Is the sport cleaner than ever?

rojo togo wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

They all look like Ben Johnson. Or Flojo. None of them look like Jesse Owens or Wilma Rudolph.

God, you’re thick-headed and dishonest. De Grasse does not look anything like Ben Johnson. Neither do Gardiner, Simbine, Charundy Martina, etc.

They are all consistently more muscled than athletes before the 80's. Yes - you are thick-headed and likely dishonest.

rojo togo wrote:

Exactly. Armstrong is simply an ideologue. He has nothing new or important to say. His mind is utterly without nuance.

Nuance would be wasted on you.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rojo togo wrote:

God, you’re thick-headed and dishonest. De Grasse does not look anything like Ben Johnson. Neither do Gardiner, Simbine, Charundy Martina, etc.

They are all consistently more muscled than athletes before the 80's. Yes - you are thick-headed and likely dishonest.

I guess we’ll just have to let the public decide whether they think Andre De Grasse or Linford Christie is more muscular. What a joke you are.

Don’t contaminate my posts with your replies, you dope.

rojo togo wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

They are all consistently more muscled than athletes before the 80's. Yes - you are thick-headed and likely dishonest.

I guess we’ll just have to let the public decide whether they think Andre De Grasse or Linford Christie is more muscular. What a joke you are.

Don’t contaminate my posts with your replies, you dope.

You do a good job of contaminating your own arguments. And none of your feeble ripostes constitute any argument that the sport is clean. Unlike an infant such as you are, I have seen how athletes have changed over the decades since the 60's.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

That is an odd non-response. For what it is worth, I have seen the Al Jazeera report, and I’m familiar with many of Howman’s quotes — but that is beside the point.

The Al Jazeera report, and Howman are your sources. It is up to you to show how they answer the question you responded to, without obliging your readers to independently research or fact check your claims.

It isn't up to me to show you anything. You can fact-check anything you like - if you are able to get off your a*se. However, arriving at the truth will always be beyond you.

I can fact-check everything without ever getting off my a*se.

It is surely not up to me to check your sources to confirm whether they actually talked about “the sport”, and whether it is cleaner or dirtier than decades earlier.

This is not my laziness, but yours. You are the one who brought them into the discussion, twice. It is no one’s burden but yours to explain why they are relevant to the discussion at hand.

Given your long history of distorted recollection, and fuzzy sweeping generalizations, and lack of demonstration of any specific knowledge on any topic, I can’t even be sure they said what you attributed to them.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rojo togo wrote:

I guess we’ll just have to let the public decide whether they think Andre De Grasse or Linford Christie is more muscular. What a joke you are.

Don’t contaminate my posts with your replies, you dope.

You do a good job of contaminating your own arguments. And none of your feeble ripostes constitute any argument that the sport is clean. Unlike an infant such as you are, I have seen how athletes have changed over the decades since the 60's.

I am better-versed in the history of this great sport and much more deeply connected to its practitioners (especially runners of the post-war years) than you are. If you think the 60s were some sort of deep past in T&F, you are the youngster.

I also never said that the sport was clean. Nobody but you thinks this simplistically and absolutely. You have no idea how to make an argument without strawmen, etc. You are an ideologue, that is all.

But that's your default position for everything on doping - "we can't be sure of anything". I am not going to exert myself to prise you from your rock. It is a complete waste of anyone's time.

rojo togo wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You do a good job of contaminating your own arguments. And none of your feeble ripostes constitute any argument that the sport is clean. Unlike an infant such as you are, I have seen how athletes have changed over the decades since the 60's.

I am better-versed in the history of this great sport and much more deeply connected to its practitioners (especially runners of the post-war years) than you are. If you think the 60s were some sort of deep past in T&F, you are the youngster.

I also never said that the sport was clean. Nobody but you thinks this simplistically and absolutely. You have no idea how to make an argument without strawmen, etc. You are an ideologue, that is all.

You didn't read any of the previous arguments I posted on this thread (and elsewhere) about the nature of doping in sport. They are not ideological, but they do depend on a level of literacy that you apparently don't have.

Armstronglivs wrote:

why do you ask? wrote:

Feel free to explain how EPO doping allows an athlete to consume more oxygen without consuming more air?

Show Jack Daniels where he went wrong back in 1968?

The World awaits your Thesis oh enlightened one.

Jon Orange, you never give up. But the men in white coats are coming.

The Exercise Physiologists are coming?

I better stock up on Earl Grey tea.

why do you ask? wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Jon, you lost then and you will lose again. I doubt readers will want to go through your personal obsession again.

Feel free to explain how EPO doping allows an athlete to consume more oxygen without consuming more air?

Show Jack Daniels where he went wrong back in 1968?

The World awaits your Thesis oh enlightened one.

You really are dumb. This question shows very clearly that you have no idea what you are talking about.

That’s exactly what EPO does. It increases red blood cell count allowing the body to carry more oxygen to the body. You are able to extract more oxygen from the same amount of air.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Given your long history of distorted recollection, and fuzzy sweeping generalizations, and lack of demonstration of any specific knowledge on any topic, I can’t even be sure they said what you attributed to them.

But that's your default position for everything on doping - "we can't be sure of anything". I am not going to exert myself to prise you from your rock. It is a complete waste of anyone's time.

Can you extract the relevant portions of your sources, i.e. Al Jazeera, and David Howman, that helps answers the question of whether “the sport” is “cleaner” or “dirtier” than decades ago?

It’s fine to say “the black market in doping is a billion Euros industry”, but how much was the industry worth before? And we don’t really care about the whole industry, but just the tiny fraction that is for “the sport”. It is not relevant to talk about doping for non-WADA sports, like American football and baseball, and the bodybuilders in the local gym.

It’s fine to say anti-doping is always behind doping, but that has always been the case. How does David Howman help us determine “cleaner” or “dirtier” today?

Honestly, based on your responses so far, Al Jazeera and David Howman don’t help make your case.

why do you ask? wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The issue is not the advantage their DNA gives them but what testosterone is able to do. The latter can be changed, the former - their DNA - can't - and there is no suggestion it should be. Does that help a f*cking moron understand his point is irrelevant?

Who are you arguing with? Me or Peter Weyand?

So you know more about Oxygen Kinetics than Jack Daniels

You know more about Endocrinology than Nicky Keay

And more about Biomechanics than Peter Weyand?

And you're going to spam the boards with thousands more posts to show us all?

Do really think air and oxygen are the same thing?

Oxygen uptake and air intake isn’t the same thing.

You mention oxygen kinetics because you think it makes you sound smart. However it really just makes you look stupid. Because oxygen kinetics is literally all about how the body can extract different amounts of oxygen from the same amount of air in response to exercise intensity.

Why do you think VO2 is measured? Why do VO2 maxes differ. Why is anemia so bad for runners.

You’re too dumb to know how wrong you are.

Every observation you make is irrelevant. Still sticking to your doping-denial rock. As I said, I won't waste time trying to prise you from it. Nothing will.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Every observation you make is irrelevant. Still sticking to your doping-denial rock. As I said, I won't waste time trying to prise you from it. Nothing will.

OK Mr. Pot. It seems like you waste a lot of time anyway.

What would be more efficient use of your time is provide specific information.

Meanwhile, rather than denying, with respect to Salazar and NOP athletes, I agree with the statements of the AAA Panelists and the USADA Chief Tygart.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Every observation you make is irrelevant. Still sticking to your doping-denial rock. As I said, I won't waste time trying to prise you from it. Nothing will.

OK Mr. Pot. It seems like you waste a lot of time anyway.

What would be more efficient use of your time is provide specific information.

Meanwhile, rather than denying, with respect to Salazar and NOP athletes, I agree with the statements of the AAA Panelists and the USADA Chief Tygart.

Of course you do - they told you what you want to hear. (The bit about Salazar being a coach who breaks the doping rules you prefer to ignore). But the absence of evidence of doping is not proof that doping has not occurred. If that were so the only dopers are those who are caught when it is known by the experts that many times more athletes will be doping.

Both Al Jazeera and Howman have provided information that points to the widespread nature of doping and how it consistently escapes detection and control. But that isn't "specific" enough for you - because, like the intellectual child you are, a problem does not exist if you can't see it.

You are just being trolled, Armstronglivs.

For people who really haven't seen numbers (no worries, rek, I am not citing the abstract you so despise):

This here is from 2017, saying the basically same while discussing numbers, along with how the IAAF tried to block publication of these facts:

and:

See also here:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Both Al Jazeera and Howman have provided information that points to the widespread nature of doping and how it consistently escapes detection and control.

Lots of experts said similar things. Examples:

Dick Pound

"you can miss two tests simply by not answering the door if you're on something."

"There is no general appetite to undertake the effort and expense of a successful effort to deliver doping-free sport.

There's this psychological aspect about it: nobody wants to catch anybody. There's no incentive. Countries are embarrassed if their nationals are caught. And sports are embarrassed if someone from their sport is caught."

ESPN: "Pound complained that athletes don't speak out against doping, national and international federations are weak on the issue, national agencies are under the influence of governments, and governments have no incentive to catch their own nationals."

Paul Scott, the chief science officer of Korva Labs, a testing and research laboratory focused on anti-doping:

"Drug testing has a public reputation that far exceeds its capabilities."

"Sophisticated dopers have come to understand how to work around the Athlete Biological Passport," he warns. "They have evaluated correctly that they need to pare back taking steroids or EPO and they will still get most of the benefits."

Michael Ashenden, SIAB Research Consortium:

"Our treatment regimen elicited a 10% increase in total haemoglobin mass equivalent to approximately two bags of reinfused blood. The passport software did not flag any subjects as being suspicious of doping whilst they were receiving rhEPO. "

I have more...

Oh, and one comment from 2017 comparing 2011 (over 43% doping) with 2017 (no data yet):

Harrison Pope, Harvard:

"Even though the paper refers to events that happened in 2011, there is no particular reason to think the rates of doping in 2017 would be any different"

I have to apologize because, although it is not wrong, the “Salazar and NOP” athletes comment doesn’t belong in this thread. But I will take a moment to point out that you are wrong, again, as I do not ignore the three rule violations the AAA Panel found, but accept them at face value for what they are worth, as well as the characterizations of the judges and the prosecutor. I still wonder if you know which acts specifically violated which rules.

The points I raised with Al Jazeera, and Howman, can once again be best illustrated by re-asking the original question — is the sport cleaner now than before? Accepting the comments you provided, we can also say that doping had a widespread nature before WADA, and it escaped detection and control before WADA, for the few countries/athletes that were controlled. Neither Al Jazeera nor Howman gave statements “specific” to “the sport”, nor do they compare doping today to an era pre-WADA.

Your simplistic answer can best be summed up as your blind faith that “the sport” is dirtier than ever, with Al Jazeera saying doping is bad, and David Howman saying anti-doping is bad.

casual obsever wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Both Al Jazeera and Howman have provided information that points to the widespread nature of doping and how it consistently escapes detection and control. But that isn't "specific" enough for you - because, like the intellectual child you are, a problem does not exist if you can't see it.

You are just being trolled, Armstronglivs.

For people who really haven't seen numbers (no worries, rek, I am not citing the abstract you so despise)

…

Oh, and one comment from 2017 comparing 2011 (over 43% doping) with 2017 (no data yet):

Harrison Pope, Harvard:

"Even though the paper refers to events that happened in 2011, there is no particular reason to think the rates of doping in 2017 would be any different"

Now you are trolling me. When you jump in, I take it as a sign that even you think Armstronglivs is flailing again, like a fish out of water. But, despite all the added support for things that were not in question, you have done nothing to show how Al Jazeera and David Howman help answer the original question — is “the sport” cleaner today.

There is no reason to think a randomized-response technique will give accurate prevalence estimates, and many reasons, even peer-reviewed reasons, to think that they are inflated for sensitive questions like doping. Recall another study, where the random-response technique estimated 60% doping, while cross-checking it with 3 other methods that estimated 20%.

I agree with the study’s conclusion about the need for “refinement of this methodology to estimate the prevalence of doping in future sports events”. They need to address the issue of detecting and reducing/eliminating “non-compliance”, and redo the study providing more accurate results with current data.

Of course, contrary to Harrison Pope’s quote, the doping and anti-doping landscape has changed since 2011, and there are reasons to think that doping detection increased, post-ABP enforcement and post-IAAF scandal, by 2017, with the detailed investigations of WADA and the formation of the AIU, resulting in increased deterrence and reduced doping today.