3-10th in the world list to use blood doping even with an uncertain gain whereas it doesn't make sense to blood dope to improve potentially a few placings from 56th to 53rd for a more mediocre skier. It partly explains the prevalence of blood doping amongst the faster skiers.
Maybe the first assertion appears to be true for blood doping for non-running sports like cross-country skiing, but for distance running, it has not been established that boosting your blood values through banned doping is any better than what the very same Dr. Jim Stray-Gundersen achieved through the legal method of altitude training.
You leave out it hasn't been established because there have been no distance athletes who have doped who have participated in or been the subject of any study on doping. So much for your dedication to "real world data". You have none. It's a pretty one-sided picture when the only study that has been undertaken from which you draw your conclusions on doping is of athletes who altitude-train, of whom there is no shortage to study and who haven't doped. You're a "scientist" who draws conclusions on a subject that has no subjects. But those subjects exist in the real world in considerable numbers, even though you can't see them.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.