Give me a list of all the anonymous and registered handles you have posted under, and I will look for three examples.
So you knew of 0 instances, yet accused me of *always* doing that. WOW. So much for your "logic". No wonder you "think" EPO "might" not work, while constantly arguing that it *does* not work.
And I was right: you went for a new distraction about other handles (you start!), because you could neither admit you made that up, nor prove your point LOL, nor stay quiet LOLOLOL.
Ok that trolling of yours was really easy to predict.
If you were genuinely serious about avoiding distractions, you would respond to my request for performance data in the marathon definitively linked to EPO with something specific and tangible, rather than your predictable LOLs and trolls.
You vaguely referred to "decades of studies and data and correlation and countless success stories", as if the answers were there, rather than the being the source of my unanswered questions. I have looked at everything that others have pointed me too, and they always fall far short, and often end up actually supporting me. Decades of studies haven't ever looked at the marathon, no one has established any such blood-doping/performance correlation, and the alleged success stories are confounded with too many other uncontrolled factors.
If I'm wrong, just provide the counter-examples -- let's say the best three examples. Or will it be crickets, or a new distraction?
I disagree strongly. Sometimes in life you make decisions and take actions based on degrees of probability. but you aren't going to change your mind, what you believe doesn't really matter, and I'm not going to bang my head into a wall discussing this endlessly.
But you can't even form a degree of probability without applicable performance data. Your belief in their belief doesn't provide this data.
You say you are "going to believe the majority of people who have studied what EPO does and what they think it does", but the ones who have looked at it often caution against projecting what they've seen at onto elite performances.
You also speak as if I have made up my mind already and formed final conclusions. I can't do that yet without better performance data, and if new data comes along, I am open to accepting it and revising my statements.
Part of it is asking the right questions. It's not interesting to me to ask if 4 weeks of EPO administration "works" on untrained athletes, or produces higher VO2max on a treadmill or longer time-to-exhaustion on a stationary bicycle. Better would be to ask if it "works" better than "hi-lo" altitude training. Or if EPO "works" in addition to altitude training. And then, by how much? How much more would one athlete's PR be after EPO administration, compared to training with purely WADA legal methods?
So it's back to the wall. You are NEVER going to get reliable performance data about the effect of using a banned substance in competition because you are never going to know which athletes are using it and which aren't. So you look at what EPO does to the blood of people taking it and you see that it seems likely it will improve the performances of endurance athletes and then you draw what seems like a logical though not demonstrably correct conclusion. Then you look at performances of such athletes and see if performances seem like they've improved dramatically and decide how likely or unlikely it seems that EPO played a role. That's all you can do. It's all you'll ever be able to do. If you aren't going to make up your mind without better data that's up to you but it means you're never going to make up your mind.
So it's back to the wall. You are NEVER going to get reliable performance data about the effect of using a banned substance in competition because you are never going to know which athletes are using it and which aren't. So you look at what EPO does to the blood of people taking it and you see that it seems likely it will improve the performances of endurance athletes and then you draw what seems like a logical though not demonstrably correct conclusion. Then you look at performances of such athletes and see if performances seem like they've improved dramatically and decide how likely or unlikely it seems that EPO played a role. That's all you can do. It's all you'll ever be able to do. If you aren't going to make up your mind without better data that's up to you but it means you're never going to make up your mind.
I don't make the rules. If we NEVER get the data, then the claims will ALWAYS remain baseless. There are no shortcuts.
It is the very claims about EPO enabling hypernatural performances that ultimately require the performance data showing that EPO can enable hypernatural performances.
Without such data, it is no different than any other mythology.
The PhD researchers know this, which is why they caution against relying on their research to describe elite performances.
So it's back to the wall. You are NEVER going to get reliable performance data about the effect of using a banned substance in competition because you are never going to know which athletes are using it and which aren't. So you look at what EPO does to the blood of people taking it and you see that it seems likely it will improve the performances of endurance athletes and then you draw what seems like a logical though not demonstrably correct conclusion. Then you look at performances of such athletes and see if performances seem like they've improved dramatically and decide how likely or unlikely it seems that EPO played a role. That's all you can do. It's all you'll ever be able to do. If you aren't going to make up your mind without better data that's up to you but it means you're never going to make up your mind.
I don't make the rules. If we NEVER get the data, then the claims will ALWAYS remain baseless. There are no shortcuts.
It is the very claims about EPO enabling hypernatural performances that ultimately require the performance data showing that EPO can enable hypernatural performances.
Without such data, it is no different than any other mythology.
The PhD researchers know this, which is why they caution against relying on their research to describe elite performances.
There's a difference between baseless and conclusive.
There's a difference between baseless and conclusive.
As you are reluctantly telling me what seems likely and logically conclusive, help me understand where my logic and/or knowledge fails. You say we don't know who is doping, but over the course of decades here at letsrun, there is a great deal that we do know, and that we think we know:
From the Letsrun forum:
We know that East African times dropped significantly in the 1990s, when EPO was introduced into sports like cycling, skiing, and running, and was completely undetectable before Sydney 2000. Letsrun forum experts tell Canova that of course EPO works on East Africans the same as everyone else. I suppose this also includes your PhD Ex Phys contacts. This strongly suggests there exists a clear precedent with many examples from the pool of everyone else. Presumably there is an evidentiary conclusive basis for asserting that it works for both East Africans and everyone else. It seems logical to me -- but perhaps presumptuous, correct me if I'm wrong -- that any benefit of blood doping for altitude based athletes would be marginal, due to the natural stimulation of EPO, and that sea-level athletes would stand to benefit even more. We know a great deal from the Sunday Times reporting of leaked IAAF blood tests from 5000 athletes and 208 countries between 2001 and 2012, finding 800 athletes from 94 countries suspicious. We know the countries most suspicious include Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Greece, and Belarus, among others. Countries like Kenya and Ethiopia were below the worldwide average. We also now that athletics was reportedly worse than cycling between 2001-2010. We also know that the events with the most blood doping medalists were 1500m and race-walking at around 50%, followed by 800m, 5000m, 10000m, at around 30%, with the marathon a distant least suspicious, at 11%. It seems logical to me, based on an explanation of extra RBC deliver extra O2 to the muscles, that events around VO2max pace, from 3000m to 10000m stand to benefit the most. Apparently researchers agree, as time trial studies range from 3000m to 10000m. We know from decades of studies that even with small sample sizes, most everyone benefits, averaging 3-5% over the short term course of the studies. This finding over the short term is fairly consistent, regardless of method, including WADA legal altitude training.
So far so good? Are any assumptions wrong or out of context? Is there something else important missing or that I've forgotten?
Given all this, tell me where should I look for the evidentiary basis for the precedent that EPO works for everyone else? After all, the rebuttal to Canova is that East Africans are not the exception for whom EPO doesn't work. EPO works for every red-blooded athlete, at least to create more red-blood. According to Peter Snell, and your ex. phys. contact, Canova is spouting nonsense, because logically and conclusively, EPO works for East Africans and non-Africans alike.
But if I take a closer, deeper look at alltime top performances, doesn't it seem likely, at least for the decade of 2001-2012, that I should find many comparable examples from Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Greece, and Belarus, at least in the track events from 1500m to the 10000m? They were blood doping at rates the double and triple of Kenya and Ethiopia.
What I found when comparing athletes to their pre-1990 predecessors, is that East Africans, a group I presumed should only get a marginal benefit compared to the RBC deficient sea-level athletes, outnumbered the rest of the non-African world, by a factor of 10, uncorrected for population, with greater comparative percentage improvements by a factor of 3, rather than marginal.
Does the reality match the predictions? Why or why not?
I don't make the rules. If we NEVER get the data, then the claims will ALWAYS remain baseless. There are no shortcuts.
It is the very claims about EPO enabling hypernatural performances that ultimately require the performance data showing that EPO can enable hypernatural performances.
Without such data, it is no different than any other mythology.
The PhD researchers know this, which is why they caution against relying on their research to describe elite performances.
There's a difference between baseless and conclusive.
Why argue with that low IQ troll? The poofter knows EPO works, that’s why it’s been the supplement of choice - especially for Africans - for decades. Yeah, it’s all anecdotal. LOL The fruitcake only posts to antagonize, he knows it’s all bs. He’s just hoping to get people worked up. But he’s so worked up over Ruth it’s hilarious.
There's a difference between baseless and conclusive.
Why argue with that low IQ troll? The poofter knows EPO works, that’s why it’s been the supplement of choice - especially for Africans - for decades. Yeah, it’s all anecdotal. LOL The fruitcake only posts to antagonize, he knows it’s all bs. He’s just hoping to get people worked up. But he’s so worked up over Ruth it’s hilarious.
I know EPO works to increase red blood cells.
I'm not even sure it is the supplement of choice. Kenyans are busted for a variety of drugs. At one point nandrolone was the most popular, and EPO was #3. Now triamcinolone acetonide busts seem to be increasing (although corticosteroids was already #2).
How am I worked up over Ruth? She got busted for a diuretic, not EPO.
I don't know what you've forgotten but there's a lot your missing and you seem determined to keep missing it.
Maybe my memory isn't what it used to be as I'm getting older.
Putting Africans aside for one second, you really can't help me find the evidentiary basis for the idea that EPO "works" for everyone else -- i.e. sea-level non-Africans? That seemed to be the core rebuttal against Canova: that it works for East Africans the same way it works for everyone else.
To be clear, by "working", I don't mean after a 4 week intervention in a short term study lasting one season, but "working" to produce hypernatural performances not possible without doping.
I tried looking for real world examples of "working" in terms of progress in the EPO era -- the very same metric we used for East Africans -- but I didn't find many non-African candidates. I was told that that was to be expected, for a variety of reasons, e.g. because of blood-doping in the '80s, or non-Africans don't dope (contrary to IAAF suspicions), or non-Africans started playing soccer, or my "top" list should have dug deeper, etc. Yet "working for everyone" was the essential argument that was used to show that it would work for Canova's athletes too.
Who says it benefits any athlete, including the 3:04 marathoner, or the 4:04 marathoner, when already highly trained at altitude?
Based on what performance data?
Rekrunners opening post ,I believe
He's just trolling the whole time
Who says epo benefits any athlete ? and the thread takes off
I'm only trolling for performance data. That ask would have finished long ago if someone provided something tangible and concrete.
I was told to look at four decades of studies -- but there are none on the marathon.
I was told to look at success stories, but quantifying a performance benefit requires two performance values -- one with, and one without EPO -- while eliminating any other confounders. It's hard to look at a handful of cherry-picked examples and generalize from that.
While everyone wants to talk about Africans, what would be an improvement would be the non-African success stories of EPO for the marathon.
There's a difference between baseless and conclusive.
Why argue with that low IQ troll? The poofter knows EPO works, that’s why it’s been the supplement of choice - especially for Africans - for decades. Yeah, it’s all anecdotal. LOL The fruitcake only posts to antagonize, he knows it’s all bs. He’s just hoping to get people worked up. But he’s so worked up over Ruth it’s hilarious.
He posts to derail threads that might develop into productive anti-doping discussions.
He let slip on one occasion that he lives and works in Monaco.
Why argue with that low IQ troll? The poofter knows EPO works, that’s why it’s been the supplement of choice - especially for Africans - for decades. Yeah, it’s all anecdotal. LOL The fruitcake only posts to antagonize, he knows it’s all bs. He’s just hoping to get people worked up. But he’s so worked up over Ruth it’s hilarious.
He posts to derail threads that might develop into productive anti-doping discussions.
He let slip on one occasion that he lives and works in Monaco.
In this thread, the very first post is about EPO and performance in the marathon. It's on topic to ask for supporting evidence.
I don't know what you misunderstood, but I never lived nor worked in Monaco, although I did visit once a long time ago, and lost about 1000 French francs at black jack.
It's unfortunate in these discussions that so many people routinely use the presumptuous term "PED" as a synonym for a substance banned by WADA.
If a substance is said to be performance enhancing, surely there is a basis for that.
5/10 but i can see how these discussions continue indefinitely. Posters take the bait.
Yes it's so tempting and so easy to correct his nonsense. Most people though resist most of the time because his infinite loops are well known now, but there's always someone feeding the troll.
Why argue with that low IQ troll? The poofter knows EPO works, that’s why it’s been the supplement of choice - especially for Africans - for decades. Yeah, it’s all anecdotal. LOL The fruitcake only posts to antagonize, he knows it’s all bs. He’s just hoping to get people worked up. But he’s so worked up over Ruth it’s hilarious.
I know EPO works to increase red blood cells.
I'm not even sure it is the supplement of choice. Kenyans are busted for a variety of drugs. At one point nandrolone was the most popular, and EPO was #3. Now triamcinolone acetonide busts seem to be increasing (although corticosteroids was already #2).
How am I worked up over Ruth? She got busted for a diuretic, not EPO.
See how disingenuous this troll is? The steroids are easier to detect (for a host of reasons), he knows this. He also understands what masking agents do, why they are used, but he feigns ignorance and deflects. Cowardly pilpul, but always to be expected. Yes, like the guy said, rek is worked up over Ruth. Notice that poster never specifically said Ruth was on EPO - although we all know she was - and who knows yet how many drugs she was actually on, since more and more evidence is showing Kenyans will take anything and everything. The poster did note EPO is of course the drug of choice. And rek tries to twist it to deflect.
The “agents” have a lot of fun in EA mixing and matching drugs, peptides, etc, testing them on very willing guinea-pigs. Guys like Berardelli are busy indeed.