Latest Kenyan doper brings into question all the rest…

rekrunner wrote:

there is that wrote:

Sadly, yes. To add to the "False authorities": Schumacher, Parisotto, Salazar, Flanagan, Willis, Ramzi, Kiptum, Jeptoo, ....

"True authorities": Canova despite his personal involvement, evidently unsubstantiated claims, and alleged lack of experience with any (!) PEDs.

I'm being contradicted by ignorance and dishonest.

There is a false suggestion here that all these new names are saying any of the same things that are often said here, about elite performers and performances, by Armstronglivs and many other anonymous nobodies, and/or perhaps providing evidence for such statements.

There is a further false suggestion that I don't agree with what these coaches/athletes/scientists do say, within the narrow context which they were said. But when it is not evidence based, I may still agree or disagree, and will consider it their personal belief presented without evidence, needing and wanting evidence.

Ashenden/Parisotto said many things in peer reviewed papers, backed with evidence, that I agree with, within that limited context. In these papers, they often express caution that such statements should not be projected onto elite performances of elite athletes. They said a few things in sensational news stories, about the IAAF's actions, and lack of actions, that appear to have no possible evidentiary basis, and they contradicted the cautious approach they usually took in their peer reviewed statements, according to published findings from WADA experts reviewing all the evidence. That whole experience only undermined their previously earned credibility, highlighting the necessity of peer review for any statements they make.

One of the things that they did say, based on 12 years of blood data in a large database, is that blood doping suspicion for Kenyans and Ethiopians, was significantly below the worldwide average. This finding appears to contradict a popular, yet baseless, belief that Kenyan and Ethiopian performances were due to doping with EPO. Yet anonymous people here often contradict these "authorities", and their evidence based results, and still say to this day in many threads whenever Kenyans and Ethiopians set a new record, that it is due to EPO.

Schumacher famously guesses that performance benefit "can be up to 1 minute" over 10K, or "up to 3%". Sure it "can be up to". It also might not be. This "authority" is still at the speculation stage, lacking the required evidence to explain what truly happens at the upper extremes with elite performances. This is because his basis is not real experience with the combination of doping and elite performance, but rather studies with small sample sizes on "well-trained" runners which caution against projecting the results onto elite athletes.

Salazar wrote in a thought experiment about morality, "I believe ...", again without any real evidence. This is precisely what I say too -- athletes/coaches "believe". It's also not clear that Salazar ever doped any athletes with any banned substances (outside of himself at the end of his career, after the "Duel in the Sun", and his family in an infamous experiment), or that this doping led to elite performances.

Without any specific quotes, I'm not really sure what these other athletes have said about doping's alleged benefit for elite performances, or about questioning all Kenyan performances on the basis of a few that got caught, but what remains lacking is the evidentiary basis for any such statements, if they exist.

Canova has experience with producing top performances, and what it takes to produce it, giving him a superior advantage over all the names both you and Armstronglivs listed, combined. Those who raise questions here about whether his experience includes banned substances, are anonymous non-authorities with no obvious experience in either doping or elite performance -- with their own personal psychological agenda of clinging to baseless myths.

As a one time national coach for Italy, Canova does have intimate knowledge of the results of Italy's blood doping, before it was banned. It had mixed results. As a recent coach for China, he developed some experience about how altitude impacts blood values, and how it was (or wasn't) connected to performance improvements. Again, the results were mixed, with no apparent strong correlation. The most improved in performance were not the ones with the biggest blood changes.

You may have your own personal reasons to doubt Canova, but your non-authoritive doubt does not strengthen any baseless speculation to the contrary.

he\'s soooo dumb wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Because it's fun to see a known running identity describe rekrunner as clueless.

Finally a honest post from the Dumb.

He don't even has any interest to have some positive impact in this forum.

Fight after fight with other posters, ignoring any arguments which destroy his view on something ("you don't have any point" - when it's written in the last post - "I'm not interestet in this" - when he was "debating" it again and again before).

Armdumb: "Anybody close to a current WR IS a doper" - he states this as a 100% fact.
Is Coe a doper with an 800m performace set 42 years ago definitely at least on par with the current WR? Armdumb: "MAYBE". No, Armdumb, Coe IS a doper. Or, when you are not sure about this, you can't stick anymore to your other statement.
Absolute simple logic. Which he can't understand. And if he does, he would not admit to it. What's the benefit of such a poster?

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"But it is true that I have been pointing out many of the same lies, and misinformation, and misinterpretations and fallacies that seems to be necessary components of clinging to beliefs from mythology, for more years than I care to admit".(quote)

Only 16. But of course other people's evidence is always "lies and misinformation" with you. You have long carved yourself out a niche as the board's resident doping-denier.

16 what? Do you have a quote?

The "lies and misinformation" is not even the evidence -- when I compare original sources to the anonymous poster retellings, there is already a significant distortion and deviation from the truth.

I guess it makes you feel better to coin a new term just to call me meaningless names with an air of undeserved arrogance, but I honestly don't know what the term "doping-denier" means to you, and I'm still not sure you even comprehend what I deny (actually I'm sure you do not comprehend).

The only thing you ever argue is "use" -- an issue I do not ever raise, as I have fully accepted doping is worldwide -- widespread, deep, and all the way to the top: Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, China, India, Spain, Bahrain, USA, France, Italy, as well as your favorite African candidates.

Yet you cannot answer why worldwide, widespread, deep and to the top "use" has not predictably led to worldwide, widespread, deep, and to the top "performance". I'm not sure you even comprehend the question.

Armstronglivs wrote:

he\'s soooo dumb wrote:

Finally a honest post from the Dumb.

He don't even has any interest to have some positive impact in this forum.

Fight after fight with other posters, ignoring any arguments which destroy his view on something ("you don't have any point" - when it's written in the last post - "I'm not interestet in this" - when he was "debating" it again and again before).

Armdumb: "Anybody close to a current WR IS a doper" - he states this as a 100% fact.
Is Coe a doper with an 800m performace set 42 years ago definitely at least on par with the current WR? Armdumb: "MAYBE". No, Armdumb, Coe IS a doper. Or, when you are not sure about this, you can't stick anymore to your other statement.
Absolute simple logic. Which he can't understand. And if he does, he would not admit to it. What's the benefit of such a poster?

I've got you riled. That's enough. You can never let it go.