This illustrates the difference between you and me. You want to make guesses. I want facts and data before I make a decision.
The idea that until an expert tells us what to think in a scientific study we are unable to make a probabilistic judgement based on masses of evidence is something we disagree on.
University. Hard studying.
Another thing we disagree on.
You think credentials make the expert. I'd back real world experience and demonstrated sucess as being the hallmark or exertise.
This is another guess on your part. In the early 90's when EPO was being used what data did doctors have that showed it will benefit athletic performance? There was none.
See, a non-expert made a probabilistic judgement that EPO would benefit athletic performance before having any 'proof and data' from an expert to tell him he should do it.
But you miss the point again,
once people started taking it, they gathered masses of data on its impact on performance.
This is the evidence you ignore.
First, the results stated it works in the lab tests. As I have stated TWICE now you are overlooking the psychological effect in the "set of the pants' experience of athletes. You've not stated any sort of personal experience of being an endurance athlete so are at liability in understanding how crucial this is. Second you seem to be naive about the massive advances in technology today versus the past. In 1983 the top of the line road bike was about $2000. Today the average road racing bike costs about $10,000. My BMC TeamMachine listed at $9850 two years ago. Of course racers get deals. Think of these as the Ferrari of bicycles. These advances has meant faster times. Better nutrition and sports training has also benefitted athlete in recent years.
You are overlooking that people with far better data than you who know far more about pro-cycling than you believed it very much was more than a placebo.
People don't ride bikes in athletics which also saw massive performance gains and tumbling world records at exactly the time EPO started to be used.
Most of these athletes were doping prior to EPO anyway, so why does EPO provide a "super-placebo" effect and why did this decline when EPO testing appeared?
The only way to know is more testing with more specific parameters under control.
Until that point though, we can still be pretty confident EPO works very well on elite endurance athletes.
I think you have a poorly informed belief here. There are many examples of athletes coming back to success after a period of poor results.
You are again missing the point.
Magical transformations mid-career are not 'a return to form', they are performance that has no connection with what happened before and are thus highly likely to be the result of doping rather than anything else.
Armstrong, Froome, Wiggins, etc.
"Seat of the pants" tests. It's not as if every athlete doping wins. If you dope and win you are likely to keep doping.
Look at Tyler Hamilton's experiences with doping. He claimed clear advantages. Betsy Andreu said she couldn't believe her husband Frankie could keep up with climbers in one year during the TdF. She confronted him about doping and he was, and he quit. So yes there is "seat of the pants" benefits. We don't know what is going on exactly since these tests are not controlled.
I can see how a drug can help an athlete push harder in training and competition, which only causes more damage and fatigue, so a short term benefit that the athlete needs more recovery from.
So there is no "one size fits all" conclusion.
Not every athlete doping wins, but most athletes who win are doping.
There is a reason for this. PEDs enhance performance in all kinds of sports.
That's no way to talk about Jesus.
You seriously believe that peer-review catches almost all errors?
