What will it take for a new mile WR?

1. The simple point that has escaped you (of course it did) is that blood-doping works at every distance, from sprints to the marathon - and is used by athletes over that range of events. Hence, your singling the 800m out as somehow being different is refuted by the demonstrated advantages of blood doping in anaerobic as well as aerobic events. Argument resolved. Perhaps you can now move on to another point.

2. The issue of training badly has nothing to do with being able to train harder. That point is irrelevant.

3. The article was just one of any number of sources of information that explains how doping may be used and the effect it has. It was hardly controversial or saying things on which the verdict is still out or about which there are widely differing views. The contributors, like Conte, have considerable direct experience of the matters they talk about. Your saying it was "faith-based" amounts to nothing more than you didn't like what it was saying.

4. You say here that "doping works" - including testosterone and steroids - but you cannot and indeed choose not to identify a single world mark (not Flojo, not Kratochvilova or anybody) that has likely been achieved by doping, and further you have never acknowledged an elite performance that was also likely attributable to doping (such as the 3.26.6 over 1500 by convicted doper Kiprop). So who does doping "work for" and what does it do if you can't point to any example? Certainly, your consistent position has been to deny or at least downplay the likelihood that championship medal winners in many running events are well represented amongst the likely dopers.

5. The view you have previously and often expressed is that athletes only "believe" doping will help them - because it doesn't - and that altitude training is superior to doping (even though altitude-trained athletes also dope), and that only inferior athletes or those trying to make a comeback dope but not the best athletes. I might add to that, your estimation of the incidence in doping is far less than that of most official and well- informed sources. So, despite what you now say, you consistently argue that doping doesn't do what people think it does, and, besides, there isn't much of it going on anyway. Yep, a denier.

C'mon rekrunner...you must trolling. Lol. That's ridiculous - I'm "forced to fill in the gaps with faith?" I given data and plenty of circumstantial evidence. Again Kisorio tests positive for Norandrosterone but says he was also injected with EPO, and later appears on the hacked WADA document as "likely doping" for suspicion of an ESA. Wodaj tests positive for both T and EPO. And the big one: A large cache of pre-filled syringes of EPO, anabolic steroids and other doping products were found at the Sabadell raid ("Operación Rial") where Aden was hosting his altitude/doping camp (remember the high-profile athletes that were at this camp?). And time and time again with these Spanish doping operations that are raided are always involving steroids, HGH and EPO/blood transfusions. And remember The Guardian article of the high-profile female athlete in Ethiopia caught on a hidden camera asking another athlete about EPO? She later admitted to using a 45-day programme oftaking EPO and human growth hormone on alternating days:

If you're not trollling then, you must naively believe that dopers testing positive for androgens are using that substance by itself and the ones using EPO/transfusions are also not using anything else, and these cases and evidence I've presented must be just coincidences. Lol.

Quite a lengthy post, with not one single reference to a performance. Your first example, Kisorio, slowed down while under the influence of steroids, and maybe EPO. You simply need more data. If you want to persuade with examples, you need many many more examples of doping and performance improvement, with cause and effect appearing in the right direction, to be representative, and to at least establish a correlation.

1) I'm happy you've resolved it for yourself, and I'm happy to move on, but you resolved an argument that I did not make. I didn't single out 800m as somehow being different, nor suggest blood-doping didn't work for the 800m.

2) and 3) By "has been shown", I thought you meant something more than others repeating the same conclusion without providing or referring to supporting data. I am skeptical of appeals to authority, but can be persuaded by data.

4) I can give my opinions, but I chose not to. My highly nuanced opinions will just infuriate you more. But as you insist, I will give a general summary of my beliefs in a separate post -- maybe that will help.

5) These views are also not mine. I see our difference like this: You take for granted that prevalence proves benefit, whereas I argue that prevalence only proves hope for benefit. To persuasively prove benefit, you need more data. That doesn't deny the benefit, but denies that you can or have shown it, which qualifies it as belief or faith.

I might also add, what exactly do you believe my estimation of incidence is?

I don't believe I ever gave any definitive estimate, but have only ever conveyed different estimates coming directly from various studies.

I am waiting for one more study on the horizon, and I did make some calculations and once made a prediction, I hope are confirmed by it.

With respect to estimates:

The IAAF did a few studies, using blood data in large populations to estimate a global blood doping prevalence, as well as wildy varying prevalence estimates by country (anonymously).

The Tuebingen study used a survey based approach producing higher estimates.

Survey based approaches depend on compliance for accuracy, while often measuring or acknowledging high rates of non-compliance. These need refinement to reduce significant non-compliance, or at least estimate and eliminate the biasing effect of non-compliance. This is not just my conclusion, but also that of other (or sometimes the same) researchers.

rekrunner wrote:

4) I can give my opinions, but I chose not to. My highly nuanced opinions will just infuriate you more. But as you insist, I will give a general summary of my beliefs in a separate post -- maybe that will help.

Sorry for the length, but you asked for this repeatedly.

Maybe addressing your questions generally about my beliefs can keep this and future threads much shorter, by stopping you from building strawmen beliefs that are not mine, only for me to deny them, only for you to say no one understands me, ad infinitum.

This is how I see doping working with performance:

- Doping works well for everybody, when their body is at less than its full potential, due to some physical deficiency, or simply a lack of training, that doping can quickly and artificially correct in the optimal direction. If the defiency is smaller, the potential effect is smaller. If there is no significant weakness, the gain will be smaller, or zero, or performance could degrade if doping moves fitness away from optimal.

- When we look at EPO, hypothetically, EPO would work well for sea-level athletes at sea-level, but would diminish for that same sea-level athlete if taken after some time at altitude, where natural EPO production has been stimulated by altitude, and RBC count becomes high, and much, if not all, of the aerobic benefit has been realized by natural means. A similar argument exists if EPO is taken at altitude. Whether the return from EPO in these altitude cases is marginal, or superfluous, needs more data to determine.

- This means that, still hypothetically, EPO can fail to work, or work not so much, for all athletes that have completed a long session of clean altitude training, but can also work well for all of these same athletes at other times, when they are at 80% aerobic fitness, to unnaturally arrive at 90% quickly. Note, this training shortcut can also be viewed as "cheating" and warrant a ban, even if the fitness is just 90%.

- Therefore, determining whether EPO, or any doping, can work or can fail needs to consider several other external factors relevant to that athlete at that moment.

- A weak mind can also lead to inferior training due to a lack of confidence. Some drugs which might otherwise have no effect, can unblock mental barriers and still produce improvements.

- Male hormones work especially well for women (with rare exceptions like AIS) in sprint and strength events, including middle and shorter distances.

- Those who experiment with drugs, will interpret any improvement as positive feedback, even if that improvement occurred simply from the training that he would have done anyway, or if improvements come from placebo effect. This contributes to an over-estimation in effect from personal anecdotes as in real life, doping and performance evaluation is not conducted in a controlled way.

- The limiter for the marathon is not aerobic, but other things, like efficiency, carbohydrate management, and, for larger runners and/or on hotter days, thermal. We saw this recently with Nike shoes, producing improvements in everyone due to attacking efficiency.

- One reason I downplay, but do not deny, blood doping benefit, can be found in at least two meta-survey studies, which draw the same conclusion that studies have tended to over-estimate the effect.

- Another reason I downplay any doping benefit can be found in more detail in my performance threads. This was the subject of lengthy debates, but generally, high prevalence and high effect should have had different expected results than what we have seen historically. Over the years I have given many examples of large groups who should have performed better, not only comparing against East and North Africans, but comparing non-Africans of today to non-Africans of the past. For example, Russian men should have been better in terms of quantity and depth of quality in the last 3 decades. Russian women should be better than the Japanese women, in the marathon.

- I don't believe doping can be widespread and highly effective and still produce single extreme outlier performers (like El G, or Paula) with unrepeatable performances, or target only specific narrow subsets of populations for decades (like Nandi or Oromo). These athletes may or may not be doped, but the reason for being extreme outliers have non-doping explanations.

- I don't believe that Kenya or Ethiopia had the funding or infrastructure to produce a large-scale doping operation, starting in the '90s, on a scale that would make Russia jealous, and could escape detection for decades, particularly when exported athletes training in Japan and USA perform well.

- East African domination showed some early signs of greatness in the 1960s (e.g. Bikila and Keino), and really started in 1981, in world cross country, and has continued to the present day.

- The reason for the apparent decline in track times is due more to changes like the change from Golden League to Diamond League, and less money on the track versus more money available on the roads, than to improvements in anti-doping.

- A lack of testing is not strong proof of doping.

Got it. Doping occurs somewhere on the dark side of the moon but never, to your awareness, in plain sight. Hence, you never see it.

All conclusions that aren't his are "faith-based". It works well to reduce the scale of the problem.

Some counterpoints to your lengthy post:

- On EPO not effective for altitude trained/altitude natives. You need look at Kiptum's ABP case (First Decision Cases - AIU site). First of all, altitude training doesn't raise Hct that much and when it does marginally raise, it has be several weeks sustained at over 7000 ft. Kiptums initial ABP blood sample, taken a couple weeks before he set the HM WR @ Velancia, showed an astronomical high 60.9 Hct and a crazy Off-score of 148.30 - 99.9 specificity. Another ABP sample was taken 2 days after he finished as the runner-up at the 2018 Dhabi marathon running a PB of 2:04:16. His Hct for that test was 56.1 and another insane Off-score of 145.40 - also 99.9 specificity. Both results and the WR were, of course, flushed for doping. There's no way he could raise his Hct to those crazy levels from the natural production of elevated blood levels from altitude training or living & training at altitude. They're were raised by doping and clearly you can see an aerobic benefit based on his performances at Valencia & Dhabi - again the results were flushed because of artificially increased Hct levels. If you can prove that he would have achieved those same results without doping - then go for it. Lol.

- On the Russian men: For the umpteenth time, more of the Russian men pursued RW where they felt they would have a better chance at world domination not having to compete against the likes of the E. Africans. RW is the national pastime in Russia - their walkers have rock star status. Look up their legendary but infamous walking coach, Viktor Chegin, who built a world dominating team with the use of PEDs, primarily O2-vector doping. And if you don't think RW is an aerobic sport then you know very little about exercise phsio.

- Russian marathoners vs Japanese: Shobukhova ran 2:18:20 @ Chicago 2011 doped to the gills (ABP hematological-anomalies case) which is 8th fastest all-time and almost a minute faster the the top Japanese runner. And when you mentioned "the Russian women should be faster than than the Japanese women, in the marathon," I take it to be that you feel the Japanese women are clean vs the Russian dopers? So, are the Japanese women marathoners clean? Granted they don't have the prevalence of doping bans the Russians have, but they do have a couple of bans nonetheless: Moeno Nakamura (metenolone/IC positive) & Kaori Yoshida (EPO/IC - Honolulu marathon):

- On Kenya not having a large-scale doping operation in the 90s +...Lol! First of all there wasn't a test for EPO in the 90s (did you forget?). Secondly, in the 00s, when the EPO test was implemented and testing for roids got better, Kenyans started testing positive IC! (Chepchumba - EPO/03, Bitok - Norandrosterone/03). They were doping back in that time period - don't be naive:

Lastly, World-renowned anti-doping expert Dr. Schumacher made some intersting statements on macro vs micro-doping EPO at an Anti-Doping Symposium back in 2014. One interesting statement made was that "the same dose of EPO will not have the same effect on every individual." This would explain the individual responses to EPO (e.g. high-responder, low-responder, etc.) and lack of consistent uniformity in the performance benefits of EPO. In addition, Dr. Schumacher mentioned that "a small effect of doping will have measurable outcome of the results of the race." (Starts @ 30:00 mins into the presentation):

Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:

Some counterpoints to your lengthy post:

- On EPO not effective for altitude trained/altitude natives. You need look at Kiptum's ABP case ...

- On the Russian men: For the umpteenth time, more of the Russian men pursued RW ...

- Russian marathoners vs Japanese: Shobukhova ran 2:18:20 @ Chicago 2011 doped to the gills

- I take it to be that you feel the Japanese women are clean vs the Russian dopers?

- On Kenya not having a large-scale doping operation in the 90s +...Lol!

Lastly, World-renowned anti-doping expert Dr. Schumacher made some intersting statements

Thanks for your counter-points, but some of your counter-points do not counter any points I made.

My EPO hypothetical was about sea-level athletes training at sea-level versus training at altitude.

I did not say "EPO not effective", nor did I say "altitude native".

I did say that the gains after altitude would diminish when compared to the gains only at sea-level only.

With respect to Kiptum, I cannot draw any conclusion with just one athlete, especially when I lack the change in one of the variables -- performance. I can agree his blood values were high. Also, if I recall correctly, the Abu Dhabi marathon course was short when he ran 2:04:16.

On the Russian men, I'm aware that race-walking is popular. I also have some theories about why that is, assuming Russia knew where doping was most effective and where it was not so much.

With respect to Russia vs. Japan in the women's marathon, again, I cannot draw a conclusion with one athlete.

When you dig deeper than one athlete, Japan quickly overtakes Russia, both in terms of quantity, and depth of quality at the top. For example, number of sub-2:20s: Japan 3, Russia 1

In another thread, we just saw Japan's estimated blood doping prevalence in both 2011 and 2013 was 0%, versus Russia's 73% and 8% (a significant reform), respectively.

With respect to the large-scale doping operation, my expressed doubts are about the funding and infrastructure necessary to create and sustain such a large scale while going unnoticed for three decades, not only by testing, but by countless foreign athletes, coaches, managers, agents, and reporters. The existence of doping does not speak to these large scale doubts.

With all due respect, Schumacher is an expert on one of the variables, and at least two meta-studies have concluded that world renowned anti-doping experts tend to over-estimate the effect of EPO on performance in their studies.

You have only one essential point, that you repeat one way or another in virtually every comment you make, which is in your last sentence, that "anti-doping experts tend to over-estimate the effect of EPO on performance". Well, that is a matter of opinion. But it is the one that you prefer.

It is the opinion you favor because your intent is to maintain always that doping has an insignificant effect on elite performance. This is borne out by your consistent refusal to identify performances - any performances - that are likely the result of doping. To all intents and purposes, doping doesn't exist on your horizon; it isn't observable on the track - not by you, anyway - but only manifests as an abstraction in the pages of your preferred academic journals.

It's also my opinion that non-experts tend to over-estimate effect of EPO on performance.

rekrunner wrote:

With all due respect, Schumacher is an expert on one of the variables, and at least two meta-studies have concluded that world renowned anti-doping experts tend to over-estimate the effect of EPO on performance in their studies.

And I don't what "variables" you're talking about? Schumacher has over 166 published research works and has been he has been team physician for the German Olympic Team since 2000, in addition to being a senior member of the IAAF's anti-doping expert panel for ABP cases. You're just dismissing his statements in the symposium because it doesn't fit into your narrative of the ad nauseam EPO/blood transfusions doesn't work with the top elites montra.

On the Heuberger paper - that's involving cycling ("Erythropoietin doping in cycling: lack of evidence for efficacy and a negative risk–benefit") I believe the other paper you're mentioning is also referencing cycling? Wrt Heuberger, he summarizes his analysis that if further studies show that the effect of EPO were to be small, then anti-doping efforts could be directed elsewhere. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense when Schumacher is saying that the performance difference with the very top elites is "1%" or less,and that a small amount of doping would have a measurable effect on the outcome of the race. That could shuffle the medal/finishing order around a bit at an Olympic or WC event.

rekrunner wrote:

It's also my opinion that non-experts tend to over-estimate effect of EPO on performance.

References and data? Oh, right - it's just your opinion; like other people's "faith-based" thinking.

Having listened to the answer at 30:00 mins, I don't have any issue with his response.

I note the symposium was also about cycling.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

It's also my opinion that non-experts tend to over-estimate effect of EPO on performance.

References and data? Oh, right - it's just your opinion; like other people's "faith-based" thinking.

Do you mean in addition to the two referenced studies I already gave?

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

References and data? Oh, right - it's just your opinion; like other people's "faith-based" thinking.

Do you mean in addition to the two referenced studies I already gave?

Studies which are still someone's opinion, because there are other studies that don't take that view - as commenters on this site have shown. But just as climate deniers will find studies to back their claims, so will doping deniers.

If there are other studies that take another view, you should have produced some of them when I asked you for data and references.

Most, if not all, of the studies that have looked at doping and performance usually have a "limitations" section which says that their results might not apply to elite performances, and that study conclusions should not be over-interpreted or projected onto contexts not studied.

But if, as you suggest, we are just talking about people's opinions, how does that justify your petty behavior over the last 9 pages, and in countless threads over the past few years? After all, isn't everyone entitled to their own opinions and to chose their own faith? What is it about your personality that motivates you to launch a constant stream of attacks on the intelligence of people who do not share your faith?

Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:

Lastly, World-renowned anti-doping expert Dr. Schumacher made some intersting statements on macro vs micro-doping EPO at an Anti-Doping Symposium back in 2014. One interesting statement made was that "the same dose of EPO will not have the same effect on every individual." This would explain the individual responses to EPO (e.g. high-responder, low-responder, etc.) and lack of consistent uniformity in the performance benefits of EPO. In addition, Dr. Schumacher mentioned that "a small effect of doping will have measurable outcome of the results of the race." (Starts @ 30:00 mins into the presentation):

I agreed with Dr. Schumacher's answer to the question.

Some other parts of his response agree with things I have said many times before: "micro-dosing gives micro-effect", "it is hard to quantify effect", and the part you left out "you can obviously imagine ...".

One of the reasons for varying observations of EPO response is that scientists and athetes alike are not always very good at fixing the start reference of the observation. So when observing large effects, part of the observation is due to the starting reference being too low, rather than the resulting performance being too high. I saw a similar reaction in my performance thread. Many people took exception to my choice of reference, and argued it would be more fair for me to pick a slower starting point, as if that would make the end result even faster.

rekrunner wrote:

If there are other studies that take another view, you should have produced some of them when I asked you for data and references.

Most, if not all, of the studies that have looked at doping and performance usually have a "limitations" section which says that their results might not apply to elite performances, and that study conclusions should not be over-interpreted or projected onto contexts not studied.

But if, as you suggest, we are just talking about people's opinions, how does that justify your petty behavior over the last 9 pages, and in countless threads over the past few years? After all, isn't everyone entitled to their own opinions and to chose their own faith? What is it about your personality that motivates you to launch a constant stream of attacks on the intelligence of people who do not share your faith?

I haven't read anything that leads me to conclude that the effects of doping on performance are being over-estimated. Quite the reverse. That includes the studies often quoted here that I find quite credible, and have no need to replicate in my own comments. I also have over half a century of participating in sports as well as observing how they have changed as doping has become more prevalent. I pay attention to what sportsmen/women have to say, as well as coaches and trainers, and those who have anti-doping (or doping) experience. Unlike you, I find those at the coal-face more credible than academics without that experience. Academic research has often been used to justify some awful bullsh*t over the years. If you trust academics implicitly then you would risk finding yourself in agreement with Nazi scientists and their studies purporting to validate their appalling race theories.

I dont separate people's opinions here into those that are either "scientific" or "faith-based", as you do. Those are specious and misleading terms. Everyone simply has opinions here and some opinions are possibly better informed than others. But your use of terms like "scientific" and "faith-based" - chiefly to claim superiority for yourself - is condescending and deserves the derision it properly receives.

Further, for someone who professes a desire for "accuracy" in their inquiries, as you do, it is remarkable that you don't seem to be aware of the overwhelming need you reveal toward constructing a particular world-view, in which doping plays an insignificant role in sports performance while at the same time consuming an enormous amount of your attention in seeking to prove that insignificance.