Steeplecahse WR holder Ruth Jebet Banned for 4 years

lololololol wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So doping works everywhere except in distance running? You have rekrunner's disease.

You are nothing, you have done nothing in/for competitive athletics.

And now you insult one of the best coaches ever?

At least have the decency to post under your real name when addressing Renato, you coward piece of shi.t.

It seems you, too, lack the "decency"(?!) to post under your real name. Not that in either case it would make the least bit of difference, and your name would merely be a synonym for utter stupidity. Renato effectively said EPO, or any doping for that matter, does not increase performance in distance running and that the best clean athletes will still beat any doper. It isn't a view accepted anywhere except by doping deniers - which you also appear to be, although constructing an actual argument is apparently beyond you.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So doping works everywhere except in distance running? You have rekrunner's disease.

Now who thinks he knows better than a coach with real experience?

Who appears greatly outnumbered by those who coach doped athletes, who will be in their thousands, when the incidence of doping has been estimated at near 1 in 2 elites.

rekrunner wrote:

Barrel of Laughs wrote:

Lack of studies with elite athletes doesn't mean doping has not been effective with athletes.

This is true, and I have never ruled out this possibility that doping might be effective.

However, I do not find logical fallacies very persuasive, and this one is called "argument from ignorance".

One conclusion I have agreed with is that we need better studies than have been done to date.

The argument from ignorance appears to be your specialty.

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

It was not an argument, but an answer to your question.

It's the best answer I can give without knowing the answer.

You should just say you don't know.

He should. It would cover most of what he says.

Don't do the same mistake that people in LR continue to do, speaking about what I Always said.

Again, and again and again, I NEVER SAID EPO DOESN'T INCREASE PERFORMANCES IN DISTANCE RUNNING.

What ALWAYS I said, is that WITH ATHLETES LIVING AND TRAINING IN ALTITUDE, WITH TOP TALENT AND THE BEST POSSIBLE TRAINING, EPO CAN'T PRODUCE ANY ADVANTAGE, looking at the FACT that I had athletes with the WR who NEVER used any external help (also legal), and I know athletes NOT COACHED BY MYSELF who are the best in the World training in clean way.

I never denied the fact that some of the best looked at blood doping, but this doesn't mean that what I KNOW as FACTS is true, and it's difficult to think the WR holder could run faster (especially with the percentage that some researcher continue to say, like 4' in Marathon) if taking EPO.

Blood manipulation is effective for athletes who don't use high altitude training, because can give the same effect, ALSO IF WITH DIFFERENT FACTORS. With EPO ahletes enhance their Hct and their Hb, with high altitude training and permanence athletes enhance the ability to take more Oxygen from the atmosphere, something coming BEFORE the ability to transport O2.

It's useless to change a lorry able to transport one ton with another able to transport 2 tons, if the total material to transport is 0.8 tons only.

Under the practic point of view, some period in high altitude training doesn't allow the athlete to achieve the same result of a continue permanence (situation of the best white runners who improved the European records in the last 2-3 years : Sondre Moen and Julien Wanders, who improved a lot staying 250-300 days per year in high altitude).

You have the presumption to know for certain something that all the coaches working with elite athletes don't know, in spite of the FACTS that I explained above.

I'm curious to know your background in the field of elite athletics, and the personal experience that makes you so sure about a situation that NEVER was studied, and NEVER some researcher wanted to study.

I repeat again : without knowing the effects of training, nobody can speak about the effect of EPO with the best athletes.

Barrel of Laughs wrote:

Tired of your logical fallacies BS. Let's see what one of your favorite world-renowned coaches, and someone who you feverishly ran damage control for, has to say on this matter:

"Alberto Salazar:

"I believe ...

Too freaking funny - you're all over these threads bashing some of us for stating doping is very effective with elites, as well as discrediting top excercise physiologists & anti-doping experts, but yet your idol clearly states that it's difficult to be in the top 5 in the world for any distance event without doping.

Too funny - the coach you ran so much damage control for on those Salazar threads "tells it like it is."

You are tired of my logical fallacies BS?

You can continue to rely on them, but I simply do not find faith and fallacy persuasive.

You found a source that says a coach "believes" -- thanks for helping me make my point.

I note Salazar does not provide 1) performance data, and 2) discussion of confounders -- two things that could persuade me.

It looks like Salazar chose the difficult path for his NOP athletes, all of whom survived 7 years of intense scrutiny, looking under every stone, without a sanction.

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

It was not an argument, but an answer to your question.

It's the best answer I can give without knowing the answer.

You should just say you don't know.

My answer is better.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You keep maintaining that you think you know more about what it takes to succeed at professional running than the thousands who do it for a living, not to mention their coaches and physicians. Because you have read some stuff.

What I maintain is that you are palming off belief as knowledge.

You can not speak for what thousands of others know.

You are simply re-iterating your belief, because you have not read some stuff.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

You should just say you don't know.

My answer is better.

It certainly fits with your usual WAG system.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

[quote]rekrunner wrote:

It was not an argument, but an answer to your question.

It's the best answer I can give without knowing the answer.[/quote]

You should just say you don't know.

My answer is better.

Sames as - It is the most intelligent answer I can give when I don't have a brain.

Fixed.

If this field was, as you say, "never studied and never what some researcher wanted to study" (which is actually incorrect) then how can you be sure about what the effects of doping are - particularly as you insist your athletes have never used EPO? You are effectively in the same position as rekrunner of not being able to give a definitive answer - because of an apparent lack of data. You can't be speaking from experience, unless you have doped your athletes.

On your main point, that training can surpass doping, it should firstly be noted that altitude training long preceded EPO yet it didn't achieve the kinds of performances that occurred later after the introduction of EPO. Secondly, despite your claim that training can be more effective than blood-doping there are more and more altitude-trained athletes - elites - who continue to use EPO/blood doping - as the parade of doping busts in Kenya and elsewhere have shown. Why would they do that if it doesn't offer advantage? Clinical estimates of the effects of doping on performance - that include a conservative gain of 1%, but other measures are higher - have suggested that the successes of some athletes have easily been attributable to their doping.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You keep maintaining that you think you know more about what it takes to succeed at professional running than the thousands who do it for a living, not to mention their coaches and physicians. Because you have read some stuff.

What I maintain is that you are palming off belief as knowledge.

You can not speak for what thousands of others know.

You are simply re-iterating your belief, because you have not read some stuff.

I am not "palming off belief as knowledge". But when something is common practice, as doping is, then it implies there is knowledge to it - by those who use it. It is their knowledge, based on experience - and it is the experiences of thousands of athletes over generations - that outweighs your complete lack of experience. They are like sailors and you are like someone who has only read a nautical handbook. You know nothing, Jon Snow.

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

My answer is better.

It certainly fits with your usual WAG system.

To admit he doesn't know is something he could never admit to. So he has to say that he at least knows something - which is that he knows he doesn't know it. It's brilliantly and - because he has no sense of humour - entirely unintentionally self-satirizing.

wow this thread got rekked.....so back to something "real" and not garys bullsh*t idealogies...

stable when the hell is this list of names going to drop? its obvious its going to be soon as we have gary and renato going super saiyan on damage control

for those who actually read what those two spew out, its a HUGE waste of time, and if you engage in the conversation and rebuke gary good you will have your comment deleted and or banned...he is protected dont waste your time

Renato, why haven'y your guys touched the 1500, mile,, 2k, 3k, 5k and 10k records then?

I could care less about trying to persuade you - you've been trolling on this issue for years (nothing new there). My problem is your imperious attitude in trying to force your "beliefs" on others who have a much different opinion. And that's exactly what your's is - an OPINION that EPO/transfusions are ineffective with elites, but yet you want to force your opinion on what I would characterize as a demeaning & condescending fashion.

It's quite humorous that when I reference the opinions on the benefits of 02-vector doping with elites from PhD exercise physiologists, such as Malm and anti-doping experts/Olympic team physicians, such as Schumacher, you have contemptuously dismiss their opinions because they're not coaches out in the field working with elites and so on and so forth. So, I post a statement from one of your favorite coaches and a world-renowned coach at that and you dismiss it as his belief because he doesn't have performance data, confounders, etc. Lol. Yet he's a top international coach who's trained some of the best in the world and a former elite athlete himself - and you arbitrarily dismiss his statement as meaningless. Lol.

So, let's see what another world-renowned coach has to say: Canova states in this thread that he never said EPO doesn't increase performance in distance running (in response to a poster accusing him of stating that EPO doesn't increase performance). He follows that up by stating: "Blood manipulation is effective for athletes who don't use high altitude training, because can give the same effect" His statement isn't prefaced by "I believe" or anything like - it's a pretty specific statement on the effective of blood manipulation with athletes who don't use altitude training (which many don't).

A central flaw in the argument that EPO doesn't offer an advantage superior to altitude training is that there would be no incentive to use EPO when altitude training could achieve the same or even better results. Why risk health or a career-ending ban for something that is readily replaced by a legitimate training method, particularly for athletes who live in countries that offer easy access to altitude training?

physics defiant wrote:

Renato, why haven'y your guys touched the 1500, mile,, 2k, 3k, 5k and 10k records then?

Because his training only works for the roads? Or his athletes just aren't that talented? Or well-trained?...

Armstronglivs wrote:

A central flaw in the argument that EPO doesn't offer an advantage superior to altitude training is that there would be no incentive to use EPO when altitude training could achieve the same or even better results. Why risk health or a career-ending ban for something that is readily replaced by a legitimate training method, particularly for athletes who live in countries that offer easy access to altitude training?

That's an excellent point.

The #1 defense used in these ABP-hematological anomalies cases is altitude training. Even the Russians with their world-leading 70+ ABP bans were invariably claiming altitude training that caused the anomalies while at their secret Russian training camps. Even doper Kiptum with his insane 60+ Hct desperately claim altitude training and being altitude native and all that - didn't work one bit as he was banned and his WR performance at Valencia & marathon PB at Dhabi wers flushed. Lol.

If altitude training is the best thing since the invention of track spikes then why would these athletes training at altitude resort to doping in the first place, and for those busted try to weasel out by denying any doping and blaming altitude training as the cause of anomalies.

And wasn't that doping training camp at Sabadell in a high mountainous region of Spain?