rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Does anybody else get a flashback to the original Star Trek with Spock and McCoy arguing?
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Does anybody else get a flashback to the original Star Trek with Spock and McCoy arguing?
yes wrote:
Slightly awkward, but he was quite willing to answer every question I asked and more.
Your drug obsession is a form of madness we don't all share.
Maybe not all. But official estimates are that up to 40% of elite athletes share that madness.
Armstronglivs wrote:
yes wrote:
Slightly awkward, but he was quite willing to answer every question I asked and more.
Your drug obsession is a form of madness we don't all share.
Maybe not all. But official estimates are that up to 40% of elite athletes share that madness.
Well exercise physiologists don't understand basic physiology, so there's your reason. I don't blame the athletes, I blame the culture of bad science.
In 1958 the world mile record was 3.54.5 (Herb Elliot). In 1979 -21 years later - it had been improved by 5.5 seconds to 3.49 (Seb Coe). 20 years later it had been improved by a similar 5.87secs to the current record of 3.43.13. There has been no improvement in the 21 years since then and as far as I am aware no one has got within 3 seconds of that time in the last 20 years.
Time has literally stood still for the mile and 1500 wr's (and other records) for over 20 years, despite the exponential improvements before then of over 5 seconds for every 20 years previously. And now those records seem far out of reach of today's best. It is of course an interesting coincidence they were set at the height of the EPO era.
yes wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Maybe not all. But official estimates are that up to 40% of elite athletes share that madness.
Well exercise physiologists don't understand basic physiology, so there's your reason. I don't blame the athletes, I blame the culture of bad science.
The accepted science is that drugs are performance enhancing. Coaches, trainers and the athletes all know this. The black market in peds is over a billion Euros. No one is going to spend that on something that doesn't work. No one is going to ban something, as the governance bodies do, that has no effect.
Armstronglivs wrote:
yes wrote:
Slightly awkward, but he was quite willing to answer every question I asked and more.
Your drug obsession is a form of madness we don't all share.
Maybe not all. But official estimates are that up to 40% of elite athletes share that madness.
And that madness is even a lot higher with certain nations. The Soviet Union was probably near 100% during the Eastern-block era. We've seen declassified documents from the East Germany state-sponsored doping programs that were mandatory for all their track & field athletes. Modern day Russia before their ban was near 100% continuing the methodology from their old Soviet days. Ukraine & Belarus, along with E. African nations Kenya & Ethiopia, are currently on the IAAF's "most at risk of doping" list. And since we're on the subject of 1500/milers, 3 out of Morroco's top 6 all-time fastest 1500 men have served bans for doping:
3:26:00 El G
3:28.79 Iguider
3:29.14 Ramzi (CERA/2008)
3:29.46 Aouita
3:29.53 Laâlou (Furosemide/2012 & EPO/2016)
3:31.10 Kaouch (EPO/2007)
This is 50% of their top six (6) 1500 men that were just caught doping. What does that suggest for the other three? Clean or just got lucky and didn't get caught? ?
Armstronglivs wrote:
yes wrote:
Well exercise physiologists don't understand basic physiology, so there's your reason. I don't blame the athletes, I blame the culture of bad science.
The accepted science is that drugs are performance enhancing. Coaches, trainers and the athletes all know this. The black market in peds is over a billion Euros. No one is going to spend that on something that doesn't work. No one is going to ban something, as the governance bodies do, that has no effect.
+1
The other part of this equation is not only are the governing bodies going to ban something that has an "effect," but the fact that medals/titles/times, etc. are annulled if there's evidence of IC doping would solidify that the athlete had an "unfair advantage" over their competition during the event. Cases in point: Ramzi wins gold at Beijing. Over a year later, when the test for CERA became available, his IC sample is retested and it's positive - gold medal stripped.
Savinova won gold at both the 2012 WC & London Olympics running a top 50 all-time fastest time at Daegu. Both medals & the time wiped out because of evidence of IC doping in both events.
Jeptoo tests positive for EPO a few weeks before the 2014 Chicago marathon. Several months earlier she won Boston & set a course record. Her passport data from her IC sample is analyzed which shows evidence of doping - title & course record flushed.
Kiptum is nailed on an ABP violation which shows sufficient evidence of doping on an IC sample after he set the HM WR at Valencia in 2018 - record & title annulled.
These are just a few examples of high-profile athletes that were caught for IC doping - there are many, many more.
In past debates with Rekrunner on this subject, he has tried to rebut this by stating the governing bodies ban PEDs/methods for their health hazards & diminishing the spirit of the sport, and not for any performance-enhancing effects. This is completely ridiculous because when the IAAF/IOC strips medals/titles/records, etc. for IC doping, they are confirming that the athlete had an unfair advantage over the competition and unfairly accomplished their achievement in the race (win, medal, placing, prize money, etc). Rekrunner pretends not to understand this and tries act like he knows more than the governing bodies - but it's simple & common sense orientated: the bans are for punishment and the annulment of the titles, medals, prize money, etc. are because the athlete had an unfair advantage IC.
According to WADA's guidelines, a subjective determination of a potential to enhance performance is sufficient to ban athletes, annul performances, and take away medals and prize money.
Armstronglivs wrote:The rest of your comment is mostly gibberish but it gave off the odor of doping denial, with your consistent view that doping does not enhance performance. But to remain unintelligible is your modus operandi. No one ever really knows what you are saying. I have come to suspect you don't really know, either.
Now who is failing to grasp the point?
I would be prepared to listen to supporting facts and/or reference, but you seem only able to offer personal attacks, and all manner of logical fallacies (including these recurring strawmen above).
Armstronglivs wrote:
yes wrote:
Well exercise physiologists don't understand basic physiology, so there's your reason. I don't blame the athletes, I blame the culture of bad science.
The accepted science is that drugs are performance enhancing. Coaches, trainers and the athletes all know this. The black market in peds is over a billion Euros. No one is going to spend that on something that doesn't work. No one is going to ban something, as the governance bodies do, that has no effect.
It's what people believe, yes. I can't argue with that. But only a few days ago I was arguing with a very experienced exercise physiologist, right here on the letsrun forum. He has a degree in bioenergetics, but he doesn't even know what thermoregulation is. How is such ignorance possible? Because of poor education, that's how. The fact is, we can't exceed our thermoregulatory capacity, but 99% of exercise physiologists have no clue about this. The ignorance is scary. These idiots are responsible for the drug problem and no-one does anything about it.
rekrunner wrote:
According to WADA's guidelines, a subjective determination of a potential to enhance performance is sufficient to ban athletes, annul performances, and take away medals and prize money.
WADA are fukcing up the sport. Telling people on the one hand that these drugs are performance enhancing, and looking for victims to that belief. Kenyans will go faster without fukcing up their hormone profiles. Why is everyone so gullible about this insane anti doping rhetoric?
Walmsley could take the mile record.
The board as a whole wrote:
Walmsley could take the mile record.
No way he could beat Ryun's 3:41
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:The rest of your comment is mostly gibberish but it gave off the odor of doping denial, with your consistent view that doping does not enhance performance. But to remain unintelligible is your modus operandi. No one ever really knows what you are saying. I have come to suspect you don't really know, either.
Now who is failing to grasp the point?
I would be prepared to listen to supporting facts and/or reference, but you seem only able to offer personal attacks, and all manner of logical fallacies (including these recurring strawmen above).
No, you aren't prepared to "listen to supporting facts and references". You are as open-minded as a Republican senator at a Trump impeachment trial. Many others have often presented credible data here on doping and you have always sought to discredit it. Your position has never changed. You are a religious nut in pseudo-scientific drag.
yes wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The accepted science is that drugs are performance enhancing. Coaches, trainers and the athletes all know this. The black market in peds is over a billion Euros. No one is going to spend that on something that doesn't work. No one is going to ban something, as the governance bodies do, that has no effect.
It's what people believe, yes. I can't argue with that. But only a few days ago I was arguing with a very experienced exercise physiologist, right here on the letsrun forum. He has a degree in bioenergetics, but he doesn't even know what thermoregulation is. How is such ignorance possible? Because of poor education, that's how. The fact is, we can't exceed our thermoregulatory capacity, but 99% of exercise physiologists have no clue about this. The ignorance is scary. These idiots are responsible for the drug problem and no-one does anything about it.
Yes, I read your posts, which were under one of your several other handles, and I thought the same thing - how is such ignorance as yours possible?
rekrunner wrote:
According to WADA's guidelines, a subjective determination of a potential to enhance performance is sufficient to ban athletes, annul performances, and take away medals and prize money.
No, it isn't "subjective", - your weasel word for suggesting that it is only someone's arbitrary and unsupported opinion that a given drug is performance enhancing. But that is consistent with your view that doping doesn't actually work - which only deniers like yourself maintain. The thousands of athletes worldwide who use drugs also certainly wouldn't agree with you, or they wouldn't choose to dope.
Specified drugs are banned because medical and scientific assessment shows they can be used to unfairly enhance performance. That is why athletes use them. The drugs are listed and so coaches and athletes know which are banned. The athletes know what will happen if they are caught using them. That is why they go to considerable lengths to either mask their use or avoid testing. None of that is subjective and none of it is unfair. Except maybe to you.
That's speaking the truth wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The accepted science is that drugs are performance enhancing. Coaches, trainers and the athletes all know this. The black market in peds is over a billion Euros. No one is going to spend that on something that doesn't work. No one is going to ban something, as the governance bodies do, that has no effect.
+1
The other part of this equation is not only are the governing bodies going to ban something that has an "effect," but the fact that medals/titles/times, etc. are annulled if there's evidence of IC doping would solidify that the athlete had an "unfair advantage" over their competition during the event. Cases in point: Ramzi wins gold at Beijing. Over a year later, when the test for CERA became available, his IC sample is retested and it's positive - gold medal stripped.
Savinova won gold at both the 2012 WC & London Olympics running a top 50 all-time fastest time at Daegu. Both medals & the time wiped out because of evidence of IC doping in both events.
Jeptoo tests positive for EPO a few weeks before the 2014 Chicago marathon. Several months earlier she won Boston & set a course record. Her passport data from her IC sample is analyzed which shows evidence of doping - title & course record flushed.
Kiptum is nailed on an ABP violation which shows sufficient evidence of doping on an IC sample after he set the HM WR at Valencia in 2018 - record & title annulled.
These are just a few examples of high-profile athletes that were caught for IC doping - there are many, many more.
In past debates with Rekrunner on this subject, he has tried to rebut this by stating the governing bodies ban PEDs/methods for their health hazards & diminishing the spirit of the sport, and not for any performance-enhancing effects. This is completely ridiculous because when the IAAF/IOC strips medals/titles/records, etc. for IC doping, they are confirming that the athlete had an unfair advantage over the competition and unfairly accomplished their achievement in the race (win, medal, placing, prize money, etc). Rekrunner pretends not to understand this and tries act like he knows more than the governing bodies - but it's simple & common sense orientated: the bans are for punishment and the annulment of the titles, medals, prize money, etc. are because the athlete had an unfair advantage IC.
Rekrunner does not accept that doping confers unfair advantage.
Armstronglivs wrote:
yes wrote:
It's what people believe, yes. I can't argue with that. But only a few days ago I was arguing with a very experienced exercise physiologist, right here on the letsrun forum. He has a degree in bioenergetics, but he doesn't even know what thermoregulation is. How is such ignorance possible? Because of poor education, that's how. The fact is, we can't exceed our thermoregulatory capacity, but 99% of exercise physiologists have no clue about this. The ignorance is scary. These idiots are responsible for the drug problem and no-one does anything about it.
Yes, I read your posts, which were under one of your several other handles, and I thought the same thing - how is such ignorance as yours possible?
It's morning down under. Let the insults begin!
You have something in mind?
Armstronglivs wrote:
No, you aren't prepared to "listen to supporting facts and references". You are as open-minded as a Republican senator at a Trump impeachment trial. Many others have often presented credible data here on doping and you have always sought to discredit it. Your position has never changed. You are a religious nut in pseudo-scientific drag.
Of course I am -- you just haven't tried yet.
Romney is a Republican senator.
While many others have presented credible data here on doping, I note you don't seem to include yourself in that group, despite the high frequency of your posting on the topic.
I never object to the data, but do not always share the same conclusions as those many others, when they include elements of faith I do not take for granted, or are arrived at through some logical fallacy.
Armstronglivs wrote:
No, it isn't "subjective", - your weasel word for suggesting that it is only someone's arbitrary and unsupported opinion that a given drug is performance enhancing. But that is consistent with your view that doping doesn't actually work - which only deniers like yourself maintain. The thousands of athletes worldwide who use drugs also certainly wouldn't agree with you, or they wouldn't choose to dope.
Specified drugs are banned because medical and scientific assessment shows they can be used to unfairly enhance performance. That is why athletes use them. The drugs are listed and so coaches and athletes know which are banned. The athletes know what will happen if they are caught using them. That is why they go to considerable lengths to either mask their use or avoid testing. None of that is subjective and none of it is unfair. Except maybe to you.
WADA decides by committee each year what goes on the banned list, using as one of the criteria "potential to enhance performance". This is not a strong basis to infer much more than that.
Many athletes, coaches, and managers also believe the same as you -- you may find this persuasive, perhaps even comforting and reassuring, but the beliefs of others do not interest me.
I never argue that "doping doesn't work". This is your repeated failure to "grasp" the point.
For example, I would agree that testosterone and other male hormones "work" for women, and that blood doping "works" for those who are aerobically weak, without argument. Legal altitude training also works well, according to well designed studies and athlete anecdotes.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Rekrunner does not accept that doping confers unfair advantage.
I accept that it has the potential to confer an unfair advantage.
Referring back to the subject of this post, the relevant question is not whether doping confers an unfair advantage, but whether doping is necessary to set a new world record in the mile.
I accept that you and others believe this is the case, and I can grasp that you believe this to be obvious.