When I don't dispute you you are not so sure to be correct?
What's the reason for the enormous success from Kenya and Ethiopia in cross country immediately after they started to compete? First from the men and the juniors, a few years later also from the women. So far the only "reason" you gave is: the rest doesn't care, which obviously is just avoiding to give an serious answer.
Craig Virgin's win from 1980 is still discussed here, so when did this non-interest start?
All you do is ask tedious questions, as though that will prove your points. It doesn't. I am not interested in them. Say what you think and leave it at that.
His/Her questions are not tedious. They just disprove your points so you don't want to answer them.
Of course you do; that's how narcissists believe the world works.
It isn't. It is occurs when intelligence encounters stupidity. Like yours.
Another example of a narcissist, always insulting others, because trying to make them feel inferior makes the narcissist feel powerful. You are just insecure.
All you do is ask tedious questions, as though that will prove your points. It doesn't. I am not interested in them. Say what you think and leave it at that.
His/Her questions are not tedious. They just disprove your points so you don't want to answer them.
That is what a stupid person, like you, would infer. I don't answer them because they are irrelevant and they bore me.
Depends on which sport, which event, how you want to measure performance, which athlete, and which initial state of training the athlete is in, just to name a few unspecified factors. Can you be more precise with your question?
Otherwise, the answer is yes, or no, or maybe, or maybe not, and performance enhancement needs to be demonstrated to be certain.
It isn't. It is occurs when intelligence encounters stupidity. Like yours.
Another example of a narcissist, always insulting others, because trying to make them feel inferior makes the narcissist feel powerful. You are just insecure.
Since you spend your time trying to insult me (and failing) that must make you a narcissist by your own definition. Another easy headshot.
Depends on which sport, which event, how you want to measure performance, which athlete, and which initial state of training the athlete is in, just to name a few unspecified factors. Can you be more precise with your question?
Otherwise, the answer is yes, or no, or maybe, or maybe not, and performance enhancement needs to be demonstrated to be certain.
My next question is whether gunpowder is an explosive. I guess it "depends". You are a joke.
That is a good question -- it's about time one of the faithful asked.
The answer is, only if it enhances performance.
Does it enhance performance?
We see that it all "depends". How can athletes be so stupid to believe it does (as antidoping also apparently maintains)? This, also from someone who has never used it. That's like an expert on sex who has never done it - and knows better than those who have.
You don't know who is doping and who isn't - so you can't have done studies of the two. Your stupid conclusions are mere guesswork.
When I concluded "so few, and then by so little", you are correct to say this could have been just the performances of non-dopers, and that all the dopers were even slower.
I merely guessed the dopers would be faster, painting a best case (worst case) scenario, but I'll concede your point that that is stupid.
What makes it particularly stupid is you don't know which athletes are doping and which aren't. You are like a blind man who thinks he can describe a country he can't see. Meanwhile, those who live in the country are all wrong in your books.
When I don't dispute you you are not so sure to be correct?
What's the reason for the enormous success from Kenya and Ethiopia in cross country immediately after they started to compete? First from the men and the juniors, a few years later also from the women. So far the only "reason" you gave is: the rest doesn't care, which obviously is just avoiding to give an serious answer.
Craig Virgin's win from 1980 is still discussed here, so when did this non-interest start?
All you do is ask tedious questions, as though that will prove your points. It doesn't. I am not interested in them. Say what you think and leave it at that.
Tedious for you. Important for the subject.
It's obvious you just don't want to give a serious answer.
"The rest doesn't care" is just completely ridiculous. Anybody knows that there are many reasons behind the Kenyan success in distance running (even more on road and in the cross than on the track) but you just want to ignore them. But you can't change the obvious reality regardless how hard you want to do so.
I'll explain this so that one who has the mind of a child can understand. It is just as much "knowledge" to know that doping is a very substantial black market in which few are caught as to know how many on this black market are caught. Howman "knows" the black market is much greater than the numbers caught, because he understands how it is practiced and how athletes avoid detection. What he doesn't know is exactly how much greater - no one does - because it is a black market. It is a form of corruption that is known to be widespread without it being known which individuals are involved. Howman has estimated it may be ten times greater than the numbers caught or even much more than that. Because you are terminally stupid, you refuse to see the we can know the existence of that which cannot be definitively measured. You are like the dolt who cannot see he is walking on a beach unless every grain of sand is counted.
I don't expect more from you than to explain things so a mind of a child could understand.
When you say "What he doesn't know is exactly how much greater - no one does ...", this is precisely what I'm saying. We are in complete agreement. It could be 5% or 50% -- no one knows, because the knowledge of even the most knowledgeable experts is capped at 1-2%.
What does "may be ten times greater" mean for Athletics? In the 2019 WADA ADRV report, WADA officially reported in Athletics that there were 173 ADRVs for 34,576 samples, or 0.500%. Ten times greater means 5.00%. For the worst case, let's throw in the 50 samples pending: 6.45%. Hmmm -- Howman and you seem to agree with me it could be 5%, or it could be more.
Despite your false arrogance and ignorance, you can only confirm what I already said. Maybe you find it "terminally stupid" because you find yourself in complete agreement.
Only a mind as deficient as yours could maintain we are in complete agreement. No one who has any expertise in antidoping says its incidence may be in the region of 5%. (That includes Howman). The lowest level of conjecture is given at about 10% across the board for all sports and it is often believed to be much higher (especially at the elite and championship level). To use another example, knowledge that crimes like black market corruption (as doping is) are being committed is not confined to the number of convictions, when most escape detection and conviction. Yet saying knowledge is confined to those who are caught is your infantile and utterly erroneous reasoning. I have never encountered anyone who works as hard at maintaining the lies he tells himself that you do.
Semantic drivel. A drug is called a ped precisely because it is performance enhancing. But you persistently deny that drugs described as peds, like EPO, have that effect.
I disagree with your definition. That appears to be the root of the confusion. When you don't understand what words mean, you dismiss it as semantic drivel.
To be crystal clear, if and only if a drug enhances performance, in that single instance can it be called a PED. The same drug might be a PED in some cases, but not necessarily in all cases.
WADA lawyers got around this fact by including language like "potentially performance enhancing" in their banned substance selection criteria. But even then, this is not a necessary criteria.
According to WADA, EPO is therefore a PPED -- maybe.
I defer to WADA's criteria, rather than your childlike explanation.
EPO does not have the "potential" to be performance enhancing except to one who has never used it. Like yourself.
All you do is ask tedious questions, as though that will prove your points. It doesn't. I am not interested in them. Say what you think and leave it at that.
Tedious for you. Important for the subject.
It's obvious you just don't want to give a serious answer.
"The rest doesn't care" is just completely ridiculous. Anybody knows that there are many reasons behind the Kenyan success in distance running (even more on road and in the cross than on the track) but you just want to ignore them. But you can't change the obvious reality regardless how hard you want to do so.
In all the pages of this thread you have said nothing that amounts to anything more than that Kenyans have a natural talent for running. So what? As we see, they also have a natural talent for doping - which means you don't know whether they are as "talented" at running as you think they are.
Only a mind as deficient as yours could maintain we are in complete agreement. No one who has any expertise in antidoping says its incidence may be in the region of 5%. (That includes Howman). The lowest level of conjecture is given at about 10% across the board for all sports and it is often believed to be much higher (especially at the elite and championship level). To use another example, knowledge that crimes like black market corruption (as doping is) are being committed is not confined to the number of convictions, when most escape detection and conviction. Yet saying knowledge is confined to those who are caught is your infantile and utterly erroneous reasoning. I have never encountered anyone who works as hard at maintaining the lies he tells himself that you do.
When you have raised no contradiction, there is no disagreement.
You said, and I quote, "Howman has estimated it may be ten times greater than the numbers caught." In 2019, for Athletics, according to official WADA published figures, that is 5%-6.45%. 2019 is not special. Other years will be similar.
Now you are saying you were wrong? Quelle surprise! Maybe you will blame me for taking you at your word. Maybe you want to update your childlike explanations.
When I concluded "so few, and then by so little", you are correct to say this could have been just the performances of non-dopers, and that all the dopers were even slower.
I merely guessed the dopers would be faster, painting a best case (worst case) scenario, but I'll concede your point that that is stupid.
What makes it particularly stupid is you don't know which athletes are doping and which aren't. You are like a blind man who thinks he can describe a country he can't see. Meanwhile, those who live in the country are all wrong in your books.
Since I have one conclusion applicable to the best of all performances combined, I have no problem splitting them up into two conclusions, depending on which performances are doped: "so few doped performances, and then by so little", plus "so few non-doped performances, and then by so little".
No matter how you want to slice it, the 30 years of non-African performance is recorded history.
Why argue? EPO is illegal. Lots of people who run for a living are caught taking it. Most of those people are from Kenya. There are many other drugs. There are many other countries no doubt doing the same thing as the Kenyans. Running has a drug culture. As does sport. My wife is a doctor and she constantly has even recreational types (triathlon particularly) who want Thyroid and Asthma meds.