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

rekrunner wrote:

Tom Cochrane wrote:

Only the ones who get caught.

Bottom line is you keep proving Armstronglivs wrong.

By being right? I can see you thinking that makes sense.

Once again -- is your answer "yes" or "no" to the specific (80 % / 20 %) question?

If you are unwilling to answer to it if anwering in affirmative ruins your suggestions, that is one type of answer as such.

It can be that dopers believe (you'd say "know") that there is a 100 % possilibility of benefit, but the doping culture will likely exist even with significantly worse odds because the margins are so low. And just to clarify, I don't believe that doping use would remain prevalent if all doping was just placebo / based on faith and superstition.

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.

If your claim can be sustained that "altitude training tends to undermine the effects of EPO" this would have required a study of altitude-trained athletes who used EPO. Perhaps you could point us to such a study. I eagerly await your citation.

On the other hand, there is this less than effusive endorsement of the benefits of altitude training.

But the evidence suggests that this live-high and train-low theory does work, though the effects are relatively small. There is also an interesting phenemenon of “responders” and “non-responders”, with some people showing improvements of about a minute over a 5km time-trial after a 4-week training period, while others show no improvement, or even get slower. So the jury is still out, scientifically at least. But the fact that so many athletes swear by it is a sign that there is something there, even if it is just a placebo effect.

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.

He shoulda been a cyclist.

Don't believe these sky high numbers.

I'm not saying you do though.

rekrunner wrote:

Tom Cochrane wrote:

I did not

Now you're going off on an Africans are inherently more talented tangent.

Duh. But dope still works for nearly everyone.

I already agreed with you before that "it works".

In the specific case of blood doping, how well "it works" is often over-estimated, according to two meta-studies.

Legal methods like hi-lo altitude training also "works".

How does it work? How does it circumvent thermoregulation?

Was Newton wrong?

Aragon wrote:

Once again -- is your answer "yes" or "no" to the specific (80 % / 20 %) question?

If you are unwilling to answer to it if anwering in affirmative ruins your suggestions, that is one type of answer as such.

It can be that dopers believe (you'd say "know") that there is a 100 % possilibility of benefit, but the doping culture will likely exist even with significantly worse odds because the margins are so low. And just to clarify, I don't believe that doping use would remain prevalent if all doping was just placebo / based on faith and superstition.

Your question as you have stated it is irrelevant, as I have previously indicated. This isn't game theory. The issue is whether there is a rational basis for athletes to believe doping will improve performance - there is - and whether this is borne out by the sheer numbers who choose to dope (and the fact that organizations like WADA exist to fight it it). It is.

Perhaps you could explain how a belief in the efficacy of doping is any different from a belief in the efficacy of training?

rekrunner wrote:

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

Well...he's faster than Willis (13:20), Kiprop (13:48), Higuero (13:22) & Baala - some of the finalists at Beijing.

rekrunner wrote:

Tom Cochrane wrote:

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.

In your ineffable stupidity, the point I made previously that you fail to comprehend is that you have no personal acquaintance with any doped athletes on which to base your claims that they are only guessing that doping will help them - and it won't really. Neither do your esteemed researchers.

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.[/quote]

So there you go again, arguing the non-rationality of athletes who choose to dope, while making a claim about the relative merits or otherwise of EPO that is not based in any way on data derived from the experiences of altitude-trained athletes who have also used EPO, without which your assertion is merely specious speculation. So very "rational" of you.

rekrunner wrote:

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.

Then how did Kiprop, Baala & Ali lose to Ramzi when Ali has slightly better speed (1:44.02) while Kiprop (1:43.15) & Baala (1:43.15) have much better speed than Ramzi? (1:44.05)

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

So there you go again, arguing the non-rationality of athletes who choose to dope, while making a claim about the relative merits or otherwise of EPO that is not based in any way on data derived from the experiences of altitude-trained athletes who have also used EPO, without which your assertion is merely specious speculation. So very "rational" of you.[/quote]

Armstronglivs, the great oxygen kinetics expert.

It is is just a question about incentives and expected benefits, and -- from your unwillingness to answer -- surprisingly low and uncertain predicted benefits can lead many athletes to dope. The game theory component is when you add to the equation how you would act knowing that your competitors would face the same option.

The athletes have many reasons to believe that doping will improve their performance. It is a non sequitur to think that it will improve the performance of most of them.

There is essentially no difference because both doping and training are activities that take away some resources for uncertain future returns. The fact that 100 % of elite athletes have put a lot of effort in time (even over 1000 hours/year), financial resources (shoes, HR monitors, equipment etc isn't free particularly for beginners) and subjective discomfort (pain, fatigue, injuries) to training should give some indication how much they have faith in training vs. doping. It is also telling that there are many high caliber athletes who have trained but not doped, but none who have doped but not trained. (There are a few talented low-trainers described in David Epstein's book The Sports Gene)

The cost in terms of time and pain that doping use takes is close to zero, and even the monetary cost can be negligible when compared to the extra future revenues one gets from even a remotely possible but uncertain 1-2 % boost.

I wonder if Armstronglivs gets paid per troll post or per ad hominem?

Armstronglivs wrote:

As I indicated, a belief in the effectiveness of doping is as much a "belief" as is yours in the efficacy of Lydiard training. You failure to provide evidence that shows there is nothing more to doping than mere belief has gone on for the last 50 pages.

OK -- a belief in the effectiveness of doping is as much a "belief" as the efficacy of Lydiard training. I'm OK with that.

We were not talking about the athletes' belief in doping for 50 pages, so I didn't realize evidence was required.

Tom Cochrane wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Bottom line is you keep proving Armstronglivs wrong.

By being right? I can see you thinking that makes sense.

Yes -- everyone knows all doped athletes - that were caught.

High-Octane Dopers wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

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:

They introduce risk when altitude is already providing high RBCs and benefit -- doesn't seem particularly smart. Is this what is considered rational?

Are you making my argument for me?

1 minute for 5km is 6.25% for the 16-minute runner. That's more than the Scots and the Kenyans on 4 weeks of EPO.

High-Octane Dopers wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

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

Well...he's faster than Willis (13:20), Kiprop (13:48), Higuero (13:22) & Baala - some of the finalists at Beijing.

You said "superb" endurance.

High-Octane Dopers wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

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

Well...he's faster than Willis (13:20), Kiprop (13:48), Higuero (13:22) & Baala - some of the finalists at Beijing.

Also faster than Coe, Ovett, Cram, Walker, Scott.

And Foster.