Armweak wrote:
Yes, but Armstrong is white and right!
Doping deniers always bring the most powerful arguments to the table.
Armweak wrote:
Yes, but Armstrong is white and right!
Doping deniers always bring the most powerful arguments to the table.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You will understand if I am less than convinced by your choosing a muscle-bound woman from the E Bloc 35 years ago. Doping remains a significant issue today, with an estimated 1 in 3 (or more) championship athletes.
Remind me, when have you ever identified a distance runner in the last 30 or so years that you consider to have been a doper who was never officially confirmed to be a doper? Of course, if you were able to do that it would mean you accept evidence that suggests doping other than a drug ban. So far you have yet to show that. If you can't, then conversely it means you are unable to perceive a doper amongst any of the vast majority who dope with impunity.
Whether you are convinced is not relevant.
You asked for one name, predicted I wouldn't or couldn't supply one, and I did.
These were your rules, and I complied 100%.
You have failed to prove what you set out to prove.
You keep failing.
I have accepted biological estimates that significant doping exists among those tested by the IAAF in the years between 2000-2012, and in the World Championships of 2011 and 2013.
I can't name individual athletes because the results over a population are aggregated.
So the answer to my question is you haven't. Not a single distance runner in 30 years has led you to conclude that they were a likely doper, despite the prevalence of drug use like EPO in that period. It confirms what I say about you, that as many more athletes dope than are caught you are unable to see what is right in front of you. I guess that's because it isn't "data".
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Doping remains a significant issue today, with an estimated 1 in 3 (or more) championship athletes.
Furthermore, you keep falling back to an argument about the existence of doping at the championship level. This is not my debate. My debate is the missing cause and effect link between doping and the best performances.
Assuming 1 in 3 have doped, that means 2 in 3 have not doped. Using your logic of population averages, El G is twice as likely clean than doped. If you find that logic defective, then you are halfway there to seeing your problem of drawing specific conclusions from general data.
Poor argument, as usual. It isn't population averages alone that determines whether or not an athlete is likely to be doping, but a combination of factors that can also include the level of performance reached, the personal history of that athlete and the environment they come from, including the likelihood of avoiding drug-use detection. Taken cumulatively those factors can lead to a far higher likely probability of doping. Russia, for example.
But even your simplistic argument as offered still suggests a 1 in 3 likelihood of El G doping. Not disturbing at all.
xurnure wrote:
heads of clay wrote:
Nadal is known as the King of Clay.
If near peak form, no one is beating Nadal on clay.
Soderling beat him in 2009 in the French Open
Djokovic has beaten Nadal at the French Open, as well as in numerous clay court masters events.
Armstronglivs wrote:
All of which means you have never drawn a conclusion of doping without the "data" of a confirmed doping violation. Since that position is immovable for you there is no argument that depends on other factors which will convince you that Nadal, for example, is a doper - or indeed any top athlete in the last 30 years. (Kratochvilova nearly 40 years ago - what a hard call!) You have nothing to offer any discussion on whether any athlete may be doping absent a violation because a confirmed violation is the only "data" you accept. Nice. That leaves out 98% of dopers. It isn't the thinking of a scientist but of a religious fanatic.
I admire your unlimited capacity to fail, apparently with no shame.
You already have evidence I will accept other data besides confirmed doping violations.
Earlier in this thread, I mentioned the Chinese women -- they are also within the last 30 years.
Despite this plain evidence, you draw a conclusion plainly contradicted by this recent evidence -- hence my concern for your short term memory.
If you could link distance performance of top athletes to doping, I could accept performance as data.
This is the gap I identified earlier -- a gap you fill with faith.
What I have to offer is that you have not yet shown "Nadal shows doping".
Armstronglivs wrote:
Remind me, when have you ever identified a distance runner in the last 30 or so years that you consider to have been a doper who was never officially confirmed to be a doper?
rekrunner wrote:
I can't name individual athletes because the results over a population are aggregated.
So the answer to my question is you haven't. Not a single distance runner in 30 years has led you to conclude that they were a likely doper, despite the prevalence of drug use like EPO in that period. It confirms what I say about you, that as many more athletes dope than are caught you are unable to see what is right in front of you. I guess that's because it isn't "data".
That would be a misleading answer -- as I just mentioned, I identified the Chinese women of the '90s. I also suspect many Russian athletes across the spectrum of the last 40 years.
From these two pools, I could produce a dozen or more names, but technically it is true -- I haven't, not because I can't or won't, but because you only asked for one name.
Other sources of data, official and unofficial, that help me form my opinions:
- Several prevalence statistics from studies on IAAF World Championships, and an "unofficial" breakdown of leaked samples breaking down "suspicion" by country and by event.
- WADA ADRV reports
- Reports from lengthy investigations, e.g. conducted by bodies like the IAAF Ethics Commission and WADA Independent Committees
- Historical all time performances
Recall I did an exhaustive analysis of performances of the EPO-era, not finding any obvious relation between high EPO prevalence and higher quantities and higher quality performances, but rather many seeming contradictions.
This leads me to conclude that most of the undetected dopers in distance running in the last 30 years are no-name runners who don't perform at the very top.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Poor argument, as usual. It isn't population averages alone that determines whether or not an athlete is likely to be doping, but a combination of factors that can also include the level of performance reached, the personal history of that athlete and the environment they come from, including the likelihood of avoiding drug-use detection. Taken cumulatively those factors can lead to a far higher likely probability of doping. Russia, for example.
But even your simplistic argument as offered still suggests a 1 in 3 likelihood of El G doping. Not disturbing at all.
You may find 1 in 3 disturbing, but since you like to speak in terms of likelihood and probabilities, it doesn't meet a standard of balance of probabilities.
In any case, you are still missing the point. The only factor you listed above that interests me is "the level of performance reached" -- and you have yet to make that connection for athletes like Nadal. There are ways to do that besides looking at confirmed dopers (which in any case fails for two reasons: data is too sparse, and proofs by example fail to be conclusive).
I'm not so interested in "higher likely probability of doping", but how you can show that higher performance, such as when an expert clay court specialist winning, can "show doping".
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Remind me, when have you ever identified a distance runner in the last 30 or so years that you consider to have been a doper who was never officially confirmed to be a doper?
So the answer to my question is you haven't. Not a single distance runner in 30 years has led you to conclude that they were a likely doper, despite the prevalence of drug use like EPO in that period. It confirms what I say about you, that as many more athletes dope than are caught you are unable to see what is right in front of you. I guess that's because it isn't "data".
That would be a misleading answer -- as I just mentioned, I identified the Chinese women of the '90s. I also suspect many Russian athletes across the spectrum of the last 40 years.
From these two pools, I could produce a dozen or more names, but technically it is true -- I haven't, not because I can't or won't, but because you only asked for one name.
Other sources of data, official and unofficial, that help me form my opinions:
- Several prevalence statistics from studies on IAAF World Championships, and an "unofficial" breakdown of leaked samples breaking down "suspicion" by country and by event.
- WADA ADRV reports
- Reports from lengthy investigations, e.g. conducted by bodies like the IAAF Ethics Commission and WADA Independent Committees
- Historical all time performances
Recall I did an exhaustive analysis of performances of the EPO-era, not finding any obvious relation between high EPO prevalence and higher quantities and higher quality performances, but rather many seeming contradictions.
This leads me to conclude that most of the undetected dopers in distance running in the last 30 years are no-name runners who don't perform at the very top.
I asked you for a name - and you chose one of the most obvious in the last 40 years - but that didn't preclude my follow-up question, which related specifically to distance runners (which Kratochvilova wasn't). You haven't ever identified a distance runner you believe has doped in the same way you are prepared to identify Kratochvilova, and you continue to refuse to do so, with your endless excuses and prevarications. That is even with your protested expert knowledge of historical performances. Even with an estimated prevalence of 1 in 3 doping at the top level you can't identify one that you think has doped. And you claim knowledge about these things. So much for your "data". Of course - your role here is to minimize or excuse doping amongst distance runners. And now tennis players. You continue to prove it.
It's harder to "see" doping in a distance runner.
It's not like it stands out glaringly like a single big arm.
But Mourhit and Boulami are two dopers.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
All of which means you have never drawn a conclusion of doping without the "data" of a confirmed doping violation. Since that position is immovable for you there is no argument that depends on other factors which will convince you that Nadal, for example, is a doper - or indeed any top athlete in the last 30 years. (Kratochvilova nearly 40 years ago - what a hard call!) You have nothing to offer any discussion on whether any athlete may be doping absent a violation because a confirmed violation is the only "data" you accept. Nice. That leaves out 98% of dopers. It isn't the thinking of a scientist but of a religious fanatic.
I admire your unlimited capacity to fail, apparently with no shame.
You already have evidence I will accept other data besides confirmed doping violations.
Earlier in this thread, I mentioned the Chinese women -- they are also within the last 30 years.
Despite this plain evidence, you draw a conclusion plainly contradicted by this recent evidence -- hence my concern for your short term memory.
If you could link distance performance of top athletes to doping, I could accept performance as data.
This is the gap I identified earlier -- a gap you fill with faith.
What I have to offer is that you have not yet shown "Nadal shows doping".
You mentioned the Chinese women - you mean among the 10,000 athletes that were revealed to be part of the state doping programme in the '80's and '90's? That must have been difficult for you - like acknowledging doping in the former E Bloc.
But if we look at the hundreds of doping cases that have emerged over the last few years in Kenya you fall strangely silent. Not one has caught your attention. There, identifying likely dopers has become much more difficult for you.
The idea that only low level, none champion athletes dope in sports is laughable and contrary to everything we know about doping in sports. Countries such as East Germany and for a time China dominated many Olympic speed and endurance sports based on doping. The litany sprinters who have been caught or that history has revealed to be dopers is endless and includes some of the biggest names in the sport. In cycling the entire top echelon of professional riders have engage in serious EPO doping for 30 years, and not one Grand Tour winner has been clean. Not one. In baseball the moment a competitive advantage was observed virtually every top baseball player doped. Running is no different. Nor however is the denial.
astro wrote:
The idea that only low level, none champion athletes dope in sports is laughable and contrary to everything we know about doping in sports. Countries such as East Germany and for a time China dominated many Olympic speed and endurance sports based on doping. The litany sprinters who have been caught or that history has revealed to be dopers is endless and includes some of the biggest names in the sport. In cycling the entire top echelon of professional riders have engage in serious EPO doping for 30 years, and not one Grand Tour winner has been clean. Not one. In baseball the moment a competitive advantage was observed virtually every top baseball player doped. Running is no different. Nor however is the denial.
Correct.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
That would be a misleading answer -- as I just mentioned, I identified the Chinese women of the '90s. I also suspect many Russian athletes across the spectrum of the last 40 years.
From these two pools, I could produce a dozen or more names, but technically it is true -- I haven't, not because I can't or won't, but because you only asked for one name.
Other sources of data, official and unofficial, that help me form my opinions:
- Several prevalence statistics from studies on IAAF World Championships, and an "unofficial" breakdown of leaked samples breaking down "suspicion" by country and by event.
- WADA ADRV reports
- Reports from lengthy investigations, e.g. conducted by bodies like the IAAF Ethics Commission and WADA Independent Committees
- Historical all time performances
Recall I did an exhaustive analysis of performances of the EPO-era, not finding any obvious relation between high EPO prevalence and higher quantities and higher quality performances, but rather many seeming contradictions.
This leads me to conclude that most of the undetected dopers in distance running in the last 30 years are no-name runners who don't perform at the very top.
I asked you for a name - and you chose one of the most obvious in the last 40 years - but that didn't preclude my follow-up question, which related specifically to distance runners (which Kratochvilova wasn't). You haven't ever identified a distance runner you believe has doped in the same way you are prepared to identify Kratochvilova, and you continue to refuse to do so, with your endless excuses and prevarications. That is even with your protested expert knowledge of historical performances. Even with an estimated prevalence of 1 in 3 doping at the top level you can't identify one that you think has doped. And you claim knowledge about these things. So much for your "data". Of course - your role here is to minimize or excuse doping amongst distance runners. And now tennis players. You continue to prove it.
Ultimately, the conclusion to be drawn from your inability to identify a doper amongst distance runners, without the aid of a confirmed doping violation, is that you have no chance of doing so amongst tennis players - who are not your subject of specialty. Logically, you have nothing to contribute to this thread.
astro wrote:
The idea that only low level, none champion athletes dope in sports is laughable and contrary to everything we know about doping in sports. Countries such as East Germany and for a time China dominated many Olympic speed and endurance sports based on doping. The litany sprinters who have been caught or that history has revealed to be dopers is endless and includes some of the biggest names in the sport. In cycling the entire top echelon of professional riders have engage in serious EPO doping for 30 years, and not one Grand Tour winner has been clean. Not one. In baseball the moment a competitive advantage was observed virtually every top baseball player doped. Running is no different. Nor however is the denial.
If the idea is so laughable, why would you introduce such a laughable idea into the thread?
I said "most of the undetected dopers..."
I did not say "only", but "most", and I did not just say "dope", but also "undetected".
Your response does not really respond to anything I said.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I asked you for a name - and you chose one of the most obvious in the last 40 years - but that didn't preclude my follow-up question, which related specifically to distance runners (which Kratochvilova wasn't). You haven't ever identified a distance runner you believe has doped in the same way you are prepared to identify Kratochvilova, and you continue to refuse to do so, with your endless excuses and prevarications. That is even with your protested expert knowledge of historical performances. Even with an estimated prevalence of 1 in 3 doping at the top level you can't identify one that you think has doped. And you claim knowledge about these things. So much for your "data". Of course - your role here is to minimize or excuse doping amongst distance runners. And now tennis players. You continue to prove it.
Ultimately, the conclusion to be drawn from your inability to identify a doper amongst distance runners, without the aid of a confirmed doping violation, is that you have no chance of doing so amongst tennis players - who are not your subject of specialty. Logically, you have nothing to contribute to this thread.
And you have?
8 posts in one page! -- looks like this thread has officially been Armstrongliv'd.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I asked you for a name - and you chose one of the most obvious in the last 40 years - but that didn't preclude my follow-up question, which related specifically to distance runners (which Kratochvilova wasn't). You haven't ever identified a distance runner you believe has doped in the same way you are prepared to identify Kratochvilova, and you continue to refuse to do so, with your endless excuses and prevarications. That is even with your protested expert knowledge of historical performances. Even with an estimated prevalence of 1 in 3 doping at the top level you can't identify one that you think has doped. And you claim knowledge about these things. So much for your "data". Of course - your role here is to minimize or excuse doping amongst distance runners. And now tennis players. You continue to prove it.
You predicted I would not, or could not, give a name, thus proving I was a doping denier.
I proved you wrong.
You did not ask a follow-up question. You only accused me of answering a question you never asked.
I answered anyway. The Chinese women were distance runners in the last 30 years during the "EPO-era".
My historical performance knowledge of selected distance events generally prevents me from suspecting doping based on performance, except for women taking male hormones.
What other criteria shall I use to suspect doping? And why would I care if it is not linked to best performances?
Your 1 in 3 estimate (considered high by one of the authors) mixes up men and women, and mixes up distance running with sprints and field events and race-walking.
What things did I claim "knowledge" about? I claimed you make conclusions without knowledge and without data.
How am I minimizing or excusing the alleged doping of Nadal, when you have not yet been able to show that Nadal doped?
Armstronglivs wrote:
You mentioned the Chinese women - you mean among the 10,000 athletes that were revealed to be part of the state doping programme in the '80's and '90's? That must have been difficult for you - like acknowledging doping in the former E Bloc.
But if we look at the hundreds of doping cases that have emerged over the last few years in Kenya you fall strangely silent. Not one has caught your attention. There, identifying likely dopers has become much more difficult for you.
I don't know about 10000 Chinese athletes -- just the dozen or so from Ma's Army.
But mentioning the Chinese women once again proved you wrong -- as these distance women ran within the last 30 years.
You think I have been silent with respect to Kenyan doping? I'm sure many would disagree with that.
Where have you seen "hundreds" of Kenyan doping cases in the "last few years"?
I think you have a serious problem with inflating numbers -- probably because you lack the real data.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Ultimately, the conclusion to be drawn from your inability to identify a doper amongst distance runners, without the aid of a confirmed doping violation, is that you have no chance of doing so amongst tennis players - who are not your subject of specialty. Logically, you have nothing to contribute to this thread.
Given that your only contribution is faith without data, and I lack that faith, it is a logical conclusion.
rekrunner wrote:
8 posts in one page! -- looks like this thread has officially been Armstrongliv'd.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I asked you for a name - and you chose one of the most obvious in the last 40 years - but that didn't preclude my follow-up question, which related specifically to distance runners (which Kratochvilova wasn't). You haven't ever identified a distance runner you believe has doped in the same way you are prepared to identify Kratochvilova, and you continue to refuse to do so, with your endless excuses and prevarications. That is even with your protested expert knowledge of historical performances. Even with an estimated prevalence of 1 in 3 doping at the top level you can't identify one that you think has doped. And you claim knowledge about these things. So much for your "data". Of course - your role here is to minimize or excuse doping amongst distance runners. And now tennis players. You continue to prove it.
You predicted I would not, or could not, give a name, thus proving I was a doping denier.
I proved you wrong.
You did not ask a follow-up question. You only accused me of answering a question you never asked.
I answered anyway. The Chinese women were distance runners in the last 30 years during the "EPO-era".
My historical performance knowledge of selected distance events generally prevents me from suspecting doping based on performance, except for women taking male hormones.
What other criteria shall I use to suspect doping? And why would I care if it is not linked to best performances?
Your 1 in 3 estimate (considered high by one of the authors) mixes up men and women, and mixes up distance running with sprints and field events and race-walking.
What things did I claim "knowledge" about? I claimed you make conclusions without knowledge and without data.
How am I minimizing or excusing the alleged doping of Nadal, when you have not yet been able to show that Nadal doped?
Armstronglivs wrote:
You mentioned the Chinese women - you mean among the 10,000 athletes that were revealed to be part of the state doping programme in the '80's and '90's? That must have been difficult for you - like acknowledging doping in the former E Bloc.
But if we look at the hundreds of doping cases that have emerged over the last few years in Kenya you fall strangely silent. Not one has caught your attention. There, identifying likely dopers has become much more difficult for you.
I don't know about 10000 Chinese athletes -- just the dozen or so from Ma's Army.
But mentioning the Chinese women once again proved you wrong -- as these distance women ran within the last 30 years.
You think I have been silent with respect to Kenyan doping? I'm sure many would disagree with that.
Where have you seen "hundreds" of Kenyan doping cases in the "last few years"?
I think you have a serious problem with inflating numbers -- probably because you lack the real data.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Ultimately, the conclusion to be drawn from your inability to identify a doper amongst distance runners, without the aid of a confirmed doping violation, is that you have no chance of doing so amongst tennis players - who are not your subject of specialty. Logically, you have nothing to contribute to this thread.
Given that your only contribution is faith without data, and I lack that faith, it is a logical conclusion.
After one sentence I realised I had no need to read the rest of your comments. You are unable to provide the name of a single distance runner whom you consider has doped without failing a doping test. Dopers - who number in their thousands - are literally invisible to you.
123 5 wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Ultimately, the conclusion to be drawn from your inability to identify a doper amongst distance runners, without the aid of a confirmed doping violation, is that you have no chance of doing so amongst tennis players - who are not your subject of specialty. Logically, you have nothing to contribute to this thread.
And you have?
That would require you have read comments other than rekrunner's - and that you are informed about professional tennis. I guess not.
[quote]rekrunner wrote:
8 posts in one page! -- looks like this thread has officially been Armstrongliv'd.
[quote]
You are too modest.
rekrunner wrote:
astro wrote:
The idea that only low level, none champion athletes dope in sports is laughable and contrary to everything we know about doping in sports. Countries such as East Germany and for a time China dominated many Olympic speed and endurance sports based on doping. The litany sprinters who have been caught or that history has revealed to be dopers is endless and includes some of the biggest names in the sport. In cycling the entire top echelon of professional riders have engage in serious EPO doping for 30 years, and not one Grand Tour winner has been clean. Not one. In baseball the moment a competitive advantage was observed virtually every top baseball player doped. Running is no different. Nor however is the denial.
If the idea is so laughable, why would you introduce such a laughable idea into the thread?
I said "most of the undetected dopers..."
I did not say "only", but "most", and I did not just say "dope", but also "undetected".
Your response does not really respond to anything I said.
Another laughable response. Keep dancing on the head of a pin.
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
Guys between age of 45 and 55 do you think about death or does it seem far away
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday