A very simple question

So -- no discovery.

Regarding Salazar, I respect that, after a lengthy investigation and years of intense scrutiny, no NOP athletes were found to have doped. Ever.

What I would concede is that he wrote what he "believed" in 1999.

Doped to the Max wrote:

I think that was the intent of Aden at Sabadell, except for the natural part. Lol.

Yes -- that is what you think.

Armstronglivs wrote:

But what if it's faster and easier to do it with EPO? Who's going to take your advice then?

The advice is free to be taken or left. I do not condone rule violations.

The decisions people take are a reflection of their own character.

Armstronglivs wrote:

That is spectacular denial, to suggest that there is no link between doping and performance. All the world are fools - except you? Proof of what exists in the real world doesn't always require academic research to confirm what we experience; as anyone who has leaped off a tall building might attest, gravity existed long before we found a formula to describe it. Doping has been around long enough for us (and many sports people) to see that it produces results, even if the scientists are still figuring out exactly how it does it.

You can't hold Renato to one standard, and yourself to another.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

"Propaganda" is an interesting choice of words, as both estimates come directly from the study.

"at least 31%" under two assumptions isn't propaganda. It turns into propaganda when

- you skip the assumptions

- you skip the "at least"

- you argue that it even could be less

Naturally you routinely do all of the above.

The article itself states:

- 44% as the actual uncorrected result

- that the real number is likely higher

- that it's at least 31% even under two conservative assumptions.

And no, I am not playing this game with you again for pages and pages, where you argue either with your favorite statement from an un-reviewed preliminary draft or that your favorite table of hypotheses in appendix C outweighs and corrects the paper's actual findings, that are conveniently and traditionally summarized in the abstract already.

I did say "conservative lower bound", which should capture the essence of both the "assumptions" and the "at least".

The final paper itself expresses it many ways, sometimes saying "least" and sometimes not:

"at least 30%", "estimates of 30-31%", "we would estimate a 30-31% prevalence"

It's not propaganda for me to refer to another peer-reviewed paper suggesting, with evidence, that UQM's shortcomings can lead to an undetected, and undetectable, over-estimate.

Your assertion that "The article states ... the real number is likely higher (than 44%)" fits your description of propaganda.

This is no longer about whether one of "at least 30%" or "likely more than 44%" is accurate, but whether UQM can produce a result reliable enough to confidently establish a lower bound.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

But what if it's faster and easier to do it with EPO? Who's going to take your advice then?

The advice is free to be taken or left. I do not condone rule violations.

The decisions people take are a reflection of their own character.

No one is going to take your advice. That you say the decisions people take are a reflection of character is also irrelevant when considering whether some might choose to dope. If there is an easier path to success, there will be people who will take it. To fail to see that is not simply naive; it is wilful blindness.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

That is spectacular denial, to suggest that there is no link between doping and performance. All the world are fools - except you? Proof of what exists in the real world doesn't always require academic research to confirm what we experience; as anyone who has leaped off a tall building might attest, gravity existed long before we found a formula to describe it. Doping has been around long enough for us (and many sports people) to see that it produces results, even if the scientists are still figuring out exactly how it does it.

You can't hold Renato to one standard, and yourself to another.

He is arguing (as you are) that EPO will not be as effective as altitude-training in the best athletes. Without research in which the best altitude-trained athletes use the drug, that is a claim that can't be supported. On the other hand we see there are generations of altitude-trained athletes who have taken EPO and enjoyed competitive success. Combined with scientific research that confirms EPO is a powerful performance enhancing drug that increases endurance, it is a reasonable inference that the drug has played a role in aiding some of the best athletes who have used it. That is why it is banned. There is no evidence that suggests EPO is only a placebo (like hydroxychloroquine) or has no effect. The only question is how much can it improve performance.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The advice is free to be taken or left. I do not condone rule violations.

The decisions people take are a reflection of their own character.

No one is going to take your advice. That you say the decisions people take are a reflection of character is also irrelevant when considering whether some might choose to dope. If there is an easier path to success, there will be people who will take it. To fail to see that is not simply naive; it is wilful blindness.

I see that there will be people who will take it. I don't doubt mere existence.

Armstronglivs wrote:

He is arguing (as you are) that EPO will not be as effective as altitude-training in the best athletes. Without research in which the best altitude-trained athletes use the drug, that is a claim that can't be supported. On the other hand we see there are generations of altitude-trained athletes who have taken EPO and enjoyed competitive success. Combined with scientific research that confirms EPO is a powerful performance enhancing drug that increases endurance, it is a reasonable inference that the drug has played a role in aiding some of the best athletes who have used it. That is why it is banned. There is no evidence that suggests EPO is only a placebo (like hydroxychloroquine) or has no effect. The only question is how much can it improve performance.

Without better research, this is just a long list of what you believe, and why you believe.

You have to keep trolling me... that was really lame. For example your last part is in full:

You see that? Even? Assuming? Conservatively? (a) and (b)?

Stop lying please. The article states directly:

I am done here. But keep rekrunnering this thread. Yes it takes two to tango: rekrunner and Armstronglivs, rekrunner and Doped to the max, rekrunner and casual, rekrunner and rule reader etc etc.

Again, I did say "conservative lower bound".

That seems to completely capture all of your concerns.

It's like you are in violent agreement with me.

And you can see for yourself:

"suggested ... unlikely to have overestimated"

is not quite the same as:

"the real number is likely higher (than 44%)"

Thanks for making my point.

Well ......doped or not doped ,that`s a question, but only a speculation until proved.

Talent is the most crucial factor for a runner to run really fast. Kenenisa Bekele is one of the

absolutely most talented in history. His world records at 5000m and 10000m of 12:37:35 and

26:17: 53 have an average speed of 2:31:47 and 2:37:75 per kilometer.Looks unbelievable at a

fast glance . But if we look what it takes to run these times in a race compared to what they

require in training speed, it immediately becomes more likely. To run world record pace at 5000/10000m the runner needs to do this in training;

1) maxVO2 intervals at 5 k race pace and then 60-61 sec / 400m

2) LT intervals at 2:45-2:46 min per kilometer

3) aerobic power pace (LSD) at 3:35-3:40 min per kilometer

If we see the requirement of training times for world record race pace like this, we no longer need

to say that it`s impossible to achieve them for a great talent without doping.

And it doesn`t matter if the training times are reached at sea level or high altitude,

the race results will in both cases tangent the current world records.

I can see that jumping off a building wouldn't convince you that gravity exists, without "research" that explains it to you "scientifically".

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

No one is going to take your advice. That you say the decisions people take are a reflection of character is also irrelevant when considering whether some might choose to dope. If there is an easier path to success, there will be people who will take it. To fail to see that is not simply naive; it is wilful blindness.

I see that there will be people who will take it. I don't doubt mere existence.

Equally, there will be those who won't take your advice. We see quite a few of them getting busted in Kenya these days.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Equally, there will be those who won't take your advice. We see quite a few of them getting busted in Kenya these days.

I meant "I see that there will be people who will take the easy path".

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Without better research, this is just a long list of what you believe, and why you believe.

I can see that jumping off a building wouldn't convince you that gravity exists, without "research" that explains it to you "scientifically".

You chose the standard of requiring research when you dismissed Renato due to a lack of research, while simultaneously holding yourself to weaker standards like existence and inference.

To eliminate this double standard, you either need representative research to support your claims, or allow Renato to provide examples and make inferences.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I can see that jumping off a building wouldn't convince you that gravity exists, without "research" that explains it to you "scientifically".

You chose the standard of requiring research when you dismissed Renato due to a lack of research, while simultaneously holding yourself to weaker standards like existence and inference.

To eliminate this double standard, you either need representative research to support your claims, or allow Renato to provide examples and make inferences.

I can see why posters get annoyed with Renato, he is claiming that Epo could be worth 3% for a 33 minute 10k runner but not for his athletes. A classic case of goalpost moving. If it really was performance enhancing it would increase oxygen uptake for everyone. But since that is very spurious conjecture, then this stupid debate will just go round and round endlessly unless you all actually face up to your own ignorance and denial.

The main problem here is that none of you know or care about the subject, you just love to argue.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I can see that jumping off a building wouldn't convince you that gravity exists, without "research" that explains it to you "scientifically".

You chose the standard of requiring research when you dismissed Renato due to a lack of research, while simultaneously holding yourself to weaker standards like existence and inference.

To eliminate this double standard, you either need representative research to support your claims, or allow Renato to provide examples and make inferences.

It is a different claim with a different standard of proof. To claim training can produce better results than doping with EPO is provable only on one basis, which is to compare results in the same subjects "clean" and then doped. However, to suggest doping generally aids athletic performance can be adduced from very wide evidence - historical, circumstantial, anecdotal and pharmaceutical - and does not require a single body of research. That is incidentally also how anti-doping works.

That isn't entirely true. Some of us have lost our passion for elite sport because of doping. The only recourse is to call it out when we think we see it. And confront the arguments of those who deny or seek to minimise it.