rekrunner wrote:
physics defiant wrote:
Shored up, not undermined at all. You seem confused by the plethora of data.
I'm fine with the data.
But there is a paucity of it. OK.
rekrunner wrote:
physics defiant wrote:
Shored up, not undermined at all. You seem confused by the plethora of data.
I'm fine with the data.
But there is a paucity of it. OK.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
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.
Your command of English is indeed "basic", as you say. Knowing the meaning of the word "unfounded" doesn't give you the knowledge to be able to correct a medical expert like Dr Fauci - although I don't doubt that you consider yourself able to do that.
You also have trouble with arguments. If you consider the data isn't sufficient to draw a clear link between doping and performance then you are unable to refute claims that such a link may well exist; you are not in a position to know either way. Yet, undeterred, you strive to maintain that doping doesn't influence performance - despite that the data you choose to rely on is not definitive about that. Your arguments are neither consistent nor rigorous; they are selective and convenient, and, dare I say it - unfounded.
casual obsever wrote:
zxcvxczv wrote:
My conclusion is that if you take away the drugs and blood doping, you get a level playing field between East Africa and the rest of the world, as there used to be in the 1970s and 1980s.
Ummm, no, that would be assuming that the rest of the world doesn't dope.
Here, again, is what we just learned from the last paper about blood-doping of endurance athletes at world championships:
Country 2011 2013
Ukraine 89% 25% wow
Ethiopia 19% 30%
Kenya 19% 13%
USA 14% 17%
GB 4% 18%
Australia 0% 4% very nice
Japan 0% 0% awesome!
For context, average was 18% in 2011 and 15% in 2013.
That means that both Kenya and US were average.
That could not be more absurd. Kenya has had more than 50 distance athletes, including world and olympic medalists, test positive during these years for EPO, while the U.S. has had few, if any, distance runners test positive. We know that doping is rife in Kenya and in Ethiopia as well, but less tested there.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Your command of English is indeed "basic", as you say. Knowing the meaning of the word "unfounded" doesn't give you the knowledge to be able to correct a medical expert like Dr Fauci - although I don't doubt that you consider yourself able to do that.
You also have trouble with arguments. If you consider the data isn't sufficient to draw a clear link between doping and performance then you are unable to refute claims that such a link may well exist; you are not in a position to know either way. Yet, undeterred, you strive to maintain that doping doesn't influence performance - despite that the data you choose to rely on is not definitive about that. Your arguments are neither consistent nor rigorous; they are selective and convenient, and, dare I say it - unfounded.
I have enough knowledge to recognize an unfounded belief when a hypothetical assertion lacks foundation.
Labelling a statement according to a definition is not a correction, but simply is by definition.
If Dr. Fauci asked a question, and I said that was an interrogative sentence, that would not be a correction.
If Dr. Fauci gave an order, and I said that that was an imperative statement, that would not be a correction.
I do not refute such claims of a link, but say things like "maybe, maybe not; need more data", and "lacking sufficient data, it is belief".
zxcvzcxv wrote:
That could not be more absurd. Kenya has had more than 50 distance athletes, including world and olympic medalists, test positive during these years for EPO, while the U.S. has had few, if any, distance runners test positive. We know that doping is rife in Kenya and in Ethiopia as well, but less tested there.
I wonder, how much is 50 athletes expressed as a percentage?
Kenya may have had 50 athletes busted in recent years, but not many of those tested positive for EPO. Most of them were busted for nandrolone and then cortico-steroids.
rekrunner wrote:
zxcvzcxv wrote:
That could not be more absurd. Kenya has had more than 50 distance athletes, including world and olympic medalists, test positive during these years for EPO, while the U.S. has had few, if any, distance runners test positive. We know that doping is rife in Kenya and in Ethiopia as well, but less tested there.
I wonder, how much is 50 athletes expressed as a percentage?
Kenya may have had 50 athletes busted in recent years, but not many of those tested positive for EPO. Most of them were busted for nandrolone and then cortico-steroids.
deer brojos can you please delete this entire thread? i get so sick and f*cking tired of scrolling down page after page after page of garys annoying "beliefs" in order to read something actually intelligent.
thanks
Why are you "fine with the data"? Isn't there a paucity of it?
physics defiant wrote:
Why are you "fine with the data"? Isn't there a paucity of it?
I'm also fine with a paucity of data.
rekrunner wrote:
physics defiant wrote:
Why are you "fine with the data"? Isn't there a paucity of it?
I'm also fine with a paucity of data.
Yes, you want more data when there is already a pile ( because there can never be enough) and then say there's plenty to form an opinion when there's a lesser number.
Consistency.
physics defiant wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I'm also fine with a paucity of data.
Yes, you want more data when there is already a pile ( because there can never be enough) and then say there's plenty to form an opinion when there's a lesser number.
Consistency.
I didn't say "plenty to form an opinion". You suggested I was confused by the data. I responded I was fine with the data.
zxcvzcxv wrote:
That could not be more absurd. Kenya has had more than 50 distance athletes, including world and olympic medalists, test positive during these years for EPO, while the U.S. has had few, if any, distance runners test positive. We know that doping is rife in Kenya and in Ethiopia as well, but less tested there.
We know that, yes, but these data were from in-competition tests, so the number of out-of-competition tests is not relevant here. Note also this is about blood doping including EPO, but not roids.
Assuming neither the in-competition testers nor the authors falsified the data, then:
1) Both Kenya and US were average in blood doping 2011/2013, and Ethiopia somewhat worse.
And yes, we know:
2) Kenya has by far the most blood dopers caught since 2014 (compared to Ethiopia and US)..
Possible explanations:
1) Ethiopia's testing is still well behind Kenya's.
2) While a similar percentage of Kenyans blood dope, compared to Americans, more get caught because they dope bolder, e.g. without limits/fear of getting caught.
3) Kenyans drastically increased their doping in 2014.
4) USADA hides positive tests, like RUSADA, and like USATF used to do.
5) It's all a coincidence, and Kiprop and the others just had bad luck.
6) ...
I am going with 1 and 2, but that's just me.
rekrunner wrote:
physics defiant wrote:
Yes, you want more data when there is already a pile ( because there can never be enough) and then say there's plenty to form an opinion when there's a lesser number.
Consistency.
I didn't say "plenty to form an opinion". You suggested I was confused by the data. I responded I was fine with the data.
Being confused.
physics defiant wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I didn't say "plenty to form an opinion". You suggested I was confused by the data. I responded I was fine with the data.
Being confused.
No one uses the English language with greater care to ensure he can never be understood.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Your command of English is indeed "basic", as you say. Knowing the meaning of the word "unfounded" doesn't give you the knowledge to be able to correct a medical expert like Dr Fauci - although I don't doubt that you consider yourself able to do that.
You also have trouble with arguments. If you consider the data isn't sufficient to draw a clear link between doping and performance then you are unable to refute claims that such a link may well exist; you are not in a position to know either way. Yet, undeterred, you strive to maintain that doping doesn't influence performance - despite that the data you choose to rely on is not definitive about that. Your arguments are neither consistent nor rigorous; they are selective and convenient, and, dare I say it - unfounded.
I have enough knowledge to recognize an unfounded belief when a hypothetical assertion lacks foundation.
Labelling a statement according to a definition is not a correction, but simply is by definition.
If Dr. Fauci asked a question, and I said that was an interrogative sentence, that would not be a correction.
If Dr. Fauci gave an order, and I said that that was an imperative statement, that would not be a correction.
I do not refute such claims of a link, but say things like "maybe, maybe not; need more data", and "lacking sufficient data, it is belief".
You really are quite the idiot. Knowing whether a statement is unfounded is not an question of grammar but fact.
Your other statement is also bullsh*t - a lie, in fact - as you have consistently argued that elite performances are clean - on a "paucity of data". That, I can say, is an unfounded belief.
It would be more stupid to suggest I was attempting to correct Dr. Fauci by virtue of recognizing a fact.
Your other statement is equally stupid. You continue to argue against a strawman you built, tear down, and rebuild again.
I do not and have never argued that any performance is clean or dirty. I focus on how we can see any alleged performance benefit in elite performances, and argue against those who claim the benefit is proven beyond doubt, when other possibilities remain open, and argue against those who use faulty methods to "see" benefit.
Even in extreme hypothetical scenarios where the benefit is zero, I still expect many performances are dirty, as many as the global prevalence average, give or take, and that many performances are clean.
bannnedd i got wrote:
deer brojos can you please delete this entire thread? i get so sick and [...] tired of scrolling down page after page after page of annoying "beliefs" in order to read something actually intelligent.
thanks
Isn't this precisely what you asked for?
bannnedd i got wrote:
can you go rek some other thread already ...
Lol.
rekrunner wrote:
I do not and have never argued that any performance is clean or dirty.
And yet, you have spent years arguing that Paula was clean, and thus her performances.
rekrunner wrote:
It would be more stupid to suggest I was attempting to correct Dr. Fauci by virtue of recognizing a fact.
Your other statement is equally stupid. You continue to argue against a strawman you built, tear down, and rebuild again.
I do not and have never argued that any performance is clean or dirty. I focus on how we can see any alleged performance benefit in elite performances, and argue against those who claim the benefit is proven beyond doubt, when other possibilities remain open, and argue against those who use faulty methods to "see" benefit.
Even in extreme hypothetical scenarios where the benefit is zero, I still expect many performances are dirty, as many as the global prevalence average, give or take, and that many performances are clean.
"It would be more stupid to suggest I was attempting to correct Dr. Fauci by virtue of recognizing a fact".
Then how would you know any statement he made was "unfounded"? You have the logic of Trump.
"I do not and have never argued that any performance is clean or dirty."
That's right, you never identify whether you think any performance is doped - because of the "paucity of data", and yet you persistently argue that doping is a "belief" because there is no proof (you say) that it gives advantage. If you can't identify likely doping because you consider the data insufficient, then you cannot jump to the assertion that it is only a "belief" that it works; your own prior argument doesn't give you the evidence to claim that.
That is quite apart from the fact that the data you choose to rely on is necessarily confined to very small samples of athletes, who are mostly not the subject of real world studies - as you have previously pointed out - and which is why the authors of the studies have cautioned extending their findings too far.
Really, your only tenable position is for you to say that you cannot come to any firm views about doping and performance because you don't have enough definitive information. But you will never say that. It also means that you don't have enough information to challenge anyone else's view. And you will never admit to that.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I do not and have never argued that any performance is clean or dirty.
And yet, you have spent years arguing that Paula was clean, and thus her performances.
DId I? If we are being honest, I argued much the same, insufficient or no data to draw any conclusion about her performances:
- no "suspicious" data connected to the world record performances
- "suspicious" data has multiple plausible non-doping causes
Armstronglivs wrote:
"It would be more stupid to suggest I was attempting to correct Dr. Fauci by virtue of recognizing a fact".
Then how would you know any statement he made was "unfounded"? You have the logic of Trump.
"I do not and have never argued that any performance is clean or dirty."
That's right, you never identify whether you think any performance is doped - because of the "paucity of data", and yet you persistently argue that doping is a "belief" because there is no proof (you say) that it gives advantage. If you can't identify likely doping because you consider the data insufficient, then you cannot jump to the assertion that it is only a "belief" that it works; your own prior argument doesn't give you the evidence to claim that.
That is quite apart from the fact that the data you choose to rely on is necessarily confined to very small samples of athletes, who are mostly not the subject of real world studies - as you have previously pointed out - and which is why the authors of the studies have cautioned extending their findings too far.
Really, your only tenable position is for you to say that you cannot come to any firm views about doping and performance because you don't have enough definitive information. But you will never say that. It also means that you don't have enough information to challenge anyone else's view. And you will never admit to that.
If your reading comprehension was a little better, you would see I said:
"if Dr. Fauci asserts something lacking foundation, I would call it an unfounded belief"
Lacking evidence of benefit, it can only be a belief. This is the default when there is no evidence.
I can come to firm views about doping and performance. However, lacking evidence, I will not call them knowledge, or cannot agree it has been proven beyond doubt.