A closer look at EPO-era performances

Inquiring minds want to know wrote:

Coevett wrote:

Aouita was obviously on some special new sauce from 83 onwards, and if so, why couldn't Coe, Ovett, Cram get hold of it? Cram.

And just what "special new sauce" would that be? Something unique to Moroccans?

Well something that turns a b-level runner at the age of 23 into the most pheonomenally versatile runner in the history of track and that a cheating Moroccan would be the first to jump on.

We do not rank performances by HgB and VO2max, nor do we compensate based on baseline Hgb and VO2max. We measure performance with time. I did not bring up Ramzi again, "Voice of Reason" did. I don't consider's Ramzi's improvement extraordinary. I expect improvements to come with training. Andrew Wheating had a similar improvement before Monaco 2010 . I'm sure these kind of breakthroughs happen a lot. I'm not convinced that "The training stimulus effect from O2-vector doping" allows you "to push through barriers that the athlete couldn't have accomplished clean resulting in improved performance", unless you mean mental barriers. Riccardo Ricco tested positive for CERA in July 2008 when it became well known that a new test existed. Ramzi was ill-advised.

Rocket Fuel Rick wrote:

And since you brought up Ramzi again, his suspicious improvement and coming out of nowhere into a WC caliber athlete should even have you taking note. However, his astronomically high off-scores (157.8/148) on two blood draws at Helsinki where he won double-gold is probably just a coincidence - nothing to see there.

That was before 2009. So depending on rekrunner's mood, he will call these off-scores "not real" or "not true" or "not meaningful" or caused by "hemoconcentration", as he did repeatedy with his wife's off-scores. He has forgotten that IAAF accepted such data as "collaborative evidence".

Coevett wrote:

Err no, male pattern baldness does not prove an athlete doped, not suffering any visible hair loss after alleged longterm steroid abuse is however an indicator of the absence of steroid abuse.

I've often been tempted to take steroids or at least the new SARMS (as a gym rat). As I don't compete in any sport, I see no ethical reason not to other than possible dangers to my health, including hair loss. If you guys know a sure way of taking steroids without experiencing any hair loss ever, I'd like to know, and a lot of others would too.

Ask this guy, who looks like he has the very same hairline since high school

I have not implied it at all. And you haven't understood my question. I asked why you assume that "all top runners have and always have doped everywhere", which you clearly do according to your own words, cited here again for clarity:

Finally, rekrunner is only one example. So it's you and rekrunner, according to coevett's words. And you should have noticed that rekrunner loves to troll around.

WTF are you talking about? Are you trying to be clever? Most people who speak English would clearly interpret my statement as meaning 'everybody but not me'. That's how language works. If you've taken it to mean that I include myself in 'everybody here' I'd also assume you're very aspergic.

I have nothing against you for that btw, one of my best friends at school was autistic. He was always coming out with stuff like that, it annoyed me sometimes but I learnt to laugh at it.

In a thread that looked at performance, I will just note that these amazingly high off-scores in Helsinki produced mediocre times ranging from 3:34.69 (2186th fastest all time) to 3:38. I guess you meant to say "corroborative evidence" -- I never forgot, but in other "cases", there was no primary evidence to corroborate.

casual obsever wrote:

Rocket Fuel Rick wrote:

And since you brought up Ramzi again, his suspicious improvement and coming out of nowhere into a WC caliber athlete should even have you taking note. However, his astronomically high off-scores (157.8/148) on two blood draws at Helsinki where he won double-gold is probably just a coincidence - nothing to see there.

That was before 2009. So depending on rekrunner's mood, he will call these off-scores "not real" or "not true" or "not meaningful" or caused by "hemoconcentration", as he did repeatedy with his wife's off-scores. He has forgotten that IAAF accepted such data as "collaborative evidence".

Coevett wrote:

not suffering any visible hair loss after alleged longterm steroid abuse is however an indicator of the absence of steroid abuse.

No this is not really true. Male pattern hair loss is largely due to the presence of receptors to DHT at the base of the hair follicle. If you are lucky enough to have very few of these receptors then you will not have any hair loss even after long term use of steroids. However, if you are genetically susceptible to hair loss with a large number of these receptors at the hair follicle then taking steroids could well accelerate the hair loss process. I don't know which athete is being accused of steroid use btw.

rekrunner wrote:

I guess you meant to say "corroborative evidence" -- I never forgot, but in other "cases", there was no primary evidence to corroborate.

"corroborative evidence", yes, thank you. Maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't pretend that data, that can be used as "corroborative evidence", are "not real" or "not true" or "not meaningful". Just saying.

I was just trying to caution you against using the expression "everybody" when you only have 1 - 2 examples (1, if you are not counting for stylistic reasons or whatever I don't understand). Plus, rekrunner's words included the caveat "up to 57%":

rekrunner wrote:

everybody (up to 57%) from everywhere cheats

To conclude, if your "everybody" did not include you, it literally included no one.

They are not "real" or "meaningful" for ABP-type comparisons. This is not pretend. In one case, some unreliable samples were able to be used for a strictly limited purpose, because they were consistent with reliable post-2009 data. But if you want to take two "unreliable" samples, and attempt to attach significant meaning to their difference, like calculating 22% and 30%, these differences can vary widely for many reasons you should already know -- this is something you forget.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I guess you meant to say "corroborative evidence" -- I never forgot, but in other "cases", there was no primary evidence to corroborate.

"corroborative evidence", yes, thank you. Maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't pretend that data, that can be used as "corroborative evidence", are "not real" or "not true" or "not meaningful". Just saying.

I think they need a new metric, POTROS, Percentage Of The Ramzi OFF Score.

Finally! We agree on something!

casual obsever wrote:

I was just trying to caution you against using the expression "everybody" when you only have 1 - 2 examples (1, if you are not counting for stylistic reasons or whatever I don't understand). Plus, rekrunner's words included the caveat "up to 57%":

rekrunner wrote:

everybody (up to 57%) from everywhere cheats

To conclude, if your "everybody" did not include you, it literally included no one.

I was really only joking about the baldness, I knew Ovett was bald. I hope he wasn't but we can never be entirely sure but he was good from like 1973 to like 1989. As for Aouita, he's Moroccan, they're all doping.

rekrunner wrote:

I was just advised to be careful about statistical interpretations from small sample sets.

Yet these sets form the basis for the surreal sophistry you've postulated in this thread.

rekrunner wrote:

None of this negates the fact, that for "5 continents", nothing "clearly worked" to produce times much faster than the 1980s.

Only because you've chosen overtly inane premises (i.e., we can assume a differential effect of EPO on people of different ethnic backgrounds) and defined "much faster" in a manner that is convenient too you.

rekrunner wrote:

None of this suggests that "what worked in the EPO-era can only be EPO".

So you're arguing that EPO isn't the only PED dopers are using to get faster? Wanna take another few whacks at that straw man of can I cart it off to the scarecrow morgue now?

Whoever you are, you seem too smart to be embarrassing yourself by promulgating a dismally bad argument here.

casual obsever wrote:

[quote]Rocket Fuel Rick wrote:

That was before 2009. So depending on rekrunner's mood, he will call these off-scores "not real" or "not true" or "not meaningful" or caused by "hemoconcentration", as he did repeatedy with his wife's off-scores.

Whoa!...am I hearing this correctly? His "wife's off-scores" as in *Paula Radcliff's* off-scores??? So, "rekrunner" is Gary rekrunner who is Gary Lough who is Paula Radcliff's husband??? Unbelievable if it's true. Wow.

casual obsever wrote:

That was before 2009. So depending on rekrunner's mood, he will call these off-scores "not real" or "not true" or "not meaningful" or caused by "hemoconcentration", as he did repeatedy with his wife's off-scores. He has forgotten that IAAF accepted such data as "collaborative evidence".

Whoa!...am I hearing this correctly? His "wife's off-scores" as in *Paula Radcliff's* off-scores??? So, "rekrunner" is Gary rekrunner who is Gary Lough who is Paula Radcliff's husband??? Unbelievable if it's true. Wow.

Inquiring minds want to know wrote:

That was before 2009. So depending on rekrunner's mood, he will call these off-scores "not real" or "not true" or "not meaningful" or caused by "hemoconcentration", as he did repeatedy with his wife's off-scores.

Whoa!...am I hearing this correctly? His "wife's off-scores" as in *Paula Radcliff's* off-scores??? So, "rekrunner" is Gary rekrunner who is Gary Lough who is Paula Radcliff's husband??? Unbelievable if it's true. Wow.

[/quote]

Well we can rule out altitude for her Off Score variations,

"All the altitude tent does is stimulate the body to cope with conditions that can be found naturally. If you say an altitude tent is unfair, you have to ban people living at altitude. The only argument against the tents is cost. Not everybody can afford them. But then you get into the whole argument of whether athletes can wear more expensive shoes than others."

But Radcliffe feels no burden about having used an altitude tent on occasion, most recently for several days before she won the world cross-country title in March."

rekrunner wrote:

They are not "real" or "meaningful" for ABP-type comparisons. This is not pretend.

Well... I remember your bolder claims, such as:

rekrunner wrote:

"The history of 12 and 13" is not true, and it is not meaningful.

Whatever you meant with "not true" - those were actual, published data.

And

rekrunner wrote:

Values like 12.0 and 0.44%, 3.6, and 30% are not real, because they come with uncertainties as large, or larger, than blood transfusions.

But thank you for taking that back. Maybe you finally see a difference between "not true" and "not meaningful".

"not true" was just absurd, but we know about your strange sense of humour.

(For the records, I'd also argue against "not meaningful", for the IAAF has used such values as corroborative evidence, as you well know.).