'We Can Now Estimate the Effect of Blood Doping'

round and round and round with the bs wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

But only the data that fits.

Figured out what thermoregulation is yet? Or is it easier to ignore it, because ignorance fits your theory?

The UFO thread is over there.

Subway Surfers wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

That doesn't sound like my hypothesis. By 2016-17, there were already several elite men busted.

Oh coronavirus must have given you amnesia because your common response was to the busts were that it was only women. Renato also weighed in claiming it was just washed up women who had left "proper" coaching and were now being coached by their husbands.

It is not likely, after the 2012 busts of athletes like Goumri and Kisorio, that I would respond by saying no men elite men have ever been busted.

rekrunner wrote:

Subway Surfers wrote:

Oh coronavirus must have given you amnesia because your common response was to the busts were that it was only women. Renato also weighed in claiming it was just washed up women who had left "proper" coaching and were now being coached by their husbands.

It is not likely, after the 2012 busts of athletes like Goumri and Kisorio, that I would respond by saying no men elite men have ever been busted.

What a shame. Because they gained no advantage from their doping, did they?

round and round and round with the bs wrote:

My point is that those PhDs are conceptually inept. Either Thermoregulation is the basis of Bioenergetics or it's not. You can't have it both ways. That's why Ex Phy is stuck in the 1930s.

It's not just Professor X who doen't undertand this, it's 99.9% of people in the field, including most of the Peer Reviewers. They have all been brought up in this fantasy world of superhuman calorimetry, which became a big idea in the 1930s even though it was known to be nonsense by intelligent researchers in the 1920s.

Professor X doesn't have a Bioenergetics and Biomechanics model, because he simply can't compute the concepts in a rational frame of reference. The whole field of study is completely distorted by this lack of undertanding of basic effing physiology.

You have no idea some of the superhuman things Professor X has seen.

Are we at 20 years of waiting for your book, Jon? I think so.

It seems to be hard for you to put into words.

rekrunner wrote:

Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:

The "Duchess Cocktail" (oxandrolone, methenolone, and trenbolone)was used exclusively at Sochi and not so much with the Russian mid-d & distance runners:

Exclusively? According to McClaren report, it was developed already for the London 2012 Games.

Okay...however, there's no evidence that Duchess was used at London. There's certainly no evidence that the Russian women runners used the cocktail - only oxy was used from the steroids that make up Duchess. Evidence supports that turinbol & EPO were their main cocktail. In fact, if you look at the total number of drug positives for the entire Russian team at London virtually all were for turinbol (20!). Turinbol isn't one of the three steroids in the Duchess Cocktail - so it may have been ready for London but not used for whatever reason. Russia had a Games leading total IC-doping violations of 32! Not one of their finer moments. ?

Subway Surfers wrote:

Anavar has always been an underrated steriod. When I was a teenager I was coached by a top female sprinter who raced FloJo and the East Germans in the 1980s and she adamant that Anavar was rife then, she said it was was the ENERGY steriod, "they were all using it" back then.

Definitely...and it has less androgenic effects so some women like it more (Savinova asked her coach to switch her from T to Anavar because she was concerned about "growing a beard" and developing a "man's voice" while on T. ?).

I was watching a recent WADA symposium where they said they're concerned with the high use of SARMs with athletics. At the gym I lift at SARMs is definitely the buzzword. Someone told me one of the main supply companies is located in the UK and they're generally sold out. SARMs could be the big one used at the Games, if it's still a go.

Our main disagreement is only how much one can read about the benefits of blood doping on presumably widespread use alone. Because there exists next-to-no cases of blood doping having a detrimental effect on performance (unlike steroids) and because the anti-doping system catches presumably only the most extreme and unlucky dopers, the decision to blood dope can actually be based on "crude speculative gamble" with very little knowledge about exact outcomes.

I'd go as far as to state that if there is widespread belief that some individual athletes have boosted their performance by 3-5 % in the past with blood doping and your competitors can use the method, many rational athletes would use the method and continue to use it regardless of how little benefit they experience themselves particularly when it is not always that easy to attribute performance improvement to just one factor.

That having been written, I actually also do think that most of the athletes taking EPO or transfusions get real benefit from it.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I'm willing to bett he wouldn't have won without it.

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1092191/tsegu-receives-four-year-ban-epo-test

Yes, I was wondering if this had been on the boards here. A 27-flat Ethiopian caught on epo, the mind boggles at the implications of that one. There goes Rekrunner's hypothesis from circa 2016-17 that it was only a few sporadic East African women being busted and not elite men ?

Here's the details of his DT - pretty cut & dry case:

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

That would be all of the data.

That fits.

I don't know what point you two want to make. I didn't reject any data here.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

That fits.

I don't know what point you two want to make. I didn't reject any data here.

You rejected it there though.

Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:

Okay...however, there's no evidence that Duchess was used at London. There's certainly no evidence that the Russian women runners used the cocktail ...

Well if the cocktail worked as designed, there wouldn't be any evidence, would there?

In any case, the original question is why this study ignores steroids.

physics defiant wrote:

You rejected it there though.

No I didn't.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

You rejected it there though.

No I didn't.

Uh, yeah you did.

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

No I didn't.

Uh, yeah you did.

Without specificity, it's hard to tell what you are talking about.

But generally, I accept all data, within margins of error, yet remain unpersuaded by arguments and conclusions necessarily based on faith and/or fallacy.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

Uh, yeah you did.

Without specificity, it's hard to tell what you are talking about.

But generally, I accept all data, within margins of error, yet remain unpersuaded by arguments and conclusions necessarily based on faith and/or fallacy.

Yeah, you've been pushing that for the last 500 posts. You have a lot of faith in your data.

Here is a quotation from the "discussion" section of the paper:

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Without specificity, it's hard to tell what you are talking about.

But generally, I accept all data, within margins of error, yet remain unpersuaded by arguments and conclusions necessarily based on faith and/or fallacy.

Yeah, you've been pushing that for the last 500 posts. You have a lot of faith in your data.

I've been pushing that for much longer, and it's been pushed in the West since the Age of Enlightenment. And yet people still attempt to persuade me using the same faith based and fallacious arguments, after I've explained many times precisely why these attempts fail.

It is not "my" data -- I rely on data that belongs to the public, or has been made public. And I have faith in well established academic processes used to arrive at robust conclusions.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

Yeah, you've been pushing that for the last 500 posts. You have a lot of faith in your data.

I've been pushing that for much longer, and it's been pushed in the West since the Age of Enlightenment. And yet people still attempt to persuade me using the same faith based and fallacious arguments, after I've explained many times precisely why these attempts fail.

It is not "my" data -- I rely on data that belongs to the public, or has been made public. And I have faith in well established academic processes used to arrive at robust conclusions.

Nobody is trying to persuade you of anything at this point. Except maybe to stop trolling threads where people are talking about the facts of PEDs. Maybe you are the one trying to persuade with faith and fallacy?