rekrunner wrote:
Tom Cochrane wrote:
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.
Only for you and Jon. Nearly everyone else is swifter on the uptake.
Estimate El Gerrouj's maximal oxygen uptake during his 2000m Wold Record?
how does that work? wrote:
Estimate El Gerrouj's maximal oxygen uptake during his 2000m Wold Record?
Not relevant. An estimate is not any sort of data to make a point or counterpoint.
Whatever he used, he used the required amount faster than anyone else ever has.
You must be sipping the JD rather than reading up on JD.
Tom Cochrane wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
Estimate El Gerrouj's maximal oxygen uptake during his 2000m Wold Record?
Not relevant. An estimate is not any sort of data to make a point or counterpoint.
Whatever he used, he used the required amount faster than anyone else ever has.
You must be sipping the JD rather than reading up on JD.
In the entire history of letsrun.com, there has not been one credible scrap of evidence that he doped.
And you have not demonstrated any knowledge of oxygen kinetics.
Yet you claim to know as much as Jack Daniels.
Doped or not he still needs to use the required amount faster than anyone ever has.
I know this, whether Jack does or not.
Or you.
Tom Cochrane wrote:
Doped or not he still needs to use the required amount faster than anyone ever has.
I know this, whether Jack does or not.
Or you.
Required amount of what? Oxygen?
Do you understand 'minute volume'? Do you understand vVO2max? Do you know anything about oxygen kinetics?
Tom Cochrane wrote:
Doped or not he still needs to use the required amount faster than anyone ever has.
I know this, whether Jack does or not.
Or you.
Required amount of what? Oxygen?
Do you understand 'minute volume'? Do you understand vVO2max? Do you know anything about oxygen kinetics?
Aragon wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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...
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 %.
Armstronglivs wrote:
...because it is already established that doping is effective
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.
Armstronglivs wrote:
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 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.
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
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.
Your talk about odds is a false argument. For a start I dont claim that doping needs return a 100% success rate for there to be a rational inducement to dope. But it isn't anything like the 20% success rate that you posit. I think you effectively acknowledge that.
I think the main reason athletes will dope is that they not only hope to benefit, they experience that benefit; your various alternative rationale for their doping is unnecessary to explain the extent of the practice. That doping has existed in sport for so many years and has greatly increased in that time are grounds enough to infer that it delivers results for those who choose to dope. But there is other evidence that also supports that, from what is known of how doping products work to the experiences and performances of those we have known have doped, like Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong, Ramzi at al.
I think you are trying to draw too many fine points to make your argument. Essentially the question is this: do you think the gains athletes are likely to make from doping constitute a good enough reason for why most will dope? The gains don't have to be substantial, because even small improvements at a higher level will have significance in a sport where the margins at the top are small.
Athletes rely on training to reach their best level but if others are at the same level with similar training then doping offers the possibility of gaining an edge - or conversely, simply keeping up with the competition that is doped. The result is that the whole field continues to be lifted and we see times that only the very best could achieve become the benchmark for the pack: in my view the difference is doping; training hasn't changed that much in 50 years.
how does that work? wrote:
Tom Cochrane wrote:
Doped or not he still needs to use the required amount faster than anyone ever has.
I know this, whether Jack does or not.
Or you.
Required amount of what? Oxygen?
Do you understand 'minute volume'? Do you understand vVO2max? Do you know anything about oxygen kinetics?
Do you have anything except your weirdly obsessive questions?
rekrunner wrote:
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.
But you can get more out of EPO, which is why even altitude-trained athletes will take it. (Before you waste time claiming that isn't so you will need to point to a study that shows elite altitude-trained athletes made no gains from doping. I dont think so).
how does that work? wrote:
Tom Cochrane wrote:
Doped or not he still needs to use the required amount faster than anyone ever has.
I know this, whether Jack does or not.
Or you.
Required amount of what? Oxygen?
Do you understand 'minute volume'? Do you understand vVO2max? Do you know anything about oxygen kinetics?
You don't.
rekrunner 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.
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.
No one reads your posts with comprehension. They aren't written to be understood.
rekrunner wrote:
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.
It isn't necessary to read them. They don't mean anything.
Armstronglivs wrote:
But you can get more out of EPO, which is why even altitude-trained athletes will take it. (Before you waste time claiming that isn't so you will need to point to a study that shows elite altitude-trained athletes made no gains from doping. I dont think so).
You didn't answer if you read the study you pointed me to.
So in your imaginary world where you make the the rules and facts up as you go, you have no burden to say "but you can get more out of EPO", but I have to point to a study before I can respond?
Before I say "yes" or "no", I would be happy to consider the merits of your unproven hypothesis when you are able to produce any outside reference in any form that has looked at this question and collected data by performing controlled observations.
With no such external reference, it is just another scoop of BS on top of the mountain you've been building for 50 years.
Tom Cochrane wrote:
Only for you and Jon. Nearly everyone else is swifter on the uptake.
You mistake swiftness for gullibility. Lemmings jump swiftly off a cliff.
Armstronglivs wrote:
No one reads your posts with comprehension. They aren't written to be understood.
Since you never provide external authoritative references, you can only speak for yourself.
You don't read or understand my posts so you build strawmen and poke at them.
Armstronglivs wrote:
It isn't necessary to read them. They don't mean anything.
You should both read and understand what you purport to argue against. Otherwise you look silly debunking claims I don't make.
The posts of all anonymous non-experts don't mean anything -- thus the importance of authoritative references to give weight to otherwise non-substantial posts.
I don't actually posit any "success rate" at all, because doping isn't a menu from which to choose method X or Y with its known odds, but all the stages of the decision making process is filled with uncertainty. I only posit that a perception of even mediocre rate of success with a possibility of a modest boost gives likely enough incentives to many elite level athletes to dope.
In addition, I maintain that your statements such as "athletes have choises as to what they may use, and use what works for them" are limited because it is even likely that sportspeople use substances that ex post facto do not "really" work for them physiologically (at all or not every time).
It is interesting that you acknowledge that "a placebo effect may be because users know that doping confers benefits". Substitute the "know" with the more realistic "have a perception", and you have one answer to why athletes use (also) substances that have next-to-no real effect, because real-life athletes can only more-or-less accurately estimate the causal link between their performance and their PED use. Therefore it is not even irrational to continue to use certain doping substances even if there was uncertainty about the causal link between performance and doping or even with an impression that there is no connection whatsoever.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Your talk about odds is a false argument. For a start I dont claim that doping needs return a 100% success rate for there to be a rational inducement to dope. But it isn't anything like the 20% success rate that you posit. I think you effectively acknowledge that.
I think the main reason athletes will dope is that they not only hope to benefit, they experience that benefit; your various alternative rationale for their doping is unnecessary to explain the extent of the practice. That doping has existed in sport for so many years and has greatly increased in that time are grounds enough to infer that it delivers results for those who choose to dope. But there is other evidence that also supports that, from what is known of how doping products work to the experiences and performances of those we have known have doped, like Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong, Ramzi at al.
I think you are trying to draw too many fine points to make your argument. Essentially the question is this: do you think the gains athletes are likely to make from doping constitute a good enough reason for why most will dope? The gains don't have to be substantial, because even small improvements at a higher level will have significance in a sport where the margins at the top are small.
Athletes rely on training to reach their best level but if others are at the same level with similar training then doping offers the possibility of gaining an edge - or conversely, simply keeping up with the competition that is doped. The result is that the whole field continues to be lifted and we see times that only the very best could achieve become the benchmark for the pack: in my view the difference is doping; training hasn't changed that much in 50 years.
Great points. I would emphasize your point that athletes who decide to dope not only to benefit but actually do - experiencing an obvious performance improvement that goes above & beyond what they could have achieved training naturally.
Recall the 1984 Olympics where the U.S. Cycling team performed exceptionally well winning 9 medals including an unprecedented 5 on the track, generating quite a buzz among the sport. It was later determined that the team had engaged in blood transfusions, which was legal at the time but would be banned the following year:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Olympic_Games#1984_Los_Angeles"The American cyclist Pat McDonough later admitted to "blood doping" at the 1984 Los Angeles Games.[31] Following the games it was revealed that one-third of the U.S. cycling team had received blood transfusions before the games, where they won nine medals, their first medal success since the 1912 Summer Olympics.[31] "Blood doping" was banned by the IOC in 1985 (at the time of the Olympics it was not banned), though no test existed for it at the time.[31]"
And recall U.S. Olympic physician Dr Ziegler who was dismayed as to why the Soviet Union weight lifting team cleaned house in the 1954 Olympics. Was it new training techniques? A better nutritional program. Better coaches?...everyone thought. Well...Ziegler investigated by talking with the Soviets who disclosed that they using "synthetic testosterone" - believed to be first usage by any nation at that time. Ziegler's response was that "athletes needed a chemical edge to remain competitive." It was just a few years later when Ziegler was instrumental in creating the world's first anabolic steroid; Dianabol, and the world of sports was never the same.
Aragon wrote:
I don't actually posit any "success rate" at all, because doping isn't a menu from which to choose method X or Y with its known odds, but all the stages of the decision making process is filled with uncertainty. I only posit that a perception of even mediocre rate of success with a possibility of a modest boost gives likely enough incentives to many elite level athletes to dope.
In addition, I maintain that your statements such as "athletes have choises as to what they may use, and use what works for them" are limited because it is even likely that sportspeople use substances that ex post facto do not "really" work for them physiologically (at all or not every time).
It is interesting that you acknowledge that "a placebo effect may be because users know that doping confers benefits". Substitute the "know" with the more realistic "have a perception", and you have one answer to why athletes use (also) substances that have next-to-no real effect, because real-life athletes can only more-or-less accurately estimate the causal link between their performance and their PED use. Therefore it is not even irrational to continue to use certain doping substances even if there was uncertainty about the causal link between performance and doping or even with an impression that there is no connection whatsoever.
Your reply is merely speculation, that athletes would be willing to dope on the slimmest likelihood that it would be benefit them. It is speculation because doping has advanced far beyond a runner experimenting with arsenic in the 1908 London marathon.
Contrary to what you think, athletes do have a "menu" of drugs that can affect them in a variety of specific ways. These are developed medically with a high degree of scientific and pharmacological knowledge behind them. Doping is an industry - big business - with a high degree of expertise involved. Athletes typically are advised by doctors, trainers and coaches in what they use. They aren't speculating - as you are - they are applying methods that have been found to have worked. It has been officially estimated there are over a hundred illegal substances that are currently undetectable.
It has become child's play to effect improvements in strength, speed and stamina; the new frontier in doping is increasing the speed of neurophysical pathways improving mental speed, focus and agility, and genetic doping is seen as the prescription for the future.
The athletes dont have to know how any of this works, any more than you have to know how the drugs work that the doctor prescribes for your health - all you need to know is that in most cases you will get results - and medical conditions are harder to fix than to enhance basic physical attributes, as innumerable bodybuilders show.
If it was 1908 - or even the 1940's - I might agree with you, but comparatively speaking, when it comes to doping we long ago put a man on the moon.