Now That's Telling It Like It Is wrote:
Coevett wrote:
Every single thread celebrating the achievement of an African runner, Rekrunner comes along to start a pages long wall of text discussion on whether or not EPO works.
+1
For sure, but why? PR shill, troll, and or weirdo?
What sense? wrote:
Now That's Telling It Like It Is wrote:
+1
For sure, but why? PR shill, troll, and or weirdo?
Just a hunch, he is trying to protect someone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Radcliffewhat woman runs a marathon in 2:15? wrote:
What sense? wrote:
For sure, but why? PR shill, troll, and or weirdo?
Just a hunch, he is trying to protect someone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Radcliffe
I've never thought of that...it's a good possibility. ?
He is waayy too annoying for that, on purpose it seems. I go with troll with mod rights like Jamin and rojo.
Let's Get To The Bottom Of This wrote:
I've never thought of that...it's a good possibility. ?
Doped to the Max wrote:
I think you're being obstinate. You don't have to find it surprising or remarkable. The point of referencing Dr. Schumacher is to show that there is an estimate given by a renowned expert with unassailable credentials who serves on the IAAF expert panel that reviews ABP hematological anomalies cases.
You seemed to have missed the point. I don't doubt reknowned experts like Schumacher can give estimates. Your point did not respond to my points.
Doped to the Max wrote:
True....Dr. Schumacher just states "as much as one minute off the time taken to run 10,000 metres." So, he gives distance (10k) and the amount of time improved (1 min). Therefore, to obtain a percentage (%) improvement you would have to select a base time to use in the calculation...right? I used a 30 min 10k time for illustration purposes (1 min improvement = ~3.3%). If you don't like me using 30 min...then what do you suggest? A faster time? A slower time? The percentages don't change much with different base times using a one minute improvement, e.g. 31:00 - 30:00 (~3.2%) 29:00 - 28:00 (~3.4%) 28:00 - 27:00 (~3.5%).
I didn't dispute "up to 1 minute" or "3.3%". What do I suggest? I would suggest you inform yourself about which context "up to 1 min." applies.
Coevett wrote:
Every single thread celebrating the achievement of an African runner, Rekrunner comes along to start a pages long wall of text discussion on whether or not EPO works.
I did not talk about EPO effect here. When I do talk about it, it is more nuanced than simply "EPO works or not".
what woman runs a marathon in 2:15? wrote:
Just a hunch, he is trying to protect someone.
Huh? Oh yeah, years ago there was this thing about the IAAF in the news, with the British press, and Parliament, going out of there way to make the Brits look bad.
scratching my head wrote:
+1, no idea why so many people dislike you.
Thanks. I think it is because I persistently poke at their beliefs.
Since many of them have run out of arguments, they resort to fabricating strawmen and name-calling.
casual obsever wrote:
Ok, last try...
Good. Last rebuttal.
To back up your fuzzy "order of 2-4%" and "roughly half%" you explicitly said "to be precise, peer-reviewed articles".
Putting the obvious pretention aside, this gives non-critical readers the impression that your statements are not colored by your own imagination, but somehow inline with peer-reviewed articles, possibly based on real observations of elite runners.
My calculations of 28% and 14.7% exaggerations, above and beyond your peer-reviewed sources, to use your standard, is simple mathematics.
Schumacher's "up to 1 min." quote is not, to be precise, from a peer-reviewed article.
To be precise, you did not provide peer-reviewed articles for the effects, synergistic or otherwise, of HGH, testo, and speed peptide in long distance events.
Regarding your sources, putting aside your order of 15-30% exaggerations, your peer-reviewed sources lack necessary foundation.
Your source of "up to 3%" comes from a study that did not measure time-trial performance, nor elite runners, and it referenced sources that recommended against making such estimates, and in some cases, did not even perform time trials.
Your source for 50% is indisputably misleading, combining one IAAF World Championship, with the Pan Arab Games, composed of less than world-championship caliber athletes from 28 different sports.
You must have known this, leading me to question whether your deception was done knowingly, or whether you are truly deceiving yourself.
Your 50% is polluted by the admitted doping of athletes from non-running sports.
You backpedalled from your misleading "precise, peer-reviewed" source of 50%, to give us the "real" peer-reviewed answer of 43.6%.
Your 43.6% is polluted by the admitted doping of sprinters, and field event athletes.
Your 43.6% combines all doping, and not just the blood doping thought to provide large benefits to endurance athletes.
Your 43.6% combines men and women.
Your 43.6% is "contaminated" (the study authors own words) by the non-thinking responses of fast-responders.
The IAAF did a study in 2011, and found blood doping prevalence, excluding steroids, HGH, and testo, to be much smaller, 14% overall, and something like 18% for endurance athletes only.
In the same study, they reported male prevalence was 12% (overall), while female prevalence was 18%.
This shows the importance of separating male doping from female doping.
The Tubingen survey study gives us no indication of prevalence among endurance athletes, sprinters, and field athletes, and no breakdown of men versus women.
As such, it doesn't provide enough information to contradict the IAAF's blood doping prevalence estimate.
Finally you said: "In reality, with drugs providing benefits of the order of 2% - 4%, and roughly half of all championship athletes - including the athletes that don't even reach the finals - being cheats, a clean sub-13 is quite unlikely, not to mention a clean 12:46."
This is not "merely repeating experts' opinions", but you drawing new conclusions, one that relies on two "realities" which are enhanced by your own imagination, and ignores that there are scientifically proven legal ways to boost RBC, VO2max, and performance.