Killeriotttt wrote:
Armstrong don’t fall for Canova’s b.s. Canova is likely a very good coach but he is an obvious charlatan when it comes to this PED issue. Canova has told numerous falsehoods about EPO so there is no reason to trust him about his own athletes. Canova has every reason to lie. Poor character is what I see.
And you are?
Armstronglivs wrote:
If prevalence is high - and it is - how do you rule out drugs in any given performance? It can be present at an amateur level - it is - or at the very top. The amateur won't attain the level of the best but may still be doped. Its presence may not be clearly signalled but is still there. What causes suspicion in any given athlete is the nature and level of their performances, their improvements - or big dips - who they are coached by, and even the country they come from, according to knowledge of testing and the incidence of doping violations in those countries.
You take two athletes who both run sub-13 for the 5k. One of them is doping. How do you know which one is, as the doped athlete has attained the same performance level as the clean athlete? Performance alone won't tell you if it is clean or not - unless you know something more about that athlete and their progression. Further, there is no definitive bar between a clean and a doped performance, as it will ultimately depend on the athlete in question. Hence the question is ultimately a matter of conjecture. But the uncomfortable fact in the middle of it is that doping simply cannot be ruled out for any athlete. Indeed, it can be assumed now as a likelihood, given the prevalence of doping.
Assuming prevalence is high, I don't rule out drugs in any given performance.
I have consistently asked you to make the link between doping, and these fastest elite performances.
You need to elaborate on "the nature and level of their performances, their improvements - or big dips" -- according to whom, and on what factual basis? Clean runners can also see improvements and big dips. Clean athletes also make progression.
"Who they are coached by" is also a domain where myths are larger than facts.
We aren't talking about two hypothetical athletes, where one is doping and the other not -- you said 50/50 chance, across the whole population of championship athletes.
None of this is factual basis. It is speculation and rationalization of one possible world view.
Killeriotttt wrote:
Armstrong don’t fall for Canova’s b.s. Canova is likely a very good coach but he is an obvious charlatan when it comes to this PED issue. Canova has told numerous falsehoods about EPO so there is no reason to trust him about his own athletes. Canova has every reason to lie. Poor character is what I see.
More allegations with no basis.
There is no reason to not trust Renato, or to trust your mythology more than a coach with a long experience in producing high performance.
If Canova doesn't dope his athletes, he has every reason to tell the truth.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
If prevalence is high - and it is - how do you rule out drugs in any given performance? It can be present at an amateur level - it is - or at the very top. The amateur won't attain the level of the best but may still be doped. Its presence may not be clearly signalled but is still there. What causes suspicion in any given athlete is the nature and level of their performances, their improvements - or big dips - who they are coached by, and even the country they come from, according to knowledge of testing and the incidence of doping violations in those countries.
You take two athletes who both run sub-13 for the 5k. One of them is doping. How do you know which one is, as the doped athlete has attained the same performance level as the clean athlete? Performance alone won't tell you if it is clean or not - unless you know something more about that athlete and their progression. Further, there is no definitive bar between a clean and a doped performance, as it will ultimately depend on the athlete in question. Hence the question is ultimately a matter of conjecture. But the uncomfortable fact in the middle of it is that doping simply cannot be ruled out for any athlete. Indeed, it can be assumed now as a likelihood, given the prevalence of doping.
Assuming prevalence is high, I don't rule out drugs in any given performance.
I have consistently asked you to make the link between doping, and these fastest elite performances.
You need to elaborate on "the nature and level of their performances, their improvements - or big dips" -- according to whom, and on what factual basis? Clean runners can also see improvements and big dips. Clean athletes also make progression.
"Who they are coached by" is also a domain where myths are larger than facts.
We aren't talking about two hypothetical athletes, where one is doping and the other not -- you said 50/50 chance, across the whole population of championship athletes.
None of this is factual basis. It is speculation and rationalization of one possible world view.
Doping exists. That is factual. Doping is prevalent. That, too, is factual. Doping is known to enhance performance. That is factual. Given the disguised nature of doping it isn't possible to claim any given performance is doping free. That is factual. Many of the top athletes have doped, as we see with the busts of record holders and championship level medallists. That is a fact. In some countries doping is endemic if not actually "systemic" and in some antidoping is weak. Those are facts. That is quite a lot to overlook if you see no possible link between doping and top performances.
All athletes will show performance variations but in doped athletes these tend to be more extreme. That is why their performances may have given rise to suspicion. If that were not so then no performance is ever suspicious and doping would never reveal itself in performance. In other words, doping would have no effect on performance.
If athletes have agents and coaches known for doping connections there is only one reason for that. Clean athletes would not employ coaches or teams that could tarnish their reputation.
If an athlete comes from a country with a known high incidence of doping or either poor testing their performances cannot be taken at face value as clean. There will be a question mark. It is difficult to remain untainted when swimming in a dirty pool.
If that is "one possible world view" I would say it is the world we live in.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
They will always be suspect to you. But I have read estimates from antidoping sources ranging from 10% at the lowest to up to 90%. WADA has suggested between 10-40% is likely, some surveys have placed to higher and other antidoping sources have concluded it is everywhere at the top championship level. I also know for a fact that it is there at college and amateur level, and amongst seniors. But that it cannot be definitively measured does not reduce its presence.
Not only to me. Again -- you said 50/50 chance.
I have also seen estimates as low as 0%.
Whenever I have seen estimates as high as 90%, or higher, it has been associated with countries like Russia and Ukraine, and other countries not known for men's long distance running.
I have never seen East African estimates that high.
WADA has made no suggestion of the likelihood of prevalence estimates, but even assuming so, 10-40% is not 50/50.
Some surveys have attempted to make estimates which includes other events like sprints, field events, and race-walking. I have yet to see an accurate estimate for men's long distance running, for example.
No credible estimates of 0% exist. I have read a WADA estimate of 10-40%. A few years ago the then Director General of WADA, David Howman, responded to questions about doping at the London Olympics, saying, "we know it will be more than 10% but it I don't think it would be 90%. Probably somewhere in between." Where do you think "in-between" will lie? At the time, the former BALCO doping-supplier turned gamekeeper, Victor Conte, said he believed all the top athletes would be doping at the Olympics. Does it really make much difference if it is "only" one in three or even four athletes that are doping, or one in two - as some have estimated?
Doping is found to exist in every competitive activity, including curling, championship darts and chess. No sporting activity will be immune. The Jamaican whistleblower Ann Richards concluded that "it is present in all sports and across all countries at the elite level, with the collusion of sports governance bodies". Running will be no different.
It doesn't matter that the prevalence of doping may vary between sports and amongst countries. Kenya is known to have a doping problem, even if it hasn't been described as "systemic", as it is in Russia. No sport is immune. The picture at a global level is that professional sport wouldn't exist without it.
The critical issue is that antidoping is only able to catch a mere fraction of those known to dope. That means it continues to exist throughout sport without sanction. The incentive for every ambitious athlete is to dope, knowing the chances of being caught are very slim. It becomes a rational choice.
Armstronglivs wrote:
5558 wrote:
You arrogance really has no limit. And you STILL havn't got the point, even not with examples every child could understand.
You are on the wrong thread.
Correct thread.
Even for such an relatively unimportant point, you are unable to understand or to admit your mistakes.
All the discussions of the main points are also completely useless, since you NEVER would agree to being wrong on something-
5558 wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You are on the wrong thread.
Correct thread.
Even for such an relatively unimportant point, you are unable to understand or to admit your mistakes.
All the discussions of the main points are also completely useless, since you NEVER would agree to being wrong on something-
I see that you think capitals improve your arguments. That says quite a lot about you. Unfortunately.
Armstronglivs wrote:
5558 wrote:
Correct thread.
Even for such an relatively unimportant point, you are unable to understand or to admit your mistakes.
All the discussions of the main points are also completely useless, since you NEVER would agree to being wrong on something-
I see that you think capitals improve your arguments. That says quite a lot about you. Unfortunately.
But he is right, and you are wrong.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Doping exists. That is factual. Doping is prevalent. That, too, is factual. Doping is known to enhance performance. That is factual. Given the disguised nature of doping it isn't possible to claim any given performance is doping free. That is factual. Many of the top athletes have doped, as we see with the busts of record holders and championship level medallists. That is a fact. In some countries doping is endemic if not actually "systemic" and in some antidoping is weak. Those are facts. That is quite a lot to overlook if you see no possible link between doping and top performances.
All athletes will show performance variations but in doped athletes these tend to be more extreme. That is why their performances may have given rise to suspicion. If that were not so then no performance is ever suspicious and doping would never reveal itself in performance. In other words, doping would have no effect on performance.
If athletes have agents and coaches known for doping connections there is only one reason for that. Clean athletes would not employ coaches or teams that could tarnish their reputation.
If an athlete comes from a country with a known high incidence of doping or either poor testing their performances cannot be taken at face value as clean. There will be a question mark. It is difficult to remain untainted when swimming in a dirty pool.
If that is "one possible world view" I would say it is the world we live in.
I don't overlook any of those facts. I look direclty at all of these facts and see right through them. They are just not enough to establish a strong link between doping and the fastest elite performances. Given the general, global nature of your facts, there is little reason to think that first place is more suspicious than last place, or the places who didn't even qualify.
You say "in doped athletes these tend to be more extreme" -- this looks more like a reading from the gospel than fact. If it is not so, then no performance is any more suspicious than any another performance, and doping would only reveal itself in those who are tested, i.e. the winners of races, and then some randomly chosen athletes.
"known for doping connections" implies knowledge. This bar is often not met, or connections are stretched to include one or two or more degrees of connectivity, opening up many more than only one reason.
"known high incidence" also implies knowledge. Sometimes the data shows that countries often accused have an "average or below average incidence" of doping. Sometimes athletes from one country move to another country with better testing, and still produce high results.
It is one possible view of the world we live in, and one formed on insufficient data to establish a strong correlation.
Armstronglivs wrote:
No credible estimates of 0% exist. I have read a WADA estimate of 10-40%. A few years ago the then Director General of WADA, David Howman, responded to questions about doping at the London Olympics, saying, "we know it will be more than 10% but it I don't think it would be 90%. Probably somewhere in between." Where do you think "in-between" will lie? At the time, the former BALCO doping-supplier turned gamekeeper, Victor Conte, said he believed all the top athletes would be doping at the Olympics. Does it really make much difference if it is "only" one in three or even four athletes that are doping, or one in two - as some have estimated?
Doping is found to exist in every competitive activity, including curling, championship darts and chess. No sporting activity will be immune. The Jamaican whistleblower Ann Richards concluded that "it is present in all sports and across all countries at the elite level, with the collusion of sports governance bodies". Running will be no different.
It doesn't matter that the prevalence of doping may vary between sports and amongst countries. Kenya is known to have a doping problem, even if it hasn't been described as "systemic", as it is in Russia. No sport is immune. The picture at a global level is that professional sport wouldn't exist without it.
The critical issue is that antidoping is only able to catch a mere fraction of those known to dope. That means it continues to exist throughout sport without sanction. The incentive for every ambitious athlete is to dope, knowing the chances of being caught are very slim. It becomes a rational choice.
Once again -- 10-40% is not 50/50 chance. This all started with me asking for the factual basis of 50/50.
Whenever I have seen data based estimates as high as 90%, it is from table that also includes a lot of 0% entries.
What you consider credible depends on what you are willing to believe. 10%-90% is a rather wide range. Was David Howman talking about men's distance running, or the London Olympics? Recall that the London 2012 Olympics was 26 different sports, of which "Athletics" is but one, which itself includes sprint, fields, and race-walking.
I don't know what facts Victor Conte knows about distance running. I'm also not aware of who Ann Richards is. Maybe you mean Renee-Anne Shirley? Likewise, what does a Jamaican whistleblower know about distance running performance? I'm interested in facts, not the beliefs of people. I would generally agree with "it is present in all sports and across all countries at the elite level, with the collusion of sports governance bodies", but find it too general to suggest one distance running performance is more suspicious than any other.
The question isn't whether Kenya has a doping problem, or whether sports or countries are not immune. You said 50/50 chance. It already makes a big difference compared to 1 in 3 or 1 in 4. Then we can say 2 in 3 or 3 in 4 are clean. But why stop there? These threads are dominated by EPO suspicion. Why not use the Sunday Times reporting of 1 in 7, or 1 in 9, or 1 in 12.5, or 1 in 14, depending on the country?
ImpaIa31 wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I see that you think capitals improve your arguments. That says quite a lot about you. Unfortunately.
But he is right, and you are wrong.
Watch out! The kiwi turd has never been proven wrong!
Armstronglivs wrote:
5558 wrote:
Correct thread.
Even for such an relatively unimportant point, you are unable to understand or to admit your mistakes.
All the discussions of the main points are also completely useless, since you NEVER would agree to being wrong on something-
I see that you think capitals improve your arguments. That says quite a lot about you. Unfortunately.
No, I don't think they improve arguments. But I thought they would improve your understanding of those arguments. I was wrong on this.
ImpaIa31 wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I see that you think capitals improve your arguments. That says quite a lot about you. Unfortunately.
But he is right, and you are wrong.
Another door banging in the breeze.
5558 wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I see that you think capitals improve your arguments. That says quite a lot about you. Unfortunately.
No, I don't think they improve arguments. But I thought they would improve your understanding of those arguments. I was wrong on this.
You are wrong on everything.
effff wrote:
ImpaIa31 wrote:
But he is right, and you are wrong.
Watch out! The kiwi turd has never been proven wrong!
Not by one as intellectually impaired as you or your friends.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
No credible estimates of 0% exist. I have read a WADA estimate of 10-40%. A few years ago the then Director General of WADA, David Howman, responded to questions about doping at the London Olympics, saying, "we know it will be more than 10% but it I don't think it would be 90%. Probably somewhere in between." Where do you think "in-between" will lie? At the time, the former BALCO doping-supplier turned gamekeeper, Victor Conte, said he believed all the top athletes would be doping at the Olympics. Does it really make much difference if it is "only" one in three or even four athletes that are doping, or one in two - as some have estimated?
Doping is found to exist in every competitive activity, including curling, championship darts and chess. No sporting activity will be immune. The Jamaican whistleblower Ann Richards concluded that "it is present in all sports and across all countries at the elite level, with the collusion of sports governance bodies". Running will be no different.
It doesn't matter that the prevalence of doping may vary between sports and amongst countries. Kenya is known to have a doping problem, even if it hasn't been described as "systemic", as it is in Russia. No sport is immune. The picture at a global level is that professional sport wouldn't exist without it.
The critical issue is that antidoping is only able to catch a mere fraction of those known to dope. That means it continues to exist throughout sport without sanction. The incentive for every ambitious athlete is to dope, knowing the chances of being caught are very slim. It becomes a rational choice.
Once again -- 10-40% is not 50/50 chance. This all started with me asking for the factual basis of 50/50.
Whenever I have seen data based estimates as high as 90%, it is from table that also includes a lot of 0% entries.
What you consider credible depends on what you are willing to believe. 10%-90% is a rather wide range. Was David Howman talking about men's distance running, or the London Olympics? Recall that the London 2012 Olympics was 26 different sports, of which "Athletics" is but one, which itself includes sprint, fields, and race-walking.
I don't know what facts Victor Conte knows about distance running. I'm also not aware of who Ann Richards is. Maybe you mean Renee-Anne Shirley? Likewise, what does a Jamaican whistleblower know about distance running performance? I'm interested in facts, not the beliefs of people. I would generally agree with "it is present in all sports and across all countries at the elite level, with the collusion of sports governance bodies", but find it too general to suggest one distance running performance is more suspicious than any other.
The question isn't whether Kenya has a doping problem, or whether sports or countries are not immune. You said 50/50 chance. It already makes a big difference compared to 1 in 3 or 1 in 4. Then we can say 2 in 3 or 3 in 4 are clean. But why stop there? These threads are dominated by EPO suspicion. Why not use the Sunday Times reporting of 1 in 7, or 1 in 9, or 1 in 12.5, or 1 in 14, depending on the country?
Confidential athlete surveys have shown that drug use could easily be as high as 50%; furthermore David Howman's acknowledgment of "somewhere in-between 10% and 90%" allows for the same interpretation.
That you think there is a significant difference between the WADA suggestion of up to 40% and an estimate of 50% is clutching at straws; it is still effectively 1 in 2 athletes. Any figure supplied by anyone is an estimation, not a definitive measure; dopers don't supply a census form. The 50% is based on a variety of estimates that go as high as 90%.
But the overall picture is that a very significant portion of any competitive field at the elite level in any sport is doped, whatever the actual percentage may be.
You don't know what the proportion of elite distance runners is doping, as they, too, do not disclose their doping and are rarely caught, as is the case with most dopers. There is no reason to conclude they will be different from other athletes. Perhaps you could supply conclusive data that confirms they don't dope in numbers similar to other sports - and why that would be so?
My reference to Ann Richards was meant to be Ann Shirley, but the name of the former tennis player came to mind. However your questioning her findings (and Victor Conte's views) shows the crux of your argument is to try to ring-fence distance running, as though it is somehow impervious to the influences that have lead to endemic doping in all other sports. Yet we continue to see doping busts for distance runners, as in Kenya over the last few years. You are merely hopeful that distance runners are different. There are no facts to show that.
"They are just not enough to establish a strong link between doping and the fastest elite performances. Given the general, global nature of your facts, there is little reason to think that first place is more suspicious than last place, or the places who didn't even qualify."(quote)
There are two words in response to that: Rashid Ramzi. Your statement is however consistent with the view that drugs do not enhance performance.
Armstronglivs wrote:
"They are just not enough to establish a strong link between doping and the fastest elite performances. Given the general, global nature of your facts, there is little reason to think that first place is more suspicious than last place, or the places who didn't even qualify."(quote)
There are two words in response to that: Rashid Ramzi. Your statement is however consistent with the view that drugs do not enhance performance.
You cannot establish a link by example. That is the weakest argument there is.
Again, you said 50/50 chance. Rashid Ramzi is 1 athlete.
You also said:
"it isnt possible to know how much of any given performance is the result of training and how much is due to doping."
So maybe there is a link to doping. Maybe not. Maybe he could have run faster clean. It is not possible to know.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Confidential athlete surveys have shown that drug use could easily be as high as 50%; furthermore David Howman's acknowledgment of "somewhere in-between 10% and 90%" allows for the same interpretation.
That you think there is a significant difference between the WADA suggestion of up to 40% and an estimate of 50% is clutching at straws; it is still effectively 1 in 2 athletes. Any figure supplied by anyone is an estimation, not a definitive measure; dopers don't supply a census form. The 50% is based on a variety of estimates that go as high as 90%.
But the overall picture is that a very significant portion of any competitive field at the elite level in any sport is doped, whatever the actual percentage may be.
You don't know what the proportion of elite distance runners is doping, as they, too, do not disclose their doping and are rarely caught, as is the case with most dopers. There is no reason to conclude they will be different from other athletes. Perhaps you could supply conclusive data that confirms they don't dope in numbers similar to other sports - and why that would be so?
My reference to Ann Richards was meant to be Ann Shirley, but the name of the former tennis player came to mind. However your questioning her findings (and Victor Conte's views) shows the crux of your argument is to try to ring-fence distance running, as though it is somehow impervious to the influences that have lead to endemic doping in all other sports. Yet we continue to see doping busts for distance runners, as in Kenya over the last few years. You are merely hopeful that distance runners are different. There are no facts to show that.
Which confidential surveys? Were they reliable? Did they estimate or measure non-compliance? Were they limited to men's distance running? General estimates for distance running loses meaning when you inflate the figures with Russian race-walkers, or Olympic weightlifters.
We shouldn't mix the pot so much as to allow for any and every interpretation, but attempt to narrow the estimate to something that is reliable and accurate for a thread that suspects a male distance runner of doping, based on characteristics of his performance.
40% and 50% are not that different, but you said "1 in 3" or "1 in 4". Then 50/50 becomes 67/33 and 75/25 -- these are significantly different, and no longer "effectively 1 in 2 athletes". In these cases we have clean athletes outnumbering doped athletes by 2 to 1 or 3 to 1.
I didn't question Renee-Anne Shirley's findings. On the contrary, I agreed with the statement. So I guess the crux of my argument is something else.
You still seem unaware of what you fail to show. There is no question that doping exists in distance running.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
"They are just not enough to establish a strong link between doping and the fastest elite performances. Given the general, global nature of your facts, there is little reason to think that first place is more suspicious than last place, or the places who didn't even qualify."(quote)
There are two words in response to that: Rashid Ramzi. Your statement is however consistent with the view that drugs do not enhance performance.
You cannot establish a link by example. That is the weakest argument there is.
Again, you said 50/50 chance. Rashid Ramzi is 1 athlete.
You also said:
"it isnt possible to know how much of any given performance is the result of training and how much is due to doping."
So maybe there is a link to doping. Maybe not. Maybe he could have run faster clean. It is not possible to know.
There is naivety. And then there is this.