Athletics, when doping is the default

Armstronglivs wrote:

Aaleby wrote:

You know what the problem is?

The truth is in the eye of the beholder.

That could well be your problem.

Heard about the Dunning-Kruger effect?

Those who are incompetent have little insight into their incompetence, which means that poor performers are not in a position to recognize the shortcomings in their performance. It is the idea that those who lack intelligence, lack the ability to acknowledge this lack of intelligence.

Those in the high end of the competence spectrum underestimate their own abilities relative to how others did.

Point being; I know very well that the truth can differ from one person to another. Thats exactly why proofs are so important or atleast credible circumstantial evidence.

It's a given that the first person that references the D-K effect in a discussion is 100 percent the person with least amount of competence in any given field.

HRE wrote:

jeezus freakin christ wrote:

Scuse me? How TF does any drug help a professional baseball player? That is utterly ridiculous. The mindset of this belief is like a religion, completely irrational.

I gather you aren't really big on following baseball. Do you really not think that being stronger helps you to hit or throw a ball harder and farther? Drugs and baseball have a long history together. If drugs don't help baseball players why would guys like Maguire, Bonds, Sosa, Canseco, etc. have been taking them? The guy I knew was told by people in the organization he played for that he needed to start juicing if he wanted to keep climbing the ladder.

You're as stupid as Armstronglivs. It's a doping culture and you are part of it.

ghost of d-k past wrote:

It's a given that the first person that references the D-K effect in a discussion is 100 percent the person with least amount of competence in any given field.

Im not the one who seems unwillingly to accept that the "truth" aint universal as long as you cant prove it or show circumstantial evidence other then "everyone does it". The lack of humility is really appealing when all you have to show is the same empty assumptions over and over again.

Aaleby wrote:

ghost of d-k past wrote:

It's a given that the first person that references the D-K effect in a discussion is 100 percent the person with least amount of competence in any given field.

Im not the one who seems unwillingly to accept that the "truth" aint universal as long as you cant prove it or show circumstantial evidence other then "everyone does it". The lack of humility is really appealing when all you have to show is the same empty assumptions over and over again.

You're too smart for letsrun. This is a website for inane platitudes not deep thinkers.

All testing does is to see if an athlete is using specific performance enhancers. Testing does not "prove" that an athlete is or has always been clean. The reason testing is done is because the default belief is that athletes are dopers. The concept of "truth' has nothing to do with it. Yes, if an athlete never comes back with positive test that person should be deserving of accolades, but in actuality there will always be the suspicion that they are a "doper" as that is the default postion of the sport.

Gotta love the fact that athletics basically operates with probation officers to make sure everyone is in line. It really puts a great face on the sport.

Au contraire. I did not ask you to provide "research data", but "can you provide me any performance data"? I did not limit you to, and I am not completely dependent on, just research data. If I am asked to accept a premise that doping can produce superior elite performances in the men's marathon, I think it is fair to question what real world performances such a premise is based on that illustrates the kind of performance boost we could expect or predict at elite levels. I find your inability to build an affirmative case with any data at all quite unconvincing.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Your response is redundant; as I said, you have no reason to change your mind about anything because you are completely dependent on research data which will not be available. Dopers and doping manufacturers don't provide university research papers on their activities. Your misconceptions remain safe.

If PEDs don't actually enhance performance then why are they testing for them? Seems like a waste of money to take them and a waste of time to test for them if PEDs don't actually PE. I guess we could find some old scientist hiding in Argentina to start up some human trials to satisfy your lust for performance data.

You're trolling rekrunner and you know it. You've been given a lot of cases in many different disciplines of athletics. For example, when the direct evidence is right before your face, such as Boulami testing positive IC for EPO when he set the World Record in the SC in 2002, Your rebuttal is always: "well...you can't prove that EPO had any performance effect on his WR effort," "he could have improved through harder training," "proof by examples aren't sufficient enough to show causation"...and so on and so forth.

My guess is you love to troll on this subject...nothing new there. ?

For your purposes, since you require at least performance data, you can't acquire that without such data being supplied by doped athletes (who have admitted they were doped) as well as their performance data when/if they competed clean, in order to measure the gain they may have had from their doping. Let me know when anyone obliges.

An easier, if more obvious route, is to note the increase in endurance amongst sportsmen across the board who have taken drugs that boost stamina, such as EPO, and to thereby infer that any sport which requires a measure of endurance will benefit from drugs that boost those physiological features that contribute to endurance. There are no exceptions to this - human physiology being what it is - otherwise WADA, the IAAF and anti-doping generally would have accepted the argument that marathon runners uniquely don't benefit from doping, and ought to be exempt from doping control. No one credibly argues that. We must accept they do benefit. The preponderance of athletes today, that includes marathon runners, who turn to doping to gain advantage, further indicates the same. It defies both logic and an understanding of what doping does to suggest that the best clean performances can be better than the best doped performances, so it is likely that the best performances now are doped.

The difference between a doped and a clean performance won't be conveniently determined by performance data of the kind you seek but from a detailed understanding of what highly-trained athletes may be capable of, against the background of what has been previously typical in the sport. It can therefore only be an educated guess, if we are forming a view about doping based on an individual performance.

Aaleby wrote:

Naive in Norway wrote:

That is in a court of law. That’s not really about the truth. The truth doesn’t care about such things. The truth is just the truth.

You know what the problem is?

The truth is in the eye of the beholder.

Nope. The problem is that you want the truth to be something it's not.

Personally, when the only response someone comes up with to something I post is an insult I reckon they've got nothing substantial to contribute and there's no reason to debate with them. If you'd like to explain why you don't think PEDs help baseball players feel free.

I think I've answered this a hundred times, and you can find the answers on WADA's website. This question, or its answer, does not help us understand the various causes of elite performances in the men's marathon, such as Bekele's 2:01:41. I can accept that you have no reasons, nor data, that support your beliefs about elite performance.

lay off the dope son wrote:

If PEDs don't actually enhance performance then why are they testing for them? Seems like a waste of money to take them and a waste of time to test for them if PEDs don't actually PE. I guess we could find some old scientist hiding in Argentina to start up some human trials to satisfy your lust for performance data.

If by "trolling" you mean intellectually challenging anyone to build an affirmative case for stated beliefs they take for granted, I love that. In this specific case, we are talking about the men's marathon, after I was asked my thoughts about Bekele's near breaking of the world record. I do not define the fundamental rules of logic, or the relative weakness of using a handful of examples in supporting general beliefs, or what constitutes logical fallacies. I feel it shouldn't be necessary for me to point out why single examples like Boulami generally fail to show the rule, nor should I be blamed for pointing out this fundamental failure in basic logic. The value of examples like Boulami is sufficient to prove the existence of one athlete who doped, and set a WR, but provides very little insight to the performances of any other athletes.

Trolling is the game wrote:

You're trolling rekrunner and you know it. You've been given a lot of cases in many different disciplines of athletics. For example, when the direct evidence is right before your face, such as Boulami testing positive IC for EPO when he set the World Record in the SC in 2002, Your rebuttal is always: "well...you can't prove that EPO had any performance effect on his WR effort," "he could have improved through harder training," "proof by examples aren't sufficient enough to show causation"...and so on and so forth.

My guess is you love to troll on this subject...nothing new there. ?

Aaleby wrote:

Why remain a fan of a dead, stinky sport?

One great human being in every aspect and far too many of those using this forum would never give him [Warholm] the recognition he deserves if he were to beat the world record as he would only be one more cheater. Its like a child whom never gets to feel love and just expects as an adult that the world is evil as default. Sad, really really sad.

One, I love your English phrasing. I am sure that first line reads differently in Norwegian.

If it makes you feel any better, we're pretty sure Kevin Young was doping in 1992.

It's still fun to see these athletes executing their performances even if we think there may be pharmaceutical help.

Every single record in track and field is doped up. Doing enough research, every single Olympic medalist has also been doped up. What is cheating to you is called the playing field to everyone else.

WADA only concerns itself with a subjective assessment that a substance or method has the "potential" to benefit performance. WADA makes a single assessment across all Olympic sports, and does not wish to complicate enforcement by proving effect for each event or for each athlete on a case-by-case basis. Whatever WADA decides cannot help us understand the effect of doping on IAAF endurance events like the marathon. Similarly what athletes believe about doping is not a demonstration that such a belief is realistic or has been fully realized for the reasons he/she believes. Again, the fundamental question is what physical observations in the real world form the basis for your belief about doping benefit in elite men's marathon? How can you conclude performance improvements from doping have ever occurred without talking about performance in any fashion? What should I reconsider in order to consider doping as a significant factor in the men's elite marathon performances? Let's attack this from another angle, to demonstrate the extent of current knowledge with respect to the men's marathon: 1) How many doping, or altitude, studies have looked at performance in the marathon, or alternatively, used a design approximating marathon intensities for marathon durations? 2) Of the top 100 fastest performing men in the marathon, how many have been busted for doping? 3) Of the top 100 fastest male marathon performances, how many have been annulled due to doping? 4) In the Sunday Times reporting of 12 years of leaked IAAF blood values, what percentage of marathon medals (men and women) won were "suspicious"? How did that compare to other events? 5) While the marathon is undoubtedly an endurance event, besides oxygen delivery and utilization, what are 3 other factors that limit marathon performance? Is easier and obvious and "across the board" necessarily accurate and reflective of the reality in men's elite marathon performances? With respect to the men's marathon, roughly how many is a preponderance? 10%? 30%? 44%? 50%? How do we know? One logical scenario is that the best athletes generally don't dope when they are running their best, but the second and third best dope to try to be the best. If effectiveness is low, a question that has not been settled for the men's elite marathon, the logical conclusion can very much be that the best performances (e.g Kipchoge, Bekele, Kipsang) are better than the doped ones (Erupe, Goumri). When thinking about what highly trained athletes are capable of, what factors should be considered? Do the best East Africans have the same base capability as the best non-East Africans? Besides advances in doping, what are other factors to consider when understanding changes in the marathon from your baseline of what has previously been typical?

Belarussiya wrote:

Every single record in track and field is doped up. Doing enough research, every single Olympic medalist has also been doped up. What is cheating to you is called the playing field to everyone else.

Thats your personally opinion, mostly based on your and others gut feeling. It has nothing to do with research. Ofc lots of the records is doped up, but noone can have a clue about each and every record made.

Aaleby wrote:

You know what the main problem is? You dont have a clue, its all based on your gut feeling.

a) Why do you get so personal? I have more than just a clue.

b) My points were not based on my gut feeling, but on written experts' statements and peer-reviewed studies.

References have been provided here many times, see e.g. Schumacher, Ashenden, Parisotto, the 2011 Saugy study, the 2016 blood doping review, and the 2018 Tübingen/Harvard paper, to name a few.