But you don't know who is a cheater. So, how do you know who to condemn?
Because so many dope I don't trust any to be clean. That's the difference.
So you paint the clean athletes with the same brush as the dirty ones. To you it's guilty until proven innocent. Didn't you study law? Aren't you being a hypocrite?
Show the "proof" that EPO, blood-doping, meldonium, Trimetazidine and various steroids have a placebo effect only.
Show also the proof that countless athletes using these drugs have been unaware the only gains they made from using the drugs are because of a placebo effect.
Show also where WADA acknowledges the only performance benefits from drugs is a placebo effect.
These are not my claims. I don't ever claim "only".
Here's what I learned in 8th grade science (and also a M*A*S*H episode when they ran out of morphine): Placebo effect is a proven confounder. According to scientific best practice, scientists must address by design all potential confounders that can invalidate what they want to prove. The scientific way to identify and exclude placebo effect is with double-blinded administration comparing a tested group with a control group.
Arguing against placebo effect is also fundamentally beside the point -- proving or disproving placebo does not establish what you allege -- that any of these drugs (or methods) also have some physiological effect that enables any distance runner to run faster with these drugs, than is possible without.
Your problem is two-fold: 1) establishing that any effect occurred at all, and 2) that it was due directly to physiological enhancements caused by the drug.
You don't understand what WADA does or why. Everything you argue is projection. If WADA was advised by medical experts of the effects of the drugs it could logically take the view that the drug had the potential to be performance enhancing and therefore be banned. Its use by athletes suggests that finding was correct, since athletes and their coaches are guided by science not superstition, which we see in everything from their approach to training, technique and equipment. Yet, when it comes to drugs it seems all reason departs from them - if your views have any meaning.
Do you understand what scientists do, and why? You say WADA is guided by science and athlete use, but apparently neither of these assumptions apply in the case of trimetazidine, as there was no science, and athletes were not using it, when WADA banned it.
Do you know more than Scott Powers?
"Scott Powers, a physiologist at the University of Florida who studies the effects of exercise on the heart explained how trimetazidine was included in WADA list. "I've been involved in roundtables with the International Olympic Committee, and I think their policy is: When in doubt, ban the drug," says Scott Powers. "I guess they're just trying to err on the possibility that this drug may be an ergogenic aid.""
Doesn't sound very scientific to me.
Pretending to know what WADA does and why is also beside the point. WADA does not publish any performance data. WADA doesn't even publish why a substance was banned. Athletes who use also do not publish their performance data, and certainly don't control for placebo with double-blinded administration.
Without performance data, we simply cannot draw any performance conclusions. Without any data, we must dismiss it as unconfirmed belief.
Because so many dope I don't trust any to be clean. That's the difference.
So you paint the clean athletes with the same brush as the dirty ones. To you it's guilty until proven innocent. Didn't you study law? Aren't you being a hypocrite?
I'm not accusing them of criminal offences. I am pointing out that the incidence of doping is so high in Kenya that I don't trust any top runner there to be clean. It would be much the same in Russia. It is an argument based on what is probable, not what is proven beyond reasonable doubt - which doesn't apply in this context as no one is on trial.
Show the "proof" that EPO, blood-doping, meldonium, Trimetazidine and various steroids have a placebo effect only.
Show also the proof that countless athletes using these drugs have been unaware the only gains they made from using the drugs are because of a placebo effect.
Show also where WADA acknowledges the only performance benefits from drugs is a placebo effect.
These are not my claims. I don't ever claim "only".
Here's what I learned in 8th grade science (and also a M*A*S*H episode when they ran out of morphine): Placebo effect is a proven confounder. According to scientific best practice, scientists must address by design all potential confounders that can invalidate what they want to prove. The scientific way to identify and exclude placebo effect is with double-blinded administration comparing a tested group with a control group.
Arguing against placebo effect is also fundamentally beside the point -- proving or disproving placebo does not establish what you allege -- that any of these drugs (or methods) also have some physiological effect that enables any distance runner to run faster with these drugs, than is possible without.
Your problem is two-fold: 1) establishing that any effect occurred at all, and 2) that it was due directly to physiological enhancements caused by the drug.
If you can't quantify the placebo effect you are only guessing at the effect. You don't know if it applies in respect of any drug and to what extent. There has been more evidence that the drugs do have an effect on performance. If the only likely effect were that of a placebo then WADA would be concerned chiefly with the health effects of drugs; it isn't - it was set up primarily to ensure sport remains "fair" (as it says on its site), which means athletes don't gain an unfair advantage through doping. But you only grant the least likely effect of the drugs, which is that of a placebo. So generations of athletes have been fooled into thinking the drugs actually help. You know this, while never having used the drugs or known any athletes who have. You haven't a scientific bone in your body.
This post was edited 42 seconds after it was posted.
You don't understand what WADA does or why. Everything you argue is projection. If WADA was advised by medical experts of the effects of the drugs it could logically take the view that the drug had the potential to be performance enhancing and therefore be banned. Its use by athletes suggests that finding was correct, since athletes and their coaches are guided by science not superstition, which we see in everything from their approach to training, technique and equipment. Yet, when it comes to drugs it seems all reason departs from them - if your views have any meaning.
Do you understand what scientists do, and why? You say WADA is guided by science and athlete use, but apparently neither of these assumptions apply in the case of trimetazidine, as there was no science, and athletes were not using it, when WADA banned it.
Do you know more than Scott Powers?
"Scott Powers, a physiologist at the University of Florida who studies the effects of exercise on the heart explained how trimetazidine was included in WADA list. "I've been involved in roundtables with the International Olympic Committee, and I think their policy is: When in doubt, ban the drug," says Scott Powers. "I guess they're just trying to err on the possibility that this drug may be an ergogenic aid.""
Doesn't sound very scientific to me.
Pretending to know what WADA does and why is also beside the point. WADA does not publish any performance data. WADA doesn't even publish why a substance was banned. Athletes who use also do not publish their performance data, and certainly don't control for placebo with double-blinded administration.
Without performance data, we simply cannot draw any performance conclusions. Without any data, we must dismiss it as unconfirmed belief.
Doubt does not mean there is no evidence, only that it isn't fully conclusive. Probability means an element of doubt persists but the likelihood is of what is found to be probable - which in the case of drugs that are banned is they can be performance enhancing.
The absence of data as to the actual extent of any performance enhancement (because no illegally doped athletes participate in studies of doping) does not entitle a conclusion it is "unconfirmed belief" - as though there is nothing in it. What is unconfirmed belief is your view that drugs likely do not aid performance, because the evidence from experts as to what the drugs do physiologically and their use by athletes who show significant gains suggests drugs enhance performance. But inferential reasoning is beyond your very limited intellectual toolkit - especially when it threatens your religious convictions that doping doesn't aid top distance runners.
This post was edited 37 seconds after it was posted.
If you can't quantify the placebo effect you are only guessing at the effect. You don't know if it applies in respect of any drug and to what extent. There has been more evidence that the drugs do have an effect on performance. If the only likely effect were that of a placebo then WADA would be concerned chiefly with the health effects of drugs; it isn't - it was set up primarily to ensure sport remains "fair" (as it says on its site), which means athletes don't gain an unfair advantage through doping. But you only grant the least likely effect of the drugs, which is that of a placebo. So generations of athletes have been fooled into thinking the drugs actually help. You know this, while never having used the drugs or known any athletes who have. You haven't a scientific bone in your body.
Not "only" placebo effect. Your rule also applies to you, and to WADA scientists, in order to establish any alleged performance effect from any alleged PED. As science has not yet quantified any performance effect for drugs like trimetazidine, "you are only guessing at the effect".
You fail to understand who bears the burden in realms of science. Real scientists know it is their burden to identify and eliminate all confounders, in order to pass judgement by their peers.
The one with a burden of scientifically establishing an alleged PED effect, must first quantify the total effect of an intervention, if any, and then quantify and subtract any and all confounding effects, including placebo effect.
It is not my burden to quantify and remove any potential confounders, in order to disprove someone elses claim, when they have failed to identify and mitigate confounding effects.
Similarly, WADA doesn't burden itself either with proving performance, or disproving placebo. As you yourself have argued, it is sufficient to theorize that a potential benefit exists, in order for the scientists at WADA to ban a drug. They can do it in a closed door meeting based on PowerPoint slides.
Ironically, science has shown adverse health effects for trimetazidine -- this would be a more scientifically valid reason to ban it.
Generations of athletes will surely be fooled by placebo effect, unless their use of the drug is double-blinded and the drugged performance is compared to a control group. I know this because I know science does not favor a lack of control when attempting to establish cause and effect.
I don't care how many. It's obviously enough for me to see their runners can't be trusted to be clean, as we see from their weekly doping violations.
So, if you see a Kenyan runner for you he/she is guilty. Yet, you don't have any clue if from all Kenyan runners 5% are dopers or 20% or 70%?
Yes, it's obviously enough for you. The Realität? You don't care
You aren't very good at following an argument. I didn't say that every Kenyan runner I see I know to be guilty; I said the preponderance of doping in Kenya is such that I don't trust any of their top runners to be clean. They could be, but the chances are just as likely they aren't. If you can't understand that distinction then you are out of your depth in these discussions.
Armstronglivs wrote: Doubt does not mean there is no evidence, only that it isn't fully conclusive. Probability means an element of doubt persists but the likelihood is of what is found to be probable - which in the case of drugs that are banned is they can be performance enhancing. The absence of data as to the actual extent of any performance enhancement (because no illegally doped athletes participate in studies of doping) does not entitle a conclusion it is "unconfirmed belief" - as though there is nothing in it. What is unconfirmed belief is your view that drugs likely do not aid performance, because the evidence from experts as to what the drugs do physiologically and their use by athletes who show significant gains suggests drugs enhance performance. But inferential reasoning is beyond your very limited intellectual toolkit - especially when it threatens your religious convictions that doping doesn't aid top distance runners.
Isn't that the whole point -- that any alleged performance effect isn't conclusive, as it wasn't science based?
It is the lack of evidence which means there is no evidence. You speak of probabilities and likelihoods where none have been established.
While you see this as yet another opportunity to preach your faith in magical wizards practicing an art you do not understand, here is what I learned from the science that existed in 2014, and that exists today:
Trimetazidine was developed and patented in France in 1962, and introduced in 1963. It is not approved in the USA by the FDA.
WADA banned trimetazidine, not based on any performance science (as none existed, and none still exists today), but "to reflect emerging patterns of drug use".
But what WADA data existed in 2014, of "patterns of drug use"?
In Cologne, scientists reviewed 140,000 samples between 1999-2013, and found 151 TMZ samples, across all sports, or about 0.1%. It was split between "endurance" (44%) and "strength" (39%) and "other disciplines" (17%) sports. It apparently peaked at 39 samples per year (which year?) In 2014, WADA reported 18 AAFs across all sports.
In Poland, they reviewed 16,725 samples between 2008-2013, finding 39 TMZ samples, and compared that to 6,210 samples between 2005-2007, finding 36 TMZ samples. Given the different number of years, this is a significant decrease of TMZ use by Polish athletes.
From the Polish data, we see that TMZ use in endurance sports was mostly found in cycling, rather than athletics. Per sample, by 2014, cycling outnumbered athletics by about a factor of 17x. While cycling use of TMZ increased in Poland from 2005-2007 (2.56% of samples) to 2008-2013 (2.96% of samples), its use in athletics significantly decreased, from 2005-2007 (0.7% of samples, or 7 samples), to 2008-2013 (0.17% of samples, or 3 samples).
The suggested mechanism for TMZ benefits is that it inhibits fat oxidation, which forces the body to prefer sugar for energy, which consumes less oxygen (is more efficient). Note that this is the exact opposite of L-Carnitine, which promotes fat burning.
But even this altered substrate mechanism is presumptive, as there is some evidence suggesting substrate use is not altered, but that another unidentified mechanism exists.
According to a WADA Technical Letter from 2018, TMZ positives can also come from the use of lomerizine, a WADA permitted drug used for the treatment of migraines. This presence of TMZ is "WADA legal".
According to research from 2023, and earlier research from 2009, TMZ can also be "foodborne", and appear in "massage milk, activating oil and weight loss drugs". This presence before 2014 (when the Cologne and Warsaw data was collected) would also have been "WADA legal".
When interpreting "emerging patterns of use before 2014", we can see that before 2014, some of the use of TMZ would have been for reasons besides performance enhancment: 1) valid prescription in many countries for a WADA legal medication for Trimatezidine; 2) by-product of the WADA-legal use of lomerizine; and 3) unknowing foodborne ingestion, including contamination.
I appreciate that was what this one was busted for, but they're all on EPO (you know, the one you can just grab from your friendly local Eldoret pharmacy).
It's just hard to get caught taking EPO if you take even the most basic of precaution, especially with the limited testing Kenyans face.
The fact that other stuff is popping up in their urine just indicates that they're probably on anything they think will help and that they can possibly get away with, under supervision of their Italian/Belgian handler.
I appreciate that was what this one was busted for, but they're all on EPO (you know, the one you can just grab from your friendly local Eldoret pharmacy).
It's just hard to get caught taking EPO if you take even the most basic of precaution, especially with the limited testing Kenyans face.
The fact that other stuff is popping up in their urine just indicates that they're probably on anything they think will help and that they can possibly get away with, under supervision of their Italian/Belgian handler.
The exclusive focus on an unpronounceable drug is rekrunner's usual diversion. If he can cast doubt on that drug's effectiveness - he can't - he thinks he can cast doubt on Kenyan doping. He can't. The case on that has long been proven - and is confirmed weekly.
I appreciate that was what this one was busted for, but they're all on EPO (you know, the one you can just grab from your friendly local Eldoret pharmacy).
It's just hard to get caught taking EPO if you take even the most basic of precaution, especially with the limited testing Kenyans face.
The fact that other stuff is popping up in their urine just indicates that they're probably on anything they think will help and that they can possibly get away with, under supervision of their Italian/Belgian handler.
WADA seems to care about Trimetazidine, but not enough to do athlete performance research.
I just wondered back in post #3 why the recent increase in interest in the last 1-2 years, in a drug that has been around for 60 years.
If no one else cared, the conversation would have been finished three days ago.
The exclusive focus on an unpronounceable drug is rekrunner's usual diversion. If he can cast doubt on that drug's effectiveness - he can't - he thinks he can cast doubt on Kenyan doping. He can't. The case on that has long been proven - and is confirmed weekly.
There is no diversion.
This thread is about a Kenyan runner busted for Trimetazidine.
What else is the point of "Another Kenyan busted" thread, in a forum that encourages discussing doping, if not to talk about the unique details of his bust?
It seems fair to wonder "why so many athletes are being busted for "Trimetazidine"" now. If upvotes/downvotes are any indication, my post expressing my wonder currently has 26 upvotes/5 downvotes -- so it seems like some might also be wondering the same thing.
The exclusive focus on an unpronounceable drug is rekrunner's usual diversion. If he can cast doubt on that drug's effectiveness - he can't - he thinks he can cast doubt on Kenyan doping. He can't. The case on that has long been proven - and is confirmed weekly.
There is no diversion.
This thread is about a Kenyan runner busted for Trimetazidine.
What else is the point of "Another Kenyan busted" thread, in a forum that encourages discussing doping, if not to talk about the unique details of his bust?
It seems fair to wonder "why so many athletes are being busted for "Trimetazidine"" now. If upvotes/downvotes are any indication, my post expressing my wonder currently has 26 upvotes/5 downvotes -- so it seems like some might also be wondering the same thing.
So only one Kenyan has been busted for doping? And you're going to prove their innocence? You miss the weekly despatches on Kenyan doping - one after another. You are the most deluded poster in the history of this site - and that's saying something.
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.