'We Can Now Estimate the Effect of Blood Doping'

Armstronglivs wrote:

Someone who perpetually resorts to dictionary definitions of simple words in order to explain what he means has no idea what he really means, or is incapable of constructing statements whose meaning can be clearly understood.

But there is also method to this. A person who continually argues that others never properly understand what he means is someone who must always find a way to be right - especially when he has been shown to be wrong. And what kind of person wishes to be invariably right - about everything - at least in his own eyes? Welcome to the world of the narcissist.

Recently I used it to show that you don't seem to know the primary meaning of some words, words such as "similar" and "belief".

Your method is to rewrite what I say, "in other words", creating new unintended meanings, not possible with my words. Now I know it is because you learned a thing or two about words and interpretations.

It could be my unclear writing, but using "similar effect" to describe the outcome of two kinds of studies seems about as clear as it can be, and it does not mean "same or better results".

Rewriting things in your own words seems to be the only way you can refute my arguments, but they are not really mine. I often call that a strawman.

Another method you use is to make up imaginary rules such as "someone who perpetually resorts ..." to suggest that I am the one failing to comprehend the primary meanings of words.

Armstronglivs wrote:

An argument can be logically true and yet false - if the premises are false. In rekrunner's case, he uses "belief" both as a false premise and as a false conclusion. Because blood-doping doesn't improve performance amongst certain athletes, he says - without proof, and assuming the clean athletes used for this comparison are in fact clean - the belief that it aids performance is not supported by the facts. Hence the fallacy that "a false belief in the efficacy of blood doping leads to blood doping, which proves that the practise of blood doping is based on belief not fact". It is a circular argument that assumes that which has to be proven. Logic fail. Not to mention the facts are wrong.

Here is your latest example of taking my arguments and transforming them, creating new meanings that are not mine. Here are a few things you changed:

- I made no comparison where I assumed any athletes were clean. I compared the best of one era, to the best of another era, and with respect to doping, there are four possibilities (with variations), not mutually exclusive. My conclusion was one of performance, regardless of doping: poorer quantity and poorer quality for the very best non-Africans over 28 years.

- The basis for smaller effects for higher talents is, not from the comparison, but from a principle of decreasing effect as a function of increasing talent. Meta-studies that suggest that 30-years of blood doping studies over-estimated the observed effect on non-elites, suggests even smaller effect for the highest talents.

- The basis for the decision to break the rules, with potentially heavy consequences, is an incomplete set of facts, complemented by beliefs. These are not mutually exclusive. More facts would only make the beliefs stronger.

Aragon wrote:

- Could you be kind in the future and to correct that "1 to 4 percent" to "slightly above zero to 4 percent", because eminent exercise physiologist E. Randy Eichner's estimate was a couple of seconds in a 10 k race.

What changed? Serious question; in November 2018 you wrote:

Aragon wrote:

In any case the one percent was not only "suggested here" by rekrunner but was also an opinion of people such as Michael Ashenden and Randy Eichner.

What changed was the context of the remark.

In that old thread someone pretty much suggested that no sane person would give the estimate of 1 % as the blood doping - boost because some cyclists considered rHuEPO a "game changer".

I just pointed out that Eichner and Ashenden indeed had voiced this opinion, and case for as low figure as 1 % had been even stronger if I'd estimated how much "a few seconds" (Eichner's words) in a 10000 m race would've been, likely less than 0.5 %.

And yes, I have no idea whose opinion is right, and it is occasionally confusing when blood doping and rHuEPO are used in context in which it always isn't that clear what exactly is meant or are they in essence the same.

It's like you've found a PED for Narcissism.

Looks like you've found deflection and denial.

rekrunner wrote:

Looks like you've found deflection and denial.

Yes, in every post you make.

I find nothing in yours.

Aragon wrote:

On general level I have issues with estimates even if they originate from experts. Sometimes same experts can give different estimates, and even when some figures are given during CAS hearing, these experts haven't published papers on the issue of performance boost (Schumacher will be an exception), ergo we don't know how fully they have thought through the subject, their performance increase estimates have no impact on the case (contrary to their ABP-readings) and they are almost certainly called primarily to give their expert opinion about blood parameters in which they have published papers on.

I don't have any issues with the anti-doping experts testifying at DTs & CAS hearings (I find them very informative and a great resource for learning about the ABP). In fact, Schumacher has testified to a one (1) minute gain over 10,000m in one CAS hearing and a general statement of "high HGB values enhance sporting performance" in the Ugarova CAS hearing. Like you said he's published papers, and he's a senior member of the anti-doping expert panel plus he's been team physician for the German Olympic team since 2000 - so I think he might know a thing or two about the performance boost with elites.

Additionally, in an anti-doping symposium hosted by Ross Tucker, Schumacher talked some about the performance boost with doping. Not giving any specific percentages, he states micro-doping = micro effect and macro-doping = macro effect, which isn't anything new. He further states that the magnitude of the effect of full doping is different in every individual - the same dose of EPO will not have the same effect on every individual. On micro-dosing, he says since the performance difference is 1% or less among the top athletes, that a small effect of doping will have a measurable effect on the outcome of the race. Here's the video - Schumacher's comments on this start @ 29:30:

Also, the fact that "elevated hemoglobin" levels from doping improves performance does have an impact on the merits of ABP case, and will also show and substantiate a doping scheme/plan at or near the athlete's competition schedule which is important when it comes to the disqualification of race results under the unfair advantage clause (e.g. Ugarova CAS hearing: CAS 2016/0/4463):

"141. The Sole Arbitrator does not deem it appropriate to entirely dispose of any disqualification of results as he is convinced that the Athlete doped and because the main purpose of disqualification of results is not to punish the transgressor, but rather to correct any unfair advantage and remove any tainted performances from the record (LEWIS / TAYLOR (Eds.), Sport: Law and Practice, 2014, para. C.162, with further references). The Sole Arbitrator, considering that neither a doping scheme, nor a doping plan has been established in the present case, deems it adequate and proportionate comparing to other cases where a single anti-doping rule violation could have been established through the analysis of a positive sample, to disqualify the results of the Athlete for a period of six months. Six months seem to be a period long enough for an anti-doping organization to perform results management including a possibledisciplinary proceeding."

I take this to be that the ban (e.g., 2 yrs, 4yrs, 8 yrs, etc.) is punishment for the breaking the rules of doping while the disqualification of results is to correct any "unfair advantage and remove tainted performances" from the performance benefit of doping (i.e., elevated hemoglobin from a prohibited substance or prohibited method in ABP-hematological anomalies cases).

rekrunner wrote:

I find nothing in yours.

Even Anne Sullivan couldn't help you.

rekrunner wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

The principle of diminishing return is quite logical here too, but to argue it down to zero stands against all practical experiences (see Sumgong, Jeptoo, Kiptum, Kiprop, Boulami, Jebet, Aden, Salazar, Armstrong, Ullrich, Pantani, Riis, etc. etc.), including your nice graph, and the many informed expert opinions ranging from 1% to 4% for elite runners.

However, rekrunner pretends that it's zero at the top:

... unless that was meant philosophically in the sense that it always works because there is always a weakness because nobody is perfect.

That's only half of the equation.

It isn't an equation. It is an assertion. You said above that "EPO works, if and only if, there is a weakness, and EPO serves to strengthen that weakness". That is a claim. Based on what?

The implication of that claim is its negation, that "EPO doesn't work if the athlete doesn't have a weakness". Quite apart from the obvious fact that this, too, is an unsubstantiated assertion, it further begs the question of what is a "weakness" - and, correspondingly, what is the "absence of a weakness". What are the scientific criteria that define a sporting "weakness"?

I doubt that the dictionary will help with any of this.

I have nothing against people testifying in CAS-hearings or giving their opinion even about subject matters where they are by denition right (wrong) because it can't be established which way it is. These estimates voiced even by experts generally haven't gone through anything reminiscent of a peer-review process and neither have the lower estimates by experts such as Eichner, Ashenden, Kuipers (sports MD since the 1970s) or Heuberger.

Is it the existence of the boost or its magnitude? I read the CAS-material only quickly, but am not convinced the magnitude of the boost (expert view) has any effect on the outcome. Was the outcome of the Ugarova-case based on whether she got 0.159 % or 3.777 % boost in a given race or during a certain time-period because of her regimen or was a (likely) boost (of unknown magnitude) enough for the removal of the records?

There is no disagreement here at all, my un-qualified un-expert opinion [sic.] has been consistently that there is no generic "boost" across all the disciplines and different individuals even with similar type of blood doping regimes.

The interesting question is how much of this low responsiveness is related to genetics or residence (high vs. low altitude) in which case it isn't unreasonable to speculate that some sub-groups can be expected to get close to 0 % benefit from blood doping.

It might seem a naive question, but as the studies were only a drop in the pool of athletes estimated to dope, how much reliance can we place on what they tell us? This is especially so when the very best athletes have not participated in these studies and we also see significant variance between individual athletes in some of the studies referred to.

I have the sense we are trying to measure the size of a creature when all we can see is its tail.

I think Ashenden, Schumacher and other scientists along with Aden have the most expertise on the subject - from what we know.

Ashenden, Schumacher, ... - see Let's get to the bottom of this and my earlier comments: both have seen several blood-doping athletes' ABP along with their performances, and are well published in the field.

Aden - has evidently experimented with EPO et al. since years, forming superstars. He isn't talking though (yet), but his impressive year-long success with elites at the very top speaks for itself.

One could assume the same for the Rosas, but it's not clear how direct their involvement was.

None of those thinks the boost from EPO approximates zero at the very top.

On the other hand, Canova says he has no first hand experience with blood-doping, and is apparently way too optimistic. E.g., his claims about Jeptoo (was clean in Boston '14 - lol) and Sang (all his athletes are clean - not), repeated in this thread, are evidently wrong.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

That's only half of the equation.

It isn't an equation. It is an assertion. You said above that "EPO works, if and only if, there is a weakness, and EPO serves to strengthen that weakness". That is a claim. Based on what?

The implication of that claim is its negation, that "EPO doesn't work if the athlete doesn't have a weakness". Quite apart from the obvious fact that this, too, is an unsubstantiated assertion, it further begs the question of what is a "weakness" - and, correspondingly, what is the "absence of a weakness". What are the scientific criteria that define a sporting "weakness"?

I doubt that the dictionary will help with any of this.

My claim is self-evident.

For a master of conjunction, your "negation" also leaves out half of the equation.

I'll leave you the exercise of finding out what weakness means.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It isn't an equation. It is an assertion. You said above that "EPO works, if and only if, there is a weakness, and EPO serves to strengthen that weakness". That is a claim. Based on what?

The implication of that claim is its negation, that "EPO doesn't work if the athlete doesn't have a weakness". Quite apart from the obvious fact that this, too, is an unsubstantiated assertion, it further begs the question of what is a "weakness" - and, correspondingly, what is the "absence of a weakness". What are the scientific criteria that define a sporting "weakness"?

I doubt that the dictionary will help with any of this.

My claim is self-evident.

For a master of conjunction, your "negation" also leaves out half of the equation.

I'll leave you the exercise of finding out what weakness means.

Found it. Your arguments.

And now we are back to grade school.

rekrunner wrote:

And now we are back to grade school.

You could use another trip through that it seems. Maybe you can learn something this time around.

None of those perhaps doesn't think the boost is close to zero, but Dr. Harm Kuipers comes occasionally close.

He has studied sports medicine since the 1970s, been anti-doping activist, monitored blood values of speed skaters (the first sport to implement blood abnormality tests around 1998-99), and testified in some CAS cases as a medical advisor for the Skating Union (e.g. Claudia Pechstein, 2009). On the Armstrong case his view was that the Ferrari-program was actually efficient and caused most of improvement and on another occasion the following:

In other instances he has described the EPO-boost "a few watts", and expressed as his view that most of the improvement from the performance boost of EPO is actually placebo.

Maybe the guy (who has coauthored a skeptical meta-analysis on EPO) is just wrong, but it is still a qualified expert opinion.