casual obsever wrote:
Morning Aragon. That is a hypothetical question, which implies it's possible that blood-doping provides only a negligible boost.
In any case, a major difference is that rekrunner calls the decision to start blood-doping based on belief, instead of convincing facts. Another major difference is that he has routinely argued against all points you listed instead of accepting them - well to his credit, it appears he has stopped arguing against point 1.
Perhaps I don't fully understand the syntax of my non-native language, but a rare belief originates in a vacuum (with angel Gibriil whispering into your ear what is true and what is not).
I haven't seen rekrunner disputing the possibility that the belief that it is beneficial to blood dope might be based on the tenets I mentioned. I actually see him mostly criticizing the accuracy/relevance of the first five points from the endurange running viewpoint. I think there are questions how much the points convey information about how much blood doping benefits running performance of (particularly altitude trained) elite males.
Your last point depends on data which won't be available; elite athletes trained at altitude who are doping will not volunteer as study subjects. We can only estimate the effects of doping on their performances through indirect evidence. That evidence still suggests a likely benefit, even if its extent cannot be measured exactly.