How do you get more oxygen from the same volume of oxygen? (quote)
How oxygen do you same get oxygen the volume of more?
Fixed.
How do you get more oxygen from the same volume of oxygen? (quote)
How oxygen do you same get oxygen the volume of more?
Fixed.
If we are under "some delusion that (you) think all world records are clean" no one is deluded into thinking that you believe doping actually contributed to those dirty world records. They may as well have been drinking mother's milk for all the effect their doping had on their performances.
You are quite right though, that "a normal person would understand the difference between existence, correlation and causation." You don't. In your mealy mouth it is all empty rhetoric.
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Since you always twist what is being said to suit your fatuous arguments, I did not claim that WADA specifically said El G's performances (or anyone else's, for that matter) were doped. They never make claims about individual athletes except as findings from tests.
But they and other antidoping experts consider EPO to be a powerful performance enhancing drug - not that it only has the "potential" to be so. Only a religiously fanatical doping denier like yourself refuses to see it. Every thread has its flat earther and that is the role you always play when the subject of doping arises. Your failure to grasp the topography of the issue is your outstanding feature.
You still haven't explained how he could be taking in more oxygen but breathing less.
And why you think you know more about oxygen kinetics than Jack Daniels?
No one is asking you how more oxygen gets to the muscles with decreased red blood cells. Are you so stupid as to not grasp the question refers to the reverse scenario, of increased red blood cells? Or are you such a liar that you have to falsely state the question so you can avoid it?
And why you think you know more about oxygen kinetics than Jack Daniels?[/quote]
Repeat question No.364.
Jack Daniels has told me he is perfectly happy with my explanations. But he is concerned about your sanity.
Tom Cochrane. wrote:
It would seem like that to you. Has your education not reached the level where red blood cell function was explained? I know it was explained on here but it appears you failed to grasp it.
The question from the very beginning was how increased red blood cells changes the rate of breathing, or if not, why not.
Explaining what happens after the lungs misses the point.
Armstronglivs wrote:
And why you think you know more about oxygen kinetics than Jack Daniels?
Repeat question No.364.
Jack Daniels has told me he is perfectly happy with my explanations. But he is concerned about your sanity.[/quote]
You shouldn't tell lies. Especially if you are pretending to be a moral guardian to the message board.
Armstronglivs wrote:
No one is asking you how more oxygen gets to the muscles with decreased red blood cells. Are you so stupid as to not grasp the question refers to the reverse scenario, of increased red blood cells? Or are you such a liar that you have to falsely state the question so you can avoid it?
You asked me "How is there an increase of the supply of oxygen to the muscles without an increase in red blood cells to transport it?" as if the issue was the number of red blood cells and not the supply of oxygen to the muscles.
This was your answer to "is there an increase of the supply of oxygen to the muscles?" -- a question that you are avoiding.
Once you clearly establish beyond all doubt that there actually is an increase of oxygen to the muscles, then I will address your question as to how that happens in a scenario with increased red blood cells.
You come from a land down under? Shouldn't you be in bed?
Armstronglivs wrote:
How do you get more oxygen from the same volume of oxygen? (quote)
How oxygen do you same get oxygen the volume of more?
Fixed.
Ah -- if you have dyslexia, that would explain a lot.
Armstronglivs wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
Which has to be extracted from the air by breathing more, not less.
No. When you have a higher red blood cell content you have more oxygen available and don't have to work as hard. That's why EPO/blood dopers make it look effortless. Dopers aren't gasping for air.
So did Jack Daniels tell you that oxygen uptake just goes up and up and up when hematocrit is 50,51,52,53,54,55,56......?
Or did your convo with him happen in you imagination?
how does that work? wrote:
Tom Cochrane. wrote:
It would seem like that to you. Has your education not reached the level where red blood cell function was explained? I know it was explained on here but it appears you failed to grasp it.
How do you get more oxygen from the same volume of oxygen?
Well? How do you get more oxygen from the same amount of oxygen?
Armstronglivs wrote:
How do you get more oxygen from the same volume of oxygen? (quote)
How oxygen do you same get oxygen the volume of more?
Fixed.
Sleep deprivation? Are the sleeping pills not working?
So genius oxygen kinetics and bioenergetics guru, tell us how EPO doping circumvents thermoregulation?
Yes...I'd say both. Schumacher has been team physician for German Olympic team since 2000. One of his main areas of expertise is excercise testing & performance evaluation of athletes - so I think he knows a thing or two about elite performance:
https://www.aspetar.com/person-profile.aspx?id=166&lang=enWouldn't that be implied when he & his colleagues determined that Karamasheva's abnormal blood values were doped and not from any physiological or pathological cause? What did you expect - that the anti-doping experts would conclude that Karamasheva blood doped, but tell the arbitrator that it had nothing to do with her performance and therefore none of achievements should be disqualified? LOL. C'mon...now, you're really acting stupid on this.
Like what? Give me a freaking break here - all you're doing now is trolling. Karamasheva - a confirmed doper - is busted based on her passport anomalies. Schumacher says it appers to be the result of EPO and testifies to the one minute/10,000m performance benefit. Karamasheva's competition results during the blood anomalies are disqualify because of an unfair advantage deemed over undoped competition.
You've got to quit defending these dopers. Be glad they're being caught once in awhile because so many get away with it!
BS rekrunner - he's testifying in *Karamasheva's CAS hearing,* therefore it is connected to her case. Because if it's not directly related to Karamasheva's case - then why would he make such a statement in first place or provide a disclaimer that it wouldn't apply in her case?
Here's another case where experts are giving their expert opinion on an ABP hematological anomalies case:
Yekaterina Ryzhova - Disciplinary Tribunal (SR/adhoesport/82/2019)
Dr. Garvican-Lewis (who's published some papers on elites) testified that a 16.0 Hgb in this ABP case with Ryzhova would improve aerobic capacity in her sport of RW.
In addition, ref Paragraph 89, the DT asked this very interesting question to an anti-doping expert:
"The Panel also asked Professor d’Onofrio about how long before a competition an athlete would be able to effectively transfuse blood so as to have a substantial impact on performance. Professor d’Onofrio stated that earlier, 24-48 hours was considered to be the normal time frame. Recently, however, athletes had been caught transfusing blood as little as two hours before a race. He stated that if blood were to be reinfused too early, it would decrease production of new red blood cells, which would be detrimental to an athletes performance."
"substantial impact on performance" - do you know what this means?
Of course "The Sole Arbitrator" did based on the evidence in the case and Schumacher's expert testimony. Doesn't a jury in a criminal court case give a verdict based on the evidence presented to them by witnesses and expert witnesses? Jurors don't have to be experts in forensics, toxicology, interrogation techniques, etc., to evaluate the evidence and render a verdict.
Oh...and it's relevant that you know how to interpret the purpose of the ban and disqualifications?
You're a making mockery out of yourself defending dopers who are banned and their achievements while doping disqualified by CAS.
I imagine casual observer must be ROFL at this continuous nonsense here!
Are you interested in exercise physiology or the politics of WADA?
WADA is a self serving organisation. This has already been demonstrated by the fact that the research is funded by them and the conclusions are incontrovertible according to their own research.
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
No. He is testifying as an anti-doping expert, not as an expert on elite performance.
Yes...I'd say both.
You'd be wrong again. Your posts are getting longer but still fail for all the same reasons:
- Team physician does not make him an performance expert on the causes of performance. Nor does testing and evaluation. It's like knowing a Rubik's cube is solved versus knowing how to solve it.
- Even if you could establish his credentials, it is a dead end. What is important is real data and observations on elite performance, not his credentials. You are fighting hard to commit the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Authority".
- His "expert testimony" is speculation that doping can work, up to some upper bound. He doesn't show that it did work -- for Karasmasheva, or any other elite athlete, ever. Nor can he, in a CAS hearing.
- His testimony on what could have happened has no value in the case, either for the verdict, the sanction, or any additional disqualifications, as performance benefit is not required, nor needs to be shown. It likewise has no value here, because it lacks real data and is not based on real observations of elite performance.
- I don't know why he makes a statement that has no possible bearing on the verdict or sanction. It is gratuitous.
- To illustrate this, even if the defending lawyer could show that doping really made these athletes slower, the dopers would still be banned and performance disqualified, for the same speculative reasons, because the rules don't make verdicts and sanctions subject to performance gains. These are all pre-decided earlier by committees that make the banned substance list, and make the anti-doping rules.
- An expert discussion worthy of my time would include a discussion of confounders (e.g. steroids for Russian women) and would have controlled measurements that isolates the independent variables.
- I'm not defending dopers (that tired, sad, lame accusation again?). We were talking about why you follow Schumacher and Malm.
- I am criticizing you, and dismissing your attempt to use statements in a CAS verdict speculating what could happen, to draw conclusions that even Schumacher doesn't draw.
- It is made worse since these speculations are in contradiction to the cautions of experts to not make such speculation on elite performances.
- The same applies for all experts in all CAS cases. CAS tribunals are not the place where scientific findings about performance benefit are made.
- All of these experts lack the required data necessary to make the conclusions you want to make. They speculate about performance benefits could be for elites without elite performance data.
how does that work? wrote:
Tom Cochrane. wrote:
It would seem like that to you. Has your education not reached the level where red blood cell function was explained? I know it was explained on here but it appears you failed to grasp it.
How do you get more oxygen from the same volume of oxygen?
With more rbcs. This is the most basic equation there can be.
Here's another ABP hematological anomalies case:
CAS 2016/O/4469 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) v. All
Russia Athletics Federation (ARAF) & Tatyana Chernova
176."Taking into regard that the sanction of disqualification of results embraces the forfeiture
of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money, the sanction of
disqualification is to be held equal to a retroactive imposition of a period of ineligibility
and, thus, is a severe measure. The Athlete loses all income from sport and, even more,
has to return income achieved. Considering, however, that the ABP has established
continued doping of the Athlete for the whole period until 8 July 2013, considering that
this comes roughly equal to the overall length of ineligibility period imposed by this
award, and considering that the effects of doping at the beginning of July 2013 might
well have continued until 22 July 2013, the Sole Arbitrator considers it justified, to
disqualify all the Athlete’s results from 15 August 2011 until 22 July 2013, bearing in
mind that the results of the Athlete from 15 August 2009 until 14 August 2011 have
already been disqualified by the RUSADA Disciplinary Committee. Such
disqualification of results covers the whole period during which the Athlete is found to
have used doping, as established on the basis of her ABP. The Sole Arbitrator is aware
of the fact that such period of disqualification, seen only from the perspective of the
sanction of disqualification of the results, must be deemed excessive in terms of
proportionality. However, not to disqualify results that have been achieved by using a
prohibited substance or prohibited method cannot be considered as fair with regard to
other athletes that competed against the Athlete during this period. The main purpose of
disqualification of results is not to punish the transgressor, but rather to correct any
unfair advantage and remove any tainted performances from the record (LEWIS /
TAYLOR (Eds.), Sport: Law and Practice, 2014, para. C.162, with further references)."
Answer this rekrunner: If doping doesn't work, how could Chernova have an "unfair advantage" which resulted in the disqualification of her performances. She could still get banned for four years but why disqualify her results if doping doesn't work and therefore she didn't have any "unfair advantage" over the other competitors.
High-Octane Dopers wrote:
Answer this rekrunner: If doping doesn't work, how could Chernova have an "unfair advantage" which resulted in the disqualification of her performances. She could still get banned for four years but why disqualify her results if doping doesn't work and therefore she didn't have any "unfair advantage" over the other competitors.
We were not debating whether doping works.
I agree with your experts that doping can work.
Especially the steroids that all the Russian women took.
You said you follow experts like Schumacher and Malm.
We were discussing that.
I said they were not the right kind of experts, and that they didn't have the data and observations on elites to support your conclusions.
I said that you didn't follow them, but caught up and passed them, making conclusions that they don't make.