A very simple question

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The point is that he has spoken for himself, answering these questions many times.

You are sounding like the WH press secretary defending her boss. Renato responded directly to my previous comments; I paid him the same courtesy. It was he who also originated this thread. Unlike you, perhaps, I don't keep a record of everything said on every doping thread.

I was under the impression that this was a public discussion forum.

Much of what I said in my previous response can be found in Renato's words in his posts in this thread.

Uhh wrote:

David Moorcroft set the WR in 1982 at 13mins. Nothing about him says PEDs.

Why would anyone doubt performances slightly faster than that given better training, better tracks, better shoes forty years later?

But 12:37 which no-one has sniffed in 15 years. Really?

To tell the truth, I always thought that Moorcroft of 1982 was far more suspect than anything Coe ever did. Moorcroft had race 5,000m oodles of times and always in the 13:20s. Then he comes out one day and solo runs 13:00.

To tell the truth, I always laugh when someone uses performances from the dirty 80s as a clean benchmark. By then, we all had long started to counter the Soviet Union Bloc's doping that begun in the early 70s.

Plus, unlimited blood transfusions were legal at the beginning, and thereafter undetectable. OOC tests started late, and were very rudimentary etc.

Case in point: despite decades of state-organized, country-wide hard core doping, only one East German was ever caught.

Other case in point: the long list of National Records on both sides of the Iron Curtain remaining unbeaten for decades.

Don't be surprised if this year we can see very good times in long distances again. The fact that till now there are no regular competitions, where athletes look at the position, but, practically, Trials for groups, with the only goal to run fastest possible, can completely change the vision of times, without any tactic situation as limiting factor.

When, a lot of times, I pointed out that the best performances we can find in the all-time lists were achieved in races with Rudisha (800m), El Guerrouj (1500m), Bekele and Gebrselassie (5000 and 10000m), this means that ALL THE ATHLETES in the race, eccept the above named, had the opportunity to run without the pressure of the position, well knowing they didn't have any chance to fight against the number one in the world, very far from their level.

This means the only tactic was running fast, staying in a group able to use splits normally too much fast for the mentality of the athletes. Going after 5000m in one 10000m in 13'25" is something considered very fast, and nobody wanted to try ; but if in the same race Bekele goes in 13'10", 13'25" means 90 meters behind, and everybody tries because the mental idea about the pace is different.

How many times I pointed out that the decrease of number of athletes running under 13' and under 27' doesn't have anything to do with doping controls, but is ONLY due to the lack of fast competitions, that can be organized with proper rabbits and proper pace only id there is the possibility, and the interest, to try some specific record ?

Now, we are again in this situation : no tactics, the only challenge is running fast, and also athletes of good level, but not big champions, can achieve performances that can put the athlete himself among the best in the World.

For all people not having historical knowledge about athletics, who think some performance of today is something not possible without doping, I want to give some number looking at the lists all-time :

800m :

Performers / Performances under 1'43" : 39 / 111

Performers / Performances under 1'45" : 337 / 2472

1500m :

Performers / Performances under 3'30" : 32 / 103

Performers / Performances under 3'33" : 154 / 921

Performers / Performances under 3'35" : 344 / 2491

5000m :

Performers / Performances under 13'00" : 103 / 364

Performers / Performances under 13'10" : 254 / 1382

10000m :

Performers / Performances under 27'00" : 64 / 126

Performers / Performances under 27'30" : 241 / 680

HM :

Performers / Performances under 1:00:00 : 196 / 436

Performers / Performances under 1:01:00 : 564 / 1483

Marathon :

Performers / Performances under 2:06:00 : 111 / 229

Performers / Performances under 2:10:00 : 1056 / 3105

Therefore, it's time to have a different consideration about times. Who thinks not possible running a Marathon under 2:10:00 without doping, is clearly somebody not knowing anything, whose only experience is to see some athlete training once per day and able running, maybe, 2:20, and of course not knowing what the real talent is.

It's like the owner of a normal car with a cilindrate of 1500cc, who doesn't know possible going very much faster, because never had the idea that cars with 3000cc can exist.

You don't need to be considered a big champion for running a performance already achieved by other athletes, in a period of 50 years, more than hundreds times. And you don't need to put in your mind limits that, really, it's possible to overtake very easily, if yoy let your body to decide, and not your mind.

casual obsever wrote:

To tell the truth, I always laugh when someone uses performances from the dirty 80s as a clean benchmark. By then, we all had long started to counter the Soviet Union Bloc's doping that begun in the early 70s.

Plus, unlimited blood transfusions were legal at the beginning, and thereafter undetectable. OOC tests started late, and were very rudimentary etc.

Case in point: despite decades of state-organized, country-wide hard core doping, only one East German was ever caught.

Other case in point: the long list of National Records on both sides of the Iron Curtain remaining unbeaten for decades.

How often do you laugh at that?

I don't believe I've ever seen anyone claim that times from the 1980s were clean benchmarks.

After all, the IAAF banned doping in 1928, apparently driven by some need to do so. No reason to think that any decade since then was "clean".

I have seen claims that doping before EPO was "low-octane" and frequent claims that EPO was a powerful endurance drug game changer in the 1990s for endurance events, using East African performances as proofs by example. Do you find that funny too?

Renato, the statistics for those times don't prove anything as we don't know whether any of them were doped. Estimates for elite doping suggest some of them would be.

On your comment on recent performances, I can understand that races run for time rather than a championship place will be run differently - and faster - but it seems to me that we have long had the conditions for that kind of race.

I think you can only take the view that doping won't account for fast times if your position is that doping doesn't aid the fastest athletes. I don't. And nor do many athletes and coaches, who choose to dope.

rekrunner wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Correct, kind of, rekrunner, good job. But, anti-doping cases? I just showed you a few days ago that the official saying is: doping cases.

Ok, as you wish, the AIU often relies on Schumacher's anti-doping expertise in doping cases involving potential anti-doping rule violations.

Getting back to "what renowned scientists have discovered with their extensive research", the research often includes warnings, in a limitations section, that such discoveries regarding non-elite performances cannot be projected onto elite athletes. This is always true, even if such disclaimers are not explicitly stated.

You are correct that findings can't necessarily be projected on to elites. But nor can they be discounted.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You are sounding like the WH press secretary defending her boss. Renato responded directly to my previous comments; I paid him the same courtesy. It was he who also originated this thread. Unlike you, perhaps, I don't keep a record of everything said on every doping thread.

I was under the impression that this was a public discussion forum.

Much of what I said in my previous response can be found in Renato's words in his posts in this thread.

Yes, it is a public forum - but that doesn't stop you or anyone from entering into a dialogue with another commenter. As you just have. With respect, I was interested in Renato's views, as the OP, not yours, as I already know yours. His views I was not clear about.

So do you take the view that doping has little changed over the years, either in terms of its prevalence or what is being used?

rekrunner wrote:

How often do you laugh at that?

I don't believe I've ever seen anyone claim that times from the 1980s were clean benchmarks.

Twice in this thread alone. Last example:

Uhh wrote:

David Moorcroft set the WR in 1982 at 13mins. Nothing about him says PEDs.

Why would anyone doubt performances slightly faster than that given better training, better tracks, better shoes forty years later?

Armstronglivs wrote:

Renato, the statistics for those times don't prove anything as we don't know whether any of them were doped. Estimates for elite doping suggest some of them would be.

On your comment on recent performances, I can understand that races run for time rather than a championship place will be run differently - and faster - but it seems to me that we have long had the conditions for that kind of race.

I think you can only take the view that doping won't account for fast times if your position is that doping doesn't aid the fastest athletes. I don't. And nor do many athletes and coaches, who choose to dope.

Of course to demonstrate effect, you would have to go far beyond suggestions from the mere existence of doping in these times under these thresholds, and beyond the viewpoints (opinions and beliefs) of fans like you, and many athletes and coaches. Both of these things prove a belief in benefit, and not necessarily superior super-natural effect.

Consider these hypothetical scenarios, where doping is signficant among these fast times, and their implications. If general doping prevalence is 20% (we don't know real figures for the men in these aforementioned events), to start to show that doping "works", you would have to at least show that more than 20% are prevalent in these faster times under the threshold.

Scenario 1: General prevalence is 20% and Elite prevalence is 20%

Conclusions:

- 80% of elite times/performers are clean; for every fast doper there are 4 fast clean athletes

- Doping isn't over-represented in the fast group, therefore doping isn't helping the slower runners disproportionately to enter this group

Scenario 2: General prevalence is 20% and Elite prevalence is 10%.

- 90% of elite times/performers are clean

- Doping is more prevalent among slower runners, who are failing to enter the fast group. This would be consistent with a strong belief, which is not justified.

The reality is that we lack this kind of data, with this level of resolution. We have seen charts, like top-30 100m runners, and top-10 Tour de France athletes, which suggest a super-saturation of doping among the fastest athletes, but never anything similar for men, in events 800m or longer, and women in 5000m or longer. Even then, super-saturation suggests a super strong belief, but is still not sufficient to demonstrate the belief is justified.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Yes, it is a public forum - but that doesn't stop you or anyone from entering into a dialogue with another commenter. As you just have. With respect, I was interested in Renato's views, as the OP, not yours, as I already know yours. His views I was not clear about.

Since it is public, it shouldn't stop me from entering a discussion posted in a public forum, as I did.

With respect, I gave you Renato's often expressed views, and not mine. You are welcome.

Armstronglivs wrote:

So do you take the view that doping has little changed over the years, either in terms of its prevalence or what is being used?

No I don't take that view.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You are correct that findings can't necessarily be projected on to elites. But nor can they be discounted.

Maybe, but it would be a lie to call that a scientific discovery. We would call it speculation, belief, hypothesis, opinion, thinking, etc. about performance, coming from experts in the domain of anti-doping, and not in performance.

casual obsever wrote:

David Moorcroft set the WR in 1982 at 13mins. Nothing about him says PEDs.

Why would anyone doubt performances slightly faster than that given better training, better tracks, better shoes forty years later?

Looks like Moorcroft is a matter of opinion, unless you can establish a high rate of doping prevalence in the West in the 1980s among the fastest times. I guess you laugh because you think you have.

The second statement doesn't say performances 40 years ago were clean.

I should note that for non-Africans, 5000m times (average of top-5 runners for each Olympic cycle) have slightly, but steadily increased since 1981 (13:06.92) to 2012 (12:58.39).

Great summary of Renato’s post, thank you.

Salvatore Stitchmo wrote:

American athletes dope too - in fact some were coached by the most blatant and borderline psychotic bender of ethics in Alberto Salazar and while there may be enough layers of smoke afforded to them by the system here in the US, we all know who they are (ahem Galen Rupp, Matthew Centrowtiz, Dathan Ritzenheim, Kara Goucher etc etc).

I don't think there's agreement on this board about that. I think most give Kara Goucher and Centrowitz the benefit of the doubt.

redsuns wrote:

I don't think there's agreement on this board about that. I think most give Kara Goucher and Centrowitz the benefit of the doubt.

It's an American board, what do you expect. Just see what our Kenyans think about their athletes.

According to the latest stats we have seen published, both American and Kenyan blood doping was about average in 2011 and 2013 at worlds. According to Renato, Kenyan doping has increased a lot since 2011 though.

Country 2011 2013

Ukraine 89% 25% wow

Ethiopia 19% 30%

Kenya 19% 13%

USA 14% 17%

GB 4% 18%

Australia 0% 4% very nice

Japan 0% 0% awesome!

For context, average was 18% in 2011 and 15% in 2013.