'We Can Now Estimate the Effect of Blood Doping'

Armstronglivs wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

The Cheetah theory has been disproven by later studies in a more realistic scenario. They likely stop based more on weighing the potential for a kill or not. The way they kill leaves them a bit more of a disadvantage than an animal that is just fleeing or has multiple pack members to share the load. I realize that they do hunt somewhat in groups but still.

Essentially it would be like asking a 400m guy to run down someone and then sticking a sock in his mouth and asking him to choke someone out.

Here's a study:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2013.0472

But apparently not a problem if he breathes through his nose. I'll never believe David Attenborough again.

No doubt that still works but their neck often gets all scrunched up in the struggle Certainly they need to maintain a considerable reserve of energy to actually complete the job.

Crowd Sorcerer wrote:

Renato Canova wrote:

...also higher ability to remove lactate from the muscle fibers, and the ability to quickly remove lactate can be considered one of the most important characteristics for a high aerobic ability.

I hope that the discussion can be again in scientific direction, provoking the end of boring personal duels without nothing interesting that are, sorry, the only argument in this thread, till now.

I believe increased circulating levels of EPO have been show to increase lactate buffering capacity without any increase in actual hematocrit.

For the sake of science I wish world class runners could try serious doping, such as hct being elevated to just under 60%, immediately after retiring. Of course this is a fantasy that can't happen, but it would at least be interesting to see what sort of effect there would be.

Ask Kiptum at ~57 (hgb 18.9).

physics defiant wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

But apparently not a problem if he breathes through his nose. I'll never believe David Attenborough again.

No doubt that still works but their neck often gets all scrunched up in the struggle Certainly they need to maintain a considerable reserve of energy to actually complete the job.

Um, I was referring there to your 400m runner with the sock in his mouth ...

But, of course, we know animals have actually doped for years - and it's worked for them. It's a practice that's rife in the horse-racing industry. I defy anyone to tell me that a thoroughbred isn't racing to its cardiovascular limits - and as doping shows, it can improve on those limits without running into a thermoregulatory impediment. Just like an.altitude-trained elite athlete.

It seems everybody talks about doping improving the level of Hct and Hb, not about doping improving the level of performances.

We can control if with EPO the level of Hb and Hct can rise, this is a FACT.

We can't control if , and how much, with EPO the level of the performance can improve.

Put in your mind that, about the doping with steroids, NUMBERS show clearly their effect on the performances : not one WR in throwing after 1988, no one WR in the sprint and jump events for women after the same period, dominated by East Germany athletes (and you know also in US sprinters and throwers did not use exactly bread and water only…).

Instead, if you look at the first 100 performances all-time in long distances, in spite of antidping tests advanced compared with many years ago, and also of a higher number of OOC tests, the number of banned athletes (or because EPO was found in their urines, or because of the Biological Passport) in long distances is very little, and in several cases the banned athletes were able to run their PB after the period of ban (and during the last year of ban they were controlled OOC a lot of times):

So, we don't have any EVIDENCE about the advantages of EPO doping at top level, because we have the following categories :

1- Athletes OF SURE doped because officially banned. In this category, we can put Abraham Kiptum, Rita Jeptoo, Jemima Sumgong, Asbel Kiprop (personally I'm not sure about this case), Ruth Jebet, Mathew Kisorio (who after the ban improved of 6 minutes his PB in Marathon).

2-Athletes SUPPOSED doped. In this case, the opinion of LR posters and of the coaches of top athletes is very different, because we have suspicion about some athlete, but not connected with the performance only, that is the main reason at the origin of speculations of doping from people using their keyboard but not knowing the "ground" where athletes live and train

3- Athletes who OF SURE were clean till some period of their career, and started to look at doping when no more able to achieve the same performances. This category, that is the bigger among doped athletes, doesn't exist in the mind of LR posters, because, when some athlete 30 years old is caught, everybody supposes he already used doping when was 16.... and again the difference in the evaluation depends on the personal knowledge of the athlete.

4- Athletes who OF SURE were clean for all their athletic career, Always maintaining a high level of ethics in their behavior. In this case, coaches with the same type of ethics know very well the athletes and are sure about themselves, but of course this category can't be accepted by people thinking that without doping is not possible running fast.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Um, I was referring there to your 400m runner with the sock in his mouth ...

But, of course, we know animals have actually doped for years - and it's worked for them. It's a practice that's rife in the horse-racing industry. I defy anyone to tell me that a thoroughbred isn't racing to its cardiovascular limits - and as doping shows, it can improve on those limits without running into a thermoregulatory impediment. Just like an.altitude-trained elite athlete.

Apologies for misunderstanding which "Cheetah" we were talking about.

With horses the old too thick blood doesn't hold much water either. Horses have built in blood boosting and it has long been known that specific dehydration enhances racehorse performance. Either through '"drawing" or lasix.

physics defiant wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Um, I was referring there to your 400m runner with the sock in his mouth ...

But, of course, we know animals have actually doped for years - and it's worked for them. It's a practice that's rife in the horse-racing industry. I defy anyone to tell me that a thoroughbred isn't racing to its cardiovascular limits - and as doping shows, it can improve on those limits without running into a thermoregulatory impediment. Just like an.altitude-trained elite athlete.

Apologies for misunderstanding which "Cheetah" we were talking about.

With horses the old too thick blood doesn't hold much water either. Horses have built in blood boosting and it has long been known that specific dehydration enhances racehorse performance. Either through '"drawing" or lasix.

Cheater. I like that.

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.

Let's here some appropriate words from Dr. Fauci, separating Team Trump, who would take drugs simply on the rationale of "what have you got to lose", who put their faith and hope in anecdotes of an unproven drug, which might have some effect, from scientists like Dr. Fauci whose job is to prove that a drug is not only safe, but actually works.

rekrunner wrote:

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.

Let's here some appropriate words from Dr. Fauci, separating Team Trump, who would take drugs simply on the rationale of "what have you got to lose", who put their faith and hope in anecdotes of an unproven drug, which might have some effect, from scientists like Dr. Fauci whose job is to prove that a drug is not only safe, but actually works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHWEXaTFPKI

'Hear"

All drugs are unproven until they are proven. All of them are proven safe or not only after being used.

Dr Fauci is doing his job.

rekrunner wrote:

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.

Let's here some appropriate words from Dr. Fauci, separating Team Trump, who would take drugs simply on the rationale of "what have you got to lose", who put their faith and hope in anecdotes of an unproven drug, which might have some effect, from scientists like Dr. Fauci whose job is to prove that a drug is not only safe, but actually works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHWEXaTFPKI

Your quote from Dr Fauci is not on point to the comment you think you are responding to. I would expect that from you.

Fauci is responding to a suggestion that a drug used medically in one context could be used in another, without it being established that it would be effective. Quite apart from the risks to health involved, he is saying that clinical trials should be undertaken to test the efficacy (and safety) of any drug.

Drugs that have been used for years to enhance performance are not in the same category as a drug proposed as a cure for disease with no confirmation of its efficacy. Your subject comparison doesn't stand up, as you are not comparing like with like. A drug previously used to treat malaria being proposed as a cure for COVID-19 bears no relation to a long-established drug like EPO used as a means of enhancing sports performance. A more accurate comparison would have been Dr Fauci questioning whether paracetamol works on headaches. Aah - yeah, we know it does.

Indeed, Dr Fauci's position, which is essentially that a drug requires proof that it does what people think it does is exactly how the doping industry works, with athletes use of the drugs substituting for clinical trials - but with a far greater pool of subjects.

You prove my original point, that you don't understand the world of the elite athlete but you add a further, that you don't understand what experts like Fauci are saying, either.

I don't disagree with you and I am on general level on the skeptical side about the presumed magnificent effects of rHuEPO/blood doping. Still I'd be interested to know if you have any idea if there could exist any type of possible academic approach to test your ideas even if the study gave only a proxy answer to the question of trainability/effects of rHuEPO on high altitude Kenyans.

I think you also agree that as long as your proposition is unfalsifiable, it will be attacked as unsound on karlpopperite - grounds that "a theory that explains everything explains nothing".

Of course it is directly on point. Most doping athletes and doping coaches, are like you and Trump, using an irrationale to make decisions based on anecdotes and hope for a potential effect not yet proven by scientists.

But your beliefs, and the beliefs of doping athletes and their coaches is actually quite irrelevant, because I have performance data of the fastest elite runners, and I know what the elite results are over the past six decades.

physics defiant wrote:

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

No one is asking anyone any questions about this study.

You don't need to be an expert on the subject to comment on how effective the study advances its hypothesis. You only need to be adept in rules of the scientific method, and basic fundamental logic.

The title of the paper is "Association Between Implementation of the Athlete Biological Passport and Female Elite Runners’ Performance".

So some obvious questions.

1) Did they show an association? Arguably, yes.

2) Could it be a spurious association? Arguably, yes.

Other real world factors unconsidered by the study:

1) Changes in the use of other drugs, like steroids, also known to be highly effective for women. For example, we know in 2012 that Russians switch from Turinabol to an alcoholic steroid mouthwash they rinse and spit.

2) For several reasons, the group of women from 2013-2017 are not quite comparable to the group of women from 2008-2012.

i - Russia was under increasing scrutiny and pressure by the IAAF anti-doping starting as early as 2012 and world scrutiny in 2014. This would have a deterrent effect on doping.

ii - Russia was banned by the IAAF in Nov. 2015. This would disrupt elite competition schedules.

iii - WADA revoked their approval for the Moscow lab in 2015. This would impact their ability to hide positives.

iv - Their top anti-doping expert, the one who knew best how to hide doping, was forced to flee the country.

v - Many athletes between 2008-2012 were subsequently banned in the period of 2013-2017. Imagine comparing your top-8 runners on a cross-country team to the remaining top-8 after removing your #1, #3, #6, and #8 runners, and what the expected impact of the average of the top-8 would be.

3) Another study was recently published, hypothesizing a deterrent effect of the ABP implementation. After comparing 2011 World Championship to 2013 World Championship, there conclusion was "our results do not support this hypothesis".

Conclusion: Can we now estimate the effect of blood doping? Maybe; maybe not; need more data.

rekrunner wrote:

Of course it is directly on point. Most doping athletes and doping coaches, are like you and Trump, using an irrationale to make decisions based on anecdotes and hope for a potential effect not yet proven by scientists.

But your beliefs, and the beliefs of doping athletes and their coaches is actually quite irrelevant, because I have performance data of the fastest elite runners, and I know what the elite results are over the past six decades.

You mistake who is Trump here. He thinks he is the only one who knows - regardless of what anyone else thinks, including the experts. You put yourself in the same position of claiming to know better than generations of athletes, coaches, and scientists involved in doping. You are also apparently unaware that scientists and physicians are involved in devising, producing and testing these drugs - as well as masking them. To you the drugs apparently emerge from the ground like mushrooms. You also don't grasp that the use of drugs by countless athletes over the years would exceed any sample that would be part of a clinical trial. How much proof is required to know they work?

Your performance data of the fastest elite runners tells you only who are the fastest runners - not who is doping, and what is a clean or doped performance. Only a fraction have incurred doping violations yet we know many more athletes dope that aren't caught. As you allow yourself no definite evidence that any are doping unless they have incurred confirmed doping violations you have no means of knowing the effects of doping on elites. It is like claiming to know the extent of COVID-19 when testing isn't comprehensive. There are an enormous number of variables that can be taken into account in doping; you ignore all but those that allow to you to come to your predetermined conclusions. Fortunately, Dr Fauci doesn't think as you do. But his boss does.

I am like the scientist Dr. Fauci, cautioning that, for many of the drugs, and many of the events, the effect hasn't been proven yet by competent scientists.

I know how to correlate data, and when correlations are high and when they are low.

If we assume that many are doping, and we assume that doping is significantly effective for the fastest runners, we would see it in the performance data.

rekrunner wrote:

Of course it is directly on point. Most doping athletes and doping coaches, are like you and Trump, using an irrationale to make decisions based on anecdotes and hope for a potential effect not yet proven by scientists.

But your beliefs, and the beliefs of doping athletes and their coaches is actually quite irrelevant, because I have performance data of the fastest elite runners, and I know what the elite results are over the past six decades.

You don't have their doping regime data though.

rekrunner wrote:

and basic fundamental logic.

Woah, now. You gave yourself a bit too much credit there.

All the holes you see you see in the Russian study were filled over a decade ago by the decline in times after EPO tests and ABP were instituted to the whole of the athletic population.

Renato,

I have often disagreed with you on here about the effects of doping. I still disagree with you, but don't have the heart and energy to get into this right now.

I just want to wish you the best of health for you, for your loved ones, etc. It is a really scary time out there.

Thank you for your message. Here we are living very tough times, it seems that the trend of people dying never can finish, and not only with old and sick people.

Yesterday in France one girl 16y old died, without any pregressed disease ; in Italy we had 5 people between 30 and 40 years who died without any other problem.

We learnt that the Virus is not very Dangerous if attacked at the beginning, but, if we lose 2-3 days for some reason, can become lethal also for Young and strong people.

Anyway, we are "passive" Actors in this situation, becoming "active" only when try to follow the rules of the Government, in this situation every individual choice can't produce good results but only danger for the person itself and for other people.

Instead, the "active" Actors are Doctors and Nurses in the hospitals, who continue to give their action also if Always in danger. From the beginning, already 56 doctors died for the Virus, and about 600 between doctors and nurses were infected.

These people are, at the moment, the real "heroes", and I invite everybody to help them in every possible way, in every part of the World.

We do. What we don't see is a clean base.