Latest Kenyan doper brings into question all the rest…

It's uncanny how much your posts are pure projection.

In science, what we consider the truth can be recognized by controlled observations, and evidence and facts, and is temporary, until better observations disprove it.

Yes -- you rely on a long list of false authorities to essentially prop up a set of myths. None of these people are authorities on what is necessary to produce elite distance running performance, say better than the athletes of the mid-1980s. We do have one expert who contributes regularly on this site, whose experience and knowledge outweighs all your false authorities combined.

You may be in agreement with Canaday on one point, but neither of you provided any basis, so it is just one of many myths you need to believe, and you feel psychological comfort when someone else shares your unfounded beliefs.

As I said previously, it isn't necessary for anyone - Sage included - to prove you are clueless about doping. You supply the proof. Again and again.

I'm completely aware of most all the doping mythology. Unfortunately, these provide very little clues about elite performance. Your long list of false authorities similarly shed no light on elite performance.

"False authorities" - David Howman, Richard Pound, WADA, Renee Ann Shirley, Victor Conte, Jose Canseco, etc.

"True authorities" - rekrunner. That's it.

Yeah it's really strange to die on the "doping doesn't impact performance" hill. If one doesn't believe in science it's not going to be a productive conversation.

Though I disagree with them, I don't mind the naive posters who claim so and so is clean even when it's pretty obvious they are not, but just straight up believing that performance enhancing drugs don't enhance performance and posting the same drivel ten thousand times is odd.

So, you used him as an authority. Which other reason should there be to mention him at all? Someone you totaly disagree with on oher topics.

I'ver nothing to do with rekrunner, Dumbstrong.

But he is looking for arguments for anything, something you are totally unfamiliar with.

I don't use Sage as an authority. He's a known runner here who expressed a point of view that I happen to agree with. You are simply too ph******* stupid to understand the difference between sharing the same views on a subject and an appeal to authority.

What are their best marathon times, or their athletes' best marathon times?

As far as I know, none of these people are or were involved in any way with elite distance running performance.

They would be unqualified to say many of the things you say, and, this may surprise you, none of them actually say what you say about running performance. They do not support your many beliefs.

"believe in science"? There's a contradiction in terms. Science is not a religion to believe in.

Who says "doping doesn't impact performance"? I wouldn't. That's a rather broad statement that needs to consider the dope and the event and the current mental and physical state of the athlete.

Which science are you referring to, and what does it really say/show?

You are such a sad old man...

Sadly, yes. To add to the "False authorities": Schumacher, Parisotto, Salazar, Flanagan, Willis, Ramzi, Kiptum, Jeptoo, ....

"True authorities": Canova despite his personal involvement, evidently unsubstantiated claims, and alleged lack of experience with any (!) PEDs.

Why did you mention him, Dumbstrong?

Actually, I'm a cheerful old man. And the response of such as you adds to my cheer.

Because it's fun to see a known running identity describe rekrunner as clueless.

I'm being contradicted by ignorance and dishonest.

There is a false suggestion here that all these new names are saying any of the same things that are often said here, about elite performers and performances, by Armstronglivs and many other anonymous nobodies, and/or perhaps providing evidence for such statements.

There is a further false suggestion that I don't agree with what these coaches/athletes/scientists do say, within the narrow context which they were said. But when it is not evidence based, I may still agree or disagree, and will consider it their personal belief presented without evidence, needing and wanting evidence.

Ashenden/Parisotto said many things in peer reviewed papers, backed with evidence, that I agree with, within that limited context. In these papers, they often express caution that such statements should not be projected onto elite performances of elite athletes. They said a few things in sensational news stories, about the IAAF's actions, and lack of actions, that appear to have no possible evidentiary basis, and they contradicted the cautious approach they usually took in their peer reviewed statements, according to published findings from WADA experts reviewing all the evidence. That whole experience only undermined their previously earned credibility, highlighting the necessity of peer review for any statements they make.

One of the things that they did say, based on 12 years of blood data in a large database, is that blood doping suspicion for Kenyans and Ethiopians, was significantly below the worldwide average. This finding appears to contradict a popular, yet baseless, belief that Kenyan and Ethiopian performances were due to doping with EPO. Yet anonymous people here often contradict these "authorities", and their evidence based results, and still say to this day in many threads whenever Kenyans and Ethiopians set a new record, that it is due to EPO.

Schumacher famously guesses that performance benefit "can be up to 1 minute" over 10K, or "up to 3%". Sure it "can be up to". It also might not be. This "authority" is still at the speculation stage, lacking the required evidence to explain what truly happens at the upper extremes with elite performances. This is because his basis is not real experience with the combination of doping and elite performance, but rather studies with small sample sizes on "well-trained" runners which caution against projecting the results onto elite athletes.

Salazar wrote in a thought experiment about morality, "I believe ...", again without any real evidence. This is precisely what I say too -- athletes/coaches "believe". It's also not clear that Salazar ever doped any athletes with any banned substances (outside of himself at the end of his career, after the "Duel in the Sun", and his family in an infamous experiment), or that this doping led to elite performances.

Without any specific quotes, I'm not really sure what these other athletes have said about doping's alleged benefit for elite performances, or about questioning all Kenyan performances on the basis of a few that got caught, but what remains lacking is the evidentiary basis for any such statements, if they exist.

Canova has experience with producing top performances, and what it takes to produce it, giving him a superior advantage over all the names both you and Armstronglivs listed, combined. Those who raise questions here about whether his experience includes banned substances, are anonymous non-authorities with no obvious experience in either doping or elite performance -- with their own personal psychological agenda of clinging to baseless myths.

As a one time national coach for Italy, Canova does have intimate knowledge of the results of Italy's blood doping, before it was banned. It had mixed results. As a recent coach for China, he developed some experience about how altitude impacts blood values, and how it was (or wasn't) connected to performance improvements. Again, the results were mixed, with no apparent strong correlation. The most improved in performance were not the ones with the biggest blood changes.

You may have your own personal reasons to doubt Canova, but your non-authoritive doubt does not strengthen any baseless speculation to the contrary.

How sad, and ironic, that neither of you provided information or knowledge.

No, you're not.

You know what is also fun? To see a much bigger identity in the running world, Renato Canova, describe you as a donkey.