So wait -- you keep ping-ponging. Do PEDs simply refer to inclusion on a banned list as you claimed, regardless of PE, or does it mean only those drugs that enhance performance?
Can't you give me a single consistent comprehensive consensus definition?
I don't ever dispute that drugs that enhance performance enhance performance. I'm just waiting for someone to confirm the speculative hypothesis for top distance runners, both Africans and non-Africans alike, that drugs appearing on a banned list can by rightly considered in the category of performance enhancing drugs, and under which initial conditions, if any.
You don't ever dispute "drugs that enhance performance enhance performance" - except you can't find any that actually do that for Kenyan distance runners. They, however, can. Many of them in fact - and we see one of them busted every week.
Your semantic bullsh*t that you try to hide behind to show you aren't really a doping-denier conceals nothing and shows how hard you practise the art of lying - to appear to concede indisputable fact ("peds are performance enhancing drugs" - your "tautology") while leaving out that which utterly changes its meaning (but "no such drugs exist for Kenyan distance runners because drugs don't improve their performances" - your fallacy and your lie).
OK -- it's clear you cannot give me any comprehensive consensus definition of PED. Sometimes it is a performance enhancing drug, and other times it is whatever is on a banned list. Can you clearly define your fictitious term "doping denier". Of course I concede and confirm athletes are doping, including Kenyans. I read annual WADA reports.
But when it comes to doping and performance enhancement, my search extends far beyond Kenyan runners -- recall when I took a closer look at EPO-era performances, my primary question was regarding non-Africans originating from the remaining 5 continents -- why so few, and then by so little?
What I cannot find is anyone who finds the performance enhancement for these elite distance runners. The best anti-doping performance experts are still only able to speculate about what happens with elite performance.
I not going to discuss anything further with you because what we are debating has already been debated ad nuseam in the 27 page Kiptum doping thread from 4 yrs ago!
And only 2 posts from you? Lol. Read pages 11 through 27 - dozens of posts from you! The battle lines were pretty much drawn in that thread - you, Aragon & Canova vs myself, casual obsever, Subway Surfer, Armstronglivs, Coveat, "I got banned" & a few others. In fact, a poster called you guys "Team Doping Apologists." Lol.
I presented tons of data on ABP hematological-anomalies cases involving high-profile athletes, tons of data on the ABP hematological module, tons of data showing a cause & effect with high blood values & fast times (e.g. Kiptum), tons of data on how athletes are circumventing the ABP with transfusions, etc. casual obsever presented tons of data on all that as well as stats on how egregious the doping problem is with elites. It's right there in the 27 page Kiptum thread.😉
So, it's pointless & foolish to have any further discussion on these issues since it was already done ad nuseam 4 yrs ago. The bottom line is, IMO, you're simply a doping apologist who runs enjoys running damage control for high-profile doping cases...really nothing new there.
"Doping apoligist running damage control" is the opinion from someone who says he doesn't understand half of what I say. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but once again, I do not condone or apologize for banned doping with intent to enhance performance, regardless of success.
"cause and effect" is a pretty high bar.
All of your "tons of data" fails to show "cause & effect with high blood values & fast times".
You cannot show "cause and effect" with cherry-picked examples. There are too many biases and fallacies. You cannot even show "effect" without measuring it. If there is no established "effect", there can be no "cause".
Throw in all of the data from all of your "dream team" of "debaters", and all of their "tons of data" similarly fails to show "cause & effect with high blood values & fast times".
Throw in "experts" like Malm and Schumacher and Iljukov, and all of the researchers they rely on. All of their "tons of data" fails to show "cause & effect with high blood values & fast times". And they make no such claim. All of their "expert" statements are clearly speculative, e.g. "can be up to" and "grounds to speculate". To the extent there is data behind it, the original researchers who collected that data say not to extrapolate to the elite performances of elite athletes.
Lower the bar to "correlation", and similarly, none of your "tons of data" shows a "correlation" between doping and elite times.
Your "tons of data" from all sources worldwide combined only meet the low bars of "speculation" and "hypothesis", for these elite athletes running elite times.
You're only realizing that it is pointless to continue now? Tell me what your point was to begin with. I started by asking how it makes sense that Kiprop showed up "glowing" with EPO in his urine, after 6 days notice, when Ferrari says EPO can be cleared in 12 hours. Everything you responded to completely misses that point. You responded to an OOC test result with your non-expert opinions about how Ferrari and Hincapie were wrong about 12 hours, about how intra-muscular injections are preferred (according to whom?), with a paper about subcutaneous injections with long detection windows, and an interview with Lance Armstrong about what his team was doing in-competition.
How does any of that address Kiprop's the sense of OOC test result with 6 days notice? Considering all of the points you raised in your posts combined, that still doesn't make any sense.
I'll also note here that Lance is a proven serial pathological liar who will say whatever suits him the best. He finally came clean about his doping, but it would be naive to think he isn't still crafting what he wants you to believe to salvage his legacy.
"Cause & effect?" What's the matter with you - are you naive or just trolling again for the sake of argument? Lol.
Take Kiptum doper: Running at 60 Hct with an astronomical high Off-score of 148.5 when he smoked the WORLD RECORD at Valencia! 😯 (one the highest scores I've ever seen & "massive erythrocytosis" as described by the anti-doping experts!).
-Rashid Ramzi smokes the 1500 @ Bejing destroying a world class field flying high on 3rd gen CERA rocket fuel. And Ramzi is a 3:29 speedster & double-gold WC winner!
The men line up for the grand final of the 1500m competition at the Beijing 2008 Summer Olympic Games.http://www.olympic.org/athletics-1500m-menhttp://www.ol...
So, do you think this is just a coincidence that they happen to be on rocket fuel while breaking WRs & winning Olympic gold? Lol. Perhaps they these just changed their diet or something? Lol Maybe going from tap water to filtered water was the trick that did it. Lol. Or tailwinds for Kiptum? Lol.
Don't be so naive - look at the anecdotal evidence & apply some common sense for once. There's such a thing as "high-responders" to O2-vector doping. 😉
You don't ever dispute "drugs that enhance performance enhance performance" - except you can't find any that actually do that for Kenyan distance runners. They, however, can. Many of them in fact - and we see one of them busted every week.
Your semantic bullsh*t that you try to hide behind to show you aren't really a doping-denier conceals nothing and shows how hard you practise the art of lying - to appear to concede indisputable fact ("peds are performance enhancing drugs" - your "tautology") while leaving out that which utterly changes its meaning (but "no such drugs exist for Kenyan distance runners because drugs don't improve their performances" - your fallacy and your lie).
OK -- it's clear you cannot give me any comprehensive consensus definition of PED. Sometimes it is a performance enhancing drug, and other times it is whatever is on a banned list. Can you clearly define your fictitious term "doping denier". Of course I concede and confirm athletes are doping, including Kenyans. I read annual WADA reports.
But when it comes to doping and performance enhancement, my search extends far beyond Kenyan runners -- recall when I took a closer look at EPO-era performances, my primary question was regarding non-Africans originating from the remaining 5 continents -- why so few, and then by so little?
What I cannot find is anyone who finds the performance enhancement for these elite distance runners. The best anti-doping performance experts are still only able to speculate about what happens with elite performance.
For the purpose of a discussion of doping the term "peds" applies to drugs that are on the list of banned substances. If a drug is not banned it is legitimate. It is therefore not "doping". The exception is that historically some practices occurred quite some time before they were banned - such as blood doping. The ban shows the practice is deemed doping but until it was listed it escaped sanction.
A grey area is the use of drugs ostensibly for medical purposes when the purpose could also be to enhance performance. Asthma inhalers, for example, when the athlete may not have asthma.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
"Doping apoligist running damage control" is the opinion from someone who says he doesn't understand half of what I say. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but once again, I do not condone or apologize for banned doping with intent to enhance performance, regardless of success.
"cause and effect" is a pretty high bar.
All of your "tons of data" fails to show "cause & effect with high blood values & fast times".
You cannot show "cause and effect" with cherry-picked examples. There are too many biases and fallacies. You cannot even show "effect" without measuring it. If there is no established "effect", there can be no "cause".
Throw in all of the data from all of your "dream team" of "debaters", and all of their "tons of data" similarly fails to show "cause & effect with high blood values & fast times".
Throw in "experts" like Malm and Schumacher and Iljukov, and all of the researchers they rely on. All of their "tons of data" fails to show "cause & effect with high blood values & fast times". And they make no such claim. All of their "expert" statements are clearly speculative, e.g. "can be up to" and "grounds to speculate". To the extent there is data behind it, the original researchers who collected that data say not to extrapolate to the elite performances of elite athletes.
Lower the bar to "correlation", and similarly, none of your "tons of data" shows a "correlation" between doping and elite times.
Your "tons of data" from all sources worldwide combined only meet the low bars of "speculation" and "hypothesis", for these elite athletes running elite times.
You're only realizing that it is pointless to continue now? Tell me what your point was to begin with. I started by asking how it makes sense that Kiprop showed up "glowing" with EPO in his urine, after 6 days notice, when Ferrari says EPO can be cleared in 12 hours. Everything you responded to completely misses that point. You responded to an OOC test result with your non-expert opinions about how Ferrari and Hincapie were wrong about 12 hours, about how intra-muscular injections are preferred (according to whom?), with a paper about subcutaneous injections with long detection windows, and an interview with Lance Armstrong about what his team was doing in-competition.
How does any of that address Kiprop's the sense of OOC test result with 6 days notice? Considering all of the points you raised in your posts combined, that still doesn't make any sense.
I'll also note here that Lance is a proven serial pathological liar who will say whatever suits him the best. He finally came clean about his doping, but it would be naive to think he isn't still crafting what he wants you to believe to salvage his legacy.
"Cause & effect?" What's the matter with you - are you naive or just trolling again for the sake of argument? Lol.
Take Kiptum doper: Running at 60 Hct with an astronomical high Off-score of 148.5 when he smoked the WORLD RECORD at Valencia! 😯 (one the highest scores I've ever seen & "massive erythrocytosis" as described by the anti-doping experts!).
-Rashid Ramzi smokes the 1500 @ Bejing destroying a world class field flying high on 3rd gen CERA rocket fuel. And Ramzi is a 3:29 speedster & double-gold WC winner!
So, do you think this is just a coincidence that they happen to be on rocket fuel while breaking WRs & winning Olympic gold? Lol. Perhaps they these just changed their diet or something? Lol Maybe going from tap water to filtered water was the trick that did it. Lol. Or tailwinds for Kiptum? Lol.
Don't be so naive - look at the anecdotal evidence & apply some common sense for once. There's such a thing as "high-responders" to O2-vector doping. 😉
"Cause & effect?" What's the matter with you - are you naive or just trolling again for the sake of argument? Lol.
Take Kiptum doper: Running at 60 Hct with an astronomical high Off-score of 148.5 when he smoked the WORLD RECORD at Valencia! 😯 (one the highest scores I've ever seen & "massive erythrocytosis" as described by the anti-doping experts!).
-Rashid Ramzi smokes the 1500 @ Bejing destroying a world class field flying high on 3rd gen CERA rocket fuel. And Ramzi is a 3:29 speedster & double-gold WC winner!
So, do you think this is just a coincidence that they happen to be on rocket fuel while breaking WRs & winning Olympic gold? Lol. Perhaps they these just changed their diet or something? Lol Maybe going from tap water to filtered water was the trick that did it. Lol. Or tailwinds for Kiptum? Lol.
Don't be so naive - look at the anecdotal evidence & apply some common sense for once. There's such a thing as "high-responders" to O2-vector doping. 😉
"cause and effect" are your words: "... tons of data showing a cause & effect ..."
These three examples have no data showing blood doping, or high blood values, is the "cause", and have no data showing any measured "effect".
My common sense tells me that "You cannot show "cause and effect" with cherry-picked examples of fast runners who doped. There are too many biases and fallacies."
For the purpose of a discussion of doping the term "peds" applies to drugs that are on the list of banned substances. If a drug is not banned it is legitimate. It is therefore not "doping". The exception is that historically some practices occurred quite some time before they were banned - such as blood doping. The ban shows the practice is deemed doping but until it was listed it escaped sanction.
A grey area is the use of drugs ostensibly for medical purposes when the purpose could also be to enhance performance. Asthma inhalers, for example, when the athlete may not have asthma.
So if PED is just a drug that appears on a banned list, and WADA tells is their list is a potpourri of performance enhancing, potentially performance enhancing, and not performance enhancing drugs, but not which is which, then, for the purpose of a discussion of doping, there is simply no way to tell which PEDs are considered performance enhancing, just by inclusion on a list.
"Cause & effect?" What's the matter with you - are you naive or just trolling again for the sake of argument? Lol.
Take Kiptum doper: Running at 60 Hct with an astronomical high Off-score of 148.5 when he smoked the WORLD RECORD at Valencia! 😯 (one the highest scores I've ever seen & "massive erythrocytosis" as described by the anti-doping experts!).
-Rashid Ramzi smokes the 1500 @ Bejing destroying a world class field flying high on 3rd gen CERA rocket fuel. And Ramzi is a 3:29 speedster & double-gold WC winner!
So, do you think this is just a coincidence that they happen to be on rocket fuel while breaking WRs & winning Olympic gold? Lol. Perhaps they these just changed their diet or something? Lol Maybe going from tap water to filtered water was the trick that did it. Lol. Or tailwinds for Kiptum? Lol.
Don't be so naive - look at the anecdotal evidence & apply some common sense for once. There's such a thing as "high-responders" to O2-vector doping. 😉
"cause and effect" are your words: "... tons of data showing a cause & effect ..."
These three examples have no data showing blood doping, or high blood values, is the "cause", and have no data showing any measured "effect".
My common sense tells me that "You cannot show "cause and effect" with cherry-picked examples of fast runners who doped. There are too many biases and fallacies."
So, is it just a coincidence that these runners were doped to the gills when they were setting WRs & decisively winning Olympic gold? IOW, would these dopers have accomplish their incredible feats, just the same, if they were clean?
These cases were IC doping - these athletes were turbocharged right from the get go (did you see how Ramzi wasn't even breathing heavy when hit the line in victory at Beijing? 🤣).
How can you just arbitratarly rule out that O2-vector doping had no bearing on their performance just because you have a preconceived belief that EPO/blood doping is ineffective with elites? Lol
Remember the Rita Jeptoo case? A top Kenyan marathon doper (imagine that) She was in the limelight & a hometown hero winning Boston & Chicago in 2014 setting a CR & running a PR of 2:18:57 @ Boston.Tested positive OOC for EPO in 2014 & her ABP data from Boston showed high blood values from doping - she was turbocharged for that race (of course, no cause & effect. 😆).
Liz Riley discusses a recent CAS decision looking at the important question of when an athlete’s conduct during anti-doping proceedings will exceed the boundaries of a legitimate defence to a doping charge, and will instead a...
Btw, since you don't like my experts - how about a high-profile coach that you admired & went to bat for when he was busted for doping violations. Here's a quote from Salazar when he gave a speech to Duke University Law school back in 1999 (he should know a thing or two about doping. 😉):
“I believe that it is currently difficult to be among the top 5 in the world in any of the distance events without using EPO or Human Growth Hormone.”
For the purpose of a discussion of doping the term "peds" applies to drugs that are on the list of banned substances. If a drug is not banned it is legitimate. It is therefore not "doping". The exception is that historically some practices occurred quite some time before they were banned - such as blood doping. The ban shows the practice is deemed doping but until it was listed it escaped sanction.
A grey area is the use of drugs ostensibly for medical purposes when the purpose could also be to enhance performance. Asthma inhalers, for example, when the athlete may not have asthma.
So if PED is just a drug that appears on a banned list, and WADA tells is their list is a potpourri of performance enhancing, potentially performance enhancing, and not performance enhancing drugs, but not which is which, then, for the purpose of a discussion of doping, there is simply no way to tell which PEDs are considered performance enhancing, just by inclusion on a list.
Doping is taking a drug on the banned list. No athletes would take a drug (except a recreational drug - which is not the issue) that wouldn't have performance enhancing capabilities - there is absolutely no reason to. If drugs were unlikely to be performance enhancing they wouldn't be listed, for the simple reason that athletes wouldn't be using them. You see athletes and coaches aren't as stupid or as ignorant as your argument assumes. WADA lists drugs that have the "potential" for performance gains so that they don't have to prove an athlete would have made gains - and every athlete responds individually to drugs to varying degrees. It doesn't mean WADA doesn't know if the drugs are performance enhancing; they make their decision to ban a drug on the best expert medical, pharmaceutical and sporting advice they receive. Health consequences are a possible side-effect of peds. Drug use is also against the principles of sportsmanship if the likely intention is trying to gain unfair advantage or simply being high on an illegal substance. So the drugs can be banned for those reasons, too. It is to allow no loophole for drug use. It doesn't show antidoping doesn't know what it is doing. But athletes aren't going to take drugs that they know will only damage their health and won't enable them any gains. They aren't morons. But you are. This is all beyond a doping-denier.
So, is it just a coincidence that these runners were doped to the gills when they were setting WRs & decisively winning Olympic gold? IOW, would these dopers have accomplish their incredible feats, just the same, if they were clean?
These cases were IC doping - these athletes were turbocharged right from the get go (did you see how Ramzi wasn't even breathing heavy when hit the line in victory at Beijing? 🤣).
How can you just arbitratarly rule out that O2-vector doping had no bearing on their performance just because you have a preconceived belief that EPO/blood doping is ineffective with elites? Lol
Remember the Rita Jeptoo case? A top Kenyan marathon doper (imagine that) She was in the limelight & a hometown hero winning Boston & Chicago in 2014 setting a CR & running a PR of 2:18:57 @ Boston.Tested positive OOC for EPO in 2014 & her ABP data from Boston showed high blood values from doping - she was turbocharged for that race (of course, no cause & effect. 😆).
Btw, since you don't like my experts - how about a high-profile coach that you admired & went to bat for when he was busted for doping violations. Here's a quote from Salazar when he gave a speech to Duke University Law school back in 1999 (he should know a thing or two about doping. 😉):
“I believe that it is currently difficult to be among the top 5 in the world in any of the distance events without using EPO or Human Growth Hormone.”
Recall your exact words were "tons of data showing a cause & effect with high blood values & fast times".
That would be amazing if you actually did.
"coincidence" is also your word.
"rule out that O2-vector doping had no bearing on their performance" are also your words.
I don't want to spend a lot of words re-explaining why these examples fail to compel, only to have you say you don't understand half of it, and then call me a doping apologist running damage control, because that is the only way you can reconcile it.
If you want to understand all of what I say, you need to do some homework to expand the way you think about the value of these examples, and why they do not move my needle in the slightest.
You can start by googling "proof by example fallacy" and "selection bias" and "spurious correlations".
Regarding all expert opinions, including Salazar, you can google "appeal to authority fallacy". I don't much care about titles or opinions or conclusions, unless there is "tons of data showing cause and effect".
No athletes would take a drug (except a recreational drug - which is not the issue) that wouldn't have performance enhancing capabilities - there is absolutely no reason to.
Doping is taking a drug on the banned list. No athletes would take a drug (except a recreational drug - which is not the issue) that wouldn't have performance enhancing capabilities - there is absolutely no reason to. If drugs were unlikely to be performance enhancing they wouldn't be listed, for the simple reason that athletes wouldn't be using them. You see athletes and coaches aren't as stupid or as ignorant as your argument assumes. WADA lists drugs that have the "potential" for performance gains so that they don't have to prove an athlete would have made gains - and every athlete responds individually to drugs to varying degrees. It doesn't mean WADA doesn't know if the drugs are performance enhancing; they make their decision to ban a drug on the best expert medical, pharmaceutical and sporting advice they receive. Health consequences are a possible side-effect of peds. Drug use is also against the principles of sportsmanship if the likely intention is trying to gain unfair advantage or simply being high on an illegal substance. So the drugs can be banned for those reasons, too. It is to allow no loophole for drug use. It doesn't show antidoping doesn't know what it is doing. But athletes aren't going to take drugs that they know will only damage their health and won't enable them any gains. They aren't morons. But you are. This is all beyond a doping-denier.
Is that all part of the consensus definition? It looks like you are embellishing your previous definition with your own personal views. WADA explains the contents of their lists differently.
So, is it just a coincidence that these runners were doped to the gills when they were setting WRs & decisively winning Olympic gold? IOW, would these dopers have accomplish their incredible feats, just the same, if they were clean?
These cases were IC doping - these athletes were turbocharged right from the get go (did you see how Ramzi wasn't even breathing heavy when hit the line in victory at Beijing? 🤣).
How can you just arbitratarly rule out that O2-vector doping had no bearing on their performance just because you have a preconceived belief that EPO/blood doping is ineffective with elites? Lol
Remember the Rita Jeptoo case? A top Kenyan marathon doper (imagine that) She was in the limelight & a hometown hero winning Boston & Chicago in 2014 setting a CR & running a PR of 2:18:57 @ Boston.Tested positive OOC for EPO in 2014 & her ABP data from Boston showed high blood values from doping - she was turbocharged for that race (of course, no cause & effect. 😆).
Btw, since you don't like my experts - how about a high-profile coach that you admired & went to bat for when he was busted for doping violations. Here's a quote from Salazar when he gave a speech to Duke University Law school back in 1999 (he should know a thing or two about doping. 😉):
“I believe that it is currently difficult to be among the top 5 in the world in any of the distance events without using EPO or Human Growth Hormone.”
Regarding all expert opinions, including Salazar, you can google "appeal to authority fallacy". I don't much care about titles or opinions or conclusions, unless there is "tons of data showing cause and effect".
C'mon man...how many times have you lectured me that the two experts that I routinely quote from, Schumacher & Malm, don't coach elite runners, therefore the performance inprovement estimates they state don't carry that much weight.
So, here I provide direct information from an world-renowned elite coach - and mentor of yours - who states the the prevalence of hormonal doping to be top-5 at all distances, and you throw up that "appeal to authority fallacy" BS. Lol. I think it's more like his statement doesn't fit your narrative, so you undermine his expertise. 😉
How about Marius Kimutai testing positive for rocket fuel OOC? A 2:05 speedster he won the prestigious Barcelona marathon last year running his PR of 2:05:06 at age 30! 😲 Kimutai runs for Li-NING, so I bet he got a good payday for that. Lol
Regarding all expert opinions, including Salazar, you can google "appeal to authority fallacy". I don't much care about titles or opinions or conclusions, unless there is "tons of data showing cause and effect".
C'mon man...how many times have you lectured me that the two experts that I routinely quote from, Schumacher & Malm, don't coach elite runners, therefore the performance inprovement estimates they state don't carry that much weight.
So, here I provide direct information from an world-renowned elite coach - and mentor of yours - who states the the prevalence of hormonal doping to be top-5 at all distances, and you throw up that "appeal to authority fallacy" BS. Lol. I think it's more like his statement doesn't fit your narrative, so you undermine his expertise. 😉
How about Marius Kimutai testing positive for rocket fuel OOC? A 2:05 speedster he won the prestigious Barcelona marathon last year running his PR of 2:05:06 at age 30! 😲 Kimutai runs for Li-NING, so I bet he got a good payday for that. Lol
You are simply repeating the same fallacies I told you to research so you would stop.
I'm not bringing up something new, but simply being consistent. Schumacher, Malm, and now Salazar, all fail to compel for the very same "appeal to authority fallacy" reason. Their words are empty without "tons of data".
"appeal to authority" applies to any and all "authorities" you bring into the discussion: "The appeal to authority fallacy is the logical fallacy of claiming that because an expert said something is true then it must be true." I don't care about titles or expertise, but about what data exists that supports, or contradicts, what these "experts" say.
Furthermore, you overstate their "expertise": Not only did Schumacher and Malm not coach elite runners, they did not conduct blood doping performance research themselves, but referred us to other research, sometimes from other non-running sports. Their information is second-hand. The first hand researchers tell us to exercise caution before projecting observations on small samples of amaters to the elite performances of elite athletes. Similary, Salazar was not a world reknowned coach in 1999. I don't know why you believe he is my mentor, or that I would consider Salazar with any special regard or status.
Furthermore, I don't disagree with what your "experts" actually said: Schumacher and Malm gave their opinion about a hypothetical upper bound potential, with non-commital phrases like "can be up to". Sure it "can be up to". And in the Salazar quote you provided, he explicitly expressed a personal belief, without data, and without direct experience.
How about Marius Kimutai? Similary, if previous "examples" fail for being a "proof by example fallacy", adding one more example will fail for the same reason. To show "cause" and "effect" requires data showing that there was an "effect" and that the proposed "cause" actually "caused" that "effect". All I see is another fast runner, who switched to Bahrain, who also doped.
C'mon man...how many times have you lectured me that the two experts that I routinely quote from, Schumacher & Malm, don't coach elite runners, therefore the performance inprovement estimates they state don't carry that much weight.
So, here I provide direct information from an world-renowned elite coach - and mentor of yours - who states the the prevalence of hormonal doping to be top-5 at all distances, and you throw up that "appeal to authority fallacy" BS. Lol. I think it's more like his statement doesn't fit your narrative, so you undermine his expertise. 😉
How about Marius Kimutai testing positive for rocket fuel OOC? A 2:05 speedster he won the prestigious Barcelona marathon last year running his PR of 2:05:06 at age 30! 😲 Kimutai runs for Li-NING, so I bet he got a good payday for that. Lol
You are simply repeating the same fallacies I told you to research so you would stop.
I'm not bringing up something new, but simply being consistent. Schumacher, Malm, and now Salazar, all fail to compel for the very same "appeal to authority fallacy" reason. Their words are empty without "tons of data".
"appeal to authority" applies to any and all "authorities" you bring into the discussion: "The appeal to authority fallacy is the logical fallacy of claiming that because an expert said something is true then it must be true." I don't care about titles or expertise, but about what data exists that supports, or contradicts, what these "experts" say.
Furthermore, you overstate their "expertise": Not only did Schumacher and Malm not coach elite runners, they did not conduct blood doping performance research themselves, but referred us to other research, sometimes from other non-running sports. Their information is second-hand. The first hand researchers tell us to exercise caution before projecting observations on small samples of amaters to the elite performances of elite athletes. Similary, Salazar was not a world reknowned coach in 1999. I don't know why you believe he is my mentor, or that I would consider Salazar with any special regard or status.
Furthermore, I don't disagree with what your "experts" actually said: Schumacher and Malm gave their opinion about a hypothetical upper bound potential, with non-commital phrases like "can be up to". Sure it "can be up to". And in the Salazar quote you provided, he explicitly expressed a personal belief, without data, and without direct experience.
How about Marius Kimutai? Similary, if previous "examples" fail for being a "proof by example fallacy", adding one more example will fail for the same reason. To show "cause" and "effect" requires data showing that there was an "effect" and that the proposed "cause" actually "caused" that "effect". All I see is another fast runner, who switched to Bahrain, who also doped.
Rekrunner you're just arbitrarily dismissing Salazar - a top elite & world-class marathoner back in his day (it's analogous to former NFL players stating there's a big problem with PEDs in the league & we see the "cause & effect" with these huge, massive physiques that can run blazing fast but yet there's not one study that looked at steroids/GH's effect on NFL caliber players).
Let's take a look at Roberto Barbi, a 2:10 marathoner, WC qualifier & one of Italy's fastest back in the day. Bardi tested positive twice for EPO & was consequently handed a lifetime ban. In this Italian interview, he explains the tremendous performance benefits he received from EPO.
At 26, when I went from hill running to marathon. The strongest marathon runners looked at me as the one who couldn't keep up with them. If we had all run on equal terms and 'clean' without catching anything I would have had times of 2 hours and 14 minutes. I would only have been inferior to Stefano Baldini who lasted 2 hours and 13 minutes. But when I understood the hint I thought there was only one way to be competitive, to take Epo too. How was the first time? One case, I went to buy a bike for my daughter and with the shopkeeper I talked about the races I had to face and my state of tiredness. A guy who was involved in professional cycling listened and when I left the shop he approached me very tactfully telling me that he had the solution to make me feel good and run faster and faster. No sooner said than done. A few hours later the Epo was on the table at my house and from that moment on I did everything: Gh, various hormones, ephedrine... A shopping list, but how did I take all this stuff? Two weeks before the competitive commitment I injected myself with 2 thousand units of Epo every day, so for the race I was sure I was at the top. And did it work? Always. If you take Epo you no longer feel fatigue, at night you are still so revved up that you want to jump out of bed and start running until you're done. Despite the 8 hour shift at the paper mill, I managed to train by running up to 35 km a day. A Superman. An elixir of success, a race without obstacles if you look at it that way. I ran and won. Of course, with doping you lower your times by 1 minute in the half marathon and up to 5 minutes in the 41 km. But it was becoming hell. I ran just to pay for the EPO which cost me 250 thousand lire a week, a million a month at least. And then after taking that stuff I felt bad: palpitations, nausea at the end of the course, insomnia and of course withdrawal depression. You don't realize it, but in the meantime you have become addicted to the substance and you can no longer live without it. If you suspend it you stop being successful
Yes, you guessed it, Rekrunner is a troll. He or she will never admit to any measure of common sense. When you see 'Rekrunner' in the margin keep scrolling or enter at your own risk.
