casual obsever wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_records_in_athletics
Let me guess: to you, that looks like a coincidence, actually like several coincidences, right? To others, it shows that doping works for men too.
You said I missed something. I know that GDR used steroids. I know what their women did and what their men did. It was me who brought up GDR in the first place as an example of a country that documented their use of steroids, and particularly their success with their women, to contradict a claim that steroids working for women has not been studied.
What exactly is your point?
Subway Surfers wrote:
Subway Surfers wrote:
Looks to me like evidence, what JO and Rekrunner miss is that the East Germans doped and their athletes did phenomenal times. Take out the drugs and the phenomenal times disappeared. It really is that simple.
Well they didn't use epo (though I can't rule it out), but every idiot knows that they were using transfusions in probably a highly sophisticated manor.
I think that you will also find in the archives of the old GDR, evidence that distance runners from 800m to the marathon were on a monitored diet of steriods.
If if if if ...
Again, what does Baumann (and cricket) have to do with East Germany?
Subway Surfers wrote:
Subway Surfers wrote:
Looks to me like evidence, what JO and Rekrunner miss is that the East Germans doped and their athletes did phenomenal times. Take out the drugs and the phenomenal times disappeared. It really is that simple.
Now let us assume that Baumann didn't use epo to magically run 12:54 as you (what's the word? Um fantasize, no) theorize. If Baumann was a user of autologous transfusions in combination with Nandrolone and he was subject to a primitive mid 1990s urine test. What would he get busted for? Um đ€
In a sport called cricket if you bowl (pitch) too wide of the mark the batter gets a point and the bowler has to do it all again. đ
Subway Surfers wrote:
I'll save everyone some time:
400m old
400m hurdles old
800m old
1k old
1500m old
Mile old
2k old
20k/1 hour old
Field events old
3,5,10 Baumann
Dieter was special obviously
But I think rekrunner always had a soft heart for Paula? đ
casual obsever wrote:
Subway Surfers wrote:
I'll save everyone some time:
400m old
400m hurdles old
800m old
1k old
1500m old
Mile old
2k old
20k/1 hour old
Field events old
3,5,10 Baumann
Dieter was special obviously
Yes - but rekrunner has this absurd theory that neither blood doping/transfusions nor steroids significantly help male distance runners. Despite all the evidence. He thus calls all of the above a coincidence, including that only a convicted German steroid cheat* could improve on the times of the old German cheats of the 80s. We are now at 29 years of such coincidences, and counting.
He does it with Seb's and Paula's times too, though the latter is a female, who - even according to rekrunner - improves with steroids.
* And yes - a male distance runner in the 90s being so dirty that he'd use risky steroids but - according to rekrunner - would not cheat with a better, undetectable method like blood transfusions or EPO.
I've wondered for about our 'friend,' surely he is either an IAAF troll, or an elite athlete agent trying neuter any groundswell against doping in the sport, or his wife is really loaded and brings home the bacon, allowing him to troll us all day.
So what we know about him:
Thinks epo doesn't work
Thinks blood transfusions don't work
Thinks steroids don't work for male runners
Thinks the sport is generally clean
Thinks the only people being busted are has-beens
Doesn't answer questions
Likes to claim we are not answering his questions
Man...that's funny! đ
Subway Surfers wrote:
I've wondered for about our 'friend,' surely he is either an IAAF troll, or an elite athlete agent trying neuter any groundswell against doping in the sport, or his wife is really loaded and brings home the bacon, allowing him to troll us all day.
So what we know about him:
Thinks epo doesn't work
Thinks blood transfusions don't work
Thinks steroids don't work for male runners
Thinks the sport is generally clean
Thinks the only people being busted are has-beens
Doesn't answer questions
Likes to claim we are not answering his questions
Subway Surfers wrote:
I've wondered for about our 'friend,' surely he is either an IAAF troll, or an elite athlete agent trying neuter any groundswell against doping in the sport,
Subway Surfers wrote:
or his wife is really loaded and brings home the bacon, allowing him to troll us all day.
Of course not...there's nothing to see here with these EPO/blood doping cheats running WRs, winning Olympic Gold, winning major marathon titles, winning European titles, etc. I forgot - you're the new authority now on EPO & blood doping effects with elites. My most humble apologies for ever suggesting that doping had anything to do with any of their achievements.
rekrunner wrote:
There is still a big difference. We don't have the same level of documented detail and control for "Boulami, Ramzi, Mourhit, GarcĂa, EstĂ©vez, Shobukhova, Jeptoo, Sumgong, etc."
So what...top female distance runners were getting caught using EPO & blood doping (e.g., Shobukhova, Savinova, Dominguez, Graf, Ceplak, etc.). If it's all about androgens with the ladies, then why are they O2-vector doping? Since you're the new authority now...please explain this?
rekrunner wrote:
While you try to poke a hole in the first example, I also gave a second example -- the IAAF testing testosterone on women to show an advantage in response to Caster Semenya.
Yes...it's an experimental design study but the authors use the word "cohort" in both the abstract & text. And they are observing & analyzing data from the study...so what's with your nick-picking?
rekrunner wrote:
I think we must be working with different definitions of "observational study". Intervening with EPO makes it "experimental":
"Cohort studies are observational. The researchers observe what happens without intervening. In experimental studies, such as RCTs, the scientists intervene, for example, by giving participants a new drug and assessing the outcomes."
WTF again? It was a double-blinded crossover experimental study. So, doping expert; Why did the group when reinfused with RBCs experience a significant increase in Hct (over 10%) and run an average of about 69 seconds faster than when infused during the crossover with a placebo saline solution and no increase in Hct seen?
rekrunner wrote:
Looks like you missed giving a link to: "Wilkerson et al., Birkeland et al., Parisotto et al."
WTF? âïž Look them up yourself - go to google scholar and search for them.
[quote]rekrunner wrote:
Ah -- once again we see the blood transfusion study which lacked control subjects, that concludes the intervention caused all of the performance improvement.
I share your evidence (both that you acknowledge, and you ignore), just not your over-interpretations, or your imagination.
"coincidence" is your word.
casual obsever wrote:
Yes - but rekrunner has this absurd theory that neither blood doping/transfusions nor steroids significantly help male distance runners. Despite all the evidence. He thus calls all of the above a coincidence, including that only a convicted German steroid cheat* could improve on the times of the old German cheats of the 80s. We are now at 29 years of such coincidences, and counting.
He does it with Seb's and Paula's times too, though the latter is a female, who - even according to rekrunner - improves with steroids.
* And yes - a male distance runner in the 90s being so dirty that he'd use risky steroids but - according to rekrunner - would not cheat with a better, undetectable method like blood transfusions or EPO.
Big deal if you're fond of her. Maybe you really are in London afterall.
rekrunner wrote:
You misunderstood my defense of the IAAF and explanations of how the ABP science and process drives the decisions.
Looks like you don't really know me.
Not IAAF troll, not an agent, and wife is not loaded.
Thinks epo doesn't work: --> I think "work" is vague, and I think different things for different sports. I think for distance running, the potential performance benefit for highly trained runners using legal methods is often over-estimated, by the press and by over-skeptical "fans" of the sport.
Thinks blood transfusions don't work --> ??? I thought the EPO argument was that it works better than transfusions, at least for logistic and convenience reasons. I think altitude can legally replace much if not all of the desired effect of blood transfusions and EPO.
Thinks steroids don't work for male runners --> I think steroids improve strength, not endurance -- moreso for women who generally have much lower natural levels.
Thinks the sport is generally clean ---> I defer to several studies on doping prevalence.
Thinks the only people being busted are has-beens --> ??? I think there have been some high profile busts. I think busts do not show cause and effect.
Doesn't answer questions --> ??? I get lectured and accused of hijacking threads, simply for answering questions.
Likes to claim we are not answering his questions --> ???
Subway Surfers wrote:
I've wondered for about our 'friend,' surely he is either an IAAF troll, or an elite athlete agent trying neuter any groundswell against doping in the sport, or his wife is really loaded and brings home the bacon, allowing him to troll us all day.
So what we know about him:
Thinks epo doesn't work
Thinks blood transfusions don't work
Thinks steroids don't work for male runners
Thinks the sport is generally clean
Thinks the only people being busted are has-beens
Doesn't answer questions
Likes to claim we are not answering his questions
You seem to have lost sight of what you initially argued. You keyed on the word "observation", as if all observations have the same weight, emphasizing there is no difference between GDR/women/steroids "observations" and EPO "observations". The GDR "observations" were carefully controlled, in a real world training and competition environment with real athletes, while the Kenyan and Scottish studies, lack controls, real world conditions, and elite athletes, and the anecdotes of "Boulami, Ramzi, Mourhit, GarcĂa, EstĂ©vez, Shobukhova, Jeptoo, Sumgong, etc." were not controlled.
Similarly the "double-blinded crossover experimental study" was not controlled. Just running three time trials in three or four weeks is also known to improve performance. If control subjects had improved by 2.3% (say 45 seconds) without the intervention, like in the 1997 altitude study, you draw a different conclusion about how much difference the blood transfusions made. Since there are no control subjects, both you and I are left with one unanswered "if", that when ignored, leads to an over-estimation.
I did search for "Wilkerson et al., Birkeland et al., Parisotto et al." and got many results -- can you give me search terms, or a title, to help narrow the search to the study you recommended I would enjoy?
Lets Tell It Like It Is wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
There is still a big difference. We don't have the same level of documented detail and control for "Boulami, Ramzi, Mourhit, GarcĂa, EstĂ©vez, Shobukhova, Jeptoo, Sumgong, etc."
Of course not...there's nothing to see here with these EPO/blood doping cheats running WRs, winning Olympic Gold, winning major marathon titles, winning European titles, etc. I forgot - you're the new authority now on EPO & blood doping effects with elites. My most humble apologies for ever suggesting that doping had anything to do with any of their achievements.
rekrunner wrote:
While you try to poke a hole in the first example, I also gave a second example -- the IAAF testing testosterone on women to show an advantage in response to Caster Semenya.
So what...top female distance runners were getting caught using EPO & blood doping (e.g., Shobukhova, Savinova, Dominguez, Graf, Ceplak, etc.). If it's all about androgens with the ladies, then why are they O2-vector doping? Since you're the new authority now...please explain this?
rekrunner wrote:
I think we must be working with different definitions of "observational study". Intervening with EPO makes it "experimental":
"Cohort studies are observational. The researchers observe what happens without intervening. In experimental studies, such as RCTs, the scientists intervene, for example, by giving participants a new drug and assessing the outcomes."
Yes...it's an experimental design study but the authors use the word "cohort" in both the abstract & text. And they are observing & analyzing data from the study...so what's with your nick-picking?
rekrunner wrote:
Looks like you missed giving a link to: "Wilkerson et al., Birkeland et al., Parisotto et al."
WTF? âïž Look them up yourself - go to google scholar and search for them.
[quote]rekrunner wrote:
Ah -- once again we see the blood transfusion study which lacked control subjects, that concludes the intervention caused all of the performance improvement.
WTF again? It was a double-blinded crossover experimental study. So, doping expert; Why did the group when reinfused with RBCs experience a significant increase in Hct (over 10%) and run an average of about 69 seconds faster than when infused during the crossover with a placebo saline solution and no increase in Hct seen?
Oh I forgot one question -- why are women O2-vector doping -- once again, because someone believes in it.
In the case of the Russian women, they had no choice.
Do you have a link or author for this study?
rekrunner wrote:
Similarly the "double-blinded crossover experimental study" was not controlled. Just running three time trials in three or four weeks is also known to improve performance. If control subjects had improved by 2.3% (say 45 seconds) without the intervention, like in the 1997 altitude study, you draw a different conclusion about how much difference the blood transfusions made. Since there are no control subjects, both you and I are left with one unanswered "if", that when ignored, leads to an over-estimation.
Doesn't matter if they had a choice or not - that's stupid. They were the most doped to the gills female runners in the history of the sport! They destroyed competition & robbed other runners of WC & Olympic medals right & left! And the most egregious part of this is that Russian dopers are now being rewarded & upgraded with Olympic medals!
rekrunner wrote:
Oh I forgot one question -- why are women O2-vector doping -- once again, because someone believes in it.
In the case of the Russian women, they had no choice.
"Living high-training low": effect of moderate-altitude acclimatization with low-altitude training on performance.
Levine BD, Stray-Gundersen J.
https://www.medi-sport.net/uploads/1/1/3/5/11352009/liv_high_train_low_1997.pdf
Inquiring minds want to know wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Similarly the "double-blinded crossover experimental study" was not controlled. Just running three time trials in three or four weeks is also known to improve performance. If control subjects had improved by 2.3% (say 45 seconds) without the intervention, like in the 1997 altitude study, you draw a different conclusion about how much difference the blood transfusions made. Since there are no control subjects, both you and I are left with one unanswered "if", that when ignored, leads to an over-estimation.
Do you have a link or author for this study?
