'We Can Now Estimate the Effect of Blood Doping'

Of course the data represents what was measured.

Thanks for the quick tour around your thoughts.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I can't stop talking about you? You put yourself into every conversation about doping. Like you have here.

The results of the study don't surprise me. But you don't want my insights. You are only interested in "data".

Thanks for the kind of depth of insight that a half-century inside the sport can provide.

rekrunner wrote:

Of course the data represents what was measured.

Thanks for the quick tour around your thoughts.

You're welcome. Hopefully you have gained insight in how to cut to the core of data and derive a concrete answer from it.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I can't stop talking about you? You put yourself into every conversation about doping. Like you have here.

The results of the study don't surprise me. But you don't want my insights. You are only interested in "data".

Thanks for the kind of depth of insight that a half-century inside the sport can provide.

The insight is chiefly of you. That's why so little needed to be said.

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Interesting -- can you elaborate?

No need. The data does that.

And the authors.

What about you casual? You think ABP is the good hypothesis, and that the data confirms the hypothesis?

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I can't stop talking about you? You put yourself into every conversation about doping. Like you have here.

The results of the study don't surprise me. But you don't want my insights. You are only interested in "data".

Thanks for the kind of depth of insight that a half-century inside the sport can provide.

I will give you an insight I have gained from half a century of involvement and sports and even longer from living. It is that in the realm of life outside the laboratory, doing counts for more than theorizing. The lessons of experience are indispensable to knowledge and insight. Without it, data has little to offer.

That viewpoint can be qualified further. In the words of someone with an immense amount of experience in his field, Dr Anthony Fauci, head of the CDC, "There is the confidence based on absolute data, and there's confidence based on projection from what you know indirectly." That means we have to draw upon sources of knowledge and understanding that aren't part of a given study. For Dr Fauci that includes his lifetime of professional experience.

His observation pertaining to medicine can be applied to many things, where studies are not available to prove definitively a given proposition. The experience of sports doping falls into that category. Doping doesn't exist in the laboratory but in the very messy real world. "Absolute data" isn't available to supply all the answers. It can't cover everything we need to know.

So what you are saying is that I should feel free to draw on my own knowledge and experience and project from what I know indirectly.

I don't know why you feel I've ever restricted you to data only found in studies. A lot of the data I rely on comes from public websites, like all time athletics, or WADA ADRV reports, or lengthy reports of detailed investigations.

Actually, I find studies to be of limited value, for reasons you can usually find in a "Limitations" section of the study. Typically the authors of doping studies recommend not projecting the results onto elite performances. I rely on their experience and heed that warning.

Having said that, even if Dr. Fauci asserts something lacking foundation, I would call it an unfounded belief as it lacks foundation. You drew certain inferences from that, and now you are arguing against your own inference.

None of this prevents you from directly participating in the main topic of this thread. Can you step outside of this study, and draw from your lifelong knowledge and personal experiences? Is implementation of the ABP the only thing that changed in 2012 timeframe? That answer cannot be found in the study but requires you to do precisely what you now suggest must be done.

I'm glad you feel able to correct Dr Fauci for when he makes "an unfounded belief". Your expertise knows no bounds - which some might suggest is itself an "unfounded belief".

Perhaps you didn't fully understand what he was saying, or the inferences I chose to draw from it, which is that we can't always rely upon the data we have to come to firm conclusions. That isn't arguing against anything else I have said.

You also only take from data or the studies what suits you. If it were not so then doping would scarcely exist as a practice - because it would be shown to be of negligible benefit (you think) - and anti-doping would not be concerned to eliminate it. They read the available data very differently from you. And many athletes may also experience what the data can't establish because no doping athlete is a willing subject for study.

I'm glad you feel bound to heed the "Limitations" section of many studies, because it would necessarily make you hesitant to read from the study any firm conclusions about the effects of doping on elite performance. Data is indeed limited. But, strangely, despite the paucity of firm data it hasn't stopped you from arguing repeatedly that elite performance doesn't benefit from doping. Your certainty of opinion remains intact.

rekrunner wrote:

None of this prevents you from directly participating in the main topic of this thread. Can you step outside of this study, and draw from your lifelong knowledge and personal experiences? Is implementation of the ABP the only thing that changed in 2012 timeframe? That answer cannot be found in the study but requires you to do precisely what you now suggest must be done.

I have already commented on what interests me in this thread. I am not required to do anything else, and certainly not because you are waving your wand at me.

Yes it seems what mosts interest you is me and my skepticism, as you reserved most all of your comments to talk about me.

I did see back on page 2, you partly undermined the study hypothesis with a data point you learned on Al Jazeera.

rekrunner wrote:

Yes it seems what mosts interest you is me and my skepticism, as you reserved most all of your comments to talk about me.

I did see back on page 2, you partly undermined the study hypothesis with a data point you learned on Al Jazeera.

blah blah blah blah blah...."my beliefs outway all data, im rek im soooo smarter than smart people listen to me, if you dont i will rek the thread and passive aggressively insult you"

lolz

rekrunner wrote:

Yes it seems what mosts interest you is me and my skepticism, as you reserved most all of your comments to talk about me.

I did see back on page 2, you partly undermined the study hypothesis with a data point you learned on Al Jazeera.

Shored up, not undermined at all. You seem confused by the plethora of data.

rekrunner wrote:

Yes it seems what mosts interest you is me and my skepticism, as you reserved most all of your comments to talk about me.

I did see back on page 2, you partly undermined the study hypothesis with a data point you learned on Al Jazeera.

The documentary included actual case examples of Russian athletes who had been using a variety of drugs. As I said, it included steroids. That undermines nothing I have said about doping.

Sorry -- I missed this earlier.

I feel able to apply the simple definition of "unfounded", in order to describe something that lacks foundation.

This doesn't require much expertise, just a basic command of English.

It looks funny for you to acknowledge the paucity of data, and then repeat a strawman that I do not argue. One of my arguments is that we cannot show where it works precisely due to the paucity of data. Like you say, we need to supplement the data with ideas and thoughts and hypotheses and beliefs that lack data.

Getting back to this thread, again, one of the areas where I don't dispute the benefit from doping is for the Russian women, in the shorter distance events.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Yes it seems what mosts interest you is me and my skepticism, as you reserved most all of your comments to talk about me.

I did see back on page 2, you partly undermined the study hypothesis with a data point you learned on Al Jazeera.

The documentary included actual case examples of Russian athletes who had been using a variety of drugs. As I said, it included steroids. That undermines nothing I have said about doping.

I don't doubt the documentary. I did not say you undermined yourself.

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Yes it seems what mosts interest you is me and my skepticism, as you reserved most all of your comments to talk about me.

I did see back on page 2, you partly undermined the study hypothesis with a data point you learned on Al Jazeera.

Shored up, not undermined at all. You seem confused by the plethora of data.

I'm fine with the data.

My theory as to why there weren't elite Russian men. I have lived in Russia for several years and speak fluent Russian, so I have some familiarity with the issue.

I think its primarily cultural. Russian culture puts a huge emphasis on masculinity and being tough. Things like fighting, wrestling and lifting are seem by Russians to fit this dogma. Running does not fit their view of what is "tough". That simple really. Its culture.