The point is that people think both times were doped. Based on him scarcely breathing after both runs. A classic sign of the sweet dope.
The point is that people think both times were doped. Based on him scarcely breathing after both runs. A classic sign of the sweet dope.
Breathing? Really? Hobbs Kessler just ran 3:57 indoors and didn't take a breath. Same with Tanner's 3:55, like he yawned when he finished. Every great athlete that is in shape finishes like it is no big deal. Think of yourself. All my PRs were like I could have kept going.
Stupid analysis to think about what someone looks like after a run especially when a finish is most anaerobic.
Tom Cochrane. wrote:
The point is that people think both times were doped. Based on him scarcely breathing after both runs. A classic sign of the sweet dope.
Like he said "arguing about a stupidity".
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Haven't we already done this?
The answer would depend on several factors, which you have not specified.
And then, it would be pointless conjecture about hypotheticals.
So doping does have an effect but you can't say what it is; that "would be pointless conjecture about hypotheticals". You make evasion an art.
I did not say "doping does have an effect" either -- at this point, it is only your supposition built into a question.
I said your question is too vague to supply a single correct answer.
You just present the other side of your scarecrow as a foregone concession.
You are building a scarecrow and asking me to chose between the left side or the right side, and expand on that, as if scarecrows were real.
The left side or the right side is not better than the back side.
Science is not founded on scarecrows.
Just for you rekrunner:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livescience.com/amp/32388-what-is-blood-doping.html
"EPO is produced naturally by the body. The hormone gets released by the kidneys and causes the body's bone marrow to pump out red blood cells. Red blood cells shuttle oxygen through a person's blood, so any boost in their numbers can improve the amount of oxygen the blood can carry to the body's muscles. Then end result is more endurance."
"Blood doping reduces fatigue by increasing the supply of oxygen to the exercising muscles," said Michael Joyner, an anesthesiologist at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota. "This will not increase the maximum force the muscle can generate but will permit the muscle to do more work for longer."[/b]
"If somebody has an exceptional performance, 'they must be cheating,' because there have been examples of exceptional performances when people were cheating," Joyner said. "So every unusual performance, every breakthrough performance, every record, somehow the question becomes, 'Is it real or to what extent did doping contribute to this?' and you just don't know."[/b]
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
Just for you rekrunner:
"EPO is produced naturally by the body. The hormone gets released by the kidneys and causes the body's bone marrow to pump out red blood cells. Red blood cells shuttle oxygen through a person's blood, so any boost in their numbers can improve the amount of oxygen the blood can carry to the body's muscles. Then end result is more endurance."
"Blood doping reduces fatigue by increasing the supply of oxygen to the exercising muscles," said Michael Joyner, an anesthesiologist at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota. "This will not increase the maximum force the muscle can generate but will permit the muscle to do more work for longer."
"If somebody has an exceptional performance, 'they must be cheating,' because there have been examples of exceptional performances when people were cheating," Joyner said. "So every unusual performance, every breakthrough performance, every record, somehow the question becomes, 'Is it real or to what extent did doping contribute to this?' and you just don't know."
Thanks for helping me make my arguments stronger. I appreciate the assistance. First by investigating and demonstrating the small impact on women's 100m and 200m results (I'm sure Jon also appreciates this confirmation too), and now this.
The best that an "anesthesiologist at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota" can conclude is "you just don't know".
We do know that EPO produces more red blood cells. Beyond that, things start getting pretty fuzzy.
We just saw as recently as a 2018 study where the question of whether more oxygen even makes it to the muscles, is still under investigation. These 2018 scientists found that boosting hematocrit to still healthy levels of 48% didn't significantly reduce the blood flow to the muscles, something hypothesized by the increased viscosity.
Ironically, Dr. Joyner tells us the same thing in 2013: "The fear with blood doping or EPO use is that the blood count gets too high, the blood gets too thick, and it becomes hard for the heart to push the blood around the body".
Assuming more oxygen does get to the muscles, the unanswered question becomes how this can impact performance. To address this, assuming the mechanism of "more endurance", requires determining to what extent the very best elites are fatiguing, such that "more endurance" would result in a noticeable improvement.
Dr. Joyner asks the right question "to what extent did doping contribute to this?" and gives the best answer "you just don't know".
rekrunner wrote:
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
Just for you rekrunner:
"EPO is produced naturally by the body. The hormone gets released by the kidneys and causes the body's bone marrow to pump out red blood cells. Red blood cells shuttle oxygen through a person's blood, so any boost in their numbers can improve the amount of oxygen the blood can carry to the body's muscles. Then end result is more endurance."
"Blood doping reduces fatigue by increasing the supply of oxygen to the exercising muscles," said Michael Joyner, an anesthesiologist at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota. "This will not increase the maximum force the muscle can generate but will permit the muscle to do more work for longer."
"If somebody has an exceptional performance, 'they must be cheating,' because there have been examples of exceptional performances when people were cheating," Joyner said. "So every unusual performance, every breakthrough performance, every record, somehow the question becomes, 'Is it real or to what extent did doping contribute to this?' and you just don't know."
Thanks for helping me make my arguments stronger. I appreciate the assistance. First by investigating and demonstrating the small impact on women's 100m and 200m results (I'm sure Jon also appreciates this confirmation too), and now this.
The best that an "anesthesiologist at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota" can conclude is "you just don't know".
We do know that EPO produces more red blood cells. Beyond that, things start getting pretty fuzzy.
We just saw as recently as a 2018 study where the question of whether more oxygen even makes it to the muscles, is still under investigation. These 2018 scientists found that boosting hematocrit to still healthy levels of 48% didn't significantly reduce the blood flow to the muscles, something hypothesized by the increased viscosity.
Ironically, Dr. Joyner tells us the same thing in 2013: "The fear with blood doping or EPO use is that the blood count gets too high, the blood gets too thick, and it becomes hard for the heart to push the blood around the body".
Assuming more oxygen does get to the muscles, the unanswered question becomes how this can impact performance. To address this, assuming the mechanism of "more endurance", requires determining to what extent the very best elites are fatiguing, such that "more endurance" would result in a noticeable improvement.
Dr. Joyner asks the right question "to what extent did doping contribute to this?" and gives the best answer "you just don't know".
You're so full of yourself it's not even funny - all you do is constantly obfuscate. Quit being so obtuse and changing what the statements say - it's getting old!
- Joyner says; "Blood doping reduces fatigue by increasing the supply of oxygen to the exercising muscles," and "This will not increase the maximum force the muscle can generate but will permit the muscle to do more work for longer."
Blood doping reduces "fatigue" to the exercising muscles and "will permit the muscle to do more work for longer" --- do you understand what this means? Sounds performance enhancing to me. Lol.
And Joyner is saying that all these WR performances, exceptional performances, breakthrough performances, etc. could be doped. You on the other hand seem to think this implies that they're definitely not. And if they could be doped - then they're considered "suspicious," which many of us think so anyway.
On the 100m, I don't know what the hell you're talking about. You completely blew it when arrogantly posted that only one (1) Russian/Slavic women was in the top-100 all-time. Lol. I had to (as usual many times) go back and correct the record showing proof of several Russian/Slavic women in the top-100 including Irina Privalova, who's 13th fastest, faster than the great Daphne Skippers, and the fastest non-African woman in the world!
When are you going to grow up and quit acting so pretentious misinterpreting statements to benefit your agenda and purposely omitting data from the top-100 all-time best lists.
Standard Setter wrote:
You guys are all arguing about a stupidity. The OP stated that El G's WR was 3:49/mile pace, when his WR is 3:43.
My PB 2000m is about 5 seconds slower/mile pace (4:08 mile pb, with 4:12 mile pace for 2000m), so not sure what all the beef is about.
Come back when you have run 3.43.
Standard Setter wrote:
Breathing? Really? Hobbs Kessler just ran 3:57 indoors and didn't take a breath. Same with Tanner's 3:55, like he yawned when he finished. Every great athlete that is in shape finishes like it is no big deal. Think of yourself. All my PRs were like I could have kept going.
Stupid analysis to think about what someone looks like after a run especially when a finish is most anaerobic.
Breathing isn't the issue, although some have taken a detour down that track; the issue is that 3.43 and 4.44 are doped. That it was apparently effortless is just icing on that particular cake.
rekrunner wrote:
Tom Cochrane. wrote:
The point is that people think both times were doped. Based on him scarcely breathing after both runs. A classic sign of the sweet dope.
Like he said "arguing about a stupidity".
Your specialty.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So doping does have an effect but you can't say what it is; that "would be pointless conjecture about hypotheticals". You make evasion an art.
I did not say "doping does have an effect" either -- at this point, it is only your supposition built into a question.
I said your question is too vague to supply a single correct answer.
You just present the other side of your scarecrow as a foregone concession.
You are building a scarecrow and asking me to chose between the left side or the right side, and expand on that, as if scarecrows were real.
The left side or the right side is not better than the back side.
Science is not founded on scarecrows.
I really do think you need psychiatric help. Really.
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
Just for you rekrunner:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livescience.com/amp/32388-what-is-blood-doping.html"EPO is produced naturally by the body. The hormone gets released by the kidneys and causes the body's bone marrow to pump out red blood cells. Red blood cells shuttle oxygen through a person's blood, so any boost in their numbers can improve the amount of oxygen the blood can carry to the body's muscles. Then end result is more endurance. "
"Blood doping reduces fatigue by increasing the supply of oxygen to the exercising muscles," said Michael Joyner, an anesthesiologist at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota. "This will not increase the maximum force the muscle can generate but will permit the muscle to do more work for longer."[/b]
"If somebody has an exceptional performance, 'they must be cheating,' because there have been examples of exceptional performances when people were cheating," Joyner said. "So every unusual performance, every breakthrough performance, every record, somehow the question becomes, 'Is it real or to what extent did doping contribute to this?' and you just don't know."[/b]
"Red blood cells shuttle oxygen through a person's blood, so any boost in their numbers can improve the amount of oxygen the blood can carry to the body's muscles. The end result is more endurance."[/quote]
It is in plain English, which means it is beyond rekrunner's ability to comprehend.
rekrunner wrote:
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
Just for you rekrunner:
"EPO is produced naturally by the body. The hormone gets released by the kidneys and causes the body's bone marrow to pump out red blood cells. Red blood cells shuttle oxygen through a person's blood, so any boost in their numbers can improve the amount of oxygen the blood can carry to the body's muscles. Then end result is more endurance."
"Blood doping reduces fatigue by increasing the supply of oxygen to the exercising muscles," said Michael Joyner, an anesthesiologist at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota. "This will not increase the maximum force the muscle can generate but will permit the muscle to do more work for longer."
"If somebody has an exceptional performance, 'they must be cheating,' because there have been examples of exceptional performances when people were cheating," Joyner said. "So every unusual performance, every breakthrough performance, every record, somehow the question becomes, 'Is it real or to what extent did doping contribute to this?' and you just don't know."
Thanks for helping me make my arguments stronger. I appreciate the assistance. First by investigating and demonstrating the small impact on women's 100m and 200m results (I'm sure Jon also appreciates this confirmation too), and now this.
The best that an "anesthesiologist at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota" can conclude is "you just don't know".
We do know that EPO produces more red blood cells. Beyond that, things start getting pretty fuzzy.
We just saw as recently as a 2018 study where the question of whether more oxygen even makes it to the muscles, is still under investigation. These 2018 scientists found that boosting hematocrit to still healthy levels of 48% didn't significantly reduce the blood flow to the muscles, something hypothesized by the increased viscosity.
Ironically, Dr. Joyner tells us the same thing in 2013: "The fear with blood doping or EPO use is that the blood count gets too high, the blood gets too thick, and it becomes hard for the heart to push the blood around the body".
Assuming more oxygen does get to the muscles, the unanswered question becomes how this can impact performance. To address this, assuming the mechanism of "more endurance", requires determining to what extent the very best elites are fatiguing, such that "more endurance" would result in a noticeable improvement.
Dr. Joyner asks the right question "to what extent did doping contribute to this?" and gives the best answer "you just don't know".
Because you are not very bright you haven't realised that Dr Joyner is saying that for any individual performance we can't be sure if it's doped or not; he isn't saying that we don't know whether doping has any effect - which is how you are seeking to construe it.
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
You're so full of yourself it's not even funny - all you do is constantly obfuscate. Quit being so obtuse and changing what the statements say - it's getting old!
- Joyner says; "Blood doping reduces fatigue by increasing the supply of oxygen to the exercising muscles," and "This will not increase the maximum force the muscle can generate but will permit the muscle to do more work for longer."
Blood doping reduces "fatigue" to the exercising muscles and "will permit the muscle to do more work for longer" --- do you understand what this means? Sounds performance enhancing to me. Lol.
And Joyner is saying that all these WR performances, exceptional performances, breakthrough performances, etc. could be doped. You on the other hand seem to think this implies that they're definitely not. And if they could be doped - then they're considered "suspicious," which many of us think so anyway.
On the 100m, I don't know what the hell you're talking about. You completely blew it when arrogantly posted that only one (1) Russian/Slavic women was in the top-100 all-time. Lol. I had to (as usual many times) go back and correct the record showing proof of several Russian/Slavic women in the top-100 including Irina Privalova, who's 13th fastest, faster than the great Daphne Skippers, and the fastest non-African woman in the world!
When are you going to grow up and quit acting so pretentious misinterpreting statements to benefit your agenda and purposely omitting data from the top-100 all-time best lists.
Huh? Obfuscate? I quoted directly from your selection of expert quotes.
Like all your experts, I agree with Dr. Joyner when he describes a potential possibility: "so any boost in their numbers can improve the amount of oxygen the blood can carry to the body's muscles" and "could be doped". My implication is also Dr. Joyner's conclusion "you just don't know".
The part you quoted depends on more oxygen actually getting to the muscles, something Dr. Joyner fell short of saying, because, as we have seen, that is still under investigation.
Pretentious? If your experts are not convinced, I don't pretend more than they do. But if you know more, I'd love to see the real data and observations behind that.
Regarding Russian women, what did I blow? It was Armstronglivs who said "doping only works for Russian women on steroids" -- why would anyone bring up "slavic women" or the GDR? I support this notion that steroids helps women in events requiring strength. But I was surprised to learn that even when expanding the reach to include Slavs and GDR, the numbers are not higher -- I thought these small numbers, like 5 and 6 in the top-100, and 13th fastest was attempting to right-play the performance impacts of any effect.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Dr. Joyner asks the right question "to what extent did doping contribute to this?" and gives the best answer "you just don't know".
Because you are not very bright you haven't realised that Dr Joyner is saying that for any individual performance we can't be sure if it's doped or not; he isn't saying that we don't know whether doping has any effect - which is how you are seeking to construe it.
Maybe you aren't that bright either, as I already agreed with your interpretation: "we can't be sure if it's doped or not" and we "just don't know" "to what extent did doping contribute to this".
Armstronglivs wrote:
Breathing isn't the issue, although some have taken a detour down that track; the issue is that 3.43 and 4.44 are doped. That it was apparently effortless is just icing on that particular cake.
And as you just explained, experts like Dr. Joyner tell us "we can't be sure if it's doped or not".
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Breathing isn't the issue, although some have taken a detour down that track; the issue is that 3.43 and 4.44 are doped. That it was apparently effortless is just icing on that particular cake.
And as you just explained, experts like Dr. Joyner tell us "we can't be sure if it's doped or not".
Dr Joyner's opinion isnt universal.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Because you are not very bright you haven't realised that Dr Joyner is saying that for any individual performance we can't be sure if it's doped or not; he isn't saying that we don't know whether doping has any effect - which is how you are seeking to construe it.
Maybe you aren't that bright either, as I already agreed with your interpretation: "we can't be sure if it's doped or not" and we "just don't know" "to what extent did doping contribute to this".
You didn't agree with my interpretation - you never do. You were twisting Joyner's statement to say what you believe. That's what you do.
rekrunner wrote:
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
You're so full of yourself it's not even funny - all you do is constantly obfuscate. Quit being so obtuse and changing what the statements say - it's getting old!
- Joyner says; "Blood doping reduces fatigue by increasing the supply of oxygen to the exercising muscles," and "This will not increase the maximum force the muscle can generate but will permit the muscle to do more work for longer."
Blood doping reduces "fatigue" to the exercising muscles and "will permit the muscle to do more work for longer" --- do you understand what this means? Sounds performance enhancing to me. Lol.
And Joyner is saying that all these WR performances, exceptional performances, breakthrough performances, etc. could be doped. You on the other hand seem to think this implies that they're definitely not. And if they could be doped - then they're considered "suspicious," which many of us think so anyway.
On the 100m, I don't know what the hell you're talking about. You completely blew it when arrogantly posted that only one (1) Russian/Slavic women was in the top-100 all-time. Lol. I had to (as usual many times) go back and correct the record showing proof of several Russian/Slavic women in the top-100 including Irina Privalova, who's 13th fastest, faster than the great Daphne Skippers, and the fastest non-African woman in the world!
When are you going to grow up and quit acting so pretentious misinterpreting statements to benefit your agenda and purposely omitting data from the top-100 all-time best lists.
Huh? Obfuscate? I quoted directly from your selection of expert quotes.
Like all your experts, I agree with Dr. Joyner when he describes a potential possibility: "so any boost in their numbers can improve the amount of oxygen the blood can carry to the body's muscles" and "could be doped". My implication is also Dr. Joyner's conclusion "you just don't know".
The part you quoted depends on more oxygen actually getting to the muscles, something Dr. Joyner fell short of saying, because, as we have seen, that is still under investigation.
Pretentious? If your experts are not convinced, I don't pretend more than they do. But if you know more, I'd love to see the real data and observations behind that.
Regarding Russian women, what did I blow? It was Armstronglivs who said "doping only works for Russian women on steroids" -- why would anyone bring up "slavic women" or the GDR? I support this notion that steroids helps women in events requiring strength. But I was surprised to learn that even when expanding the reach to include Slavs and GDR, the numbers are not higher -- I thought these small numbers, like 5 and 6 in the top-100, and 13th fastest was attempting to right-play the performance impacts of any effect.
The comment you attribute to me was a paraphrase of your own - delivered ironically. Only a complete moron would have understood it to have been an expression of my opinion. Oh, right ...
I support this notion that steroids helps women in events requiring strength. (quote)
Yet most female Russian track athletes were doping, and not simply with steroids but a combination of drugs that included testosterone, hgh and amphetamines. It produced world champions for Russia in middle distance events. Athletes who tried to subsequently compete clean could get nowhere near their previously doped times (over 800m an athlete who ran 1.56 doped couldn't get below 2.01 clean).
Your ignorance in presuming that steroids only help women in strength events - when most athletes will consume a combination of drugs - is matched only by your arrogance in asserting what you do not know. You are a bag of wind of Hindenburg proportions.