'We Can Now Estimate the Effect of Blood Doping'

Armstronglivs wrote:

You have "firm views that have not changed over the last decade", even though there is a "paucity of evidence", and you don't call your views "knowledge"? And yet that is exactly what you say of the opinions of those you don't agree with, that they have firm views not supported by the evidence. They might equally argue your opinions are your own personal faith and fallacy, as you say of theirs.

You are entitled to your opinions. But don't expect me to replace my opinions with yours without doing your homework. I don't share your life experiences, and if you don't share them either, I cannot change my mind. You have to do real intellectual groundwork and contradict my opinions with real world observations.

As I said many times, my firm views are formed by both prevalence and performance data -- that is why they have remained firm, because we cannot rewrite history.

deer gawd you absolutely LOVE talking about how smart you think you are dont you gary? lolz you must be the most important guy at your IT company huh? the most interesting man at the party? gawd im so jelly of you!

Armstronglivs wrote:

I have never come across someone who so struggles with the English language - and yet being a native English speaker - that almost all his communications are directed to explaining what his words mean, because they never speak for themselves.

This looks like a cop-out. My words speak for themselves, but you, and others, often re-write them, using your own words.

rekrunner wrote:

My firm views, if completly unfounded, can also be called beliefs.

.

No kidding.

Sometimes your word salad generator goes wild.

lolz gary thinks your trying to change his mind! haha no gary we all know you are too narcissistic to ever think YOU ARE WRONG....somehow by shear annoying luck, you found this site and decided you would declare yourself smartest douche bag. without EVER running, EVER coaching, and deer lorde now background in physiology or medical DEGREE whatsoever, you claim to be smarter than all people in the history of the world. like man you must have such a HUGE C*CK! you must have the most beautiful wife of all LR posters and you dont make $250k a year...you make that a DAY!!!!

holy sh*T we are not worthy hahahaha

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I would give an expert in his field, making educated guesses, in his field, more latitude and weight than I would give an athlete using trial-and-error, or an anonymous posters interpretation of that.

These three are one and the same.

And he is not an anonymous poster?

But it is boggling how he can so dismiss the experiences of athletes as mere "trial and error", when for generations they have participated in a global industry, involving every level of scientific and sports knowledge, that is doping today.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I have never come across someone who so struggles with the English language - and yet being a native English speaker - that almost all his communications are directed to explaining what his words mean, because they never speak for themselves.

This looks like a cop-out. My words speak for themselves, but you, and others, often re-write them, using your own words.

And so, once again, you commence explaining what your words mean. Yet others don't seem to need to do the same.

Because I don't twist the words of others.

party of neighborhood friends in monaco.....

"oh gawd here comes gary, quick end the conversation or else he will have to try and one up us, and then brag about how he knows so much more about the topic than we all do"

....in comes gary

"Hello, my, good, colleagues, about what importance and intelligence may belittle you all with?"

everyone rolls their eyes and says nothing

"well your silence only proves how aloof and ignorant you all are, I am known to cause this by my superior knowledge on all things, and rattle simpletons beliefs such as this petty group"

more eyes roll and some sighs

"well let me enlighten you imbeciles on my magnum opus, "EPO and the unfounded beliefs of endurance running in the 1990s, versus the actual data of doping bans of East Africans of the mid 2010's".........."its not published, but no need for any peer reviews, as no one is quite smart enough to understand my infinite knowledge on the changing subject matter"

most by then have walked away while gary is still talking about how great he is....then in comes the brojos

"duuuuuude whats up gary! man i love how you rek threads, it generates so much clickbate!!!"

bannnedd i got wrote:

deer gawd you absolutely LOVE talking about how smart you think you are dont you gary? lolz you must be the most important guy at your IT company huh? the most interesting man at the party? gawd im so jelly of you!

I going to give mindweak some much needed peace of mind.

If someone has a question for me regarding this study, you may ask, and I may respond. Or not.

A few pages back, I tried to get the focus back onto the study, but a couple of posters can't seem to shake their obsession with me, my beliefs, my skepticism, and other things I argued in other threads in the past that have nothing to do with the instant study and the performance of Russian women.

rekrunner wrote:

Because I don't twist the words of others.

You're too busy twisting your own.

Nobody is asking you questions about the Russian study because you have no level of expertise on the subject.

Do we ask Jon Orange physiology questions?

rekrunner wrote:

bannnedd i got wrote:

deer gawd you absolutely LOVE talking about how smart you think you are dont you gary? lolz you must be the most important guy at your IT company huh? the most interesting man at the party? gawd im so jelly of you!

I going to give mindweak some much needed peace of mind.

If someone has a question for me regarding this study, you may ask, and I may respond. Or not.

A few pages back, I tried to get the focus back onto the study, but a couple of posters can't seem to shake their obsession with me, my beliefs, my skepticism, and other things I argued in other threads in the past that have nothing to do with the instant study and the performance of Russian women.

so your going to stop rekking this thread!?!??! holy sh*t its christmas in march!

why is it that your "beliefs" are superior to FACTS is what most of us cant seem to grasp....or is it you cant seem to grasp why non of us support your moronic unfounded biased "beliefs" over FACTS...

lols gary, i lols at you

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Because I don't twist the words of others.

You're too busy twisting your own.

Nobody is asking you questions about the Russian study because you have no level of expertise on the subject.

Do we ask Jon Orange physiology questions?

i think when he is rekking this hard he is busy twisting his nipple, cause only sadistic people could rant and rek this hard. while fapping he prob says "im bout to bring the rekking ball!"

this thread is rikiculous, its a train rek! i will never be rektified, but it def shows one gary in particular with erekticle dysfunction and rektal bleeding....lolz

rekrunner wrote:

Because I don't twist the words of others.

You twist your own. But you don't understand others.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Because I don't twist the words of others.

You twist your own. But you don't understand others.

maybe he "twerks" the words of others....its slightly different right? i know he totally reks threads, so he should at least admit to that but he never does...like a true narcissistic $$hole

so back to the topic before it got rekked.....blood doping gives a 1-4% boost, so i wonder with the high responders to EPO if its 4%+4%???

or maybe if you respond 4% to blood doping your body will only improve 1% extra with added EPO, and if you only improve 1% blood doping then your body gets 4% from EPO??

but what im still waiting on is stabelmaster dropping them damn names! :P

The difference is found in the data of 1500-10 000 times between the Wild West years and the Biological Passport better testing years.

People went giddy when a guy dipped into the 12:40s recently which is so quarter century ago.

I was listening to Kipchoge being interviewed on CNN about the postponement of the Olympics. One of the things he talked about was the team he works with - athletes, coaches, trainers, doctors, and so on - that are all part of achieving elite performance, that included preparing for his Sub-2. He doesn't just run fast, he runs like a business - a scientific business. That's elite and professional sport today.

And yet rekrunner thinks elite athletes would dope on anecdote, guesswork and mere "belief". His "data" doesn't give him much insight or indeed knowledge of top sport today.

(I'm not saying here that Kipchoge is a doper. But he is typical of many top sportsmen/women today, with the kind of organisation that supports him. Forget the loneliness of the long distance runner).

Armstronglivs wrote:

And yet rekrunner thinks elite athletes would dope on anecdote, guesswork and mere "belief". His "data" doesn't give him much insight or indeed knowledge of top sport today...

Based on...

1) the prevalence of blood doping use in many endurance sports

2) allegations of athletes who claimed that they could not've competed without the method (even when most of these have been cyclists)

3) very solid evidence of blood doping-induced performance boost with sub-elite athletes in academic research (some half a dozen time-trial/competition-type tests where running speed improvements of up to 5-6 % have been seen)

4) opinions of experts that the method works on general level with elites with noticeable performance boost (Malm, Schumacher, Ashenden et al)

5) there being next-to-no cases of performance falling because of blood doping

6) the knowledge that your competitors know all the above

... would you perhaps start to use the method and perhaps not give up using it only based on you either observing little-to-no benefit or observing a performance improvement coinciding with your PED use that you are not quite sure where he betterment came from?

If the answer is yes, then you agree with rekrunner.