The irony is that I wasn't in this thread until after you trolled me, with your twisted interpretation. You and mindweak share the same trait of accusing me of things I don't do, but you do to me. - 0.3% to 0.8% over three decades is not stagnation
casual obsever wrote:
Rekrunner is just trolling us for the fun of it, ...
I was thinking about this a bit further. Shouldn't it go both ways? How many threads celebrate someone's victory, like Rupp, or Centrowitz, or Jager, or Farah, or Dibaba, ..., before someone inevitably brings up doping? Surely there are enough doping threads to bring this stuff up, that we don't need to derail every thread that celebrates success.
trollism wrote:
I'm with mindweak on this one.
You've got loads of threads you can post your 'EPO doesn't work on my favourite athletes' stuff rekrunner. This thread is for big fat Kenyan cheaters and who the next two (no doubt not the last two) are going to be.
A critical part of coaching and a clean athlete's preparation is to design a system in which the athlete is at a maximum at race time. I do believe that training gives large positive benefits--but at least in the world of sprinting, those benefits are only manifested in small windows of time.
What do I mean? I mean that a highly-trained clean athlete can go 10-flat when they peak, when they are feeling just great, when everything is going just right. Their maximum. On the other hand, a doped athlete can deliver the same type of performance--their maximum--consistently, and multiple times, over large stretches in time and space.
I personally have felt natural highs, during which I measured my performance later in life, just out of curiosity. At one point my PB for the year was 11.7 in the 100m. When I was timed during a workout in which I happened to be feeling great, I went 10.9, and it was a solid 10.9, let's say 11.1 with reaction time. A huge difference.
Could I deliver it when needed? Of course not, track was not my focus in life, and I had no set program and no coach. A good coach and program could have gotten it out of me at race time. From my experience, had I been using, I could have delivered that max performance any time of day, any day of the week, anywhere. That is a HUGE (but not the only) advantage of doping, at least in the sprint world.
So while Renato you may be a great coach in the sense that you can get your athletes to deliver their maximum performance exactly when it counts, other coaches may not be so great--and in that case (at least in the sprint world), doping can make a huge difference. Even if they don't improve absolute maximum performance ability, they do combat the effects of a weak program and weak coaching, and enable the maximum performance to be produced when it counts.
I would like to hear your thoughts on this in the world of distance running.
Just like most of the unknowledgable posters here, athletes are not immune to mythology, and many athletes/coaches/managers also don't believe "not more than 1%", so decide the risk is worth it.
Barrel of Laughs wrote:
If it was "less than 1%," I don't think the athletes would bother using it. The consequences of the punnishment of getting caught these days far outweigh any marginal gain from a one-percenter PED. Rekrunner is just clowning around with us. ?.
BUSTED FOR EPO.
I've just scrolled through the last few pages of this thread and all I can say is bring on the names of the two outstanding Kenyan dopers, pleeeeaaaassssseeee.
Same old regurgitated stuff from other threads. wrote:
I've just scrolled through the last few pages of this thread and all I can say is bring on the names of the two outstanding Kenyan dopers, pleeeeaaaassssseeee.
Well...they just updated Bett's situation to a positive for rocket fuel - so what else do you want? It's already bad enough with Jebet & Kiprop, and now a promising youngster messing with rocket fuel. And this goes to show the naysayers that 800m specialists use EPO.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sport-doping-athletics-kenya/athletics-bett-latest-kenyan-athlete-to-test-positive-for-epo-idUSKCN1L91U2Rocket Fuel Madness wrote:
Well...they just updated Bett's situation to a positive for rocket fuel - so what else do you want? It's already bad enough with Jebet & Kiprop, and now a promising youngster messing with rocket fuel. And this goes to show the naysayers that 800m specialists use EPO.
+1
Those pretend-experts also claimed that mid distance runners wouldn't benefit from blood doping... that was before Kiprop.
Anyway, what will our doper apologists say who pretended that Bett simply didn't hear the doorbell or had an alternative life style or something like that?
rekrunner wrote:
Just like most of the unknowledgable posters here, athletes are not immune to mythology, and many athletes/coaches/managers also don't believe "not more than 1%", so decide the risk is worth it.
You need to pack it in...your analysis is getting ridiculous! Bett's situation was updated to an EPO positive!!! So now you've got a promising youngster messing with rocket fuel! The more these top Kenyans test positive for the fuel and the more you spout your stupid mythology reason for this, the more silly you look!
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sport-doping-athletics-kenya/athletics-bett-latest-kenyan-athlete-to-test-positive-for-epo-idUSKCN1L91U2Rocket Fuel Madness wrote:
Same old regurgitated stuff from other threads. wrote:
all I can say is bring on the names of the two outstanding Kenyan dopers, pleeeeaaaassssseeee.
Well...they just updated Bett's situation to a positive for rocket fuel - so what else do you want?
So that's one absolutely, definitely, categorically confirmed, now I want the other one Saddique Shaban mentions:
"@SaddiqueShaban · Aug 16
There is one more case under consideration. Insiders say it could take a short while before it is made public."
So that's one absolutely, definitely, categorically confirmed, now I want the other one Saddique Shaban mentions:
"@SaddiqueShaban · Aug 16
There is one more case under consideration. Insiders say it could take a short while before it is made public."[/quote]
Have heard rumblings of it being a Major Marathoner winner, not Kipchoge.
It’s Coming... wrote:
So that's one absolutely, definitely, categorically confirmed, now I want the other one Saddique Shaban mentions:
"@SaddiqueShaban · Aug 16
There is one more case under consideration. Insiders say it could take a short while before it is made public."
Have heard rumblings of it being a Major Marathoner winner, not Kipchoge.[/quote]Are you sure that it's not Kalalei who's a major marathon winner? (Athens last year).
https://m.mid-day.com/articles/athens-marathon-champ-kalalei-suspended-for-doping/19683171Is it because his young age should make him wise? Looks like even promising youngsters are not immune to the mythology. I've often said that the faith goes far and wide -- each bust only confirms that -- they are not busting EPO atheists.
Rocket Fuel Madness wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Just like most of the unknowledgable posters here, athletes are not immune to mythology, and many athletes/coaches/managers also don't believe "not more than 1%", so decide the risk is worth it.
You need to pack it in...your analysis is getting ridiculous! Bett's situation was updated to an EPO positive!!! So now you've got a promising youngster messing with rocket fuel! The more these top Kenyans test positive for the fuel and the more you spout your stupid mythology reason for this, the more silly you look!
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how to show cause and effect.
casual obsever wrote:
Those pretend-experts also claimed that mid distance runners wouldn't benefit from blood doping... that was before Kiprop.
Anyway, what will our doper apologists say who pretended that Bett simply didn't hear the doorbell or had an alternative life style or something like that?
JonO. wrote:
Deano, no EPO wasn't around until 1988. It was developed in 87.
It was probably used in cycling from 88 or 89 onwards.
EPO is not a performance enhancer, nor is any type of blood boosting.
We have bioenergetic limits due to heat production, thermoregulatory limits, which can't be exceeded. by training or with drugs. This is actually basic physiology. But you won't find any physiologist on this website who either knows this or cares.
As I have pointed out many times, but people don't want to hear it, Lance Armstrong's power outputs were in the normal range for an elite cyclist regardless of how much doping he did. They want to believe in magic potions giving super human power. It's like the belief that alchohol makes you happy, it's social conditioning, a construct.
The power outputs attributed to EPO doped cyclists has been greatly exaggerated, because people want a mythology. But there are millions of data points showing the reality that all of the hype about so called PEDs is just hype and mythologising.
But that's what people want; a mythology.
Who here really belives that any young Kenyan showing great ability really needs any drugs to be world class?
Man you post dopey nonsense, in your theory nobody derives any benefit from training.
As for Lance
https://sportsscientists.com/2009He was better than Contador & Indurain.
Ross Tucker is not a reliable source. He used the oft quoted misinformation of Lance's supposed 6.97 watts per kilo ascent of Alpe d'Huez in 2004. The real figure is 6.0 - 6.1 watts per kilo.
He used made up numbers to get more attention, a typical journalists ploy. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with attention seeking and making money out of the problem.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
A critical part of coaching and a clean athlete's preparation is to design a system in which the athlete is at a maximum at race time. I do believe that training gives large positive benefits--but at least in the world of sprinting, those benefits are only manifested in small windows of time.
What do I mean? I mean that a highly-trained clean athlete can go 10-flat when they peak, when they are feeling just great, when everything is going just right. Their maximum. On the other hand, a doped athlete can deliver the same type of performance--their maximum--consistently, and multiple times, over large stretches in time and space.
I personally have felt natural highs, during which I measured my performance later in life, just out of curiosity. At one point my PB for the year was 11.7 in the 100m. When I was timed during a workout in which I happened to be feeling great, I went 10.9, and it was a solid 10.9, let's say 11.1 with reaction time. A huge difference.
Could I deliver it when needed? Of course not, track was not my focus in life, and I had no set program and no coach. A good coach and program could have gotten it out of me at race time. From my experience, had I been using, I could have delivered that max performance any time of day, any day of the week, anywhere. That is a HUGE (but not the only) advantage of doping, at least in the sprint world.
So while Renato you may be a great coach in the sense that you can get your athletes to deliver their maximum performance exactly when it counts, other coaches may not be so great--and in that case (at least in the sprint world), doping can make a huge difference. Even if they don't improve absolute maximum performance ability, they do combat the effects of a weak program and weak coaching, and enable the maximum performance to be produced when it counts.
I would like to hear your thoughts on this in the world of distance running.
Sprintgeezer you are talking about neural adaptions and being psyched up for a race. The most confident athlete in a sprint or any distance race is going to be the one who knows he or she can win. It ain't hard to figure out. He or she is going to be the one who can get the right focus for the most efficient effort and the best technical execution.
rekrunner wrote:
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how to show cause and effect.
I understand that drug cheats do not randomly, or mythology-based, pick drugs from the counter to improve, but go by experience (see e.g. the Aden and Rosa groups) and optimize their cocktail mixture, which by default includes varying the dosages, and timing, of the various drugs. These are highly professional groups, since decades!
The fact that EPO remains on the forefront of said drug cocktail strongly implies that it is not just a placebo - and that's putting it mildly. Success speaks for itself.
But wait - didn't even you just admit that EPO helps up to 1% at the top?
Wherever that estimate comes from, we are actually not so far apart there. I've always estimated 2 - 4% for the majority of elite runners, with exceptions on both sides of that range (low and high responders are found with most drugs).
JonO. wrote:
Ross Tucker is not a reliable source. He used the oft quoted misinformation of Lance's supposed 6.97 watts per kilo ascent of Alpe d'Huez in 2004. The real figure is 6.0 - 6.1 watts per kilo.
He used made up numbers to get more attention, a typical journalists ploy. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with attention seeking and making money out of the problem.
Well if we go and ask LA, he'll say that he couldn't compete without epo. So I think I'll ignore your flat earth theories.
Lance did whatever Ferrari told him to do.
The problem is in the belief. And the more you people try to act as saviours for the sport, the more you exacerbate the problem by promoting rEPO as a supposed performance enhancer.
Your belief in magic potions giving superhuman strength is superstitious nonsense. It has nothing to do with science.