how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Brain damage is a tragic malady. My commiserations to your family.
So how does a non anemic doped runner extract more oxygen from the same volume of oxygen?
The oxygen that reaches the muscles isn't determined by the amount of oxygen inhaled with each breath but by the amount of oxygen carried by the red blood cells, and the more of them the more oxygen made available to the muscles.
Dont worry if you don't get it. You don't get any of it.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
A question is only "off topic" when you choose to move the goal posts - as you always do - and determine the parameters of discussion, as you also do.
The subject of the thread is simply that El G ran 3.49 for the 1600 en route to his 4.44 for 2k. The "topic" is whatever any commenter chooses to make of that and to see where it goes. But you set the "rules" - and so avoid answering what you cannot answer.
However, I would encourage you to decline answering questions as often as possible. Always would also be fine. We would get more sense out of you if you said nothing.
"High Octane" constructed the goal post of anonymous opinions of suspicion of WRs, and I respectfully declined any attempts to score those goals of irrelevance.
It would be unintelligent, if not dishonest, to interpret this as an inability to answer, particularly since the question is what I think about a topic.
I would encourage you to practice what you preach.
Nope. You won't answer what you can't answer. Which is almost everything.
Armstronglivs wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
But isn't EPO supposed to make you breathe more?
Less. You have more oxygen in your bloodstream.
But how does the "extra oxygen in your bloodstream" get there if you are breathing less?
How do you breath less oxygen and extract more oxygen?
How do you get more oxygen from less oxygen?
Since you obviously know more about oxygen kinetics than Jack Daniels, it should be easy for you to explain.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The experts who all say and agree that a higher RBC - which is what EPO contributes to - enables greater oxygen transfer to the muscles. If this increased aerobic capacity required a commensurate increase in the rate of breathing then elite (let alone doped) athletes would be gasping for air like an out-of-condition hobby jogger. (Like you, maybe?) But you never studied basic biology in school. Your "data" never included an education.
It's funny you still say that after the paper we discussed which said that higher RBC and higher VO2max did not mean more oxygen transfer to the muscles.
This demonstrates why my goal was to completely remove you and your biased unknowledgeable interpretations from the equation. I asked you for the name of experts, or the names of their papers, of which you said you have read many. I did not ask for you to draw me another cartoon of the Flintstones. I put your cartoons straight to the recycle bin, where apparently you just pick them back out and recycle them.
So, Barney Rubble - explain how an athlete attains higher aerobic capacity without an increase in the red blood cells which transport the oxygen to the body?
All your preferred paper suggests is that there may be a point at which an increase in the RBC does not see a significant increase in oxygen transfer, because the process may attain a ceiling beyond which increases no longer occur. But the purpose of training and doping is to reach that ceiling, which would be as high as possible - and higher in some athletes than in others.
Sadly, the ceiling in your intelligence is reached all too soon.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
A typo is all you've got.
So from saying prevalence suggests some world records will be doped (but you can only think of one - dear old easy mark, Jarma) you then say that doping hasn't helped champions become champions. So doping helps - but it also doesn't help? Sheesh. I guess some of these "champions" weren't good enough to become world record holders - or world record holders aren't "champions". Your ability to contradict yourself is likely watching a snake somehow contriving to swallow itself.
"Doping hasn't improved the odds" - a bald unsubstantiated assertion that also shows you clearly don't know how it affects the physiology of an athlete - and then a further false claim that "for doping to help prevalence at the top must be higher". Tell that to the cycling peloton. Or the estimated 30-40% of championship athletes who dope. So how high does prevalence have to be before someone benefits?
Debating these things with you is like facing a past-it brain -damaged boxer in the ring. The only blows of yours that connect are those that hit your own skull. Pitiable.
I've got way more than pointing out your bad French as well as your bad English.
There is no contradiction, except in your mind. To be a contradiction, I would have to say both "helped" and "not helped". I said neither, but said: "The existence of doping among champions is not a concession that doping helped".
"Doping hasn't improved the odds" wasn't a "bald unsubstantiated assertion", but a conclusion given a certain hypothetical assumptions about the distribution of prevalence among the winners compared to the overall average.
I know you are on the ropes, when you pull out yet another weird analogy, like a brain-damaged boxer, after fabricating a contradiction in your own mind, and not comprehending the expected consequence of your 30-40% estimated doping, combined with significant effect, super-saturating the podium.
You are not a boxer fighting me, but fighting your shadow in your own boxing ring of straw.
I have never seen anyone who practises lying as hard as you do.
You have said previously said that given the prevalence of doping some of the world records will be doped. If that is not a statement of a causal relationship, what is it? Did doping contribute to those world records or not? It is utterly disingenuous to say subsequently that you are not making that causal connection, because in the contortions of your deluded mind it has not been established that doping leads to enhanced performance. (News flash- it has!) If doping played no contributory part in those records then its "prevalence" or otherwise is completely irrelevant. So why raise it? You might as well have been saying that given the prevalence of Nike (or Adidas) shoes some of the world records were set by athletes using that brand - a coincidental fact but of no causative significance.
But your backtracking on what you are appearing to say is consistent with your approach; it is the same kind of slithering and sliding around the truth characteristic of another type of liar, which is the holocaust denier. You apply the same method to doping denial. Doping only works on "weak" and inferior athletes, women on steroids, and cyclists - but not on distance runners in any of the events and by any of the runners you will do anything to defend. A minimiser is a denier.
Fortunately, those entrusted with antidoping take a completely different view; a sane view supported by empirically obtained information and backed by science, that consigns yours to the realm of the lonely crackpot, as you are.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Nope. You won't answer what you can't answer. Which is almost everything.
What is the alternative? "I will answer what I can't answer"? That sounds like evangelism. To borrow from the wisdom of Meatloaf, I won't do that.
The thick and dense irony of this coming from someone who has read many sources, but cannot provide a single name or a title, in 67 pages running, because, how did you put it?, oh yeah, you can't remember.
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Less. You have more oxygen in your bloodstream.
But how does the "extra oxygen in your bloodstream" get there if you are breathing less?
How do you breath less oxygen and extract more oxygen?
How do you get more oxygen from less oxygen?
Since you obviously know more about oxygen kinetics than Jack Daniels, it should be easy for you to explain.
Why do you keep dozing off in the lectures and wake up asking the same question?
Armstronglivs wrote:
I have never seen anyone who practises lying as hard as you do.
You have said previously said that given the prevalence of doping some of the world records will be doped. If that is not a statement of a causal relationship, what is it? Did doping contribute to those world records or not? It is utterly disingenuous to say subsequently that you are not making that causal connection, because in the contortions of your deluded mind it has not been established that doping leads to enhanced performance. (News flash- it has!) If doping played no contributory part in those records then its "prevalence" or otherwise is completely irrelevant. So why raise it? You might as well have been saying that given the prevalence of Nike (or Adidas) shoes some of the world records were set by athletes using that brand - a coincidental fact but of no causative significance.
But your backtracking on what you are appearing to say is consistent with your approach; it is the same kind of slithering and sliding around the truth characteristic of another type of liar, which is the holocaust denier. You apply the same method to doping denial. Doping only works on "weak" and inferior athletes, women on steroids, and cyclists - but not on distance runners in any of the events and by any of the runners you will do anything to defend. A minimiser is a denier.
Fortunately, those entrusted with antidoping take a completely different view; a sane view supported by empirically obtained information and backed by science, that consigns yours to the realm of the lonely crackpot, as you are.
You are so self-blinded by your mythology, it severely impacts your ability to comprehend what is written -- one of my primary reasons to "cut out the middleman" and go straight to your sources -- which you swear you have many, but conveniently cannot remember any.
It is not a statement of causal relationship, but a statement of mere existence. Prevalence suggests that doping exists, but existence alone does not demonstration correlation with performance, and does not prove cause and effect. This is why examples like Ramzi, Boulami, and Kiptum fail.
It's funny and ironic that you mention shoes, because there is stronger evidence that the new shoes "work", for both Africans and non-African elite runners.
There is no backtracking, just a correction of confusion that was born from the seeds in your brainwashed mind.
Armstronglivs wrote:
The oxygen that reaches the muscles isn't determined by the amount of oxygen inhaled with each breath but by the amount of oxygen carried by the red blood cells, and the more of them the more oxygen made available to the muscles.
Dont worry if you don't get it. You don't get any of it.
But does the extra oxygen ever reach the muscles? Researchers don't seem to be as sure of that as you are.
What do you think of the paper that we discussed that said: "It should, of course, be considered that despite the enhanced blood O2-carrying capacity and increased V˙O2,peak following RhEPO treatment, there was actually no significant alteration in muscle O2 delivery ..." These researchers resorted to guessing that "muscle O2 delivery was probably enhanced". The uncertainty comes from viscosity: "However, any positive effect of an increased O2-carrying capacity in this situation might be counterbalanced by the negative effect of an increased blood viscosity".
Has this ever been settled by researchers? Surely you can ask your extended contacts in your learned circle for a name and a title to confirm this.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
It's funny you still say that after the paper we discussed which said that higher RBC and higher VO2max did not mean more oxygen transfer to the muscles.
This demonstrates why my goal was to completely remove you and your biased unknowledgeable interpretations from the equation. I asked you for the name of experts, or the names of their papers, of which you said you have read many. I did not ask for you to draw me another cartoon of the Flintstones. I put your cartoons straight to the recycle bin, where apparently you just pick them back out and recycle them.
So, Barney Rubble - explain how an athlete attains higher aerobic capacity without an increase in the red blood cells which transport the oxygen to the body?
All your preferred paper suggests is that there may be a point at which an increase in the RBC does not see a significant increase in oxygen transfer, because the process may attain a ceiling beyond which increases no longer occur. But the purpose of training and doping is to reach that ceiling, which would be as high as possible - and higher in some athletes than in others.
Sadly, the ceiling in your intelligence is reached all too soon.
Are you asking me to do the research to support your claim, and then spoon feed you?
It looks like you are trying to cure your defects by regurgitating the Gospel According to Armstronglivs. I put that straight in the bin.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The oxygen that reaches the muscles isn't determined by the amount of oxygen inhaled with each breath but by the amount of oxygen carried by the red blood cells, and the more of them the more oxygen made available to the muscles.
Dont worry if you don't get it. You don't get any of it.
But does the extra oxygen ever reach the muscles? Researchers don't seem to be as sure of that as you are.
What do you think of the paper that we discussed that said: "It should, of course, be considered that despite the enhanced blood O2-carrying capacity and increased V˙O2,peak following RhEPO treatment, there was actually no significant alteration in muscle O2 delivery ..." These researchers resorted to guessing that "muscle O2 delivery was probably enhanced". The uncertainty comes from viscosity: "However, any positive effect of an increased O2-carrying capacity in this situation might be counterbalanced by the negative effect of an increased blood viscosity".
Has this ever been settled by researchers? Surely you can ask your extended contacts in your learned circle for a name and a title to confirm this.
Yes. Viscosity is not a problem. Look it up yourself .
Tom Cochrane. wrote:
Yes. Viscosity is not a problem. Look it up yourself .
I'll google thrombosis and high altitude sickness. Thanks for the tip.
rekrunner wrote:
Tom Cochrane. wrote:
Yes. Viscosity is not a problem. Look it up yourself .
I'll google thrombosis and high altitude sickness. Thanks for the tip.
That would be your typical way of moving the goalposts and dodging reality.
Let me get my spoon out. There it is.... I know you're going to throw up on your bib as usual.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6308108/You'll start with cyclists not being runners.
Tom Cochrane. wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I'll google thrombosis and high altitude sickness. Thanks for the tip.
That would be your typical way of moving the goalposts and dodging reality.
Let me get my spoon out. There it is.... I know you're going to throw up on your bib as usual.
Oh good find. Viscosity is not a significant problem when hematocrit is kept less than 48%.
"... the classic view is that a change in hematocrit levels can affect the blood's viscosity, thereby affecting blood flow (Pirofsky 1953; Baskurt and Meiselman 2003). However, recent studies suggest that a relatively small change in the hematocrit level of up to 13% may not directly affect microvascular blood flow (Martini et al. 2005) or cardiac output in healthy volunteers (Lundby et al. 2008). Thus, the effect of a change in the hematocrit level on blood flow may have a threshold and may only become evident with a relatively large change in hematocrit levels over a longer period of time. This notion is supported by our measurements of blood pressure ..."
"A possible limitation of our study is that the subjects in the rHuEPO group had a relatively small—albeit significant—increase in hematocrit levels. We therefore cannot exclude the possibility that a larger increase in hematocrit levels (e.g., in professional cyclists who doped with rHuEPO in the past) may affect microvascular function."
Even at this low hematocrit increase, we see a visible decrease in basal flow, and maximal blood flow in Figure 2.
Oh look, further reading -- thanks:
"An increase in hematocrit levels causes increased blood viscosity, thereby decreasing blood flow (Pries et al. 1992). This change in blood flow can in turn lead to thromboembolic events as is described by Virchows triad (Lowe 2003), which can cause severe organ damage (Kwaan and Wang 2003). Furthermore, decreased blood flow can limit the ability of oxygen‐transporting erythrocytes to reach the muscle tissue, thereby possibly—and paradoxically—reducing athletic performance (Hardeman et al. 2014)."
See?
rekrunner wrote:
Schumacher is not testifying as an expert on elite performance.
Yes...he is. Schumacher is providing expert testimony on the performance benefits of EPO in a CAS hearing involving an elite athlete:
Karamasheva Cas hearing (2017/0/5268)
Paragraph 77: EPO "can increase oxygen supply by 6% and take as much as one minute off the time taken to run 10,000 meters, and proportionately more over lesser distances."
CAS says Svetlana Karamasheva is a Russian middle-distance runner at the international-level. Her PB is 3:59.61. Now if you want to argue that she isn't an elite athlete because her PB isn't fast enough or something like that - then go ahead but you'll be laughed off this thread. Otherwise, if you concur that she's an elite athlete, then you need to understand that Schumacher is stating the performance benefit observed with EPO in an elite athlete's CAS hearing.
rekrunner wrote:
His testimony in a CAS hearing is not peer reviewed.
Irreverent since Schumacher is providing expert testimony. The arbitrator didn't ask if his testimony is "peer-reviewed" - the arbitrator wants to know if EPO provides a performance benefit with elite athletes. Again, I remind you this case is involving an elite athlete, not sub-elite, well-trained, recreational athlete, etc.
rekrunner wrote:
CAS doesn't decide, or need to decide, if a benefit occurred, or could have occurred, and counsel doesn't oppose it because it is not a point that can change the verdict.
You're correct - it wouldn't have anything to do with the verdict. However, it helps with the "unfair advantage" clause when times, awards, medals, titles, etc. are going to be annulled over the time period of the hematological anomalies detected on the passport - particularly at or near key competitions. Let's take a look at the language in the disqualification summary from another CAS hearing involving a Russian doping case:
Ugarova CAS hearing (CAS 2016/0/4463):
"141. The Sole Arbitrator does not deem it appropriate to entirely dispose of any disqualification of results as he is convinced that the Athlete doped and because the main purpose of disqualification of results is not to punish the transgressor, but rather to correct any unfair advantage and remove any tainted performances from the record (LEWIS / TAYLOR (Eds.), Sport: Law and Practice, 2014, para. C.162, with further references). The Sole Arbitrator, considering that neither a doping scheme, nor a doping plan has been established in the present case, deems it adequate and proportionate comparing to other cases where a single anti-doping rule violation could have been established through the analysis of a positive sample, to disqualify the results of the Athlete for a period of six months. Six months seem to be a period long enough for an anti-doping organization to perform results management including a possibledisciplinary proceeding."
I take this to be that the ban (e.g., 2 yrs, 4yrs, 8 yrs, etc.) is punishment for the breaking the rules of doping while the disqualification of results is to correct any "unfair advantage and remove tainted performances" from the performance benefit of doping (i.e., elevated hemoglobin from a prohibited substance or prohibited method in ABP-hematological anomalies cases).
"Unfair advantage" would equal a performance benefit over presumably the undoped competition.
Former runner turned bodybuilder wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Schumacher is not testifying as an expert on elite performance.
Yes...he is. Schumacher is providing expert testimony on the performance benefits of EPO in a CAS hearing involving an elite athlete:
Karamasheva Cas hearing (2017/0/5268)
No. He is testifying as an anti-doping expert, not as an expert on elite performance.
I will reconsider if you can answer me this: in Karamaheva's CAS hearing, did Schumacher find that Karamasheva realized a benefit from doping? Can you quote the relevant sections where Schumacher provides expert discussion specifically on Karamasheva's performance before and after EPO?
It's not the first time you've quoted these paragraphs, under one of your many handles, and they fail now for the same reasons they failed before. You don't follow Schumacher, but you make non-expert conclusions about Karamasheva's performance that he did not.
His expert testimony about oxygen and performance are hypotheticals that are not directly connected to Karamasheva. As hypotheticals, they express what could be possible, but not what really happened.
Regarding the unfair advantage, who made the determination that Karamasheva received an unfair advantage from doping? From you quote, it looks like "The Sole Arbitrator", and not the "elite performance expert" Schumacher.
It's not relevant how you interpret the purpose of the ban.
Tom Cochrane. wrote:
See?
Yes, I did see a visibly reduced basal and maximal blood flow in Figure 2, from the rather conservative hematocrit levels recorded in Figure 1.
Can you tell me, in the 1990s, before blood testing and before EPO testing, when El G set these records, do you think his hematocrit was less than 48% like in your study? Maybe we can see that in the video.
rekrunner wrote:
Tom Cochrane. wrote:
See?
Yes, I did see a visibly reduced basal and maximal blood flow in Figure 2, from the rather conservative hematocrit levels recorded in Figure 1.
Can you tell me, in the 1990s, before blood testing and before EPO testing, when El G set these records, do you think his hematocrit was less than 48% like in your study? Maybe we can see that in the video.
44-45 slightly reduced plasma volume. 40-42 when doing high mileage, slightly increased plasma volume.
Try it for yourself it works.
About this 6% VO2max difference, it's a normal variable.
Tell Alan " former runner turned bodybuilder" To get out of the gym and meet different people.