'We Can Now Estimate the Effect of Blood Doping'

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Still can't answer that question I see. Where's your data for this?

Not only can, but already have.

In the absence of data, we form beliefs.

If you want to say something stronger, that becomes your burden to support this stronger claim.

I am not making the claim - you are. You have said that you know athletes are operating from "belief", but you produce no data to support that claim. You can't. It is only your "belief".

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

Not from the reality that doping works.

Training also works.

That isn't the argument. But go ahead and shift the ground when you are losing, as you do.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

If there are aerobic limits then how is it that athletes can continue to get faster? We see this not only with individual athletes but with the performance improvements that have occurred in the sport over many years.

By doing more of the desired work with less energy.

Armstronglivs wrote:

When training remains a constant - and training methods have little changed since the 70's - then something else is contributing to an athlete's improvements. Either they have not reached their aerobic maximum or they are adding to it - with drugs.

Now you are showing your age. Many things have changed in the last 50 years.

Training methodology has been refined since the 70's.

The sport changed from amateur to professional, and athletes began to specialize in one event.

Not to mention technology in clothing, footwear, sports drinks, and tracks.

1. "By doing more of the desired work with less energy."

- Which doping can and does assist.

2. "Many things have changed in the last 50 years.

Training methodology has been refined since the 70's.

The sport changed from amateur to professional, and athletes began to specialize in one event.

Not to mention technology in clothing, footwear, sports drinks, and tracks".

- All of which assumes, without evidence, that these factors will account for the full extent of all performance increases in the last 50 years. That is only your "belief". You can only discount doping as contributing to those increases if you can prove that it doesn't enhance performance. You can't.

And till now nobody could prove that doping can enhance performances more than proper training, and that, with proper training, can add something more to the performances.

This is valid for EPO only, not for other kind of doping, who have influence in other sectors of the body (like increase in muscle strength, or in the ability of the nervous system), that are not significative in the field of long endurance.

So, you can't say that speaking about training is not the argument of the discussion. Infact, it's not possible to speak of doping without speaking of training, because the two situations are combined and look at the same goal : to improve performances.

And in years and years in LR (ant not only) I NEVER READ ONE TIME SOME CORRECT METHODOLOGICAL DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FINAL GOALS AND THE LIMITS OF TRAINING WHEN WE WANT TO EXPLAIN WHY SOME ATHLETE RUNS FAST, giving to hypothesis of doping (without any direct evidence) all the merit of every improvement.

Get a bunch of guys rocking sub 3:30 and 12:40s on a regular basis like the wild West years then.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

Not even more work with the same amount of energy as before but actually LESS energy.

Show the energy data from this process. Scientifically.

Exercise physiologist Stephen Seiler sums up the adaptations from training in three phases:

1) Short term (roughly VO2max)

2) Mid-term (roughly LT)

3) Long term (Efficiency)

You can find a nice picture on page 97 (see link below).

This simple model is derived from the repeatable observation that performance continues to improve, long after improvements in VO2max and LT have hit their limits.

Of course that's an oversimplification. For a more complex model, look at the picture on page 4. Note once again, many aerobic components, and many non-aerobic components.

Even that model is a simplification.

For a primer on how exercise works:

http://www.owascoveloclub.com/Education_files/EXERCISE%20PHYSIOLOGY.pdf

And doping raises those levels. It's quite simple.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I am not making the claim - you are. You have said that you know athletes are operating from "belief", but you produce no data to support that claim. You can't. It is only your "belief".

You claim that use proves knowledge of effect.

I claim that prevalence is evidence of belief. Lacking evidence of athlete's knowledge and experience, I'm unprepared to say more.

To contradict me, you would have to argue that they take it without believing in it.

Armstronglivs wrote:

That isn't the argument. But go ahead and shift the ground when you are losing, as you do.

Neither is "doping works".

physics defiant wrote:

And doping raises those levels. It's quite simple.

The unresolved question then is how that impacts performance for those who are already at the top.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I am not making the claim - you are. You have said that you know athletes are operating from "belief", but you produce no data to support that claim. You can't. It is only your "belief".

You claim that use proves knowledge of effect.

I claim that prevalence is evidence of belief. Lacking evidence of athlete's knowledge and experience, I'm unprepared to say more.

To contradict me, you would have to argue that they take it without believing in it.

Athlete's have talked about their experience.

They wouldn't have to believe in it or not. They would just need to be willing to try it from a neutral perspective and then make a decision if the effect is positive.

Many people experiment with alcohol or other drugs with a similar perspective.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

And doping raises those levels. It's quite simple.

The unresolved question then is how that impacts performance for those who are already at the top.

The amount the athletes at the top slipped when the ABP and advanced EPO tests came out is the amount it impacts performance.

This is not rocket surgery.

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The unresolved question then is how that impacts performance for those who are already at the top.

The amount the athletes at the top slipped when the ABP and advanced EPO tests came out is the amount it impacts performance.

This is not rocket surgery.

No, it's faith and fallacy. You make too many assumptions.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

The amount the athletes at the top slipped when the ABP and advanced EPO tests came out is the amount it impacts performance.

This is not rocket surgery.

No, it's faith and fallacy. You make too many assumptions.

I make no assumptions at all. The data tells us.

Once again, you don't have the doping data.

rekrunner wrote:

Once again, you don't have the doping data.

Eddy H, Ramzi. Mourhit, Boulami., Lombard.... everyone who magically got faster and then slower. Or faster later and then popped big time.

Data.

You said athletes at the top, and Eddy H. and Lombard are in your top-5 set of data?

I thought we were talking about the crazy times of the Wild West.

rekrunner wrote:

You said athletes at the top, and Eddy H. and Lombard are in your top-5 set of data?

I thought we were talking about the crazy times of the Wild West.

Weak.

Top of every category. World, Nation, Age etc.

The Wild West is a category all by itself. From the standpoint of data.

At least you realize the times were crazy back then.

Ah, the power of belief. I'm surprised more religious folks aren't walking on water and ascending to the heavens.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I am not making the claim - you are. You have said that you know athletes are operating from "belief", but you produce no data to support that claim. You can't. It is only your "belief".

You claim that use proves knowledge of effect.

I claim that prevalence is evidence of belief. Lacking evidence of athlete's knowledge and experience, I'm unprepared to say more.

To contradict me, you would have to argue that they take it without believing in it.

The only correct part of that response is that you say you lack evidence of an athlete's knowledge and experience. Yes, you are indeed ignorant if that.

"To contradict me you would have to argue they take it without believing in it". So knowledge can only be accompanied by disbelief? The scientists who put a man on the moon could only achieve that if they didn't believe they could do it? You are like a toddler who puts his pants on back to front.

I realise it is too sophisticated a distinction for you to grasp but there is belief without evidence - of which you are the master - and belief that is founded on evidence, which is how any form of achievement in the world is accomplished. You confuse the two, chiefly because accomplishment is not part of your experience.

An athlete might believe they are capable of winning a championship or setting a record, based on their assessment of the goal, their talent and their preparation. Many achieve that goal because the data they relied upon was accurate. Belief - self-belief - was rational. But then you decide - without evidence - that rationality departs them when they choose to dope, as though they have no factual basis for concluding it will help them. The only rationality that is lost here is yours. You can only conclude that doping is not a rational or evidence-based decision if you can prove it does not advantage an athlete. Of course - that is what you believe. A belief without evidence, but one that is consistent with a doping denier.

physics defiant wrote:

Weak.

Top of every category. World, Nation, Age etc.

The Wild West is a category all by itself. From the standpoint of data.

At least you realize the times were crazy back then.

Ah, the power of belief. I'm surprised more religious folks aren't walking on water and ascending to the heavens.

Yes, your examples are very weak. As I said above, if you want to "prove by examples" (aka fallacy), to be convincing you at least have to show enough examples at the top to show a disproportionate concentration at the top. For example, provide similar statistics like others have done for 100m and for the Tour de France. This is also not "proof" as such, being subject to bias from confounding factors, but you haven't even met this low bar.

Once we dig deeper than one or two hand-picked examples (after discarding aging masters, and runners who would be lapped by the top), as I already have, we see that the East Africans have not really slowed down that much, and in the marathon, they actually got a lot faster. We also see that all of the countries of the West never had its ironically named Wild West years. Despite global prevalence and alleged significant effect, only small pockets of population in East Africa, and some in North Africa did.