Tom Cochrane wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
But F= ma still applies on Earth.
Show us where Newton was wrong about Thermodynamics?
And show us how EPO circumvents thermoregulation and you can win the $10,000
Because people take it and they are still here after racing on it.
They haven't spontaneously combusted?
Does that support or refute your argument?
how does that work? wrote:
Tom Cochrane wrote:
Because people take it and they are still here after racing on it.
They haven't spontaneously combusted?
Does that support or refute your argument?
Neither. EPO does not cause spontaneous combustion. It makes you hot-blooded. Like
a racehorse.
Tom Cochrane wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
They haven't spontaneously combusted?
Does that support or refute your argument?
Neither. EPO does not cause spontaneous combustion. It makes you hot-blooded. Like
a racehorse.
How hot is that?
how does that work? wrote:
Tom Cochrane wrote:
Neither. EPO does not cause spontaneous combustion. It makes you hot-blooded. Like
a racehorse.
How hot is that?
Hot enough.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Rekrunner ... assumes - baselessly - that thousands of athletes are not guided by the same principle of rationality that guides him, when it comes to their doping, ...
Sorry for the long delay -- just got back from the library. Picked up some interesting journals about this raging debate of doping and rationality in academic socio-scientific circles:
Stewart and Smith (2008) "Drug Use in Sport Implications for Public Policy", describing a macro model for athlete's rationale for doping, which included sporting factors, social issues, and psychological issues.
"the (previous) focus has been narrowly confined to an analysis of athletes as rational decision makers"
"decisions made by athletes are not always rational or bound by clear intentionality"
"the exploration of the relationship between contextual variables and the construction of athletes’ values and beliefs about drug will explain the causes of apparently irrational action more effectively than micro models that mainly look at the internal dynamics of athlete decision making."
(Blank 2016) "Predictors of doping intentions, susceptibility, and behaviour of elite athletes: a meta-analytic review":
"An explanation might be found in the ongoing discussion about whether doping behaviour is considered to be rational and volitional decision making. For example, Petroczi and Aidman (2008) highlighted the fact that doping occurs in a life-cycle model in which individual differences, as well as systemic factors (e.g., motivational climate), play vital roles in self-belief formation (i.e., attitudes and intentions) and interact with situational and environmental factors (e.g., experience, perceived behavioural control, availability) to influence doping behaviour. Consistently with this hypothesis, the sporting culture, which is said to shape attitudes, beliefs and intentions (Smith et al. 2010), is considered to be another important factor in the decision to dope (Copeland and Potwarka 2016; Engelberg et al. 2015)."
Yes, plus it works.
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
Only four Moroccans breaking 3:30? C'mon now...four from a small country like Morocco is noteworthy - only the country of Kenya has more. And if you add the three runners from Algeria in the era of EPO, you have total of seven (7) from North Africa breaking 3:30! Remarkable!
Given that Britian had Coe, Cram, and Ovett, before EPO, I don't find four from Morroco, over 30 years, all that noteworthy, nor seven all that remarkable.
If Morocco is second, that doesn't make Morocco noteworthy, but the rest of the world even less worthy.
Besides Kenya, Morocco, and Algeria, I count 11 athletes from 9 countries, and none from USA, unless you count Lagat.
4 of those 11 were non-African.
Isn't EPO a drug with powerful effect, and aren't athletes worldwide rationally using EPO because of the significant effect?
Assuming 3 second advantage is typical, should we not expect more athletes running as fast as Coe and Cram did in the 1980s?
Where are all the doped top athletes from the rest of the world?
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
Not necessarily because you need to look at their talent level and get some idea of what they were capable of running before doping. Kaouch (3:31.10) & Mikhou (3:31.34) may have been 3:34ish guys prior to doping (using the scientific estimate of ~3 seconds). Take two top 1500 guys: Craig Engels, 3:34.04, a WC qualifier & Chris O'Hare, 3:32.11, an Olympian - there's no evidence to supect either one of these of doping - so I'll use those times as clean PBs, and yet a doped up Kaouch & Mikhou are significantly faster! I can suspect that Kaouch's & Mikhou's clean times might be in the neighborhood of 3:33/3:34.
This isn't about Kaouch and Mikhou, but why aren't there way more Moroccans than these 3:34ish guys?
Tom Cochrane wrote:
Yes, plus it works.
How does it circumvent thermoregulation?
$10,000 if you can demonstrate Newton's error.
more to come wrote:
Tom Cochrane wrote:
Yes, plus it works.
How does it circumvent thermoregulation?
$10,000 if you can demonstrate Newton's error.
Newton's error would have been thinking you could understand him correctly.
You don't. And you never will.
rekrunner wrote:
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
Only four Moroccans breaking 3:30? C'mon now...four from a small country like Morocco is noteworthy - only the country of Kenya has more. And if you add the three runners from Algeria in the era of EPO, you have total of seven (7) from North Africa breaking 3:30! Remarkable!
Given that Britian had Coe, Cram, and Ovett, before EPO, I don't find four from Morroco, over 30 years, all that noteworthy, nor seven all that remarkable.
If Morocco is second, that doesn't make Morocco noteworthy, but the rest of the world even less worthy.
Besides Kenya, Morocco, and Algeria, I count 11 athletes from 9 countries, and none from USA, unless you count Lagat.
4 of those 11 were non-African.
Isn't EPO a drug with powerful effect, and aren't athletes worldwide rationally using EPO because of the significant effect?
Assuming 3 second advantage is typical, should we not expect more athletes running as fast as Coe and Cram did in the 1980s?
Where are all the doped top athletes from the rest of the world?
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
Not necessarily because you need to look at their talent level and get some idea of what they were capable of running before doping. Kaouch (3:31.10) & Mikhou (3:31.34) may have been 3:34ish guys prior to doping (using the scientific estimate of ~3 seconds). Take two top 1500 guys: Craig Engels, 3:34.04, a WC qualifier & Chris O'Hare, 3:32.11, an Olympian - there's no evidence to supect either one of these of doping - so I'll use those times as clean PBs, and yet a doped up Kaouch & Mikhou are significantly faster! I can suspect that Kaouch's & Mikhou's clean times might be in the neighborhood of 3:33/3:34.
This isn't about Kaouch and Mikhou, but why aren't there way more Moroccans than these 3:34ish guys?
Because they now like to spread all their dopers over all the distance events.
Aouita used to do all of that by himself.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Rekrunner ... assumes - baselessly - that thousands of athletes are not guided by the same principle of rationality that guides him, when it comes to their doping, ...
Sorry for the long delay -- just got back from the library. Picked up some interesting journals about this raging debate of doping and rationality in academic socio-scientific circles:
Stewart and Smith (2008) "Drug Use in Sport Implications for Public Policy", describing a macro model for athlete's rationale for doping, which included sporting factors, social issues, and psychological issues.
"the (previous) focus has been narrowly confined to an analysis of athletes as rational decision makers"
"decisions made by athletes are not always rational or bound by clear intentionality"
"the exploration of the relationship between contextual variables and the construction of athletes’ values and beliefs about drug will explain the causes of apparently irrational action more effectively than micro models that mainly look at the internal dynamics of athlete decision making."
(Blank 2016) "Predictors of doping intentions, susceptibility, and behaviour of elite athletes: a meta-analytic review":
"An explanation might be found in the ongoing discussion about whether doping behaviour is considered to be rational and volitional decision making. For example, Petroczi and Aidman (2008) highlighted the fact that doping occurs in a life-cycle model in which individual differences, as well as systemic factors (e.g., motivational climate), play vital roles in self-belief formation (i.e., attitudes and intentions) and interact with situational and environmental factors (e.g., experience, perceived behavioural control, availability) to influence doping behaviour. Consistently with this hypothesis, the sporting culture, which is said to shape attitudes, beliefs and intentions (Smith et al. 2010), is considered to be another important factor in the decision to dope (Copeland and Potwarka 2016; Engelberg et al. 2015)."
So these analysts know that performance enhancing drugs don't work - which is the test for whether using them is a rational decision?
Shifting the goalposts to suggest that because athletes are emotionally invested in their decisions doesn't make those decisions non-rational. What isn't rational is to believe in that for which there is no evidence. The evidence for years has been that drugs make a difference. What isn't rational is to think they don't - as you do.
Athletes rarely dope as a one-off speculative decision; it is typically a process undertaken over time; few would undertake the risk of being caught if there were no discernible rewards i.e. changes experienced in their performance relating to training, recovery or competition. They also choose to do this with the advice of coaches, trainers and physicians, who advice is "rationally based" - in other words, they understand how the drugs work, and they see results.
I wonder how many doped athletes volunteered to be the subjects for the research you refer to, amongst the thousands who have and do dope. I also wonder how the analysts determined that athletes may make decisions about doping that aren't rational, whereas the same claim isn't made in respect of their decisions about training, tactics, nutrition and even medical care. I guess it comes back to the analysts' assumption that drugs don't work - which they cannot know.
Tom Cochrane wrote:
Yes, plus it works.
Of course it does, depending on what "it" is and what "works" means.
The only remaining questions for discussion are, "for whom?", "for which sport/event?", "under which initial conditions?", "by which mechanisms?", "by how much?", "better than legal methods?"
The answers can vary greatly on a case by case basis.
Tom Cochrane wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
This isn't about Kaouch and Mikhou, but why aren't there way more Moroccans than these 3:34ish guys?
Because they now like to spread all their dopers over all the distance events.
Aouita used to do all of that by himself.
Moroccans are comparatively worse at other distance events as the distance gets longer, and they have regressed since the retirement of El G.
Armstronglivs wrote:
So these analysts know that performance enhancing drugs don't work - which is the test for whether using them is a rational decision?
Shifting the goalposts to suggest that because athletes are emotionally invested in their decisions doesn't make those decisions non-rational. What isn't rational is to believe in that for which there is no evidence. The evidence for years has been that drugs make a difference. What isn't rational is to think they don't - as you do.
Athletes rarely dope as a one-off speculative decision; it is typically a process undertaken over time; few would undertake the risk of being caught if there were no discernible rewards i.e. changes experienced in their performance relating to training, recovery or competition. They also choose to do this with the advice of coaches, trainers and physicians, who advice is "rationally based" - in other words, they understand how the drugs work, and they see results.
I wonder how many doped athletes volunteered to be the subjects for the research you refer to, amongst the thousands who have and do dope. I also wonder how the analysts determined that athletes may make decisions about doping that aren't rational, whereas the same claim isn't made in respect of their decisions about training, tactics, nutrition and even medical care. I guess it comes back to the analysts' assumption that drugs don't work - which they cannot know.
You always regress into sweeping generalizations regarding all drugs and all sports. I can generally agree with a sweeping notion that athletes in sport take drugs based on an expected probability of benefit. Can you make a case remaining laser focused on blood doping for distance events, or must we continue to endure vague notions and sweeping generalizations about generic PEDs in "sport", often propped up by unrelated analogies?
Speaking of shifting the goalposts, you said the strawman ideas that you attributed to me were baseless. Evidently some experts in the field find sufficient basis to examine the irrationality.
Speaking of shifting goalposts, you said in the real world, we make decisions on probabilities, and now you are focusing on what analysts "know" or "cannot know".
I understand your world view, but don't accept that you speak for the motivations of athletes who decide to dope, for the same reasons courts reject "hearsay". I know what you think in your own words, but your second-hand words are less relevant than others with direct knowledge or experience.
In any case, their motivations are a red-herring. My ideas and conclusions don't depend on the motivations of the athletes, but have always assumed significant doping among the fastest elite athletes.
Even assuming rationality, athletes do not determine if the benefit is placebo effect, or from other confounders. For the rational thinkers, it is a rationale based on an over-estimated value from a false association.
Contrary to your false strawman projections, my ideas about doping and performance are based on all of the evidence before me. They are reinforced by your complete failure to produce any tangible evidence to the contrary.
rekrunner wrote:
Assuming 3 second advantage is typical, should we not expect more athletes running as fast as Coe and Cram did in the 1980s?
No...unless you want to convince me that all 1500 elites top out at the same times. Take the 2019 WC qualifying time of 3:36.00 the 2016 Olympic qualifying time of 3:36:20 to get in the show vs the WR record of 3:26.00 - you have a 10 second difference between the two spectrums. There will be many guys from many different countries that will just sneak in under those qualifying times. But they're in the Olympics & WCs competing in the qualifying rounds (and maybe some of them had to dope just to make qualifying like Cathal Lombard said when he gave the explanation as to why he used EPO).
And if these slower elites were using EPO they're not coming anywhere near the WR or even guys running 3:29. Remember the scientific estimate is "3" seconds not 15s or 10s. I gave you two top 1500 men from their respective countries; Engles (3:34.04) & O'Hare (3:32.11). There's no evidence to suspect either of one of doping - so we'll say those are their clean PBs. Engles is 26 yo and O'Hare is 30 - why can't they run times close to the WR? And at the very least, why aren't they running times compatible to Cram & Coe? I'm sure Engles & O'Hara are coached by the best in the business, have access to all the current training methods including altitude training, have access to the best nutrition, have access to the best dietary supplements, have the best spikes money can buy, etc. Why aren't they faster than 3:34 & 3:32??? Could it be a difference in talent level even with elites?
You seem to have this crazy notion that all elites are created equal and those that have used EPO should all be running WR times or 3:29 or something stupid like that. Again...according to the scientific estimate, you're looking at best 3 seconds not 30. So, a 3:35 guy isn't, with all the EPO in the world, going to be running anything close to the times of Cram & Coe.
rekrunner wrote:
Where are all the doped top athletes from the rest of the world?
Go look at all the doping rings out of Spain, Italy had it's a fair share of dopers, as well as Portugal, France, India, and some of the middle-Eastern nations.
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Assuming 3 second advantage is typical, should we not expect more athletes running as fast as Coe and Cram did in the 1980s?
No...unless you want to convince me that all 1500 elites top out at the same times. Take the 2019 WC qualifying time of 3:36.00 the 2016 Olympic qualifying time of 3:36:20 to get in the show vs the WR record of 3:26.00 - you have a 10 second difference between the two spectrums. There will be many guys from many different countries that will just sneak in under those qualifying times. But they're in the Olympics & WCs competing in the qualifying rounds (and maybe some of them had to dope just to make qualifying like Cathal Lombard said when he gave the explanation as to why he used EPO).
And if these slower elites were using EPO they're not coming anywhere near the WR or even guys running 3:29. Remember the scientific estimate is "3" seconds not 15s or 10s. I gave you two top 1500 men from their respective countries; Engles (3:34.04) & O'Hare (3:32.11). There's no evidence to suspect either of one of doping - so we'll say those are their clean PBs. Engles is 26 yo and O'Hare is 30 - why can't they run times close to the WR? And at the very least, why aren't they running times compatible to Cram & Coe? I'm sure Engles & O'Hara are coached by the best in the business, have access to all the current training methods including altitude training, have access to the best nutrition, have access to the best dietary supplements, have the best spikes money can buy, etc. Why aren't they faster than 3:34 & 3:32??? Could it be a difference in talent level even with elites?
You seem to have this crazy notion that all elites are created equal and those that have used EPO should all be running WR times or 3:29 or something stupid like that. Again...according to the scientific estimate, you're looking at best 3 seconds not 30. So, a 3:35 guy isn't, with all the EPO in the world, going to be running anything close to the times of Cram & Coe.
rekrunner wrote:
Where are all the doped top athletes from the rest of the world?
Go look at all the doping rings out of Spain, Italy had it's a fair share of dopers, as well as Portugal, France, India, and some of the middle-Eastern nations.
Do you think you know more about oxygen kinetics than Jack Daniels?
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Assuming 3 second advantage is typical, should we not expect more athletes running as fast as Coe and Cram did in the 1980s?
No...unless you want to convince me that all 1500 elites top out at the same times. Take the 2019 WC qualifying time of 3:36.00 the 2016 Olympic qualifying time of 3:36:20 to get in the show vs the WR record of 3:26.00 - you have a 10 second difference between the two spectrums. There will be many guys from many different countries that will just sneak in under those qualifying times. But they're in the Olympics & WCs competing in the qualifying rounds (and maybe some of them had to dope just to make qualifying like Cathal Lombard said when he gave the explanation as to why he used EPO).
And if these slower elites were using EPO they're not coming anywhere near the WR or even guys running 3:29. Remember the scientific estimate is "3" seconds not 15s or 10s. I gave you two top 1500 men from their respective countries; Engles (3:34.04) & O'Hare (3:32.11). There's no evidence to suspect either of one of doping - so we'll say those are their clean PBs. Engles is 26 yo and O'Hare is 30 - why can't they run times close to the WR? And at the very least, why aren't they running times compatible to Cram & Coe? I'm sure Engles & O'Hara are coached by the best in the business, have access to all the current training methods including altitude training, have access to the best nutrition, have access to the best dietary supplements, have the best spikes money can buy, etc. Why aren't they faster than 3:34 & 3:32??? Could it be a difference in talent level even with elites?
You seem to have this crazy notion that all elites are created equal and those that have used EPO should all be running WR times or 3:29 or something stupid like that. Again...according to the scientific estimate, you're looking at best 3 seconds not 30. So, a 3:35 guy isn't, with all the EPO in the world, going to be running anything close to the times of Cram & Coe.
I don't speak of "all athletes" so this crazy notion is not mine.
My notion is this -- the pool of clean sub 3:33 runners is larger than the pool of clean sub-3:30 runners, so a 3 second drug should be expected to greatly increase the number of sub-3:30 runners, by populating them with many sub-3:33 runners.
Comparing a 30-year span (1990-present) to a 5-year span (1985-1990) should also result in an expected increase.
I completely agree with your talent level argument: When we count number of sub-3:30 performances, we can highly correlate talent level with being African -- 28 out of 32 athletes are of African origin.
We cannot correlate sub-3:30 performances to known doping prevalence (i.e. Russia, Greece, Turkey, Belarus, Ukraine, Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, India, and the middle East).
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Where are all the doped top athletes from the rest of the world?
Go look at all the doping rings out of Spain, Italy had it's a fair share of dopers, as well as Portugal, France, India, and some of the middle-Eastern nations.
Who exactly are these sub-3:30 runners from Italy, Portugal, France, India, and the middle East?
The sub-3:30 runners from the rest of the world are from Norway, New Zealand, Great Britain, and Spain.
rekrunner wrote:
Tom Cochrane wrote:
Because they now like to spread all their dopers over all the distance events.
Aouita used to do all of that by himself.
Moroccans are comparatively worse at other distance events as the distance gets longer, and they have regressed since the retirement of El G.
Still awesome though. Especially when all doped up.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So these analysts know that performance enhancing drugs don't work - which is the test for whether using them is a rational decision?
Shifting the goalposts to suggest that because athletes are emotionally invested in their decisions doesn't make those decisions non-rational. What isn't rational is to believe in that for which there is no evidence. The evidence for years has been that drugs make a difference. What isn't rational is to think they don't - as you do.
Athletes rarely dope as a one-off speculative decision; it is typically a process undertaken over time; few would undertake the risk of being caught if there were no discernible rewards i.e. changes experienced in their performance relating to training, recovery or competition. They also choose to do this with the advice of coaches, trainers and physicians, who advice is "rationally based" - in other words, they understand how the drugs work, and they see results.
I wonder how many doped athletes volunteered to be the subjects for the research you refer to, amongst the thousands who have and do dope. I also wonder how the analysts determined that athletes may make decisions about doping that aren't rational, whereas the same claim isn't made in respect of their decisions about training, tactics, nutrition and even medical care. I guess it comes back to the analysts' assumption that drugs don't work - which they cannot know.
You always regress into sweeping generalizations regarding all drugs and all sports. I can generally agree with a sweeping notion that athletes in sport take drugs based on an expected probability of benefit. Can you make a case remaining laser focused on blood doping for distance events, or must we continue to endure vague notions and sweeping generalizations about generic PEDs in "sport", often propped up by unrelated analogies?
Speaking of shifting the goalposts, you said the strawman ideas that you attributed to me were baseless. Evidently some experts in the field find sufficient basis to examine the irrationality.
Speaking of shifting goalposts, you said in the real world, we make decisions on probabilities, and now you are focusing on what analysts "know" or "cannot know".
I understand your world view, but don't accept that you speak for the motivations of athletes who decide to dope, for the same reasons courts reject "hearsay". I know what you think in your own words, but your second-hand words are less relevant than others with direct knowledge or experience.
In any case, their motivations are a red-herring. My ideas and conclusions don't depend on the motivations of the athletes, but have always assumed significant doping among the fastest elite athletes.
Even assuming rationality, athletes do not determine if the benefit is placebo effect, or from other confounders. For the rational thinkers, it is a rationale based on an over-estimated value from a false association.
Contrary to your false strawman projections, my ideas about doping and performance are based on all of the evidence before me. They are reinforced by your complete failure to produce any tangible evidence to the contrary.
It is you who claim the decision by athletes to dope is non-rational. You can only maintain that if you can definitively show that doping doesn't not enhance performance. You can't. You then retreat to trying to bring the argument down to a specific form of doping, which is blood doping. You cannot prove that blood doping is ineffective either. In fact, the overwhelming evidence is that doping produces results. The argument is not whether some drugs are more effective than others, or not effective at all. Athletes have choices as to what they may use, and they use what works for them.
You therefore make claims you are unable to support. This is chiefly because you rely on very limited and selective data - because there is little of the kind that you approve of, which is academic research. Research that raises questions about accepted generalities does not disprove them; that is basic logic. You form conclusions from insufficient evidence. That is because you are unwilling to accept what so many dopers know, that they gain advantage from their doping - even if they don't oblige your so-called experts by participating in their research.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Athletes have choices as to what they may use, and they use what works for them.
All decision making is an ex ante-process where the outcome is not certain but a prediction. There is no menu where to choose a treatment x or y gives with the booat, but an expected boost might be enough rationale to use a certain products/methods if they are difficult to detect.
From purely game theoretical viewpoint, I would use a product that had a 20 % chance of boosting my performance by 1-2 % even if the most likely outcome (80 %) was zero, particularly if I knew my competitors were facing the same option.
Many people buy extra car insurance even if they are likely paying for nothing when they are not wrecking their BMWs.