rekrunner wrote:
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.
Well, you would know all about slowness. A Galapagos tortoise of slowness.
Well if swiftness is gullibility, thanks for the high praise.
Armstronglivs wrote:
... 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.
Sounds too good to be true.
Let's not muddy the waters by talking about the global doping industry, or non-aerobic sports like bodybuilding, or steroid benefits for women.
If blood doping is so powerful and methods so sophisticated, and results virtually guaranteed, how is does it make any sense that John Walker's 2000 performance from 1976 is still relevant, all time? If we look across the board, in the more frequently run, from 800m to the marathon, how does it make any sense that American, European, Asian, and Oceanian men failed to make any impact on the sport while East Africans and North Africans routinely could, relative to performances from the heyday of the '70s and '80s? Especially in the '90s, before WADA, and before blood doping detection existed. If it were as simple as taking EPO at altitude to get double the benefits, surely many non-African athletes from wealthy countries with the means to hide doping would have replicated what Lance and other cyclists did for decades, hiding and training in the mountains.
Surely the big business doping industry did not target just poor rural nations in East Africa, and small countries like Morocco, while ignoring all of the rich countries, where the demand for doping must have greatly increased in the '90s, during the rise of the African-era.
Since the historical performances are etched in stone, arguing widespread prevalence, and guaranteed effect effectively contradict each other.
Your soporific ramblibgs about the current state of science is a straw man-argument and beside my point. I haven't taken any position on it nor have I claimed that every doping decision is based on "slimmest likelihood" of benefit.
But yes, by a definition, the decision to dope is an a priori decision based on the predicted costs and predicted benefits as is every decision. Evidently some decisions are on more solid ground than others, but the claim that the "known" benefit of a given PED can be derived from doping use alone is wrong. Only thing we know for sure is that athlete considered the odds a priori good enough to use a certain product.
And contrary to your claim, I didn't dispute that there is a menu of drugs, only acknowledged that there is significant uncertainty about the effect of each one of them relating to specific conditions, training status, genetically determined high-, low- and non-responsiveness etc. How much each one of them tend to benefit and whom is another discussion.
I again see nothing wrong in my "merely speculation". Because the margins are low and if one percent boost is a few placings in the final standing, using a product that has significantly less than 50 % chance of providing this edge is a rational decision if the likelihood of a negative outcome is considered low. It is almost like -- "Heads I win, tails I am no more worse off".
Aragon wrote:
I again see nothing wrong in my "merely speculation". Because the margins are low and if one percent boost is a few placings in the final standing, using a product that has significantly less than 50 % chance of providing this edge is a rational decision if the likelihood of a negative outcome is considered low. It is almost like -- "Heads I win, tails I am no more worse off".
Earlier in this thread, we talked about some of the content in Hopkins, 1999 "Design and analysis of research on sport performance enhancement", and how that debunks "expert" estimates of 3 second gains for elites for 1500m.
Hopkins also explores the question of what is the minimum benefit that is deemed worthwhile to athletes, framing it not in terms of time, but in chances of winning.
This makes clear why athletes with lower chances of winning, will have a higher incentive to dope, to increase their chances of winning, compared to more talented athletes who are already winning with a high percentage naturally, due to realizing extreme talent through training. This means that a doped Ramzi and a clean El G is not necessarily a contradiction.
rekrunner wrote:
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.
I'm afraid of heights.
rekrunner wrote:
Well if swiftness is gullibility, thanks for the high praise.
It is not but you are known for making up new definitions on the fly.
You are making a reputation for conclusions without facts.
Only to those lacking logic and reason.
Tom Cochrane wrote:
Only to those lacking logic and reason.
Estimate El Gerrouj's VO2max at his peak?
how does that work? wrote:
Tom Cochrane wrote:
Only to those lacking logic and reason.
Estimate El Gerrouj's VO2max at his peak?
Peak doped?
When he was winning all those races?
rekrunner wrote:
Aragon wrote:
I again see nothing wrong in my "merely speculation". Because the margins are low and if one percent boost is a few placings in the final standing, using a product that has significantly less than 50 % chance of providing this edge is a rational decision if the likelihood of a negative outcome is considered low. It is almost like -- "Heads I win, tails I am no more worse off".
Earlier in this thread, we talked about some of the content in Hopkins, 1999 "Design and analysis of research on sport performance enhancement", and how that debunks "expert" estimates of 3 second gains for elites for 1500m.
Hopkins also explores the question of what is the minimum benefit that is deemed worthwhile to athletes, framing it not in terms of time, but in chances of winning.
This makes clear why athletes with lower chances of winning, will have a higher incentive to dope, to increase their chances of winning, compared to more talented athletes who are already winning with a high percentage naturally, due to realizing extreme talent through training. This means that a doped Ramzi and a clean El G is not necessarily a contradiction.
Yes. And why doesn't the first man under 3.30 for 1500 get the same abuse as the man who ran 3.26.0?
Should we ask him?
how does that work? wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Earlier in this thread, we talked about some of the content in Hopkins, 1999 "Design and analysis of research on sport performance enhancement", and how that debunks "expert" estimates of 3 second gains for elites for 1500m.
Hopkins also explores the question of what is the minimum benefit that is deemed worthwhile to athletes, framing it not in terms of time, but in chances of winning.
This makes clear why athletes with lower chances of winning, will have a higher incentive to dope, to increase their chances of winning, compared to more talented athletes who are already winning with a high percentage naturally, due to realizing extreme talent through training. This means that a doped Ramzi and a clean El G is not necessarily a contradiction.
Yes. And why doesn't the first man under 3.30 for 1500 get the same abuse as the man who ran 3.26.0?
Should we ask him?
Because he wasn't from a country known for doping and he competed before the EPO era.
how does that work? wrote:
When he was winning all those races?
High. Really high.
Tom Cochrane wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
When he was winning all those races?
High. Really high.
How high? 75? 80? 85? 90?
Likely all of the above.
rekrunner wrote:
Well if swiftness is gullibility, thanks for the high praise.
Confirming your slowness, by getting it wrong. Swiftness isn't gullibility - it's being ahead of the pedestrian plodder. Like you.
Aragon wrote:
Your soporific ramblibgs about the current state of science is a straw man-argument and beside my point. I haven't taken any position on it nor have I claimed that every doping decision is based on "slimmest likelihood" of benefit.
But yes, by a definition, the decision to dope is an a priori decision based on the predicted costs and predicted benefits as is every decision. Evidently some decisions are on more solid ground than others, but the claim that the "known" benefit of a given PED can be derived from doping use alone is wrong. Only thing we know for sure is that athlete considered the odds a priori good enough to use a certain product.
And contrary to your claim, I didn't dispute that there is a menu of drugs, only acknowledged that there is significant uncertainty about the effect of each one of them relating to specific conditions, training status, genetically determined high-, low- and non-responsiveness etc. How much each one of them tend to benefit and whom is another discussion.
I again see nothing wrong in my "merely speculation". Because the margins are low and if one percent boost is a few placings in the final standing, using a product that has significantly less than 50 % chance of providing this edge is a rational decision if the likelihood of a negative outcome is considered low. It is almost like -- "Heads I win, tails I am no more worse off".
Speaking of straw-man arguments - we have your speculation that athletes will dope even if the likely returns are unknown and possibly non-existent. That is a specious argument, when the benefits from doping can be easily predicted. It also confirms you aren't so much up with the current state of science.
I didn't argue that the benefit of a ped can be known from use alone but that widespread use suggests likely benefit (and thus athletes are not merely engaging in wishful thinking when they choose to dope). But there are other reasons we have for knowing that drugs will affect performance, as I have previously said - reasons which also indicate why doping is an endemic problem.
I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is now, other than to simply differ with what I say.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Well if swiftness is gullibility, thanks for the high praise.
Confirming your slowness, by getting it wrong. Swiftness isn't gullibility - it's being ahead of the pedestrian plodder. Like you.
And so you continue to spin around the merry-go-round of personal insults.
Meanwhile, neither you nor Tom Cochrane, nor any of your other allies, have produced anything of substance to support your ideas, or contradict mine.
You simply don't engage at the required level of intellect required to give your ideas credibility.