I do not want to talk about hematocrit, or any of these other things, unless and until you can make the link to enhanced marathon performances.
You are wasting your time if you talk about everything but marathon performances.
I have heard about the cyclists in the '90s, but I'm not familiar with their marathon times, although I think Lance ran under 2:50.
Ah! rekrunner* is In the House with his anti presumption and speculation soapbox.
There is ample corroborative evidence that epo enhances aerobic performance . Finnish xc skiers, pro bikers... . Even a high altitude, naturally high hematocrit athlete benefits from epo, raising their hematocrit from 50 to 60, for example. * Threadrekker, more like.
I find it telling that in response to questions about marathon performance, the best examples seem to come from all these other sports.
While EPO may raise hematocrit from 50 to 60, the question is whether this increase is "optimal" for marathon performance.
Something can be known as a serious problem - as doping in the sport is - without the exact extent of it being established, which is because the practice is clandestine.
Of course you cannot be sure of anything WADA said about this because you only acquaint yourself with what confirms your bias. I don't keep records just to persuade you and other doping apologists.
No one was arguing the seriousness of the problem. Again, you were arguing the extent. This requires reasonably establishing the extent.
I am sure of many things WADA said, for example in their annual published reports. It's unlikely they would equate "risk of doping" of various sports in some mystery quote you say exists and attribute to WADA, but I'm too lazy and biased to know about, that is largely contradicted in their annual reports in a way that you didn't dispute that you are unable to comprehend.
So the "dishonesty" all hinges on the word "could"? It could also be "1 in 1", or "1 in 100".
Interesting. "dishonesty" comes from you, about your own post. But yes, the answer is yes.
It was you who interestingly accused me of making a false claim, attempting to argue that the 47.9% upper bound from the doping survey, with 95% confidence, suggests doping could be more than 1 in 2 world championship athletes (with less confidence?).
I find it telling that in response to questions about marathon performance, the best examples seem to come from all these other sports.
While EPO may raise hematocrit from 50 to 60, the question is whether this increase is "optimal" for marathon performance.
Or even raising it from 40 to 50?
But of course you aren't allowed to ask this question because WADA and Journalists have a vested interest in maintaining the belief in the supposed efficacy of the supposed "Performance Enhancing Drugs"
There is ample corroborative evidence that epo enhances aerobic performance . Finnish xc skiers, pro bikers... . Even a high altitude, naturally high hematocrit athlete benefits from epo, raising their hematocrit from 50 to 60, for example.
There is ample evidence that plasma expansion does the same thing, but it's completely safe, natural and legal.
What dopers try to do doesn't begin to answer any of my questions -- how many dopers have run 2:07 because of a higher than natural hematocrit? or sub-2:05?
Who already answered "normally the athletes have too little"? While Jeptoo is an example of an East African athlete taking EPO, nothing answers, and nobody has answered, whether she needed it.
The authors did say that, when they concluded an optimal HCT range between 0.5 and 0.7.
You pretended to go along with that ("Assuming for argument that the model is accurate enough"), but now want to discard their findings because, well, you are rekrunner.
The authors said what?, and concluded what?, and found what?, all from a proposed theoretical model with a new assumption?
I didn't discard any findings but questioned whether altitude alone wouldn't be enough to achieve this "assumed" optimal HCT, especially considering that HCT increases during intense exercise. If so, then athletes at altitude don't "need" EPO.
Ah! rekrunner* is In the House with his anti presumption and speculation soapbox.
There is ample corroborative evidence that epo enhances aerobic performance . Finnish xc skiers, pro bikers... . Even a high altitude, naturally high hematocrit athlete benefits from epo, raising their hematocrit from 50 to 60, for example. * Threadrekker, more like.
I find it telling that in response to questions about marathon performance, the best examples seem to come from all these other sports.
While EPO may raise hematocrit from 50 to 60, the question is whether this increase is "optimal" for marathon performance.
It's only a question in your bitsey little brain. The correlation is evident.
I find it telling that in response to questions about marathon performance, the best examples seem to come from all these other sports.
While EPO may raise hematocrit from 50 to 60, the question is whether this increase is "optimal" for marathon performance.
It's only a question in your bitsey little brain. The correlation is evident.
Where? In "Finnish xc skiers, pro bikers..."?
To correlate performances with a 50 to 60 hematocrit, you need both sets of data.
In the '90s, before EPO testing, the world record for the marathon was stagnant for a decade, before Brazilian Ronaldo da Costa ran 2:06:50.
An unofficial ABP-like analysis of IAAF blood data from 2001-2012 showed that the marathon was the least suspicious event among Olympic and World Championship medals, with only 1 in 9 medals won by "suspicious" athletes.
There's nothing to "get" from what you post. Nothing.
The comment you responded to.
"The WADA observations grouping T and F with sports like cycling, weightlifting and bodybuilding (all dirty) for risk of doping is reinforced by confidential athletes surveys that suggest doping could be more than 1 in 2 athletes at championship level. With Kenyans today, the incidence is likely to be even higher."
You didn't dispute any of that. So if there was nothing to respond to why did you do so?
There's nothing to "get" from what you post. Nothing.
The comment you responded to.
"The WADA observations grouping T and F with sports like cycling, weightlifting and bodybuilding (all dirty) for risk of doping is reinforced by confidential athletes surveys that suggest doping could be more than 1 in 2 athletes at championship level. With Kenyans today, the incidence is likely to be even higher."
You didn't dispute any of that. So if there was nothing to respond to why did you do so?
"esr" didn't respond to that post.
And there is a question whether WADA said that at all, or alternatively, what they really said, which you have yet to address. All we have is your own recollection of what you think WADA said.
We know many more athletes dope than are caught - that is "knowledge" - except to one such as yourself. The WADA comments were published by them but that you are unaware of it shows the limitations on your "research". All you show is confirmation bias.
But you spoke of the "extent" of doping -- something we don't know. I agree with you that I know the extent of your knowledge of the extent of doping is limited. I can agree it is more than 1-2%, but how much more is just speculation about what is not known.
Maybe WADA said something, or Howman said something, or some other spokesman said something, and maybe you misunderstood what was said in some unknown context. For sure I cannot be aware of something that WADA never said. All I have is your repeated recollection of something that they may or may not have ever been said, and may or may not have come from WADA. Just provide the original source, to eliminate the risk of your faulty biased recollection, tempered by five decades of mythology, once and for all.
you and armstrong need to get married,seriously. Or at least move in together. You cant exist without each other.
"The WADA observations grouping T and F with sports like cycling, weightlifting and bodybuilding (all dirty) for risk of doping is reinforced by confidential athletes surveys that suggest doping could be more than 1 in 2 athletes at championship level. With Kenyans today, the incidence is likely to be even higher."
You didn't dispute any of that. So if there was nothing to respond to why did you do so?
"esr" didn't respond to that post.
And there is a question whether WADA said that at all, or alternatively, what they really said, which you have yet to address. All we have is your own recollection of what you think WADA said.
If they weren't responding to that then they were responding to nothing - in which case they were better responding to you.
WADA did say what I have referred to but I am not interested in doing the research for you. It is also quite obvious given the plausibly estimated incidence of doping in the sport, which produces thread after thread on the topic here. If it wasn't the problem that it is you wouldn't be spending your life here denying what is obvious to everyone else in your lonely folly.
And there is a question whether WADA said that at all, or alternatively, what they really said, which you have yet to address. All we have is your own recollection of what you think WADA said.
And there is a question whether WADA said that at all, or alternatively, what they really said, which you have yet to address. All we have is your own recollection of what you think WADA said.
If they weren't responding to that then they were responding to nothing - in which case they were better responding to you.
WADA did say what I have referred to but I am not interested in doing the research for you. It is also quite obvious given the plausibly estimated incidence of doping in the sport, which produces thread after thread on the topic here. If it wasn't the problem that it is you wouldn't be spending your life here denying what is obvious to everyone else in your lonely folly.
I think its about 50% of olympic level athletes doping,or at least thats the figure i read,somewhere. Or 45%- 55% but i cant say where i read it,so i cant prove it.
But you spoke of the "extent" of doping -- something we don't know. I agree with you that I know the extent of your knowledge of the extent of doping is limited. I can agree it is more than 1-2%, but how much more is just speculation about what is not known.
Maybe WADA said something, or Howman said something, or some other spokesman said something, and maybe you misunderstood what was said in some unknown context. For sure I cannot be aware of something that WADA never said. All I have is your repeated recollection of something that they may or may not have ever been said, and may or may not have come from WADA. Just provide the original source, to eliminate the risk of your faulty biased recollection, tempered by five decades of mythology, once and for all.
you and armstrong need to get married,seriously. Or at least move in together. You cant exist without each other.
Since I detest everything he says it would have to end in divorce. I can certainly exist without the doping that infects the sport, which he has made his life's purpose to lie about.
If they weren't responding to that then they were responding to nothing - in which case they were better responding to you.
WADA did say what I have referred to but I am not interested in doing the research for you. It is also quite obvious given the plausibly estimated incidence of doping in the sport, which produces thread after thread on the topic here. If it wasn't the problem that it is you wouldn't be spending your life here denying what is obvious to everyone else in your lonely folly.
I think its about 50% of olympic level athletes doping,or at least thats the figure i read,somewhere. Or 45%- 55% but i cant say where i read it,so i cant prove it.
There are a range of both findings and estimates. Some have put it at more than 1 in 2 championship athletes. It is however far in excess of the numbers caught.