He is not spouting his views. He is presenting facts. Apparently, you dislike facts. But hey! Whatever gets you to 30,000 posts before the Solstice, right?
Since you respond to all my posts you appear to be trying to get to 30,000 before me.
If you ever want to believe me two things: nobody tries to beat you here and nobody will do so.
Come on rekrunner, the poster "Here's my Take" explained it to you again just a few days ago: adding Epo to the many drugs of the 80s used by the Europeans and Americans can't change that much (not to mention the increased testing including OOC starting in 85 and later founding WADA and creating ABP etc etc). This is not exactly news. And yet here you are, pretending again that no one ever made a compelling argument.
The opposite is true: you never made a compelling argument.
I'm sorry. "Here's my Take" explained what to me again a few days ago? Do you have a link or a quote? I recall about a week ago talking with him about altitude versus EPO and the resulting extreme blood passport values in a Rodgers Kwemoi thread. In that thread he said EPO should work for sea-level athletes, and pointed me again to Malm and Schumacher, who say EPO should work "up to 3%." That explanation sounds very different than "can't change much". There was no mention of '80s athletes or '80s doping.
I recall this novel theory that EPO combined with increased testing being as effective as 80s doping without testing only ever came from one poster, "casual obsever". It was one of many competing unconfirmed speculative hypotheses that were "explained to me" by various posters. I found it uncompelling for several reasons, which I explained in more detail at that time in the "closer look" thread. It essentially argues that EPO worked, but we didn't see much progress because 80s doping also worked. It's supporting one assumption with another assumption, to draw wishful conclusions. Uncompelling.
In those "closer look" threads, I did not intend make any argument, compelling or otherwise, but instead, generated a lot of calculations, and asked a question about non-Africans.
That was in Another Kenyan busted, confirming your own statement that “Others believed that non-Africans were already performing at their potential in the '80s, thanks to the synergy of steroids and blood transfusions.”: "Here’s my Take": “Yep...transfusions, anabolic steroids, testosterone, amphetamines, etc. EPO is not going to be able to top that off much.” FYI, it is not just a (novel?) theory (from “Casual Observer” and "Here's my Take"?) that non-Africans doped in the ‘80s, and that doping works. See countless studies and experts and athletes from Ashenden and Canova to Salazar and Schumacher and government reports and IAAF and WADA statements. Here's my Take proved you wrong over and over again in that thread that you so conveniently forgot.
You should give up here and finally stop spreading your completely baseless and evidently wrong theory.
That was in Another Kenyan busted, confirming your own statement that “Others believed that non-Africans were already performing at their potential in the '80s, thanks to the synergy of steroids and blood transfusions.”: "Here’s my Take": “Yep...transfusions, anabolic steroids, testosterone, amphetamines, etc. EPO is not going to be able to top that off much.” FYI, it is not just a (novel?) theory (from “Casual Observer” and "Here's my Take"?) that non-Africans doped in the ‘80s, and that doping works. See countless studies and experts and athletes from Ashenden and Canova to Salazar and Schumacher and government reports and IAAF and WADA statements. Here's my Take proved you wrong over and over again in that thread that you so conveniently forgot.
You should give up here and finally stop spreading your completely baseless and evidently wrong theory.
Ah. So by "few days", you really meant 7 weeks (65 days). I think you also don't know what "proved" means.
"Here's my take" bought into the novel theory uniquely proposed by "casual obsever", without explanation or proof.
The popular belief among everyone else is that the doping of the '80s was largely ineffective for distance runners, with the potential exception of blood transfusions used by a small number of Finnish and Italian runners. None of these studies and experts and athletes have shown any of these other drugs produced the very fastest times in any distance events in the 1980s that were used to form my 1990 benchmarks. And yet it must be assumed in this novel unproven theory.
The other popular belief is that EPO is the high-octane drug for endurance events, compared to all these other low-octane drugs. If someone is arguing that "EPO is not going to be able to top that off much", this isn't disproving me, but rather a confirmation that EPO in the EPO-era wasn't a game changer. I agree with "Here's my take" that "EPO is not going to be able to top that off much".
I can't recall one instance of "Here's my take" ever disproving me in that thread, or in any thread in the past six years. He often dwells on extreme blood values in CAS cases, and points to speculative estimated performance benefits from scientists like Malm and Schumacher. These do not disprove anything I've ever said. In fact, I agree with scientific hypothetical speculations like "it can be up to 3%", depending on the initial starting conditions. These are not proofs.
What? You are constantly referring, without quote or link, for no apparent reason whatsoever, to this Casual Observer, to then claim she/he's the only one who thinks doping worked in the 80s, although the discussion started with Here is my Take. Weird. And utterly and ridiculously wrong.
You are also in typical troll style moving the goal posts and trying to go off topic. Originally you claimed:
It essentially argues that EPO worked, but we didn't see much progress because 80s doping also worked. It's supporting one assumption with another assumption, to draw wishful conclusions. Uncompelling.
Your "everyone else..." is completely wrong. Ask Frank Shorter, or look into the many Shorter threads where people argue that he only lost the Gold due to Cierpinski's doping, or look into the many AW threads with their successful dopers of the 80s (a certain mod here claimed at least 5). Or realize that blood transfusions became forbidden in the mid 80s because of the unfair advantage runners got from that. Or read literature from and about the 80s. And so on and on.
What? You are constantly referring, without quote or link, for no apparent reason whatsoever, to this Casual Observer, to then claim she/he's the only one who thinks doping worked in the 80s, although the discussion started with Here is my Take. Weird. And utterly and ridiculously wrong.
You are also in typical troll style moving the goal posts and trying to go off topic. Originally you claimed:
It essentially argues that EPO worked, but we didn't see much progress because 80s doping also worked. It's supporting one assumption with another assumption, to draw wishful conclusions. Uncompelling.
Your "everyone else..." is completely wrong. Ask Frank Shorter, or look into the many Shorter threads where people argue that he only lost the Gold due to Cierpinski's doping, or look into the many AW threads with their successful dopers of the 80s (a certain mod here claimed at least 5). Or realize that blood transfusions became forbidden in the mid 80s because of the unfair advantage runners got from that. Or read literature from and about the 80s. And so on and on.
You say Shorter and AW and literature "and so on and on" without any quote or link.
You are the one who referred to a 7 week old conversation, for no apparent reason, to answer a question that wasn't asked.
Recall I said "I received a wide variety of responses, some of them conflicting with each other, but there was no consensus response, not to mention no compelling explanation ..."
You said "Here's my take" explained it to me, when he echoed his belief in this novel hypothesis proposed by "casual obsever(sic)". He is one of several I referred to when I said "others believed" this novel hypothesis. He provided no explanation.
You said it happened a few days ago -- turns out that this echo of a belief was seven weeks ago.
You pretended that echoing "me too" was a "compelling argument", rather than just one of the variety of competing personal pet theories I said I received, some of them conflicting with each other, without any common consensus.
Note that Shorter and Cierpinski were from the '70s. When we talk about "Here's my take"'s statement "EPO is not going to be able to top that off much", this is relative to the 2:07's of the '80s, not 2:10's of the '70s. The pretended "compelling argument" assumes without evidence that the faster times of athletes like Steve Jones and Carlos Lopes and Taisuke Kodame were the result of the maximum synergy of drugs and methods available in the 1980s, and that "EPO is not going to be able to top that off much".
What about Athletics West? Here is an example of the prevailing belief as late as 1999 by none other than the infamous Salazar of AW:
"I, naively, did not know the extent of doping in athletics and believed that it was a problem primarily in the sprint and weight events, as compared to distance running, where muscular power rather than endurance and cardiovascular ability is crucial to an athletes' success. Other than blood doping, which was rumored to have been used successfully by the Finns, there were not any prohibited practices or doping methods that were clearly beneficial for distance runners, or I did not know about them."
As you can see, there was no common consensus belief -- just a variety of different beliefs.
It also doesn't match cycling, where blood transfusions were also used in the 1980s before it was banned. But it wasn't until the 1990s, where the "game-changing" performances were attributed to high-octane EPO, leaving 1980s world champions like LeMond in the dust. In other words, in cycling, EPO did "top that off much", but the pretended compelling theory for running is supposed to be that it shouldn't be expected to do that for the fastest non-Africans from five continents for nearly three decades in running?
It all just seems like the Emporer's clothes to suggest EPO really really works for running, trust me, but the prevailing consensus is supposed to be that we shouldn't expect to be able to see it reflected in nearly three decades of EPO-era performances, except for altitude based Africans who already benefit naturally from higher EPO and RBC, while simultaneously arguing EPO works for Africans like everyone else. It just doesn't seem all that compelling.
No no no. I didn't bring up "Here is my Take" for no reason; that was in response to your false comment about "no compelling explanation". Upon your request, I provided the quote/link. Still not sure what that has to do with "casual obsever(sic)" - you still haven't linked/quoted anything but whatever.
Your "novel" remarks are as wrong as pointless, as shown to you with countless counterexamples, but it looks like you won't stop. Funny that you now claim that the doping works in the '70s but not in the '80s just to keep arguing.
Ask malmo about the 5 doping distance runners from AW from the '80s - that comes up here every once in a while.