rekrunner wrote:My point was that for you, in spite of your long standing relationship with your satellite TV, combined with any math and science knowledge you may have, there are better reasons than money, why you can't be a coach -- not the least of which is the way you talk to people whom you don't agree with, and your general lack of respect
you have no clue about my man management skills
i don't tolerate idiots, but that means nothing about coaching potential
however, i woud soon tell an athlete if they are likely to "make it" or not depending on their goals & when they are starting to waste my time or theirs
The achievement in coaching, is bringing athletes up to their potential. The goal is not to get a piece of paper, or becoming a biology or science professor. Knowledge of science is of secondary importance, when the primary goal is training/coaching
lets see
a coach to elite athletes will be lucky to make 50k/year
like the saying goes : you pay peanuts, you get monkeys...
If all you need is anecdotal evidence, you can prove everything. I said it is suggestive, not conclusive. You draw conclusions with some risk. The trap is that anecdotes tell a story, but don't tell the whole story
suggestive with a likely +ve bias of being correct, epo works in vast majority of athletes
you have found not 1 epo +ve who didn't improve from significantly a previous baseline
Since there will never be "double-blinds", our ability to conclude anything is limited. We are limited to less accurate anecdotes of tests mostly conducted in secret, in a most unscientific way
eh ?
what is this nonsense ?
proof is in the pudding
find a +ve epo testee & then see the dramatic improvement they have made from a previous modest level
the stats are there to see - check their progression
Your Table 1 in the link looks like it contains old data, under-estimating the aerobic contribution. For example, the table says that 1500m is 50% aerobic. I've seen "old" figures that says it is 65% aerobic, and new figures that say 83% (+/- 3%) aerobic
quote a table you like
Does lateral thinking mean making up numbers?
nonsense
chouki/kaouch both near 3'35 improving to 3'30/3'31
ramzi from 3'39 to likely 3'27 in '06 ( off the richter scale improvement )
4s is very reasonable likely mean improvement for a 3'35 guy
If a 3'35 guy gets 3-4 (or 5-6) seconds from an EPO program, maybe the 3'29 guy gets 1 second, and the 3'26 guy gets 0.2 seconds. Second tier athletes need PEDs much more than top athletes.
learn to read
i stated earlier law of diminshing returns
a 4s mean improvement for a 3'35 guy is likely to be less for a natural 3'30 guy on same regime ( who's physiology is probably working at a much higher level than a 3'35 guy ) - 2 or 3s woud be good going