Wow, we got it all wrong all this time. Despite the months of his life Rekrunner has been typing walls of text again and again presenting his 'thesis', he isn't actually claiming that EPO doesn't work, and he doesn't think that East African physiology explains their success.
So who the hell does know what Rekrunner has been claiming these last 20 years? I don't think even Rekrunner knows.
Rekrunner believes that peds did not exist before EPO. Rekrunner believes that the Kenyan xcountry teams of the 1980's must have been clean, because they're were no peds around then, and so it's a mystery when John Ngugi refused anti-doping tests when there was no doping to be tested for, and the fact that the second best of them dropped dead at 32 (like many cyclists at the time), his son was later busted for EPO, and the brother of the 3rd best Kenyan was also busted for EPO (and claimed that there was state sponsored doping in Kenya) has nothing to do with anything.
Rekrunner likes to stick to hard scientific facts. He has observed the aeordynamically shaped elbows of Kenyans, and the fact that their nostrils appear to flare up during races more than other races. He believes that we are irrational unscientific dogmatists for sticking to our archaic belief that peds work, and that confirmed rampant doping in Kenya contributes to their success in any way. If peds work, how come eskimos didn't run sub 3:30 times during the EPO era, and why did Russia only produce 4 1/2 times more sub 2:12 marathoners in the EPO era than the state sponsored blood doping of the Soviet Union?
It's difficult to refute these cogent arguments of Rekrunner. I believe we may need to admit defeat, and leave him to sit back in his rocking chair with a smug look of satisfaction on is face.
Once again -- pathological.
You say "rekrunner believes" things I do not believe and refer to "arguments of Rekrunner" that I do not make.
If you have a valid argument to make, why do you have to so obviously make up such lies about me?
I think it's a broadly correct summary of your ridiculous 'arguments'.
And pot calling the kettle - you lie about me claiming that EPO was only around in 1992, and more odiously, that I'm a racist for my 'double standards'.
Despite the most nauseating experience here being debating with you on the matter of Beyer's coach giving a 13 year old girl athlete illegal drugs in order to boost her performance, and you sickeningly nitpicking that 'he wasn't banned for giving her peds'.
Careful -- Coevett lies about what "rekrunner" says. Don't fall for these lies.
You can usually tell who says what by reading the handle on the left.
Wow, we got it all wrong all this time. Despite the months of his life Rekrunner has been typing walls of text again and again presenting his 'thesis', he isn't actually claiming that EPO doesn't work, and he doesn't think that East African physiology explains their success.
So who the hell does know what Rekrunner has been claiming these last 20 years? I don't think even Rekrunner knows.
Not we -- your post back on page 34 is pure fictions.
This is the first time you talk of East African physiology.
If you want to know what I claim, it is better to read my posts, rather than inventing them yourself.
You say "rekrunner believes" things I do not believe and refer to "arguments of Rekrunner" that I do not make.
If you have a valid argument to make, why do you have to so obviously make up such lies about me?
I think it's a broadly correct summary of your ridiculous 'arguments'.
And pot calling the kettle - you lie about me claiming that EPO was only around in 1992, and more odiously, that I'm a racist for my 'double standards'.
Despite the most nauseating experience here being debating with you on the matter of Beyer's coach giving a 13 year old girl athlete illegal drugs in order to boost her performance, and you sickeningly nitpicking that 'he wasn't banned for giving her peds'.
I'm sure that's what you think, but you've kind of fabricated your own alternate reality, and cling to it, immune to repeated corrections.
Regarding 1992, what did I lie about? Just back on page 20 in this very thread, you said "Worth pointing out again that before 1992 (the widely agreed year when EPO started to become widely used in distance running) ...". Do you disagree?
When did I call you a racist for your "double standards"? That doesn't sound familiar. Maybe I tried to help you understand why others call you racist, but I generally try to avoid name calling. Are you suggesting I'm a racist, because I counted who ran fast in the past, and how much faster?
With respect to Beyer, you made a claim about doping and then gave a link which debunked your claim. I just read your link back to you, and pointed out the discrepancy. I recall the judge found him guilty for breaking German law and fined him. I supported his punishment for breaking German law. I've corrected you many times, but this doesn't penetrate into your alternate reality.
So you're trying to say it isn't doping that has made Kenyans successful.
Doping doesn't work for Kenyans? Why do they dope in the numbers they do?
For sure it isn't doping that has made Kenyans successful. But I'M NOT SAYING THIS (as some opinion) - it's obvious.
Kenya already was the No. 1 distance running nation in the world in the 1960s and the 1970s. Was this because of doping? Yes or no?
I have never said anything like "doping doesn't work for Kenyans". Never ever.
For the third time you are asking why they dope!
In an attempt to reach another level? A 6 years old could answer your question.
So if it isn't doping that has made Kenyans successful then doping does not enhance performance and there is no credible explanation for why they are amongst the worst nations for doping in distance running. Are you sure you aren't rekrunner?
So where is the published critique of the study that confirms your views?
Can you be more specific -- which of my views?
Fair is fair -- where are the published critiques of the study that confirms your views?
I can be more specific. You can produce no expert assessment of the study that matches your own.
I don't have to produce critiques that will match my own views. The study speaks for itself. Unless its findings have been rejected by credible experts then they stand. You are not amongst credible experts and you can produce none that dispute or reject the study.
Fair is fair -- where are the published critiques of the study that confirms your views?
I can be more specific. You can produce no expert assessment of the study that matches your own.
I don't have to produce critiques that will match my own views. The study speaks for itself. Unless its findings have been rejected by credible experts then they stand. You are not amongst credible experts and you can produce none that dispute or reject the study.
It's like you copy-pasted something I must have said earlier.
All time historical performance data speaks for itself. Unless its findings have been rejected by credible experts then they stand. You are not amongst credible experts and you can produce none that dispute or reject the historical performance data.
And you still lack specificity -- specifically which views and which study are you talking about?
Note that Prof Yorck Olaf Schumacher performed a similar exercise here: "Performance Profiling: A Role for Sport Science in the Fight Against Doping?" in the International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, looking at the trends from the average of the top-20, each year, and the best performance, each year.
Just like me, he speculated many causes, but did not rule out any causes, or attribute it to one cause, and recommended to exercise caution: "there are many other factors that could explain why performance suddenly improves, so one must be careful not to infer doping without acknowledging a wide range of potential contributing factors".
Unlike me, he only looked at quality for the whole population, and not quantity above a reference threshold. For quality I looked at the whole population (top-5 for over one whole 28 year period), and in addition, did the extra work to filter the results separately for 1) East Africans, 2) North Africans, and 3) the rest of the world. These were arbitrary groupings, and I invited others to suggest different subsets. To address some criticisms (arguably from my peers) in a second analysis, I refined the criteria and I looked at the top-5 for each 4-year Olympic cycle, and drastically reduced the reference threshold to mere inclusion on the alltime lists (including all the data available to me and rejecting none).
Rekrunner - do you believe there is more scientific evidence that Kenayns have a special genetic adaptation for fast distance running, than there is that EPO improves distance running times?
And I don't want a wall of obfuscating text, just yes or no, if you can.
I can be more specific. You can produce no expert assessment of the study that matches your own.
I don't have to produce critiques that will match my own views. The study speaks for itself. Unless its findings have been rejected by credible experts then they stand. You are not amongst credible experts and you can produce none that dispute or reject the study.
It's like you copy-pasted something I must have said earlier.
All time historical performance data speaks for itself. Unless its findings have been rejected by credible experts then they stand. You are not amongst credible experts and you can produce none that dispute or reject the historical performance data.
And you still lack specificity -- specifically which views and which study are you talking about?
Note that Prof Yorck Olaf Schumacher performed a similar exercise here: "Performance Profiling: A Role for Sport Science in the Fight Against Doping?" in the International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, looking at the trends from the average of the top-20, each year, and the best performance, each year.
Just like me, he speculated many causes, but did not rule out any causes, or attribute it to one cause, and recommended to exercise caution: "there are many other factors that could explain why performance suddenly improves, so one must be careful not to infer doping without acknowledging a wide range of potential contributing factors".
Unlike me, he only looked at quality for the whole population, and not quantity above a reference threshold. For quality I looked at the whole population (top-5 for over one whole 28 year period), and in addition, did the extra work to filter the results separately for 1) East Africans, 2) North Africans, and 3) the rest of the world. These were arbitrary groupings, and I invited others to suggest different subsets. To address some criticisms (arguably from my peers) in a second analysis, I refined the criteria and I looked at the top-5 for each 4-year Olympic cycle, and drastically reduced the reference threshold to mere inclusion on the alltime lists (including all the data available to me and rejecting none).
Your lies and evasions never stop. We were discussing the study posted above about Kenyan doping, whose findings you disputed. Your "historical data" and the interpretations you make of it are irrelevant to that discussion. Another piece of your stupid "whataboutism". They are in no way analogous. Your views on historical performances are your fantasies; the study of Kenyan doping is an internationally published work.
The study found that altitude-trained Kenyan athletes, like sea level athletes, improved their performances after doping - which you have long refused to accept. You have sought here to discredit the findings of the study but when challenged can produce no experts who either criticize it or reject its findings. So you change the subject to your tired old hobby horse of Schumacher, who says nothing about the Kenyan study. You may fool yourself but no one else.
Rekrunner - do you believe there is more scientific evidence that Kenayns have a special genetic adaptation for fast distance running, than there is that EPO improves distance running times?
And I don't want a wall of obfuscating text, just yes or no, if you can.
Your lies and evasions never stop. We were discussing the study posted above about Kenyan doping, whose findings you disputed. Your "historical data" and the interpretations you make of it are irrelevant to that discussion. Another piece of your stupid "whataboutism". They are in no way analogous. Your views on historical performances are your fantasies; the study of Kenyan doping is an internationally published work.
The study found that altitude-trained Kenyan athletes, like sea level athletes, improved their performances after doping - which you have long refused to accept. You have sought here to discredit the findings of the study but when challenged can produce no experts who either criticize it or reject its findings. So you change the subject to your tired old hobby horse of Schumacher, who says nothing about the Kenyan study. You may fool yourself but no one else.
I'm sorry, I mixed up my responses with your other link on "Harmful Reduction", and your criticisms of my conclusions based on historical performances. I didn't realize you were still challenging "my views" of the Pitsiladas "Kenyan" study where they persuaded Kenyans to tempo 3000m time trials.
The belief you want to scientifically confirm is that blood doping can make these Kenyans, and sea-level athletes, unnaturally faster than clean altitude training can. These scientists came nowhere near "unnaturally" fast, with EPO, and therefore cannot support this belief. The next level beyond this belief is that faster times with an unknown doping status are more likely to be doped, again something far beyond the scope and conclusions of the Kenyan study.
I do not refuse, but I completely accept the Kenyan study observations -- these scientists needed to use EPO to get Kenyans to run 1-minute slower than their predicted time.
These Kenyans were 64:00 half-marathon runners and 2:12:00 marathon runners. The equivalent 3000m performance is 7:50-8:00. What is the value of an uncontrolled time trial that takes the runners from a baseline time trial performance of 9:20, and 4 weeks later, with EPO, a doped time trial performance of 9:00?
For comparison of these sub-elite Kenyan men's performances, 9:00 is about what the best American high school girls were running in the 1970s. High school girls are not running 64 minutes for the half-marathon or 2:12 for the full marathon
The very study itself measured low values of RPE, confirming that the Kenyans weren't even trying to run their fastest, unlike the Scots. In fact, the RPE values were slightly higher during the EPO trial -- the observed difference might be solely because they tried a little harder the second time.
You might be gullible enough to blindly accept these sensational but uncontrolled findings, waiting until a scientific "expert" says otherwise (does that ever happen? Would you accept a competing opinion?)
Note again, it was you that quoted for us, in a peer-reviewed article "caution is required when extrapolating findings from subelite to truly elite athletes".
Rekrunner - do you believe there is more scientific evidence that Kenayns have a special genetic adaptation for fast distance running, than there is that EPO improves distance running times?
And I don't want a wall of obfuscating text, just yes or no, if you can.
Your lies and evasions never stop. We were discussing the study posted above about Kenyan doping, whose findings you disputed. Your "historical data" and the interpretations you make of it are irrelevant to that discussion. Another piece of your stupid "whataboutism". They are in no way analogous. Your views on historical performances are your fantasies; the study of Kenyan doping is an internationally published work.
The study found that altitude-trained Kenyan athletes, like sea level athletes, improved their performances after doping - which you have long refused to accept. You have sought here to discredit the findings of the study but when challenged can produce no experts who either criticize it or reject its findings. So you change the subject to your tired old hobby horse of Schumacher, who says nothing about the Kenyan study. You may fool yourself but no one else.
I'm sorry, I mixed up my responses with your other link on "Harmful Reduction", and your criticisms of my conclusions based on historical performances. I didn't realize you were still challenging "my views" of the Pitsiladas "Kenyan" study where they persuaded Kenyans to tempo 3000m time trials.
The belief you want to scientifically confirm is that blood doping can make these Kenyans, and sea-level athletes, unnaturally faster than clean altitude training can. These scientists came nowhere near "unnaturally" fast, with EPO, and therefore cannot support this belief. The next level beyond this belief is that faster times with an unknown doping status are more likely to be doped, again something far beyond the scope and conclusions of the Kenyan study.
I do not refuse, but I completely accept the Kenyan study observations -- these scientists needed to use EPO to get Kenyans to run 1-minute slower than their predicted time.
These Kenyans were 64:00 half-marathon runners and 2:12:00 marathon runners. The equivalent 3000m performance is 7:50-8:00. What is the value of an uncontrolled time trial that takes the runners from a baseline time trial performance of 9:20, and 4 weeks later, with EPO, a doped time trial performance of 9:00?
For comparison of these sub-elite Kenyan men's performances, 9:00 is about what the best American high school girls were running in the 1970s. High school girls are not running 64 minutes for the half-marathon or 2:12 for the full marathon
The very study itself measured low values of RPE, confirming that the Kenyans weren't even trying to run their fastest, unlike the Scots. In fact, the RPE values were slightly higher during the EPO trial -- the observed difference might be solely because they tried a little harder the second time.
You might be gullible enough to blindly accept these sensational but uncontrolled findings, waiting until a scientific "expert" says otherwise (does that ever happen? Would you accept a competing opinion?)
Note again, it was you that quoted for us, in a peer-reviewed article "caution is required when extrapolating findings from subelite to truly elite athletes".
I am merely exercising caution.
So the kernel of your objection to the study is that the athletes weren't really trying. If that were so, you don't think those involved in the study would have seen that? Or that others reviewing the study would have picked up such a basic and obvious flaw? But none have - bar you. Curious. Yet you haven't published anything that supports your claims, that itself can be reviewed.
For sure it isn't doping that has made Kenyans successful. But I'M NOT SAYING THIS (as some opinion) - it's obvious.
Kenya already was the No. 1 distance running nation in the world in the 1960s and the 1970s. Was this because of doping? Yes or no?
I have never said anything like "doping doesn't work for Kenyans". Never ever.
For the third time you are asking why they dope!
In an attempt to reach another level? A 6 years old could answer your question.
So if it isn't doping that has made Kenyans successful then doping does not enhance performance and there is no credible explanation for why they are amongst the worst nations for doping in distance running. Are you sure you aren't rekrunner?
If true that "doping hasn't made Kenyans successful" it follows "doping does not enhance performance"? What a completely nonsensical "logic". It's on the same level than your last question from above.
In almost any thread you appear you call any other poster who doesn't agree with you to be stupid, lacking logic and so on (despite sometimes hundreds of down votes in a single thread). And than you come up with such failed logic as here. Go away.
So if it isn't doping that has made Kenyans successful then doping does not enhance performance and there is no credible explanation for why they are amongst the worst nations for doping in distance running. Are you sure you aren't rekrunner?
If true that "doping hasn't made Kenyans successful" it follows "doping does not enhance performance"? What a completely nonsensical "logic". It's on the same level than your last question from above.
In almost any thread you appear you call any other poster who doesn't agree with you to be stupid, lacking logic and so on (despite sometimes hundreds of down votes in a single thread). And than you come up with such failed logic as here. Go away.
Simple logic is clearly beyond you. If doping hasn't contributed to the success of Kenyans - as you claim - then it obviously cannot have enhanced their performance. Yet the fact remains they have doped more than virtually any other nation in distance running. Their own federation has lamented the sickness of their sport. So why would they dope if they gained nothing from it? There is nothing credible in any claim that drugs don't enhance running performance - and Kenyan athletes have used more drugs than most. You have no idea what you are talking about.
If true that "doping hasn't made Kenyans successful" it follows "doping does not enhance performance"? What a completely nonsensical "logic". It's on the same level than your last question from above.
In almost any thread you appear you call any other poster who doesn't agree with you to be stupid, lacking logic and so on (despite sometimes hundreds of down votes in a single thread). And than you come up with such failed logic as here. Go away.
Simple logic is clearly beyond you. If doping hasn't contributed to the success of Kenyans - as you claim - then it obviously cannot have enhanced their performance. Yet the fact remains they have doped more than virtually any other nation in distance running. Their own federation has lamented the sickness of their sport. So why would they dope if they gained nothing from it? There is nothing credible in any claim that drugs don't enhance running performance - and Kenyan athletes have used more drugs than most. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Even if Kurt Gödel, Andrew Wiles and Terrence Tao combined would try to convince you that you completely failed with your logic, you would call all of them stupid and that simple logic is clearly beyond them.
Precondition (A): doping hasn't made Kenyans successful
Conclusion (B): doping does not enhance performance
If A is true, then B also must be true - that's what you are saying!
We don't know for certain if A in fact is true (for me it's completely obvious that it is true (for sure it's not proofable) - Kenya just a few years after competing internationally became the no. 1 distance running nation on earth in the mid 1960s. And I think even you don't doubt that their almost immediate success was not the result of doping).
But that's irrelevant. The point is IF A is true, B is then a consequence? For sure not. How can someone even come up with such a obviously nonsensical claim? Because today we know for certain that many Kenyans dope? And they are still the no.1 nation on earth? Doping is widely used in any successful nation and Kenya definitely still would be successful without a single Kenyan doper - very likely with not as many top runners). Your thinking is completely nonsense. Many Kenyans dope and I have little doubt that this helps them to improve (maybe not all of them, it might depend on their own fitness level, but overall I think it's for certain it helps them).
Over 650+ down votes in another thread. One single thread!
Simple logic is clearly beyond you. If doping hasn't contributed to the success of Kenyans - as you claim - then it obviously cannot have enhanced their performance. Yet the fact remains they have doped more than virtually any other nation in distance running. Their own federation has lamented the sickness of their sport. So why would they dope if they gained nothing from it? There is nothing credible in any claim that drugs don't enhance running performance - and Kenyan athletes have used more drugs than most. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Even if Kurt Gödel, Andrew Wiles and Terrence Tao combined would try to convince you that you completely failed with your logic, you would call all of them stupid and that simple logic is clearly beyond them.
Precondition (A): doping hasn't made Kenyans successful
Conclusion (B): doping does not enhance performance
If A is true, then B also must be true - that's what you are saying!
We don't know for certain if A in fact is true (for me it's completely obvious that it is true (for sure it's not proofable) - Kenya just a few years after competing internationally became the no. 1 distance running nation on earth in the mid 1960s. And I think even you don't doubt that their almost immediate success was not the result of doping).
But that's irrelevant. The point is IF A is true, B is then a consequence? For sure not. How can someone even come up with such a obviously nonsensical claim? Because today we know for certain that many Kenyans dope? And they are still the no.1 nation on earth? Doping is widely used in any successful nation and Kenya definitely still would be successful without a single Kenyan doper - very likely with not as many top runners). Your thinking is completely nonsense. Many Kenyans dope and I have little doubt that this helps them to improve (maybe not all of them, it might depend on their own fitness level, but overall I think it's for certain it helps them).
Over 650+ down votes in another thread. One single thread!
Just go away.
Waffle. And rubbish. They weren't the number one running nation in the '60's and '70's. We also know Kenyans dope. They are a proven international basket case. The only way you can argue that doping hasn't helped them is to maintain that drugs don't improve performance. Since you argue the former the latter must follow. Conversely, if drugs enhance performance they will have contributed to Kenyan success, because they have doped in significant numbers. It's a simple argument but apparently beyond you.
In your previous answer you completely changed the subject and claimed that I have said something which I never had.
No, I didn't. You merely show you don't understand the necessary implications of what you claim. But that fits with one who goes by the user name of "slowwer".
So the kernel of your objection to the study is that the athletes weren't really trying. If that were so, you don't think those involved in the study would have seen that? Or that others reviewing the study would have picked up such a basic and obvious flaw? But none have - bar you. Curious. Yet you haven't published anything that supports your claims, that itself can be reviewed.
"Not trying" is a "kernel", but not the only kernel.
These are not solely my criticisms, but the study itself said it had no control group, was not blinded, Kenyan exertion was low, compared to the Scots, and that the design should be improved.
Let's apply your new standard, and see just what "experts" tell us in peer reviewed published articles. Sorry for the length, but the experts actually told us quite a bit (one wrote a 224-page thesis), and once again, I am mostly just a messenger of what has already been published.
The study itself was primarily a "gene transcript" study, and the Scottish and Kenyan performance time trials were included (for which purpose?), and published in various forms no less than four times, in 2013, in a 224-page 2014 PhD thesis, in 2018, and again in 2019.
We know from the study in the authors own words that "The present study was designed primarily to identify differentially expressed gene transcripts", and "... nor was the study blinded or include a control group." They concluded that an "improved experimental design (e.g., randomized, placebo-controlled crossover study design) is required."
Regarding time trial "exertion", I don't need to think, but we already know that those involved in the study actually did know and did see how hard the Kenyans exerted themselves, because the experts conducting the study measured the rate of perceived exertion (RPE), and published it for us in the various studies. It requires little more expertise to interpret RPE than it does to interpret times recorded from a stopwatch. RPE is the athlete's response to: "On a scale of 6 to 20, how hard did you try?"
One of your "non-expert" allies seemed to agree when he wrote: "And yes, the lack of a control group and the differing RPEs from 15 to 16 are disappointing".
We also know from the study experts that the baseline time trial average was 9:23, and the EPO time trial average was 8:57, because they recorded it in tables and graphs.
We also know from the study that these Kenyans were "63' half marathoners and 2:12 marathoners".
From other published "experts" in performance equivalencies, we know that 63' and 2:12 are equivalent to ~7:50 for 3000m, e.g. from VDOT, Purdy, and IAAF Scoring tables.
Putting these two experts' work together, everyone can see these Kenyan performance study experts took 7:50 equivalent Kenyans and got them to run 9:23 clean and 8:57 on EPO.
The previous equivalence experts' tables tell us that for 7:50 runners, 9:23 is ~marathon pace, and 8:57 is about ~ half-marathon pace. The fastest Kenyan in the study ran about 8:30, or ~10K pace.
Historical "experts" tell us that the best USA high school girls in the 1970s were running 9:00 for 3000m, but never 63 minutes for the half and not 2:12 for the full marathon. Mary Cain also ran 8:58 for the 3000m.
Have any elite Kenyan performance experts commented on the study results? Fortunately for us, we have had a long time contributing expert here at letsrun -- who has repeatedly said the study on Kenyan juniors is not realistic and is pure nonsense. Unfortunately for us, he has long been criticized here at letsrun, by anonymous "non-experts", none of whom have "published anything that supports (their) claims, that itself can be reviewed".
In this study, the best and only one you can find, everyone can see these researchers were able to take these Kenyan juniors, and realize an improvement of 5%, from about 85% to 90% of the Kenyan's predicted equivalent potential.
Is this result enough to predict that elite athletes can run 105% after 4-weeks of EPO, or even 101%? Furthermore, from this, can we determine who is clean, from a result that is 103% better than non-Africans achieved in the 1980s?
My conclusion again, comes from the Feb. 2019 study itself:
"... further research with larger sample size, complete data set, ... and improved experimental design (e.g., randomized, placebo-controlled crossover study design) is required to confirm these findings."