Get off your high horse doping endorser. Because that's what you are.
You don't have the moral high ground because you are misinforming young people by telling them that doping improves performance.
It's just another form of bullying. You're a pretend tough guy. It's pathetic. Stop it you coward.
Your argument is with all the various antidoping agencies. I suppose they are doping endorsers, too.
Yes. They are the ones who endorse and enforce the belief that "Performance Enhancing Drugs" really do give Superhuman powers, but you mustn't use them.
Your argument is with all the various antidoping agencies. I suppose they are doping endorsers, too.
Yes. They are the ones who endorse and enforce the belief that "Performance Enhancing Drugs" really do give Superhuman powers, but you mustn't use them.
Which is bad science and bad parenting.
You are well acquainted with bad science. I don't know if that includes bad parenting.
But this was your lie -- I never said I knew which ones were doped, or their names. That was one of your many false extrapolations you want to put in my mouth.
Your initial objection is misguided, because:
- With respect to scientific studies, I had already said we don't have the right data on elite athletes, and curiously your objection just parrotted me that we don't have the right data on elite athletes.
- When I looked at the progression of performance trends of whole groups, I included all of the fastest performances of dopers and non-dopers alike.
Do you recall the "Tuebingen study" which attempted to estimate doping prevalence at the 2011 World Athletics Championship without being able to name a single doped athlete? This is not the barrier you pretend it is.
Estimates of prevalence do not require identifying individual athletes. Your data does. You said:
"My performance data actually does includes all of the data from elite and professional athletes who have doped".
Unless you know which athletes have doped that is a meaningless claim. For "all of the data" on doped athletes to be included that must require knowing which were doped, otherwise you merely have performance data from athletes - period. None of your data identifies which were doped and which weren't. Indeed, with your previous claims that doping doesn't enhance performance for elite distance runners your statement is rendered even more meaningless, because there will be no ascertainable difference in the data that can be attributed to doping. Dopers and clean athletes will look - and run - the same. Doping will play no role in performance - in your books. And thus your data.You are truly the master of the empty and unprovable assertion.
But this was your lie -- I never said I knew which ones were doped, or their names. That was one of your many false extrapolations you want to put in my mouth.
Your initial objection is misguided, because:
- With respect to scientific studies, I had already said we don't have the right data on elite athletes, and curiously your objection just parrotted me that we don't have the right data on elite athletes.
- When I looked at the progression of performance trends of whole groups, I included all of the fastest performances of dopers and non-dopers alike.
Do you recall the "Tuebingen study" which attempted to estimate doping prevalence at the 2011 World Athletics Championship without being able to name a single doped athlete? This is not the barrier you pretend it is.
Estimates of prevalence do not require identifying individual athletes. Your data does. You said:
"My performance data actually does includes all of the data from elite and professional athletes who have doped".
Unless you know which athletes have doped that is a meaningless claim. For "all of the data" on doped athletes to be included that must require knowing which were doped, otherwise you merely have performance data from athletes - period. None of your data identifies which were doped and which weren't. Indeed, with your previous claims that doping doesn't enhance performance for elite distance runners your statement is rendered even more meaningless, because there will be no ascertainable difference in the data that can be attributed to doping. Dopers and clean athletes will look - and run - the same. Doping will play no role in performance - in your books. And thus your data.You are truly the master of the empty and unprovable assertion.
If we allowed drugs all this sort of debate would thankfully evaporate as there would be no cheating overnight.
Estimates of prevalence do not require identifying individual athletes. Your data does. You said:
"My performance data actually does includes all of the data from elite and professional athletes who have doped".
Unless you know which athletes have doped that is a meaningless claim. For "all of the data" on doped athletes to be included that must require knowing which were doped, otherwise you merely have performance data from athletes - period. None of your data identifies which were doped and which weren't. Indeed, with your previous claims that doping doesn't enhance performance for elite distance runners your statement is rendered even more meaningless, because there will be no ascertainable difference in the data that can be attributed to doping. Dopers and clean athletes will look - and run - the same. Doping will play no role in performance - in your books. And thus your data.You are truly the master of the empty and unprovable assertion.
On the contrary, historical performance data does not require identifying individual athletes who have doped, to make conclusions about historical performance trends for the fastest runners in whole groups compare to previous eras. But if a runner both doped, and met my performance criteria, I have included his/her performance data in my performance reviews, by virtue of including all of the performances I could find, including annulled results (only excluding wind-aided or short course results). If I'm wrong, maybe you can tell me by name which doper, or whose doped performance, would be excluded by my method of including everyone? We can speculate and hypothesize about various causes of and expectations for performance progress, or lack of progress, including from doping, but they remain speculation and hypothesis either supported by the performance data, or not, and I have never represented otherwise.
Specifically, I did not make any "previous claims that doping doesn't enhance performance for elite distance runners" and do not make such a broad claim, without disclaimers. It is always possible that some doping can potentially enhance some elite performance in some cases. I do claim that you, and the rest of the world (athletes, coaches, doctors, scientists, pseudo-intellects and arm-chair fans) collectively have failed to established that elite distance running athletes can run faster when doped, than they can achieve using WADA-legal substances and methods. For example, East Africans and non-Africans alike raise both EPO and RBC naturally by training at altitude.
Indeed, you once again give all the right arguments explaining exactly why you have failed to establish which athletes, if any, benefitted from doping, and by how much, if at all. If I'm wrong, then how many of the 341 East African men, and 30 North African men, and 32 non-African men can you name, who have run faster than a 1990 top-5 benchmark, that ran faster as a result of doping than they could have clean?
Estimates of prevalence do not require identifying individual athletes. Your data does. You said:
"My performance data actually does includes all of the data from elite and professional athletes who have doped".
Unless you know which athletes have doped that is a meaningless claim. For "all of the data" on doped athletes to be included that must require knowing which were doped, otherwise you merely have performance data from athletes - period. None of your data identifies which were doped and which weren't. Indeed, with your previous claims that doping doesn't enhance performance for elite distance runners your statement is rendered even more meaningless, because there will be no ascertainable difference in the data that can be attributed to doping. Dopers and clean athletes will look - and run - the same. Doping will play no role in performance - in your books. And thus your data.You are truly the master of the empty and unprovable assertion.
If we allowed drugs all this sort of debate would thankfully evaporate as there would be no cheating overnight.
Estimates of prevalence do not require identifying individual athletes. Your data does. You said:
"My performance data actually does includes all of the data from elite and professional athletes who have doped".
Unless you know which athletes have doped that is a meaningless claim. For "all of the data" on doped athletes to be included that must require knowing which were doped, otherwise you merely have performance data from athletes - period. None of your data identifies which were doped and which weren't. Indeed, with your previous claims that doping doesn't enhance performance for elite distance runners your statement is rendered even more meaningless, because there will be no ascertainable difference in the data that can be attributed to doping. Dopers and clean athletes will look - and run - the same. Doping will play no role in performance - in your books. And thus your data.You are truly the master of the empty and unprovable assertion.
On the contrary, historical performance data does not require identifying individual athletes who have doped, to make conclusions about historical performance trends for the fastest runners in whole groups compare to previous eras. But if a runner both doped, and met my performance criteria, I have included his/her performance data in my performance reviews, by virtue of including all of the performances I could find, including annulled results (only excluding wind-aided or short course results). If I'm wrong, maybe you can tell me by name which doper, or whose doped performance, would be excluded by my method of including everyone? We can speculate and hypothesize about various causes of and expectations for performance progress, or lack of progress, including from doping, but they remain speculation and hypothesis either supported by the performance data, or not, and I have never represented otherwise.
Specifically, I did not make any "previous claims that doping doesn't enhance performance for elite distance runners" and do not make such a broad claim, without disclaimers. It is always possible that some doping can potentially enhance some elite performance in some cases. I do claim that you, and the rest of the world (athletes, coaches, doctors, scientists, pseudo-intellects and arm-chair fans) collectively have failed to established that elite distance running athletes can run faster when doped, than they can achieve using WADA-legal substances and methods. For example, East Africans and non-Africans alike raise both EPO and RBC naturally by training at altitude.
Indeed, you once again give all the right arguments explaining exactly why you have failed to establish which athletes, if any, benefitted from doping, and by how much, if at all. If I'm wrong, then how many of the 341 East African men, and 30 North African men, and 32 non-African men can you name, who have run faster than a 1990 top-5 benchmark, that ran faster as a result of doping than they could have clean?
Somewhere in that word mountain I am seeing that you are still only guessing which runners were doped. Which also means you are only guessing about the effects of doping on performance. That doesn't qualify as "data" in my books.
This post was edited 32 seconds after it was posted.
On the contrary, historical performance data does not require identifying individual athletes who have doped, to make conclusions about historical performance trends for the fastest runners in whole groups compare to previous eras. But if a runner both doped, and met my performance criteria, I have included his/her performance data in my performance reviews, by virtue of including all of the performances I could find, including annulled results (only excluding wind-aided or short course results). If I'm wrong, maybe you can tell me by name which doper, or whose doped performance, would be excluded by my method of including everyone? We can speculate and hypothesize about various causes of and expectations for performance progress, or lack of progress, including from doping, but they remain speculation and hypothesis either supported by the performance data, or not, and I have never represented otherwise.
Specifically, I did not make any "previous claims that doping doesn't enhance performance for elite distance runners" and do not make such a broad claim, without disclaimers. It is always possible that some doping can potentially enhance some elite performance in some cases. I do claim that you, and the rest of the world (athletes, coaches, doctors, scientists, pseudo-intellects and arm-chair fans) collectively have failed to established that elite distance running athletes can run faster when doped, than they can achieve using WADA-legal substances and methods. For example, East Africans and non-Africans alike raise both EPO and RBC naturally by training at altitude.
Indeed, you once again give all the right arguments explaining exactly why you have failed to establish which athletes, if any, benefitted from doping, and by how much, if at all. If I'm wrong, then how many of the 341 East African men, and 30 North African men, and 32 non-African men can you name, who have run faster than a 1990 top-5 benchmark, that ran faster as a result of doping than they could have clean?
Somewhere in that word mountain I am seeing that you are still only guessing which runners were doped. Which also means you are only guessing about the effects of doping on performance. That doesn't qualify as "data" in my books.
I guess that helps explain why you are so deluded. You always see what you want instead of what is actually written. I am not even trying to guess which individual runners were doped, as I do not find that to be a barrier or necessary, and I did not find it relevant in order to make observations about whole groups. When a whole group is significantly underperforming for decades across all distance events, this includes their dopers too. And you keep confirming that the underperforming nations are doping too -- you told us once that up to 80% of Olympic athletes were doping.
In any case, we do have other independent data though about countries like Russia doping both their men and women for decades, while the Russian men were not performing any better than the predecessors of the 1980s, and the Russian women, as a nation, did not perform better than the Japanese women. Similarly, most dopers caught by ADAs and ADOs are not the top performers, and most of the doped top performers are busted when they are running significantly slower than their best. If doping worked as advertised, it should be possible to see correlations about what we do know from those who got caught.
You should know all of this already, but your faith is blinding you.
Somewhere in that word mountain I am seeing that you are still only guessing which runners were doped. Which also means you are only guessing about the effects of doping on performance. That doesn't qualify as "data" in my books.
I guess that helps explain why you are so deluded. You always see what you want instead of what is actually written. I am not even trying to guess which individual runners were doped, as I do not find that to be a barrier or necessary, and I did not find it relevant in order to make observations about whole groups. When a whole group is significantly underperforming for decades across all distance events, this includes their dopers too. And you keep confirming that the underperforming nations are doping too -- you told us once that up to 80% of Olympic athletes were doping.
In any case, we do have other independent data though about countries like Russia doping both their men and women for decades, while the Russian men were not performing any better than the predecessors of the 1980s, and the Russian women, as a nation, did not perform better than the Japanese women. Similarly, most dopers caught by ADAs and ADOs are not the top performers, and most of the doped top performers are busted when they are running significantly slower than their best. If doping worked as advertised, it should be possible to see correlations about what we do know from those who got caught.
You should know all of this already, but your faith is blinding you.
You don't know who is doping and who isn't. Yet you claim to be able to measure the effects of doping in those whom you cannot identify. If you do not see the absurdity in that you are beyond help.
I guess that helps explain why you are so deluded. You always see what you want instead of what is actually written. ...
You should know all of this already, but your faith is blinding you.
You don't know who is doping and who isn't. Yet you claim to be able to measure the effects of doping in those whom you cannot identify. If you do not see the absurdity in that you are beyond help.
So in your world of make believe, you also believe I have made such a specific claim, by looking at one single performance of each athlete -- their best performance ever in each event. This further cements that you are deluded, you see what you want, and you fail to read and/or understand what is plainly written.
I make no such claim that I can "measure the effects of doping". On the contrary, I claim that it has never been done for any of these elite distance running athletes running their best by anyone in history, making any such claims pure hypothesis, baseless speculation, and mythology.
I plainly see the absurdity, but the absurdity was fabricated in your absurd imagination.
You don't know who is doping and who isn't. Yet you claim to be able to measure the effects of doping in those whom you cannot identify. If you do not see the absurdity in that you are beyond help.
So in your world of make believe, you also believe I have made such a specific claim, by looking at one single performance of each athlete -- their best performance ever in each event. This further cements that you are deluded, you see what you want, and you fail to read and/or understand what is plainly written.
I make no such claim that I can "measure the effects of doping". On the contrary, I claim that it has never been done for any of these elite distance running athletes running their best by anyone in history, making any such claims pure hypothesis, baseless speculation, and mythology.
I plainly see the absurdity, but the absurdity was fabricated in your absurd imagination.
On that basis then, you have come to no actual conclusions of fact about doping and performance. We have always known that. It is all merely your speculation.
I make no such claim that I can "measure the effects of doping". On the contrary, I claim that it has never been done for any of these elite distance running athletes running their best by anyone in history, making any such claims pure hypothesis, baseless speculation, and mythology.
I plainly see the absurdity, but the absurdity was fabricated in your absurd imagination.
On that basis then, you have come to no actual conclusions of fact about doping and performance. We have always known that. It is all merely your speculation.
Once again, you throw out this word "known" as if any of your statements are coming from a place of knowledge, rather than imagination and belief. But sure, when I say that some doping can improve performance for some athletes in some events under some initial conditions, this is indeed a statement of my belief, and not a conclusion of fact.
This raises the question, who, if anyone, do you believe has come to "actual conclusions of fact about doping and (elite distance running) performance"? Can you provide any names and quotes and the basis they used for such conclusions of fact?
My conclusion to date is that many of the popular claims about the alleged relation between doping and elite distance running performance are not based on observed facts or controlled observations, but are based on a collage of myths and hope and speculation and extrapolation and hypotheses held together by fallacies. Furthermore, if all of the assumptions about prevalence and power of doping are true, it boggles the mind that non-Africans struggle to be competitive with their 1980s predecessors, let alone their East African and North African competitors.
Even the most revered anti-doping performance experts, say things like "it can be estimated that elite athletes may improve performance by up to 3%". This non-committal potential estimation falls far short of your new standard of "actual conclusions of fact".
Yes ; but what fits into those definitions changes.
Thus getting paid to do athletics was once cheating, now it is not.
Having a coach was once seen as cheating and now is not.
Do you know what having an education actually means?
But then it may well be quite fun being thick.
They say ignorance is bliss.
Caffeine was WADA legal, and then it was doping, then it was legal again.
Meldonium was WADA legal, until it wasn't.
Thyroid medication is WADA legal, and always has been, but ADOs keep lobbying for it to be banned.
Infusions greater than 50ml/6 hours were considered doping, until the rule became 100ml/12 hours.
Each year, a panel of "experts" subjectively decide what gets added and removed to/from the banned substance/method list.
I can't agree with your stance though to allow a doping free-for-all, as anti-doping has three prongs: 1) performance; 2) health; and 3) spirit of competition.
We shouldn't promote an environment where athletes choose to risk their health, or death, because they think it is necessary to compete.
I do see a possible areas of possible anti-doping reform to improve the focus on convicting intentional dopers, without convicting innocent athletes:
- Give a greater voice to an athletes' union at all stages of the process -- the group that anti-doping purports to protect, and are the most important stakeholders, and the most impacted
- Prioritize and reduce the banned list, to make it easy for diligent athletes to manage, and reduce the overall costs of testing and focus on the substances/methods that are the most important
- Introduce realistic thresholds for substances that can be unknowingly ingested in everyday food, to avoid unnecessary accusations and costly litigation
- Give the accused athletes the raw test result data being used to accuse/convict them, for free, during the process, and the means to independently challenge WADA Lab result interpretations outside a closed circle of elite experts
- Defending against doping charges is expensive, and most athletes are poor -- create a central fund with appointed legal representatives for those who cannot afford it, to permit due process for innocent athletes
- Respect the spirit of concepts like "due process" and "innocent until proven guilty" that are staples of fairness and justice for all
Yes ; but what fits into those definitions changes.
Thus getting paid to do athletics was once cheating, now it is not.
Having a coach was once seen as cheating and now is not.
Do you know what having an education actually means?
But then it may well be quite fun being thick.
They say ignorance is bliss.
Caffeine was WADA legal, and then it was doping, then it was legal again.
Meldonium was WADA legal, until it wasn't.
Thyroid medication is WADA legal, and always has been, but ADOs keep lobbying for it to be banned.
Infusions greater than 50ml/6 hours were considered doping, until the rule became 100ml/12 hours.
Each year, a panel of "experts" subjectively decide what gets added and removed to/from the banned substance/method list.
I can't agree with your stance though to allow a doping free-for-all, as anti-doping has three prongs: 1) performance; 2) health; and 3) spirit of competition.
We shouldn't promote an environment where athletes choose to risk their health, or death, because they think it is necessary to compete.
I do see a possible areas of possible anti-doping reform to improve the focus on convicting intentional dopers, without convicting innocent athletes:
- Give a greater voice to an athletes' union at all stages of the process -- the group that anti-doping purports to protect, and are the most important stakeholders, and the most impacted
- Prioritize and reduce the banned list, to make it easy for diligent athletes to manage, and reduce the overall costs of testing and focus on the substances/methods that are the most important
- Introduce realistic thresholds for substances that can be unknowingly ingested in everyday food, to avoid unnecessary accusations and costly litigation
- Give the accused athletes the raw test result data being used to accuse/convict them, for free, during the process, and the means to independently challenge WADA Lab result interpretations outside a closed circle of elite experts
- Defending against doping charges is expensive, and most athletes are poor -- create a central fund with appointed legal representatives for those who cannot afford it, to permit due process for innocent athletes
- Respect the spirit of concepts like "due process" and "innocent until proven guilty" that are staples of fairness and justice for all
I agree with a lot of what you say. It is good to hear thinking outside of the norm.
However elite sport is injurious to health and the banned drugs are in medical use to heal injuries and speedy recovery.
So by allowing drugs you enhance good health.That is one criteria sorted.
Then heathy athletes are very much in the spirit of sport.
Then performance enhancers; well we allow and encourage all sort of methods and techniques to enhance performance… so no problems there then.