What will it take for a new mile WR?

How many times do you want to do this?

Simply put, there are several confounding variables that were not measured in an analysis that only looked at one variable: blood.

No amount of saying or showing that athletes convicted of blood-doping, even begins to addresses the uncertainty of the contribution due to confounding variables not measured. We know doping athletes were prone to taking doping cocktails.

What about Jelimo? What about Kenya? What about the IAAF list? We've done this a hundred times too.

Using the same Sunday Times source, Kenyan "suspicion" was only 11% -- LESS THAN AVERAGE. Using a WADA funded source, the top 2 doping sources were steroids, by far, then cortisone/cortico-steroids. EPO was by far a very distant third and a very small fraction of EPO busts.

What about your aerobic/anaerobic energy system analysis suggesting O2-vector would help? Interesting hypothesis, and currently unproven speculation on your part. It's way too premature to conclude "definitely".

Yeah right...a "very small fraction of EPO busts" but yet look at some big time & primetime names that were busted for rocket fuel. Have you forgotten Kiprop, Bett, Jeptoo, Sumgong, Jebet, Kirwa, etc. ? Lol. You're also neglecting the ABP hematological cases (Kiptum, Rutto, Chepchirchir & Chepkirui). These were EPO cases where the doper was able to avoid testing positive for EPO. Heck, look how long it took to nail Kiptum when his very first ABP test sample was over 60% Hct and a crazy Off-score of 148!!! He should have been nailed on that very first sample. The question I have is how many Kenyans are avoiding EPO positives but having their passports flagged and evaluated privately by the anti-doping experts where they're not unanimously agreeing to charge the athlete with any ABP violations. It seems they had no choice to finally charge Kiptum when his additional ABP samples over the next several months came up showing super high Hct levels. I mean, c'mon, just four ABP cases with a doped-up nation that is so doped-up that they have to be listed on the IAAF's "most at risk for doping" list along with PED-Powered nations Ukraine & Belarus! Lol.

Once again, none of this even begins to address what you bolded in the first place -- the potential impact of confounding factors that were not measured in the percentage of 800m medals won.

That's speaking the truth wrote:

Yeah right...a "very small fraction of EPO busts" ...

Correction: when I said "EPO was by far a very distant third and a very small fraction of EPO busts", I should have said "EPO was by far a very distant third and a very small fraction of the total of Kenyan doping busts". 12% to be precise, according to the WADA report, compared to 35% for Nandrolone and 13% for Corticosteroids.

@rekrunner

"Simply put, there are several confounding variables that were not measured in an analysis that only looked at one variable: blood." (quote)

More empty waffle. An apologist at work. The only "confounding variables" are those that exist in your head. I suggest you consider blood doping, to improve oxygen flow to the cranium.

EPO has been shown to aid athletes from the sprints, because it increases training capacity, to distance racing, as shown by the busted Kenyan marathon runners. But in your unrelenting fatuity you try to maintain there is an anomalous window, in the 800, where blood-doping has no effect on performance (and this is despite the evidence of blood doping in 800m runners that has been afforded here). You invariably try to argue that one form of doping or another (that is banned without exception, as blood doping is) doesn't work. Your motivation is to defend the reputation of African distance runners, who have made a practice of blood-doping in the last 30 years.

Ultimately, your arguments are indistinguishable from scientific creationists, who claim dinosaurs and man co-existed because of "confounding variables" in the fossil record. You are merely a religious crank who has wandered into the doping debate.

Only a handful have the ability to get below 3:50, 3:45 is a completely different level.

* Need Drugs

* Born/Live/Train at altitude

* Genetics

* 45-second quarter mile speed

* Ability to train up to 200 miles per week

* Must have god given talent/drive to fulfill a prophecy

It's surprising you now deny the significant effects of testosterone, especially for women in the shorter distance events, and 1-GF(?) and HGH, especially when earlier you said: "... testosterone, 1-GF, and HGH are better"

Maybe that makes you the REAL doping denier.

Everyone but you was talking, not about denying any effect, but "not much" effect.

It is really undebatable that the effect from other drugs will also impact the medal count, unless these other drugs have no effect (therefore making you the doping denier).

While sprinters to marathons have taken and been busted for EPO, I'm unaware that anyone has shown the impact of these other mechanisms, like increased training capacity.

The rest of your comments are more faith based claims.

Where do I deny the effect of testosterone or any other drug? You are projecting - of course. I simply don't accept that blood doping will be neutral in its effect - not in the 800 or any event. That you also don't see the advantages blood doping or EPO can have in increasing training load shows how partial your "knowledge" is of these matters. This has been documented and indeed is widely acknowledged but is clearly not on your highly selective reading list.

You said "confounding variables" existed only in my head. The obvious necessary inference is that you don't believe anything but blood doping is responsible for the suspicious 800m medal count, therefore denying all other effects from all other doping. This is an apologist at work. Only a doping denier would make the point that you did. By failing to see your own necessary inference it shows that logic is not your strong point and the waffle by which you seek to cover your tracks is little more than the emperor's new clothes. Where did I say blood doping will be neutral in effect? I've already corrected this false notion twice. With respect to this notion of increased training load -- I want to see what you say has been shown. If it has been documented and is indeed widely acknowledged, then it should be a small matter for you to add to my reading list. Show me if, when and how this effect was isolated and measured, and is something more than a series of faith-based anecdotes from non-scientific believers passed down from one story-teller to the next. Here, I'll get you started with a choice selection from my extensive reading library -- here is what one group of scientists concluded from an EPO-meta survey about EPO and professional cyclists:

I see you're a plagiarist as well as an idiot. That isn't an inference you might take but a statement of fact. I didn't address the rest of your claims about other forms of doping because none of it interested me. Nothing you say about doping is credible. I am happy to point that out. I don't choose to address the rest of your tendentious arguments so you accuse me of being a doping denier, in the same way I would be accused of endorsing a book I had never read because I hadn't bothered to comment on it. Facile - and illogical. I realise you think you are being clever but you only reveal yet more of your limitations. The only person you can best in argument is yourself - and that you do rather well.

The most powerful banned substance for sprinters, says Conte, who now runs Snac System, an all-natural sports-nutrition company, is EPO. While it is more often associated with improving results for long-distance runners because of its ability to increase oxygen intake, EPO allows sprinters to do more training repetitions and to do them more intensely. “The deeper the training load long-term throughout an off-season, the greater the gains,” Conte says.

As Joyner points out, “One of the things that people fail to recognize about doping in general is that it facilitates harder training.”

https://nymag.com/speed/2016/12/how-much-faster-could-the-fastest-human-on-the-planet-be.html

rekrunner wrote:

That's speaking the truth wrote:

Yeah right...a "very small fraction of EPO busts" ...

Correction: when I said "EPO was by far a very distant third and a very small fraction of EPO busts", I should have said "EPO was by far a very distant third and a very small fraction of the total of Kenyan doping busts". 12% to be precise, according to the WADA report, compared to 35% for Nandrolone and 13% for Corticosteroids.

That just means they're testing positive for steroids more often than they're for EPO use. The steroid test for long-term metabolites has become more sensitive while the testing window for therapeutic doses of EPO is several days and just several hours for microdosing EPO. The popular stack for dopers is and always has been EPO + steroids/testosterone and/or HGH. In fact, just last year (Nov/2019) Ethiopian Etaferahu Temesgen Wodaj tested positive for both EPO and testosterone. Recall the case with Kisorio: In 2012 he tested positive for Norandrosterone but in interviews published in RW & The Guardian, he speaks of EPO injections administered to him as well as the steroid. Fast forward to 2016, after he's served his ban and is back to racing, he appears on the FB leaked WADA documents from 2016 as "likely doping." A check of the comments section reveals "Test ESA/4 to 2 weeks before next comp." Clearly WADA was seeing elevated blood levels suspicious of an ESA warranting very specific target testing. The Kenyan dopers are using both an ESA (EPO) and steroids/T and just getting popped much more frequently for the androgen part of their cocktail.

In the summary it states "A more scientific approach is needed and more thorough research needs to be conducted on the effects of rHuEPO on submaximal performance and the cycling economy...."

Here's a paper where the researchers came to some different conclusions on the effects of EPO:

"However, Wilkerson et al. did not observe any effects of rHuEpo on VO2 kinetics [55]. Despite a 4 weeks’ treatment of 150 IU/kg weekly of rHuEpo increased Hb (15.8 g/dL to 16.8 g/dL), Hct (43% to 48%), VO2max (47.5 mL/min/kg to 50.8 mL/min/kg) and peak power output (311 W to 332 W), the VO2 kinetics was not affected by rHuEpo. In particular, the Phase II time constant remained unchanged as also indirectly shown by the lack of significant effects of rHuEpo on blood lactate. Interestingly, the authors observed a 22% increase in time to exhaustion and tried to quantify to what extent this improvement may affect performance in 1500 meters run, suggesting a reduction of

about 3 seconds in overall running time in elite athletes."

"Furthermore, rHuEpo seems to be able to increase submaximal more than maximal aerobic parameters. This evidence is extremely important when evaluating the capacity of rHuEpo to affect sport performance since the majority of endurance events are performed at submaximal intensities, like anaerobic or aerobic threshold, and not at VO2max. It should be mentioned that such an improvement in aerobic capacity could reduce recovery time between workouts, so that more

total work could be effectively performed by the athlete."

That's speaking the truth wrote:

It should be mentioned that such an improvement in aerobic capacity could reduce recovery time between workouts, so that more

total work could be effectively performed by the athlete."

How does "an increase in aerobic capacity" circumvent thermoregulation?

Do you even understand the question?

That's speaking the truth wrote:

In the summary it states "A more scientific approach is needed and more thorough research needs to be conducted on the effects of rHuEPO on submaximal performance and the cycling economy...."

Here's a paper where the researchers came to some different conclusions on the effects of EPO:

Yes -- more research is needed because the existing research doesn't provide the observations necessary.

From the abstract, your paper seems to come to the same conclusion (and not different) as Heuberger, saying performance effect is unclear from his survey of EPO studies, and more studies are still needed:

rHuEpo, administered at clinical dosage, may have significant effects on haematological values, maximal and submaximal physiological variables, whereas few reports show positive effects on exercise perfomance. However, the influence of micro-dose rHuEpo on endurance performance in athletes is still unclear and further studies are warranted.

It reinforces Heuberger's and others' observation that VO2max and maximal power are not the most important parameters for elite cyclists -- and this is the main failure of most EPO studies (on cycling):

It is not VO2max , but power output at submaximal intensities, such as the first (VT1 or VT) and second

ventilation threshold (VT2), or the respiratory compensation point (RCP) that differ significantly

between elite amateur and professional cyclists.

Here's another meta study (again on cycling) that says that observed effect on VO2max and Power was over-estimated, using a mathematical approach, rather than a critical appraisal of the studies:

Overestimated Effect of Epo Administration on Aerobic Exercise Capacity: A Meta-Analysis

Hein F.M. Lodewijkx et al.

So if the data is missing than what is missing in your argument is the data. If your argument is missing data, then you are forced to fill in the gaps with faith. If your faith filled arguments failed the first time, they will continue to fail until you replace these faith filled gaps with data.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I see you're a plagiarist as well as an idiot. That isn't an inference you might take but a statement of fact. I didn't address the rest of your claims about other forms of doping because none of it interested me. Nothing you say about doping is credible. I am happy to point that out. I don't choose to address the rest of your tendentious arguments so you accuse me of being a doping denier, in the same way I would be accused of endorsing a book I had never read because I hadn't bothered to comment on it. Facile - and illogical. I realise you think you are being clever but you only reveal yet more of your limitations. The only person you can best in argument is yourself - and that you do rather well.

Who would have predicted more personal attacks?

It looks like the only way you can engage in a conversation you are otherwise unable to support or refute.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The most powerful banned substance for sprinters, says Conte, who now runs Snac System, an all-natural sports-nutrition company, is EPO. While it is more often associated with improving results for long-distance runners because of its ability to increase oxygen intake, EPO allows sprinters to do more training repetitions and to do them more intensely. “The deeper the training load long-term throughout an off-season, the greater the gains,” Conte says.

As Joyner points out, “One of the things that people fail to recognize about doping in general is that it facilitates harder training.”

So Conte says it doesn't work on distance runners?

Is Conte just another believer passing along a story he heard?

Joyner fails to link harder training to performance improvements.

Every good coach knows we don't need to train harder but smarter.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The most powerful banned substance for sprinters, says Conte, who now runs Snac System, an all-natural sports-nutrition company, is EPO. While it is more often associated with improving results for long-distance runners because of its ability to increase oxygen intake, EPO allows sprinters to do more training repetitions and to do them more intensely. “The deeper the training load long-term throughout an off-season, the greater the gains,” Conte says.

As Joyner points out, “One of the things that people fail to recognize about doping in general is that it facilitates harder training.”

So Conte says it doesn't work on distance runners?

Is Conte just another believer passing along a story he heard?

Joyner fails to link harder training to performance improvements.

Every good coach knows we don't need to train harder but smarter.

That Conte was discussing sprinters and not distance runners seems to have escaped you. Saying that cows benefit from eating grass isn't saying that sheep don't. You keep embarrassing yourself.

Conte worked with sprinters - unlike you or your armchair experts you are so fond of quoting as authorities.

That you don't accept that being able to train harder will translate into performance gains - because of improved recovery, among other things - is a belief of flat-earth proportions. It has nothing to do with not training smarter but the obvious point that enhanced physical capacity aids everything - training, as well as competing - eludes you. It is one of the differences between elites and non-elites. But you can't accept that because you can't accept doping works - in any way.

I have to keep pointing it out; you are ridiculous. But your doping denial runs as a toxic thread through everything you say.