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

Actually he does have data from doped athletes.

Now let's get down to the nittygritty

Do you think you think you know more about oxygen kinetics than Jack Daniels?

It seems a little difficult for you to grasp this but you can draw no inference from my lack of interest in your "80/20" question other than lack of interest.

Whether I would dope in the circumstances you describe is irrelevant, as what I would choose is not at issue, and to speculate whether athletes would dope if the odds are largely against their improvement is also irrelevant because it is already established that doping is effective - and not just for the few. It isn't an "80/20" question, as I have previously indicated.

Your attempted distinction in attitudes concerning training and doping is also unfounded, as you don't know whether athletes have more expectations about training than doping. Expectations aren't necessarily determined by the investment of time and effort. If I take a drug for medical reasons I would expect it would benefit me; yet it takes no time and effort to take the drug. So might an athlete think the same, who takes drugs to improve their performance.

how does that work? wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It took a long while to say it, but you don't have data from doped athletes on which to base your apparently baseless claims about the effects of doping on performance. Thank you.

Actually he does have data from doped athletes.

Now let's get down to the nittygritty

Do you think you think you know more about oxygen kinetics than Jack Daniels?

No, he doesn't. They dont participate in the studies he relies on.

I am not interested in what you think is the nitty gritty. It is your singular obsession.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

My services are offered for free but if you feel they are worthy of remuneration then by all means I am happy to accept your donations.

That is about what they are worth.

Jealousy. No one's offering to pay you (although I am sure many would be prepared to pay you not to comment.)

Armstronglivs wrote:

how does that work? wrote:

Actually he does have data from doped athletes.

Now let's get down to the nittygritty

Do you think you think you know more about oxygen kinetics than Jack Daniels?

No, he doesn't. They dont participate in the studies he relies on.

I am not interested in what you think is the nitty gritty. It is your singular obsession.

Yes he does. Marco Pantani, Jan Ulrich, Lance Armstrong etcetera excretera

But do you think you know more about oxygen kinetics than Jack Daniels?

Here's a song I wrote about Jon and Gary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqUa_G1h3pw

how does that work? wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

No, he doesn't. They dont participate in the studies he relies on.

I am not interested in what you think is the nitty gritty. It is your singular obsession.

Yes he does. Marco Pantani, Jan Ulrich, Lance Armstrong etcetera excretera

But do you think you know more about oxygen kinetics than Jack Daniels?

I know the same amount.

Do you know who Jack Daniels is?

how does that work? wrote:

Do you know who Jack Daniels is?

Yes.

What happened to your Andrew Jones Messianic obsession? Was it the beets that killed it?

There is a double standard here from your part, because you constantly speculate that the odds must be 100 % / 0 % in order for them to dope. I just think about alternative scenarios that are reasonable from the viewpoint of costs, incentives, expected future income streams and psychological profit and game theory. I don't claim or know that all real world products/methods have odds as low as 20 %/ 80 %.

Surprisingly there is on general level no disagreement here except that you can't interfere the benefit at all from the fact that many athletes dope because alternative scenarios can maintain the doping culture. I do think the key doping products are effective for most of the athletes and very effective for some of them.

If 100 % of athletes do activity X with a higher cost but less do activity Y which has a lower cost, they have more expectation in the benefits of X vs. Y, that is the tendency.

Yes, it takes a little effort to take certain drugs. Thank you for supporting my initial argument, that it can be worthwhile for athletes to use some doping products even with very uncertain odds.

Armstronglivs wrote:

"Not Everyone Responds. Even if you dismiss all these concerns, it’s still well-known that some people respond well to altitude training, while others don’t. In the 1997 study, they divided the results of their 39 subjects into 17 responders, who improved their 5,000-meter times by an average 36.6 seconds; 7 neutral responders, who didn’t see any significant change; and 15 non-responders, who actually got slower by an average of 24.0 seconds. As Siebenmann points out, that’s not a non-response, it’s a negative response. And if you’re an elite athlete, 17 out of 39 doesn’t seem like great odds."

Wait a minute - so altitude training isn't everything it's cracked up to be? But isn't that what rekrunner tries to say about EPO?

Altitude training is only cracked up to be like EPO, but legal.

We can expect the same from EPO: high responders, low responders, no responders, and even negative responders.

In fact, the Scottish/Kenyan runners also included non-responders, and one negative responder.

Did you read the study? These responders/non-responders come from 3 groups: hi-hi, hi-lo, and something in between. In terms of response, the hi-lo groups was best, the hi-hi group was worst, and the in-between was in-between.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I dont really bother to read your posts now. English is beyond you. So is everything else.

Were you really reading them before? What will change? Judging by the strawmen you keep building, I never get a good sense that you are reading things to full comprehension. Not just my posts, but some of the links you post which just seem to make my case stronger.

Case in point... You don't read my posts with comprehension.

I have the data, but you don't.

You say "my claims", but you still don't seem to know what my claims are.

You're not sure of your claims either. Except that you are sure that you're not sure.

Tom Cochrane wrote:

You're not sure of your claims either. Except that you are sure that you're not sure.

I am sure of my claims - I just re-listed some of the main ones.

Where uncertainty exists, I'm also sure that you are not sure.

rekrunner wrote:

Tom Cochrane wrote:

You're not sure of your claims either. Except that you are sure that you're not sure.

I am sure of my claims - I just re-listed some of the main ones.

Where uncertainty exists, I'm also sure that you are not sure.

I have no uncertainty. The results are conclusive.

Tom Cochrane wrote:

how does that work? wrote:

Do you know who Jack Daniels is?

Yes.

What happened to your Andrew Jones Messianic obsession? Was it the beets that killed it?

If you can't beet 'em join 'em. Are you familiar with his recent work? It beets me how brojos haven't got the memo?

Tom Cochrane wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I am sure of my claims - I just re-listed some of the main ones.

Where uncertainty exists, I'm also sure that you are not sure.

I have no uncertainty. The results are conclusive.

The uncertainty is not in the results, but the cause of the results, and to what extent doping played any role in causing that result.

how does that work? wrote:

Tom Cochrane wrote:

Yes.

What happened to your Andrew Jones Messianic obsession? Was it the beets that killed it?

If you can't beet 'em join 'em. Are you familiar with his recent work? It beets me how brojos haven't got the memo?

Yes. He is devoting his time to trying to duplicate Nitrous for a race car. Because he knows that extra always helps the engine.