What a load of evasive garbage. Antidoping is not based mainly on health concerns for athletes - most have no health issues arising from doping. Adverse effects on health are only a possible side effect and for those who don't know what they are doing. The main sports concern about doping is that it confers unfair advantage - WADA is a sports body, not a medical body - and gaining advantage is the reason why athletes choose to dope. They don't do it to improve (let alone harm) their health. Only someone who has been asleep for the last half century is unaware of that.
So you compare doping with religion - that is as moronic as it is possible to get. Religion is based on incorporeal beliefs; there is nothing incorporeal about drugs. They are as real as anything that is of a material nature in this world - they exist as fact not belief. The only "belief" is yours, that drugs that are known to affect human physiology nonetheless do not do so when it comes to altitude-trained Kenyan marathon runners. Such a view is against all reason. Because you cannot identify the extent that those drugs aid performance you choose to argue they therefore don't aid performance; a conclusion based entirely on your own ignorance. But that is the basis of everything you argue; what you can't see or measure doesn't exist. Such is a bean-counter, not a sportsman with any experience of what it is that you claim to know. The fact that innumerable athletes - in all sports - have doped for generations and continue to do so is irrefutable evidence that athletes gain improvements from doping, or the practice would never have persisted as it has. There is nothing except your ignorance that suggest doping will have no effect on distance athletes - who nonetheless continue to dope.
You arguments are neither factually sound or to the point; you are quite the most misguided contributor on this subject in this site. Oh, but Sage has already said that.
Evasive?
Unlike you, I am guided by a large body of facts and historical evidence, rather than misunderstanding what false authorities may or may not have said. That is why I values neutral facts and evidence and observations, rather than parrotting and promoting and participating in gossip and rumor mills.
WADA also seems to disagree with you about its purpose. WADA gives three reasons for banning substances, health risk, potential to enhance performance, and spirit of the sport, without elevating one criteria above the other two. According to WADA, this is an annual subjective assessment by the "Prohibited List Expert Advisory Group ... responsible for providing expert advice, recommendations and guidance to the Health, Medical and Research Committee".
WADA is a sports governance body, composed of lawyers, doctors, and scientists, but the "Health, Medical, and Research Committee" sounds very much like a medical body concerned with health. I don't see performance in their name.
You naively claimed industries couldn't be built nor persist on fiction. The opposite is true -- industries become much bigger and last much longer when surrounded by non-falsifiable myths. The supplement industry is another closer example of selling hope without guarantees. Flat-Earth is another example of a burgeoning industry built on fiction and conspiracy, thanks to the internet and YouTube. In religion, Jesus was a real person, as was Muhammed, as was Moses, and a whole host of countless prophets, as was Joseph Smith, not to mention all the players in other pagan religions which survive to this day. The industry is all the myths that have been built around them.
LMFTFY: The fact that innumerable athletes - in all sports - have doped for generations and continue to do so is irrefutable evidence that athletes *hope* to gain improvements from doping. It is hope in future results that tempts new athletes. Like Schroedinger's cat, the truth can only become known when someone observes it.
Historical performances of 85-90% of the world population over the last few decades does not suggest what you claim powerful and widespread doping is known by athletes to deliver. You claim the only debate is we don't know by how much doping helps, never being specific about the dope, the athlete, or the event. Some dope helps some athletes in some events (e.g. women and steroids), but others will be performance neutral, and yet others will degrade performance.
I don't doubt that "drugs that are known to affect human physiology", but this is no guarantee that the physiological effects will result in superior sporting performances than is possible without the drugs.
The drivel continues. You speak as though sport in history - pursued by a few amateurs - was the same as it has become today, a global professional enterprise. Doping was amateur in the past and a rarity, there is no evidence of it being a regular practice, and it was nothing like what it has become in this era, a huge international enterprise conducted according to some of the most expert levels of scientific and medical knowledge. Lydiard's athletes were not competing against any known to be dopers; Canova's athletes are always competing against dopers - or have you not followed the stream of doping busts coming out of Kenya? Every time you open your mouth on this subject you show yourself to be the biggest fool on this site.
The drivel continues every time you post.
Ironically, you allege there is no evidence in the past, when you repeatedly fail to provide evidence in the present. Lydiard showed that clean athletes can beat doped athletes, when their focus is on better training and a correct mindset and self confidence. Where is your evidence today that any of that has changed as Canova's athletes beat the other dopers?
And yet again, you are wrong about evidence in the past. I already gave you a quote from Dr. Otto Reiser in 1933. Here is another one from Dr. Ove Boje in 1939.
"There can be no doubt that stimulants are to-day widely used by athletes participating in competitions; the record-breaking craze and the desire to satisfy an exacting public play a more and more prominent role, and take higher rank than the health of the competitors itself".
Note again the explicit concern for health which existed in the 1930s. Doping was a serious concern in the 1930's, which only grew after World War II, in the decades before Lydiard, before the IOC first adopted policies addressing it in 1967. Health concerns continued, as East Germany was turning some of their women into men, and cyclists started dying, such as the televised death of Tom Simpson, and as many as 20 European cyclists suspected of EPO related deaths in the span of 4 years.
Because you cannot identify the extent that those drugs aid performance you choose to argue they therefore don't aid performance; a conclusion based entirely on your own ignorance. But that is the basis of everything you argue; what you can't see or measure doesn't exist.
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding that you are still wholly ignorant of what I argue or conclude. You put false conclusions in my mouth because you cannot support your own beliefs.
You want to elevate allegations and speculation to the level of information and knowledge, without providing any facts or evidence, but rather propagating your assumed conclusions formed from your perceived beliefs of countless athletes.
I mainly argue that without such facts or evidence, it remains firmly in the domain of belief, faith, hope, and imagination, even when considering the decisions of "innumerable athletes - in all sports - for generations". Observation is a fundamental requirements of the scientific method that requires controlled observations. You cannot bypass this method by popular vote.
When I looked at decades of historical all time performances, I did not conclude that doping does not work for East Africans, but wondered out loud why the comparative quantity and quality of improvement for most of the world, for decades, was virtually imperceptable. Did doping "work" for non-Africans in the last 3-4 decades? I got many competing hypotheses as responses, all attempting to explain why it didn't work, or that it did, but we just can't see it in the performances. History suggests it likely worked for the Russian and East German and Chinese women. That whole exercise was to investigate an earlier question, does doping work for East Africans "the same way" it works for non-Africans? I failed to observe any "sameness" in all time history.
It is this virtual lack of historical performance progress, for 85-90% of the world population, originating from 5-continents, for the last three to four decades, that forms a large basis for what I argue -- the popular belief seems to be largely unsupported by historical fact. Schroedinger's cat appears to be dead.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Reason provided:
Fixed spelling
You are here as many times as I post, because you respond to every one of them. I am the only thing that interests you on these threads.
Don't you get tired of being wrong, Fido? I have just come to letsrun now, 15 hours later. Unsurprisingly, you have posted several times in those 15 hours. How does that foot taste?
So you come here at least every day - sometimes several times a day. So there's a difference from my posting, which takes only a few minutes of my time? And you only come to respond to my posts - no others. You are fixated on me.
The drivel continues. You speak as though sport in history - pursued by a few amateurs - was the same as it has become today, a global professional enterprise. Doping was amateur in the past and a rarity, there is no evidence of it being a regular practice, and it was nothing like what it has become in this era, a huge international enterprise conducted according to some of the most expert levels of scientific and medical knowledge. Lydiard's athletes were not competing against any known to be dopers; Canova's athletes are always competing against dopers - or have you not followed the stream of doping busts coming out of Kenya? Every time you open your mouth on this subject you show yourself to be the biggest fool on this site.
The drivel continues every time you post.
Ironically, you allege there is no evidence in the past, when you repeatedly fail to provide evidence in the present. Lydiard showed that clean athletes can beat doped athletes, when their focus is on better training and a correct mindset and self confidence. Where is your evidence today that any of that has changed as Canova's athletes beat the other dopers?
And yet again, you are wrong about evidence in the past. I already gave you a quote from Dr. Otto Reiser in 1933. Here is another one from Dr. Ove Boje in 1939.
"There can be no doubt that stimulants are to-day widely used by athletes participating in competitions; the record-breaking craze and the desire to satisfy an exacting public play a more and more prominent role, and take higher rank than the health of the competitors itself".
Note again the explicit concern for health which existed in the 1930s. Doping was a serious concern in the 1930's, which only grew after World War II, in the decades before Lydiard, before the IOC first adopted policies addressing it in 1967. Health concerns continued, as East Germany was turning some of their women into men, and cyclists started dying, such as the televised death of Tom Simpson, and as many as 20 European cyclists suspected of EPO related deaths in the span of 4 years.
Lydiard didn't show clean athletes could beat doped athletes. Doping was unknown in distance running in the late 50's and early '60's, despite it becoming observed in sports like cycling. Ignorant of history, as well as everything else. By the late 80's doped athletes were beating everyone else - as they do today.
What a load of evasive garbage. Antidoping is not based mainly on health concerns for athletes - most have no health issues arising from doping. Adverse effects on health are only a possible side effect and for those who don't know what they are doing. The main sports concern about doping is that it confers unfair advantage - WADA is a sports body, not a medical body - and gaining advantage is the reason why athletes choose to dope. They don't do it to improve (let alone harm) their health. Only someone who has been asleep for the last half century is unaware of that.
So you compare doping with religion - that is as moronic as it is possible to get. Religion is based on incorporeal beliefs; there is nothing incorporeal about drugs. They are as real as anything that is of a material nature in this world - they exist as fact not belief. The only "belief" is yours, that drugs that are known to affect human physiology nonetheless do not do so when it comes to altitude-trained Kenyan marathon runners. Such a view is against all reason. Because you cannot identify the extent that those drugs aid performance you choose to argue they therefore don't aid performance; a conclusion based entirely on your own ignorance. But that is the basis of everything you argue; what you can't see or measure doesn't exist. Such is a bean-counter, not a sportsman with any experience of what it is that you claim to know. The fact that innumerable athletes - in all sports - have doped for generations and continue to do so is irrefutable evidence that athletes gain improvements from doping, or the practice would never have persisted as it has. There is nothing except your ignorance that suggest doping will have no effect on distance athletes - who nonetheless continue to dope.
You arguments are neither factually sound or to the point; you are quite the most misguided contributor on this subject in this site. Oh, but Sage has already said that.
Evasive?
Unlike you, I am guided by a large body of facts and historical evidence, rather than misunderstanding what false authorities may or may not have said. That is why I values neutral facts and evidence and observations, rather than parrotting and promoting and participating in gossip and rumor mills.
WADA also seems to disagree with you about its purpose. WADA gives three reasons for banning substances, health risk, potential to enhance performance, and spirit of the sport, without elevating one criteria above the other two. According to WADA, this is an annual subjective assessment by the "Prohibited List Expert Advisory Group ... responsible for providing expert advice, recommendations and guidance to the Health, Medical and Research Committee".
WADA is a sports governance body, composed of lawyers, doctors, and scientists, but the "Health, Medical, and Research Committee" sounds very much like a medical body concerned with health. I don't see performance in their name.
You naively claimed industries couldn't be built nor persist on fiction. The opposite is true -- industries become much bigger and last much longer when surrounded by non-falsifiable myths. The supplement industry is another closer example of selling hope without guarantees. Flat-Earth is another example of a burgeoning industry built on fiction and conspiracy, thanks to the internet and YouTube. In religion, Jesus was a real person, as was Muhammed, as was Moses, and a whole host of countless prophets, as was Joseph Smith, not to mention all the players in other pagan religions which survive to this day. The industry is all the myths that have been built around them.
LMFTFY: The fact that innumerable athletes - in all sports - have doped for generations and continue to do so is irrefutable evidence that athletes *hope* to gain improvements from doping. It is hope in future results that tempts new athletes. Like Schroedinger's cat, the truth can only become known when someone observes it.
Historical performances of 85-90% of the world population over the last few decades does not suggest what you claim powerful and widespread doping is known by athletes to deliver. You claim the only debate is we don't know by how much doping helps, never being specific about the dope, the athlete, or the event. Some dope helps some athletes in some events (e.g. women and steroids), but others will be performance neutral, and yet others will degrade performance.
I don't doubt that "drugs that are known to affect human physiology", but this is no guarantee that the physiological effects will result in superior sporting performances than is possible without the drugs.
WADA is not a health body. It doesn't prosecute athletes for harming their health but for breaking the rules of sport. Thousands of athletes have doped over the years. How many are reported to have significant health issues? How is Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, Barry Bonds and Lance Armstrong after all their doping, not to mention the countless Russian athletes now banned? How many of the stream of Kenyan dopers in recent years are now sick or have died as a result of doping? The greater part of doping has been about unfair performance enhancement, which is why WADA exists. Health issues may be a possible side-effect but for most athletes who dope it clearly isn't. Up to 50% of championship athletes have doped, according to confidential athlete surveys. In bodybuilding and the WWE it would nearly be a 100%. Where is the epidemic of sickness amongst these athletes? You are utterly clueless about all of this.
As for comparing the role of the churches with a tangible product whose benefits can be known through direct experience - that's as stupid a comparison as any you have made. And you have made many.
The most telling thing about doping is that it has found its way into all sports and all countries. It could only have done that if it produced results for those using it - like modern equipment, such as golf clubs and tennis racquets - otherwise the equivalent of rain dances to win a race would have become just as popular. Because you can't think beyond your own beliefs you have no idea how others think and especially competitive athletes.
Don't you get tired of being wrong, Fido? I have just come to letsrun now, 15 hours later. Unsurprisingly, you have posted several times in those 15 hours. How does that foot taste?
So you come here at least every day - sometimes several times a day. So there's a difference from my posting, which takes only a few minutes of my time? And you only come to respond to my posts - no others. You are fixated on me.
Let me remind you, the only person fixated on you is you. You are a narcissist. Try to assimilate that.
And I post on many other threads. I just don't want to pollute my registered handle with you. Your narcissism leaves a horrible stench wherever you go :)
Doping was unknown in distance running in the late 50's and early '60's, despite it becoming observed in sports like cycling. Ignorant of history, as well as everything else.
Absolutely false. You are ignorant of history, as well as everything else. Aren't you embarrassed by your own ignorance?
Don't you get tired of being wrong, Fido? I have just come to letsrun now, 15 hours later. Unsurprisingly, you have posted several times in those 15 hours. How does that foot taste?
So you come here at least every day - sometimes several times a day. So there's a difference from my posting, which takes only a few minutes of my time? And you only come to respond to my posts - no others. You are fixated on me.
Your posting doesn't take a few minutes per day - you spend hours and hours in letsrun, every day. You are free to do so, you are not free to destroy thread after thread. You are not going into any argument which proves you to be wrong on something. Because you don't have any interest to discuss something.
So you come here at least every day - sometimes several times a day. So there's a difference from my posting, which takes only a few minutes of my time? And you only come to respond to my posts - no others. You are fixated on me.
Your posting doesn't take a few minutes per day - you spend hours and hours in letsrun, every day. You are free to do so, you are not free to destroy thread after thread. You are not going into any argument which proves you to be wrong on something. Because you don't have any interest to discuss something.
Absolutely correct.
Armstrongloser, it's easy to prove you spend hours here ruining threads. One just has to see the time stamps on your posts.
You never help a noob with training questions. You never offer constructive opinions and advice. You only come here to insult others and to say that anyone faster than your heroes is a doper.
Ironically, you allege there is no evidence in the past, when you repeatedly fail to provide evidence in the present. Lydiard showed that clean athletes can beat doped athletes, when their focus is on better training and a correct mindset and self confidence. Where is your evidence today that any of that has changed as Canova's athletes beat the other dopers?
And yet again, you are wrong about evidence in the past. I already gave you a quote from Dr. Otto Reiser in 1933. Here is another one from Dr. Ove Boje in 1939.
"There can be no doubt that stimulants are to-day widely used by athletes participating in competitions; the record-breaking craze and the desire to satisfy an exacting public play a more and more prominent role, and take higher rank than the health of the competitors itself".
Note again the explicit concern for health which existed in the 1930s. Doping was a serious concern in the 1930's, which only grew after World War II, in the decades before Lydiard, before the IOC first adopted policies addressing it in 1967. Health concerns continued, as East Germany was turning some of their women into men, and cyclists started dying, such as the televised death of Tom Simpson, and as many as 20 European cyclists suspected of EPO related deaths in the span of 4 years.
Lydiard didn't show clean athletes could beat doped athletes. Doping was unknown in distance running in the late 50's and early '60's, despite it becoming observed in sports like cycling. Ignorant of history, as well as everything else. By the late 80's doped athletes were beating everyone else - as they do today.
How do you rate a 1:44.3 on a grass track 62 years ago? How fast could the athlete to do so run with modern shoes on a current track? 1 second for the track and 0.5 seconds for the shoes alone would make him faster than the best athletes today. Has training evolved in the last 6 decades? Surely, don't ya think?