Armstronglivs wrote:
123 5 wrote:
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.
You guess wrong, as usual.
I was on the coaching team of one top-70 woman in the '00s and a top 120 man in the following decade.
You? I guess not.
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
Not reading things is a good explanation for why you are so poorly informed. You made up your mind way back in the 1970s, when you were naive and impressionable, and for 50 years, you have become increasingly prepared to listen to whatever confirms the bias of your friends in high places.
As I said earlier, I cannot draw specific conclusions without specific data.
If I did, I would also call it speculation, and faith based conclusion with scarce evidence.
Somehow you see this as a fault, because I have not adopted your intellectually defective process.
The dopers are there, but the 1 in 3 (or 1 in 7 blood) dopers are camouflaged by the 2 in 3 (or 6 in 7) non-dopers.
If we have aggregated prevalence data, by its nature, we cannot extract names from an anonymized population.
Lacking any showing of a trend correlating performance with doping, I cannot assume the best performances are over-represented with dopers as a function of performance.
I have argued the opposite: although champions dope, it is the more numerous, less performant masses behind them who have more incentive to dope, to achieve some qualifier, or get a contract, or break into the winners circle, or onto the podium, and they have less to lose.
By data, we can include confirmed positives, but also confessions, first-hand witness testimony, evidence collected in detailed investigations, such as receipts, laptop records, lab data, etc.
Are you sure that doping long distance runners number in the thousands, among the all-time fastest performers? "Thousands" in the plural suggests at least 2. I think you tend to throw out whatever numbers suit you, and tend to inflate them without a real understanding.
Here are some of my conclusions (and some speculation for the women) from my performance data stats:
1) Relative to 1990 world best reference (top-5 average) (28 of the last 30 years during the EPO-era):
- 403 men worldwide ran faster than the 1990 world best reference (average top-5), across 6 distance events ranging from 1500m to the marathon, between 1990-2018.
- If we assume 1 in 3 are dopers, that makes 121 men dopers over 28 years
- I did not count the women, but would estimate 200 women running faster than a strong 1500m reference, and weak 5000m, 10000m, and marathon references.
- If we assume half of them are doped, that makes 100 women.
- If we assume 1000s of dopers, than ~220 have run faster than a 1990s world best reference (doped or not doped), and the rest are some 1800 or many more slower performing "no-name" athletes.
2) Athletes appearing in all time performances list (at alltime-athletics website extracted Jan. 2019, dating back to 1960s):
- 1500m: 959 men worldwide (251 East Africans, 95 North Africans, and 613 from the rest of the world)
- 5000m: 1296 men worldwide (579 East Africans, 92 North Africans, and 625 from the rest of the world)
- Marathon: 1124 men worldwide (766 East Africans, 34 North Africans, and 324 from the rest of the world)
So when we look at men's all time best performances, dating back to the 1960s, assuming 1 in 3 dopers, combining all events and de-duplicating athletes, 600 dopers among the all-time best performances is probably a reasonable conservative estimate.
Factoring in women (I did not count these statistics for women) would consider that: for cultural reasons, fewer women ran over this period, and steroids and testosterone and male hormones give women unnatural strength and muscular power for the shorter distance events.
If we assume half for women, similar to my estimate from post-1990), this would make +/- 1000 dopers all time for events from 1500m to the marathon, appearing on all time lists dating back to the 1960s.
You might think a 1 in 3 is not reasonable for pre-WADA performances, especially in the steroid era of the '70s and '80s, but before 1990, the all-time quantity of quality athletes is much lower.
Of course to arrive at "thousands" you can:
- add more events (e.g. 400m and 800m and race-walking),
- lower the threshold of top performances to include many more inferior "no-name" athletes, or
- increase your assumption of distance running doping prevalence
"In terms of male players, Roger Federer (ATP-3) and Rafael Nadal (ATP-2) were high on the list. Swiss player Federer was tested no less than nine times during and 20 times outside of tournaments. Nadal was tested 12 times during and 17 times outside of tournaments. The world's number one Novak Djokovic was tested for performance-enhancing substances 24 times."
123 5 wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
That would require you have read comments other than rekrunner's - and that you are informed about professional tennis. I guess not.
You guess wrong, as usual.
I was on the coaching team of one top-70 woman in the '00s and a top 120 man in the following decade.
You? I guess not.
I've known quite a few pros - ranked in the '30's, not 120's - as well as some professional coaches and top antidoping officials - if this is a p*ssing contest. But do you actually have an argument other than the size of your equipment that Nadal could not be doping, in a sport that, like so many others, has doping issues?
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
Not reading things is a good explanation for why you are so poorly informed. You made up your mind way back in the 1970s, when you were naive and impressionable, and for 50 years, you have become increasingly prepared to listen to whatever confirms the bias of your friends in high places.
As I said earlier, I cannot draw specific conclusions without specific data.
If I did, I would also call it speculation, and faith based conclusion with scarce evidence.
Somehow you see this as a fault, because I have not adopted your intellectually defective process.
The dopers are there, but the 1 in 3 (or 1 in 7 blood) dopers are camouflaged by the 2 in 3 (or 6 in 7) non-dopers.
If we have aggregated prevalence data, by its nature, we cannot extract names from an anonymized population.
Lacking any showing of a trend correlating performance with doping, I cannot assume the best performances are over-represented with dopers as a function of performance.
I have argued the opposite: although champions dope, it is the more numerous, less performant masses behind them who have more incentive to dope, to achieve some qualifier, or get a contract, or break into the winners circle, or onto the podium, and they have less to lose.
By data, we can include confirmed positives, but also confessions, first-hand witness testimony, evidence collected in detailed investigations, such as receipts, laptop records, lab data, etc.
Are you sure that doping long distance runners number in the thousands, among the all-time fastest performers? "Thousands" in the plural suggests at least 2. I think you tend to throw out whatever numbers suit you, and tend to inflate them without a real understanding.
Here are some of my conclusions (and some speculation for the women) from my performance data stats:
1) Relative to 1990 world best reference (top-5 average) (28 of the last 30 years during the EPO-era):
- 403 men worldwide ran faster than the 1990 world best reference (average top-5), across 6 distance events ranging from 1500m to the marathon, between 1990-2018.
- If we assume 1 in 3 are dopers, that makes 121 men dopers over 28 years
- I did not count the women, but would estimate 200 women running faster than a strong 1500m reference, and weak 5000m, 10000m, and marathon references.
- If we assume half of them are doped, that makes 100 women.
- If we assume 1000s of dopers, than ~220 have run faster than a 1990s world best reference (doped or not doped), and the rest are some 1800 or many more slower performing "no-name" athletes.
2) Athletes appearing in all time performances list (at alltime-athletics website extracted Jan. 2019, dating back to 1960s):
- 1500m: 959 men worldwide (251 East Africans, 95 North Africans, and 613 from the rest of the world)
- 5000m: 1296 men worldwide (579 East Africans, 92 North Africans, and 625 from the rest of the world)
- Marathon: 1124 men worldwide (766 East Africans, 34 North Africans, and 324 from the rest of the world)
So when we look at men's all time best performances, dating back to the 1960s, assuming 1 in 3 dopers, combining all events and de-duplicating athletes, 600 dopers among the all-time best performances is probably a reasonable conservative estimate.
Factoring in women (I did not count these statistics for women) would consider that: for cultural reasons, fewer women ran over this period, and steroids and testosterone and male hormones give women unnatural strength and muscular power for the shorter distance events.
If we assume half for women, similar to my estimate from post-1990), this would make +/- 1000 dopers all time for events from 1500m to the marathon, appearing on all time lists dating back to the 1960s.
You might think a 1 in 3 is not reasonable for pre-WADA performances, especially in the steroid era of the '70s and '80s, but before 1990, the all-time quantity of quality athletes is much lower.
Of course to arrive at "thousands" you can:
- add more events (e.g. 400m and 800m and race-walking),
- lower the threshold of top performances to include many more inferior "no-name" athletes, or
- increase your assumption of distance running doping prevalence
Waffle. If you can't tell what is a doped or clean performance from your data you are not in a position to put up an argument either way about any athlete - and certainly not a tennis player for whom you have no data and in a sport for which you also have no data. But that lack of knowledge never prevents you from contesting every doping allegation made here about any individual sportsman. Your statistics are simply a cloud of denial.
Armstronglivs wrote:
123 5 wrote:
You guess wrong, as usual.
I was on the coaching team of one top-70 woman in the '00s and a top 120 man in the following decade.
You? I guess not.
I've known quite a few pros - ranked in the '30's, not 120's - as well as some professional coaches and top antidoping officials - if this is a p*ssing contest. But do you actually have an argument other than the size of your equipment that Nadal could not be doping, in a sport that, like so many others, has doping issues?
So he was a coach, and you know some "experts". I'd say comparing someone who has done somthing, and someone who is just repeating what he heard, you lose that contest.
I also know a nationally ranked international elite who coached my children -- I wonder how this improved my tennis credentials...
The real question is, for this thread you started, alleging that we can infer doping from his performance -- do you have any real arguments, other than your faith, that Nadal could be doping? It is not enough to project a general "tennis has doping issues" to specific athletes.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Waffle. If you can't tell what is a doped or clean performance from your data you are not in a position to put up an argument either way about any athlete - and certainly not a tennis player for whom you have no data and in a sport for which you also have no data. But that lack of knowledge never prevents you from contesting every doping allegation made here about any individual sportsman. Your statistics are simply a cloud of denial.
You said "thousands" and now you don't stand by it. Typical.
My statistics are summaries of real population performance data.
You yourself have said several times that we cannot tell if a performance is clean or doped.
But this isn't about me making claims -- my main claim is that you lack knowledge and data about doping, about, elite distance running performance, and apparently tennis too.
You don't have the knowledge and data and credentials to complete your demonstration that Nadal shows doping at the top of tennis. I don't deny the allegation but call it pure faith based speculation without concrete basis in data.
So he was a coach, and you know some "experts". I'd say comparing someone who has done somthing, and someone who is just repeating what he heard, you lose that contest.[/quote]
Oh, the irony.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Waffle. If you can't tell what is a doped or clean performance from your data you are not in a position to put up an argument either way about any athlete - and certainly not a tennis player for whom you have no data and in a sport for which you also have no data. But that lack of knowledge never prevents you from contesting every doping allegation made here about any individual sportsman. Your statistics are simply a cloud of denial.
You said "thousands" and now you don't stand by it. Typical.
My statistics are summaries of real population performance data.
You yourself have said several times that we cannot tell if a performance is clean or doped.
But this isn't about me making claims -- my main claim is that you lack knowledge and data about doping, about, elite distance running performance, and apparently tennis too.
You don't have the knowledge and data and credentials to complete your demonstration that Nadal shows doping at the top of tennis. I don't deny the allegation but call it pure faith based speculation without concrete basis in data.
You repeat the same empty mantras while constantly ducking the point. You may as well be a Trump apologist in an alternate universe, but after an encounter with you the effect is of trying to remove dogsh*t from one's shoes. You are Guinness book of records level of boring. Now there you break all records through natural talent alone. I'll leave you to that solitary accomplishment.
Can't be that boring if you spend so much time circling back to the pile and running in place on it. Just saying.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Can't be that boring if you spend so much time circling back to the pile and running in place on it. Just saying.
As you keep circling back and running in place on it. Or making a deposit. Just saying.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Can't be that boring if you spend so much time circling back to the pile and running in place on it. Just saying.
As you keep circling back and running in place on it. Or making a deposit. Just saying.
You're the one who is objecting though . Don't worry about me.
I'm stepping over it.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
As you keep circling back and running in place on it. Or making a deposit. Just saying.
You're the one who is objecting though . Don't worry about me.
I'm stepping over it.
Not quite. You're leaving your own little load of cr*p.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
You're the one who is objecting though . Don't worry about me.
I'm stepping over it.
Not quite. You're leaving your own little load of cr*p.
And you love stepping in it.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Not quite. You're leaving your own little load of cr*p.
And you love stepping in it.
Well, at least you know what you leave here. Probably anywhere.
And we see once again the level of discussion has dropped.
Is this what "constantly ducking the point" looks like?
Armstronglivs wrote:
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
And you love stepping in it.
Well, at least you know what you leave here. Probably anywhere.
Squish.
rekrunner wrote:
And we see once again the level of discussion has dropped.
Is this what "constantly ducking the point" looks like?
No, we have to go to your posts for that.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Well, at least you know what you leave here. Probably anywhere.
Squish.
They do have cures for your kind of incontinence.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Squish.
They do have cures for your kind of incontinence.
There's none for your disorder though.