Tom Cochrane wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
So how does EPO doping make you suck more oxygen while breathing less air?
How does that work?
Those are dumb questions too.
It's a serious question. Which none of you can answer.
Tom Cochrane wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
So how does EPO doping make you suck more oxygen while breathing less air?
How does that work?
Those are dumb questions too.
It's a serious question. Which none of you can answer.
Tom Cochrane wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Actually, I was being asked how I would explain "WR performances" absent doping busts.
Which is not the title.
A WR performance is in the title. Clearly "doping" is not.
It seems appropriate to decline answering a useless question about suspicion of doping.
how does that work? wrote:
Tom Cochrane wrote:
Those are dumb questions too.
It's a serious question. Which none of you can answer.
It was answered dozens of times and you were unable to grasp it. Ask Jack. Maybe he can penetrate the Carbide matter. I doubt it though.
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
No, it's a dumb question - because the answer is no. But don't let that stop you asking your dumb questions; you have nothing else.
So how does EPO doping make you suck more oxygen while breathing less air?
How does that work?
It is more oxygen transfer for each breath - which is not breathing less for more oxygen, the false opposite you have presented. You really are out of your depth. In everything. Including basic English comprehension.
Similarly, you should not ask why I think all WR performances are clean, as I have never argued this. On the contrary, given some known population prevalence estimates among world championship athletes, it is likely some other WR performances were also doped.[/quote]
Such as?
Well then...what WR performances, if any, do you suspect might be doped? You're confusing again because you've said that you believe El G's WR performance is clean despite strong circumstantial evidence to suggest otherwise. So, if you think the 1500 WR is clean why wouldn't you think all other WR performances are clean?[/quote]
Quite.[/quote]
When the question is "what do I think about suspicion", I certainly can answer.
The subject of this thread is one WR "performance", and not "doping".
I have considered all the "circumstantial evidence" and would disagree it is "strong".[/quote]
So you can't answer the question. But you are good at disappearing up your own backside.
rekrunner wrote:
Tom Cochrane wrote:
Which is not the title.
A WR performance is in the title. Clearly "doping" is not.
It seems appropriate to decline answering a useless question about suspicion of doping.
You really need a lawyer to defend you, since you are treating discussion as akin to pending criminal charges. You do have the right to silence, you know? Feel free to exercise it. Please.
rekrunner wrote:
Tom Cochrane wrote:
Which is not the title.
A WR performance is in the title. Clearly "doping" is not.
It seems appropriate to decline answering a useless question about suspicion of doping.
After 50 pages of doing just that? OK.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Similarly, you should not ask why I think all WR performances are clean, as I have never argued this. On the contrary, given some known population prevalence estimates among world championship athletes, it is likely some other WR performances were also doped.
Such as?
The trouble with global population prevalence estimates is similar to virtually all arguments against me -- lack of specificity.
But if you need a name: Jarmila Kratochvilova
Tom Cochrane. wrote:
After 50 pages of doing just that? OK.
No one asked me to give my opinions regarding which WR were suspicious, until "High Octane" did.
Much of my participation in the first 50 pages was to prompt for any evidence of some expert discussion of the bases of something you just said "was answered dozens of times".
This is because non-expert beliefs, such as those from Armstronglivs, Shopping Hour, Tom Cochrane, and High Octane, have zero value and simple math shows: zero x dozens = zero.
If there were such expert bases, it would have been a simple matter to provide a name or reference or two, in a handful of posts, without all the personal insults.
None of the dozens of answers really touched on the breathing rate required to transfer oxygen to the lungs.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
When the question is "what do I think about suspicion", I certainly can answer.
So you can't answer the question. But you are good at disappearing up your own backside.
I used to have these kinds of arguments when I was 8 years old. But since then I grew up.
The question that remains unanswered is which experts have discussed and suggested that "scarcely breathing" "might suggest" "the powerful effect of EPO".
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
A WR performance is in the title. Clearly "doping" is not.
It seems appropriate to decline answering a useless question about suspicion of doping.
You really need a lawyer to defend you, since you are treating discussion as akin to pending criminal charges. You do have the right to silence, you know? Feel free to exercise it. Please.
Declining to answer a wrong question, which we established is off-topic, which you curiously accuse me of being unable to answer, is exercising my right to remain silent.
If I should feel free to decline answering, why are you so obviously bothered by me exercising my right?
Armstronglivs wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
So how does EPO doping make you suck more oxygen while breathing less air?
How does that work?
It is more oxygen transfer for each breath - which is not breathing less for more oxygen, the false opposite you have presented. You really are out of your depth. In everything. Including basic English comprehension.
More oxygen transfer for each breath? So are you saying you know more about oxygen kinetics than Jack Daniels?
Tom Cochrane. wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
It's a serious question. Which none of you can answer.
It was answered dozens of times and you were unable to grasp it. Ask Jack. Maybe he can penetrate the Carbide matter. I doubt it though.
So you think you know more about oxygen kinetics than Jack Daniels too?
That's correct but would add a third factor; the sudden and improbable improvement in time. For example, you can see that in Ramzi's 9 second improvement in just a short year (3:39 - 3:30, 2003/2004). In fact, many coaches will tell you that a sudden & rapid improvement in time in a short period is a "red flag" on the suspicious meter.
But I follow the analysis of some of the top researchers and sports scientists in the field (e.g, Schumacher, Malm) who say doping can improve performance. Therefore, since the purpose of doping, whether it's the 100m on up to the marathon, is to improve speed, then I think fast performances are in many cases suspicious.
High national prevalence is a major factor in suspecting a particular country as having an widespread doping problem. Take once again Morocco: They've had so many EPO positives over the decades starting with Boulami's IC positive in 2002 up to Dazza's ABP hematological anomalies ban just last year! Morocco is also 2nd in ABP hematological anomalies bans only to world-leading Russia!
And just focusing on the 1500m - 4 out of the 7 fastest Moroccan 1500 men have been busted for doping including El G's training partner & pace setter. On the women's side, Mariem Alaoui Selsouli was busted for an IC EPO positive when she ran a 3:56.14. The time is a national record and 37th all-time fastest in a very competitive event.
Doping may be the normal preparation of many Moroccan runners. Lol.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Such as?
The trouble with global population prevalence estimates is similar to virtually all arguments against me -- lack of specificity.
But if you need a name: Jarmila Kratochvilova
So why Kratochvilova and not El Guerrouj, Komen, Bekele or Cheptegei? Their records are arguably better.
Still, it is surprising that you argue from prevalence that some world records are likely to be doped - a point many of us have often made that you have rejected, because you have previously argued that prevalence doesn't establish that doping improves performance - except in inferior or "weak" athletes. But now it seems doping can help some athletes achieve world records. Quelled surprise. Better late than never.
Of course that means that all of the names I listed above could be subject to the same suspicions that you entertain for Kratochvilova. Since you refer to "some" athletes, it also seems reasonable to ask if you have others in mind.
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
It is more oxygen transfer for each breath - which is not breathing less for more oxygen, the false opposite you have presented. You really are out of your depth. In everything. Including basic English comprehension.
More oxygen transfer for each breath? So are you saying you know more about oxygen kinetics than Jack Daniels?
I'm not saying that, but I do know a bit about basic human physiology - which you apparently don't.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You really need a lawyer to defend you, since you are treating discussion as akin to pending criminal charges. You do have the right to silence, you know? Feel free to exercise it. Please.
Declining to answer a wrong question, which we established is off-topic, which you curiously accuse me of being unable to answer, is exercising my right to remain silent.
If I should feel free to decline answering, why are you so obviously bothered by me exercising my right?
A question is only "off topic" when you choose to move the goal posts - as you always do - and determine the parameters of discussion, as you also do.
The subject of the thread is simply that El G ran 3.49 for the 1600 en route to his 4.44 for 2k. The "topic" is whatever any commenter chooses to make of that and to see where it goes. But you set the "rules" - and so avoid answering what you cannot answer.
However, I would encourage you to decline answering questions as often as possible. Always would also be fine. We would get more sense out of you if you said nothing.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So you can't answer the question. But you are good at disappearing up your own backside.
I used to have these kinds of arguments when I was 8 years old. But since then I grew up.
The question that remains unanswered is which experts have discussed and suggested that "scarcely breathing" "might suggest" "the powerful effect of EPO".
The experts who all say and agree that a higher RBC - which is what EPO contributes to - enables greater oxygen transfer to the muscles. If this increased aerobic capacity required a commensurate increase in the rate of breathing then elite (let alone doped) athletes would be gasping for air like an out-of-condition hobby jogger. (Like you, maybe?) But you never studied basic biology in school. Your "data" never included an education.
Armstronglivs wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
More oxygen transfer for each breath? So are you saying you know more about oxygen kinetics than Jack Daniels?
I'm not saying that, but I do know a bit about basic human physiology - which you apparently don't.
So you know more about oxygen saturation than JD?
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Rest in Peace Adrian Lehmann - 2:11 Swiss marathoner. Dies of heart attack.
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year