Systematic Doping in Track and Field

Ethiopians and Jamaicans are the most doped athletes on the planet.

The IAAF lets it fly because the IAAF president is a African supremacist.

In the world today its ok to be a Black or Asian racist, but to be a white racist is a crime against humanity.

Systemic! Not systematic!

Actually it's systematic.

sys·tem·at·ic   

[sis-tuh-mat-ik] Show IPA

–adjective

1.

having, showing, or involving a system,  method, or plan: a systematic course of reading; systematic efforts.

2.

given to or using a system  or method; methodical: a systematic person.

Thanks for the incorrect correction. Go back to English class.

sys·tem·ic   

[si-stem-ik] Show IPA

–adjective

1.

of or pertaining to a system.

2.

Physiology, Pathology .

a.

pertaining to or affecting the body as a whole.

b.

pertaining to or affecting a particular body system.

3.

(of a pesticide) absorbed and circulated by a plant or other organism so as to be lethal to pests that feed on it.

No, track and field with a few exceptions (a occasional shot putter or race walker) is a clean sport. The unfounded

accusations of systematic doping among e.g. Ethiopians display envy by mediocre runners.

It was just pure coincidence that the arrival of EPO on the cycling scene just so corresponded to the same time when all the distance running WRs were being smashed to bits on a regular basis.

Honestly, it was just a coincidence.

I don't quite understand the effects of EPO. Does it do more than just increase the number of red blood cells? How is that so different from altitude training (or tents)?

wants to know wrote:

I don't quite understand the effects of EPO. Does it do more than just increase the number of red blood cells? How is that so different from altitude training (or tents)?

It isn't that different, but the advantage to EPO is that it works much faster, and you can modulate it.

2 people, both start with a hematocrit around 40, one moves to altitude, the other starts on an EPO regimen. Both achieve a hematocrit of 47, but it took 2-3 years for the guy at altitude and 2-3 months for the guy on EPO. Plus, the guy on EPO has the advantage of not having to train at altitude, and was able to train harder and recover faster because of his dramatically increased RBC levels. Drop a big 130 mile week? Altitude guy is hurting, EPO guy messes around with his dosage and keeps right on booking.

Every time I read some people thinking that the majority of top athletes are doped, I become angry because of the total stupidity of that belief.

I continue to fight my battle for the credibility of middle distances, especially about African runners.

I continue to say that blood doping with the strongest athletes doesn't work, and CANNOT work. I know what I say, but, because of partial informations regardings normal people (in this case blood doping works), many persons suppose I'm naive, or stupid, or cheater.

I don't care, I know where is possible to arrive with talent and very hard GOOD training (isn't true that Training Hard you win easy : train WELL is also training hard, but not always training hard is training well), because some of the best athletes in the world (for example, the WR holder of steeple Shaheen, the World Champions of HM Florence Kiplagat and Wilson Kiprop, the WCCCh Imane Merga) are with me in training from long time, and I know everything about what they do (and they do what I plan for them to do).

But the main point is another :

Which kind of image you offer, about athletics, for young people having the passion of running ? Your message is that NEVER is possible running fast without doping, that everybody is a cheater, that there are no moral values and ideals in athletics. You are a TERRORIST OF TRACK AND FIELD, without any proof and also without any knowledge about what are you saying.

I put my face in this battle, I put in Letsrun, but I'll put also in Boston (I go there for the Marathon with Florence Kiplagat and Moses Mosop).

I don't fear to say the truth, also if somebody doesn't believe.

People don't have any idea till where is possible arrive, IN ABSOLUTELY CLEAN WAY, having big talent and motivation.

Do you think that, for example, Herbert Elliot in 1960 (able running without rabbit, in the Olympic Final, the WR in 3'35"6 when was 22), with the professionalism of today, the money of today, a long career, better tracks, total motivation for long time, could not run the same times of today, may be better ? And the same thing for Peter Snell, Sebastian Coe, the top English runners of 30 years ago.

Or EPO already was there, only for them ?

Shut up, big stupid mouth, and respect who works very hard every day for promoting athletic in their role : athletes as first, and coaches (many of them without any economica advantage), and managers, and organisers that struggle in finding money for their races. And, yes, also for physiologists and haematologists, that approach athletics for one simple reason : because, being a MEASURABLE sport, is possible to have research about enigines superior to the normal average.

When what really happened was that a bunch of Italians that were ruining cycling realised that they would end up in jail if they stayed with cycling, so they had to find another sport to sink their greeding cheating claws into.

Hey presto, the world records started to tumble. Congratulations Italy, you've done it again.

Renato - if you don't think EPO/drugs work for top runners - can you explain how they clearly work for the top cyclists? How is this different? I understand that the benefits to a top talent would be less than the benefits to a mediocre talent, but cycling has shown that the benefits are definitely there (tour champions etc).

I am legitimately interested in how you would explain this difference.

cycling not running? wrote:

Renato - if you don't think EPO/drugs work for top runners - can you explain how they clearly work for the top cyclists? How is this different? I understand that the benefits to a top talent would be less than the benefits to a mediocre talent, but cycling has shown that the benefits are definitely there (tour champions etc).

I am legitimately interested in how you would explain this difference.

Just playing devils advocate but if EPO doesn't work on runners for whatever reason, why test for it?

cycling not running? wrote:

Renato - if you don't think EPO/drugs work for top runners - can you explain how they clearly work for the top cyclists? How is this different? I understand that the benefits to a top talent would be less than the benefits to a mediocre talent, but cycling has shown that the benefits are definitely there (tour champions etc).

I am legitimately interested in how you would explain this difference.

I am curious about this as well. I am NOT someone that accuses athletes of doping without proof, nor do I think that every top athlete is doped, but some top athletes have been caught doping. This is fact. Rashid Ramzi was a top athlete and took drugs to become a champion. If drugs didn't work why would he take them?

A sprinter once told me that to run 10 flat on drugs you must be a 10.1 runner without.

Is this correct?

Already I explained this several times. Now I repeat again.

First point : NO ONE of my athletes took any support (also legal) during their training. This is a fact that I know very well, other people can have some doubt, not me.

Second point : between my athletes completely clean (I speak about Kenyans and, for example, Imane Merga), there were results of top level : World Record in steeple, athletes in 10000m running 26'30" / 26'38" / 26'49" / 26'52" / 26'52", World Champions in HM (Paul Kosgei, Florence Kiplagat, Wilson Kiprop), winners of major marathons, 800m runners (already old) in 1'43"03 (Kenneth Kimwetich), athletes already "done" that went to win World Championships (Christopher Koskei), winners of World Junior Champs (Robert Kipchumba, Remmy Limo and others), and so and so.

Third point : some pseudo-scientific article speaks about an advantage of 40" / 1'10" in 10000m, and of 8" in steeple.

Fourth point : Since I know that my athletes were clean, somebody can think I believe that, giving them EPO, I could have 5 athletes between 25'30" and 25'50" in 10000m, or Shaheen could run 7'45" ?

Fifth point : as many evidences are a proof, I started to believe that EPO, for top athletes having some particular quality, doesn't work.

After this, I tried to understand WHY with some athletes blood test doesn't work.

I DON'T SAY NOBODY IS ON DRUG. I know very well there are athletes using blood doping, having some advantage (in any case, not so big as many people think). BUT IS A FACT THAT IN SOME CASE DOESN'T WORK, and I wanted to understand WHY.

So, I spoke with some scientists, that informed me about a long investigation with Danish rowers, staying in altitude for long time, that at the end had an increase in their total volume of blood, and it was possible investigate these particulars using MRI.

In connection with the University of Torino, I started to investigate using MRI the situation of some of these best athletes, when they were in little training, and when they were able to be in top shape.

What I discovered, is that the best Kenyans can increase till 25% their total volume of blood.

So, because haematocrit is a number (the product of the globular volume per the number of erythrocytes), we can have a high haematocrit because we have a lot of red cells, or because we have a very high globular volume.

In the case of African living in altitude, the effect of altitude is to have a big globular volume, not a big number of erythrocytes. On the contrary, when an athlete living at sea level goes to altitude for a long period, the first stimulus depending on the hypoxia is to produce more red cells, that maintain the same globular volume (for giving numbers, for caucasic people the volume is about 85/90, for athletes living in the Highlands is about 105/110).

What does this mean ? When the volume is bigger, the liquid part is more important, and there is less viscosity.

For example, if we have an athlete living at sea level, having a heart range between 40 (while resting) and 200 (for example, after a sprint uphill at max speed long 300/400m), when he goes at 2000m he loses about 5% of this range, reduced to 45 (resting) and 190.

But, we have a Kenyan of top level, he maintain the same range in altitude like at sea level, BECAUSE HIS BLOOD IS VERY FLUID and the periferal resistance against the circulation is very little.

The second point is that haematocrit is a RELATIVE parameter, not an ABSOLUTE parameter.

I try to explain. If the hypothesis is that the quantity of blood is always the same, of course, enhancing the haematocrit we have advantage in transporting oxygen, consequentely in the final performance.

But, if the athlete can have 1 liter of blood more in his body, he can have more hemoglobin, and at the same time a LOWER HAEMATOCRIT.

Practical example. You have a bottle of 1 liter. You put 500 gr of sugar inside, and fill the bottle with approximately half liter of water. After, you go to shake the bottle, mixing everything, and you use 10 centiliters for the analysis. You find 50% of sugar, and 50% of water.

Now, you have a bottle of 1.2 liters. You put 550 gr. of sugar, and fill the bottle with 650 cl of water. You again go to shake everything, and in the analysis you find...

45% of sugar and 55% of water.

Supposing that sugar is like hemaglobin (able to transport oxygen), WHEN YOU CAN TRANSPORT MORE OXYGEN ? When you have 50% of sugar with 500 gr, of when you have 45% of sugar with 550 gr. ?

So, why not with all the athletes we have the same situation ? Because the problem is the ELASTICITY OF THE CARDIOVASCULAR APPARATUS. If the apparatus is elastic enough, there is the possibility to produce and to host 1 liter of blood more. If the apparatus is not elastic enough, the only way is to use EPO.

Because the morphology of the tissues is similar, we can see that athletes with high elasticity in their muscles NORMALLY HAVE AN ELASTIC CARDIO VASCULAR SYSTEM, while athletes with big mass don't have the same elasticity.

When you want to compare Maroccans and Kenyans or Ethiopians, you can see that the normal morphology is deeply different. Under this point of view, El Guerrouj had a "Kenyan" morphology, while Ramzi, Boulami, Lahlafim Skah and many other had a different morphology.

Coming back to the situation, everybody knows that the first effect of EPO is to raise the blood viscosity. But the big difference between top Kenyans and Ethiopians, and the European, is exactly regarding the viscosity, that in the blood of white people (or people in South America, for example, that live at 3000 / 4000m but have very high haematocrit depending on a lot of erythrocytes with small volume) is very high.

That's the reason because I'm sure that, with the best athletes (that are phenomen of physiology), if we give EPO, we have WORSE performances. Som, for me, NOT ONLY WITH THESE ATHLETES EPO DOESN-T WORK, BUT CAN BE DAMAGEOUS FOR THE PERFORMANCE.

For knowing exactly, in scientific way, is a substance can work or not, and which percentage of improvement can give, WE NEED TO HAVE A RESEARCH USING THE BLIND DOUBLE.

Never there was any research like this, because of course nobody tried to see what a cyclist can do WITH EPO, and what can do WITHOUT EPO (the same person).

Of course, it is possible to say that the cyclists were able to improve. Why ? Because they train with more volume and more intensity AFTER taking EPO, but NEVER TRIED THE SAME TYPE OF TRAINING WITHOUT DRUG BECAUSE MENTALLY SURE THEY COULD NOT RECOVER.

This is my precise idea, and I work with this type of athletes. People speaking about theory, never had anything to do with this type of athletes.

I finish with an example. Physiologists are like good mechanics, able to arrange and to understand every type of car normally producted by the Factories. But these mechanics cannot work with a Formula One, because, also if the principles are the same, the material and the sophistication of the machine are very different.

If you think that the article speaking about the advantages in transporting oxygen had like target TO EXPLAIN THE EFFECTS OF EPO FOR PEOPLE UNDERGOING DIALYSIS, you understand how unfair it is. Or does somebody suppose that the WR holders need dialysis ?

Renato, you're my favorite poster, but let's look at the time period prior to 2001.

If I did my filtering correctly, this would have been the top 5k performers list prior to 2001.

Haile Gebrselassie 12:39.4 13/06/1998

Daniel Komen 12:39.7 22/08/1997

Brahim Lahlafi 12:49.3 25/08/2000

Mohammed Mourhit12:49.7 25/08/2000

Paul Tergat 12:49.9 13/08/1997

Salah Hissou 12:50.8 5/6/1996

Ali Saïdi-Sief 12:50.9 30/06/2000

Khalid Boulami 12:53.4 13/08/1997

Philip Mosima 12:53.7 5/6/1996

Assefa Mezgebu 12:53.8 28/08/1998

Dieter Baumann 12:54.7 13/08/1997

Komen: Caffeine and served a suspension for it

Lahlafi: Never tested positive, but pretty much everyone knows he was lucky and was using

Mourhit: positive for EPO

Saidi-Sief: positive for nandrolone

Boulami: Doped to the gills. Coached brother (and former world record holder in steeple) Brahim who tested positive for EPO (also coached Ramzi). To think Khalid was not using is beyond naive

Baumann: positive for nandrolone

So out of the top 11 performers of all time before 2011, 4 tested positive and 2 were no doubt using. I would love for the IAAF to retroactively test all sample from that era. Would be interesting to see what they find today.

Anyway, I'm not saying one needs to use drugs to run a 12:40 or 50 something time. I don't believe you need to. BUT, saying it gives no advantage can't exactly be true either. Also, between 1997 and 2000, there is no doubt that people were using. I can't say either way if that is the case today.

Amateur Lexicographer wrote:

Systemic! Not systematic!

Doping would be systemic if the only way to compete was if you doped.

The system is set up for only dopers to win.

Maybe that's your point.

Which one means inate to the system?

Which one means occuring throughout the system?

systemic

systematic

...but i do know the word you are looking for is innate.

You were just off an nth.

Note: I am NOT recommending doing the following, but this exercise had not really occurred to me before.

Take a set of top-level distance runners, such as Renato has, who he maintains are clean. Now, give these runners carefully monitored dosing of EPO and measure the drop in their marks from, say 26:30 and 26:45 to 25:50 and 26:05. This would be a clear demonstration that they were on well-below optimal levels of the PEDs before and were probably not on PEDs.

Of course, they would be failing a drug test but if they were open about it and did not compete in any 'real' events (National Champs, Worlds, etc) and then went back off in a monitored way it would demonstrate that the standard marks (i.e., current performances before this 'experiment) for these athletes (and likely by his other athletes) were made while clean.

Of course, you cannot do this experiment, but I had never thought of this demonstration until reading Renato's post here.