Tom Cochrane wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Everything.
Just like EPO.
EPO is different because it is banned, unlike all the things I listed.
You are not all that swift on the uptake as you believe.
Tom Cochrane wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Everything.
Just like EPO.
EPO is different because it is banned, unlike all the things I listed.
You are not all that swift on the uptake as you believe.
Tom Cochrane wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Accept what? I've repeatedly asked for arguments of substance, and it is always met with resistance, insults, avoidance, or "proofs" of other things.
What specifically do you think I have not accepted, that cannot be rejected by applying basic scientific standards?
Everything.
What often plagues this whole thread, and many others, is lack of specificity.
You say I'm to stubborn to accept "it" -- but when your bluff is called, cannot specify what "it" is that you believe I have not accepted.
We were talking about arguments of substance.
If it is logically sound, and scientifically sound, I have accepted it to the extent the data and observations are robust and supports it.
Or can you show me a contradiction, with specificity?
From Armstronglivs vast library of many sources he has read over the years, he forgot all of the titles and authors that he read, so he can't direct me to further reading. On the one hand, his memory is so bad that he can't remember the authors, but I should accept that it is so good that he understood all that they said. We see he is only able to produce sports magazine articles, which sometimes mixes up the science, or sports scientists blogs -- which tend to support my ideas anyway.
Ross is pretty good about explaining the science, and all the reasons why you should exercise caution when interpreting the science . Amusingly, the latest reference from Armstronglivs contradicts something both you, and he tried to claim without basis.
From what I can tell, you've brought no real information, just your own assertions, and plenty of noise, and interference, to serve as a useless distraction.
rekrunner wrote:
Tom Cochrane wrote:
Just like EPO.
EPO is different because it is banned, unlike all the things I listed.
You are not all that swift on the uptake as you believe.
The part requiring swiftness was the performance enhancing part.
Tom Cochrane wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
0% winners don't have these yet. They have nothing.
Most elite runners are 0% winners in the grand scheme of elite athletics. Yet they get money and sponsorship still.
Much like Tennis players who make millions as scrubs.
But you're not bitter?
rekrunner wrote:
Tom Cochrane wrote:
Everything.
What often plagues this whole thread, and many others, is lack of specificity.
You say I'm to stubborn to accept "it" -- but when your bluff is called, cannot specify what "it" is that you believe I have not accepted.
We were talking about arguments of substance.
If it is logically sound, and scientifically sound, I have accepted it to the extent the data and observations are robust and supports it.
Or can you show me a contradiction, with specificity?
From Armstronglivs vast library of many sources he has read over the years, he forgot all of the titles and authors that he read, so he can't direct me to further reading. On the one hand, his memory is so bad that he can't remember the authors, but I should accept that it is so good that he understood all that they said. We see he is only able to produce sports magazine articles, which sometimes mixes up the science, or sports scientists blogs -- which tend to support my ideas anyway.
Ross is pretty good about explaining the science, and all the reasons why you should exercise caution when interpreting the science . Amusingly, the latest reference from Armstronglivs contradicts something both you, and he tried to claim without basis.
From what I can tell, you've brought no real information, just your own assertions, and plenty of noise, and interference, to serve as a useless distraction.
There you go again. Long winded explanations of how you don't get it.
rekrunner wrote:
Tom Cochrane wrote:
Just like EPO.
EPO is different because it is banned, unlike all the things I listed.
You are not all that swift on the uptake as you believe.
Why aren't they banned too?
Tom Cochrane wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
What often plagues this whole thread, and many others, is lack of specificity.
You say I'm to stubborn to accept "it" -- but when your bluff is called, cannot specify what "it" is that you believe I have not accepted.
We were talking about arguments of substance.
If it is logically sound, and scientifically sound, I have accepted it to the extent the data and observations are robust and supports it.
Or can you show me a contradiction, with specificity?
From Armstronglivs vast library of many sources he has read over the years, he forgot all of the titles and authors that he read, so he can't direct me to further reading. On the one hand, his memory is so bad that he can't remember the authors, but I should accept that it is so good that he understood all that they said. We see he is only able to produce sports magazine articles, which sometimes mixes up the science, or sports scientists blogs -- which tend to support my ideas anyway.
Ross is pretty good about explaining the science, and all the reasons why you should exercise caution when interpreting the science . Amusingly, the latest reference from Armstronglivs contradicts something both you, and he tried to claim without basis.
From what I can tell, you've brought no real information, just your own assertions, and plenty of noise, and interference, to serve as a useless distraction.
There you go again. Long winded explanations of how you don't get it.
What doesn't rekrunner get?
Tom Cochrane wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
EPO is different because it is banned, unlike all the things I listed.
You are not all that swift on the uptake as you believe.
The part requiring swiftness was the performance enhancing part.
Which part is that? Do you know something JD doesn't know?
Armstronglivs wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
EPO and Blood transfusion works for patients who need it in a medical emergency.
Why would athletes with a normal healthy blood count need more red blood cells than they can use?
And there, in a nutshell, we have your utter ignorance of how doping works.
Athletes do use the extra blood cells that EPO and blood-doping provide - there is no scientific argument about that. That is why the practices are banned.
Doping often makes use of medical treatments which are normally stimulants for a person with a deficiency (like the drug meldonium for those with a heart ailment) but which act as a powerful performance booster in a highly trained athlete. Another such example is the use of human growth hormone, which is typically applied to those patients with development deficiencies but will boost muscle production in the fit and healthy. EPO will be used as a therapy for those deficient in haemoglobin, but it will boost performance in top athletes by increasing their ability to absorb and use oxygen beyond what their body would naturally be able to do.
Your lack of knowledge of what you presume to debate is apparently bottomless. If you were smart enough you would be embarrassed by it.
But you know more than JD about oxygen kinetics?
Who was your senior lecturer?
how does that work? wrote:
Tom Cochrane wrote:
There you go again. Long winded explanations of how you don't get it.
What doesn't rekrunner get?
The same thing you don't. At least he does know what ergogenic means though. So there's that.
how does that work? wrote:
Do you know something JD doesn't know?
Yes. JD doesn't know that you think you know more about Oxygen kinetics than him.
how does that work? wrote:
Tom Cochrane wrote:
Most elite runners are 0% winners in the grand scheme of elite athletics. Yet they get money and sponsorship still.
Much like Tennis players who make millions as scrubs.
But you're not bitter?
Not at all. I have reaped the benefits of being a 0% winner.
Tom Cochrane wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
What doesn't rekrunner get?
The same thing you don't. At least he does know what ergogenic means though. So there's that.
What does it mean. Explain it Bioenergetically?
Ask Jack. You don't know Jack.
Tom Cochrane wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
Do you know something JD doesn't know?
Yes. JD doesn't know that you think you know more about Oxygen kinetics than him.
He was my senior lecturer. He knows a lot of stuff about oxygen kinetics. You would probably fall asleep after 5 minutes, but I find it fascinating.
Tom Cochrane wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
But you're not bitter?
Not at all. I have reaped the benefits of being a 0% winner.
But you like Tennis?
Favourite Canadian server?
how does that work? wrote:
Tom Cochrane wrote:
Yes. JD doesn't know that you think you know more about Oxygen kinetics than him.
He was my senior lecturer. He knows a lot of stuff about oxygen kinetics. You would probably fall asleep after 5 minutes, but I find it fascinating.
You should have asked him what ergogenic means and how caffeine works. You're saying you know more than your senior lecturer?
Tom Cochrane wrote:
There you go again. Long winded explanations of how you don't get it.
There you go again with the indefinite pronoun "it". Of course I get "it".
rekrunner wrote:
Tom Cochrane wrote:
There you go again. Long winded explanations of how you don't get it.
There you go again with the indefinite pronoun "it". Of course I get "it".
There it is.
how does that work? wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
EPO is different because it is banned, unlike all the things I listed.
Why aren't they banned too?
What gets banned is a committee decision, guided by meeting 2 out of 3 criteria.
If it was considered, and not banned, it was determined by committee to meet none, or only one of 1) potential performance enhancement; 2) potential harm; 3) bad spirit