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

But not as well. The main benefit of altitude trips is to dodge testers.

how does that work? wrote:

High-Octane Dopers wrote:

Why?

Because he had the natural speed, a 70 VO2 max and superb endurance.

Ramzi had a VO2max of 85 at peak fitness & also has superb endurance. He holds the 17th fastest alltime best (3:29.14) is third fastest Moroccan behind Iguider & El G.

I agree with your use of "blaa blaa" - it reflects much of what you have to say.

Semantic arguments you use of the kind that rekrunner employs, such as saying all decisions, including doping, are "speculative", misuses a term that is typically applied to that for which the outcome is highly uncertain, rather than that for which the outcome can be reliably predicted through appropriate evaluation. I suggest the evidence suggests the latter rather than the former for doping. Though there can be uncertainty about the exact effect of a given drug there is enough of a track record with many of them now to know that they will have a performance enhancing effect of some kind. The only thing that is speculative is how much of the doping iceberg is concealed, and how much difference doping will make for the individual athlete. The athletes who dope will know that far better than any ivory tower researcher, who has never spoken to any of them.

So what if there can be placebo effects? That doesn't logically suggest that doping may be no more effective than a placebo. Indeed a placebo effect may be because users know that doping confers benefits. A billion Euro black market in doping wouldn't be able to be sustained by a mere belief that doping works.

The rest of your comment merely underscores my previous point that the exact effect doping will have on performance cannot be known, even though it is known there will be an affect. But the same also applies to training. Yet only a fool would say training does not have an affect and indeed may only be a "placebo".

My essential point is the the practice of doping has developed over the years into a very sophisticated industry and that is because athletes (and their coaches, trainers and physicians) know that it will give them a benefit even if the precise measure of that benefit will not necessarily be known. So - yes - in that context, prevalence in this case assumes effectiveness. If it were not so then so many athletes have adhered to a practise for decades that is no more soundly based than that of a Q'Anon conspiracy. I don't happen to think sportsmen are a bunch of deluded nutjobs.

Tom Cochrane wrote:

But not as well. The main benefit of altitude trips is to dodge testers.

Using the same measure as used in the Kenyan/Scottish study, a group of hi-lo men improved 6.5% -- this is even more than the Scots (5.6%) and the Kenyans (4.7%).

High altitude also serves to undermine the effects of EPO, rendering EPO partly, if not completely, superfluous -- another reason, and basis, to think that athletes are not particularly well-informed or rational.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It is apt that you use the term "believe" there, as you typically apply it to mean that for which there isn't the evidence to maintain it as fact.

My usage of terms are generally apt.

As you can see, I was asked a question about my belief.

How I mean things and what you interpret are often two different things.

Belief can have evidence supporting it, such as a belief in Lydiard training.

And a belief in the effectiveness of doping. But you won't know that because neither you nor your experts know any doped athletes. They have the evidence you will never have.

High-Octane Dopers wrote:

how does that work? wrote:

Because he had the natural speed, a 70 VO2 max and superb endurance.

Ramzi had a VO2max of 85 at peak fitness & also has superb endurance. He holds the 17th fastest alltime best (3:29.14) is third fastest Moroccan behind Iguider & El G.

85? He should have run much faster.

Strong endurance? His 5K is 13:10, which doesn't show superb endurance.

Maybe EPO raised his VO2max, but hindered his performance.

how does that work? wrote:

High-Octane Dopers wrote:

Are you one of the 43% that believe El G was clean?

Do you have any credible information to accuse him with?

Nice obfuscating Jon. On page 45, I provided circumstantial evidence for why I believe he's highly suspicious of doping (e.g., WR set in the EPO abuse era, record has stood for over 20 yrs, no EPO test when the record was set, 4 out of the 7 fastest Moroccan 1500 men, including his training partner & pacesetter, have been busted for EPO).

And thee #1 reason why he's suspicious:

Armstronglivs wrote:

And a belief in the effectiveness of doping. But you won't know that because neither you nor your experts know any doped athletes. They have the evidence you will never have.

So we are agreed then -- it is just a belief.

Do you know any doped elite distance runners, comparable to El G? Do you have this evidence? Because your failure to provide such evidence is going on 50 pages (in this thread alone).

High-Octane Dopers wrote:

how does that work? wrote:

Because he had the natural speed, a 70 VO2 max and superb endurance.

Ramzi had a VO2max of 85 at peak fitness & also has superb endurance. He holds the 17th fastest alltime best (3:29.14) is third fastest Moroccan behind Iguider & El G.

Jon means that El G had a natural VO2 max of 70 if you get my drift.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

And a belief in the effectiveness of doping. But you won't know that because neither you nor your experts know any doped athletes. They have the evidence you will never have.

So we are agreed then -- it is just a belief.

Do you know any doped elite distance runners, comparable to El G? Do you have this evidence? Because your failure to provide such evidence is going on 50 pages (in this thread alone).

Yes. Rashid Ramzi. In fact Ramzi was the the guy who ended the streak. When he started doping and took ten seconds off his previous best.

rekrunner wrote:

High-Octane Dopers wrote:

Ramzi had a VO2max of 85 at peak fitness & also has superb endurance. He holds the 17th fastest alltime best (3:29.14) is third fastest Moroccan behind Iguider & El G.

85? He should have run much faster.

Strong endurance? His 5K is 13:10, which doesn't show superb endurance.

Maybe EPO raised his VO2max, but hindered his performance.

A ten second drop is not "hindered"

rekrunner wrote:

85? He should have run much faster.

How much faster? Do you have the VO2max of the 16 other guys that have gone faster?

rekrunner wrote:

Strong endurance? His 5K is 13:10, which doesn't show superb endurance.

Yes indeed...strong endurance for the 1500. Last time I checked, the aerobic energy system contribution for the 1500 (men) is 77%.

rekrunner wrote:

Maybe EPO raised his VO2max, but hindered his performance.

Hindered his performance? Lol. Double gold at Helsinki where he ran his PB in the 800 (has anyone doubled since Helsinki?). Literally blew the field away at Beijing which had world class studs such as Willis, Baala, Choge, etc. Only doper Kiprop was able to close the gap with a last second charge. Btw, do you have any evidence that Ramzi would have won this race clean?

Tom Cochrane wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

So we are agreed then -- it is just a belief.

Do you know any doped elite distance runners, comparable to El G? Do you have this evidence? Because your failure to provide such evidence is going on 50 pages (in this thread alone).

Yes. Rashid Ramzi. In fact Ramzi was the the guy who ended the streak. When he started doping and took ten seconds off his previous best.

Well if that is what Armstronglivs means by "neither you nor your experts know any doped athletes", he is plainly wrong -- again. I know them all.

High-Octane Dopers wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

85? He should have run much faster.

How much faster? Do you have the VO2max of the 16 other guys that have gone faster?

rekrunner wrote:

Strong endurance? His 5K is 13:10, which doesn't show superb endurance.

Yes indeed...strong endurance for the 1500. Last time I checked, the aerobic energy system contribution for the 1500 (men) is 77%.

rekrunner wrote:

Maybe EPO raised his VO2max, but hindered his performance.

Hindered his performance? Lol. Double gold at Helsinki where he ran his PB in the 800 (has anyone doubled since Helsinki?). Literally blew the field away at Beijing which had world class studs such as Willis, Baala, Choge, etc. Only doper Kiprop was able to close the gap with a last second charge. Btw, do you have any evidence that Ramzi would have won this race clean?

A Daniels VDOT of 85 predicts a 3:23 for 1500m and a 12:37 for 5000m. He ran 3:29 and 13:10.

77% aerobic means 23% non-aerobic. How is that relevant to anything? (Rhetorical question -- it is not relevant.)

Winning 800m and 1500m suggests better speed than endurance.

Only the ones who get caught.

Tom Cochrane wrote:

A ten second drop is not "hindered"

Why do you think 10 seconds is connected to EPO?

There is a gap in your thinking.

Tom Cochrane wrote:

Only the ones who get caught.

Bottom line is you keep proving Armstronglivs wrong.

rekrunner wrote:

Tom Cochrane wrote:

A ten second drop is not "hindered"

Why do you think 10 seconds is connected to EPO?

There is a gap in your thinking.

Because when he took it he dropped that amount of time.

rekrunner wrote:

Tom Cochrane wrote:

But not as well. The main benefit of altitude trips is to dodge testers.

Using the same measure as used in the Kenyan/Scottish study, a group of hi-lo men improved 6.5% -- this is even more than the Scots (5.6%) and the Kenyans (4.7%).

High altitude also serves to undermine the effects of EPO, rendering EPO partly, if not completely, superfluous -- another reason, and basis, to think that athletes are not particularly well-informed or rational.

No...dopers use altitude training to help explain the fluctuations in their ABP as a result of increased Hb mass from the administration of rHuEPO:

"The benefit of training at altitude to enhance exercise performance remains equivocal although the most widely accepted approach is one where the athletes live and perform lower-intensity running at approximately 2300 m with high-intensity training at approximately 1250 m. The idea is that this method maintains maximal augmentations in total hemoglobin mass while reducing the performance impairment of high-intensity sessions performed at moderate altitude and thus preventing any detraining that can occur when athletes live and train at moderate altitude. This training regimen, however, is not universally accepted and some argue that the performance enhancement is due to placebo and training camp effects. Altitude training may affect an athlete's hematological parameters in ways similar to those observed following blood doping. Current methods of detection appear insufficient to differentiate between altitude training and blood doping making the interpretation of an athlete's biological passport difficult. Further research is required to determine the optimal method for altitude training and to enhance current detection methods to be able to differentiate better blood doping and altitude exposure."