Are drugs behind the amazing drop in marathon times?

I can repost Dr. Rosa's quote which I provided earlier (currently on page 6 of this thread), and get it back on this page to further the topic of discussion

I didn't start this thread, neither do I make the case EA's are or are not doping. However, when some coach keeps repeatedly asserting that these various performance enhancing drugs do not provide any significant benefit to his particular array of athletes, then he ought to put up some justifiable studies that prove that to improve his credibility.

It's sort of analogous to an Eastern European strenth coach claiming steroids dont help his stable of bodybuilders in their recovery, because they are already too strong to benefit from them.

(1) Yes, some performance enhancing drugs provide performance enhancement to their users and abusers;

(2) Yes, some of these performance enhancing drugs can cause to the same.

Can we all agree on these two basic declarations?

"...can cause *harm* to the same."

We can agree you're a twit.

do your homework wrote:

We can agree you're a twit.

i also have nothing substantial to offer to this discussion

J.R. wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Here's the difference between African and western athletes Renato can confirm:

When a western athlete is running like crap, they'll say that they want to get blood work done to see what's wrong with them. When an East African athlete is running like crap, they'll say that they need to get in shape.

Yes, I like that. So true, so true.

good point, because you can just train your way out of anemia.

No. Geb was not able to run 26.17-30 when he ran his best marathon times. He returned briefly to the track and ran 26.53

or so.So 2:04 is probably equivalent to 2:04

obviously 2:04 is equivalent to 2:04. I meant 27:00 on the track.

yyy wrote:

obviously 2:04 is equivalent to 2:04. I meant 27:00 on the track.

So what your saying is 26.30 = 2.02. Wish I'd come up with that idea.

I hope it's interesting. I do have a certain level of personal interest in Canova, Cabral, and Lydiard threads, not to mention physiology threads, and even some mathematical threads. I just read the "Letsrun memes" thread, and realized that I'm out of the loop for some of the more famous letsrun themes and running jokes -- my participation in threads is very selective.Although everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs, I'm mostly a champion for scientific methods, and facts, and mathematics, and statistics, and sound logic.For example, you asked for studies that show blood doping doesn't work for top athletes. I think that's great! Without such studies to control and/or limit variables, we are limited to the gray areas of opinion, suspicion, and faith, and personal experiences (and personal experiences are simply anecdotes, and, although valuable, anecdotes are not proofs). I think so far no studies exist either way, that were done with these kind of top athletes. My hunch and gut feeling is that if blood doping works, the effect is less, because the potential for improvement is less with athletes who have been more effectively trained to realize their potential and/or who may have some kind of natural genetic/environmental oxygen related advantage. But I never did any studies myself, nor did I read any, so this is my own personal statement of faith.There are studies that show a certain kind of "high-low" altitude training can lower your 5K times by 20 seconds. There are also studies that suggest 10K time can drop by 40 seconds using EPO.This leaves me wondering, what if the "high-low" altitude trained athlete takes EPO? Will he also gain 40 seconds from EPO? Has anyone looked at that? Can we directly add the benefits of the two aids, or will their be some kind of diminishing return?Similarly, East African athletes have a special high altitude situation, with potentially both genetic and lifelong environmental advantages. Can a study on average western subjects be used to directly support conclusions about East Africans? I have a doubt that hasn't been eliminated yet by any study. This is based on the uncertainty of how the high altitude affects the human body during a lifetime, and over the course of many generations.My main doubts about East Africans doping come from:- statistics: there are too many East Africans, and not enough money to support doping them all. Many of them are young athletes you never heard of. How much would it cost to dope the successful athletes, plus all the unsuccessful ones that you will never hear of? How much money does Kenya, Ethiopia, and rogue Italian coaches have, and how much does track, road racing, and marathons pay?- infrastructure: how do you implement complex EPO-microdosing and multiple blood transfusions without refrigerators, electricity, and hospitals?When we speak of "un-human" marathon performances, we speak of mostly of athletes from Kenya and Ethiopia. Not even the entirety of the countries, but certain specific regions and tribes. Not all Kenyans are good runners -- they mostly come from the Rift Valley, and are Kalenjin, and more specifically Nandi people. These are not rich countries. They are not comparable to Russia, East Germany, or China, when it comes to consolidating political will to fund national programs for elite performances. And we speak of track, road racing, and marathons. There is some money in these sports, but not like soccer, football, baseball, or cycling.Drugs and blood doping are not limited to national or ethnic boundaries. In cycling, drugs help Americans, English, Germans, Italians, Spaniards, Kazakhstans, .... How is it plausible that with marathon performances, it only helps a small percentage of Kenyans in certain tribes, and an even smaller number of Ethiopians?We could speak of loose controls in Kenya and Ethiopia, but then, why would that favor certain regions/tribes of Kenya, rather than the whole country?So if the question is why East Africans are producing such incredible marathon performances, I think simply concluding that it must be due to drugs, or blood doping, is simply not supported by any study, nor any acceptable process of logic based on the known facts, and statistical assumptions.I think there are enough doubts that cannot be overcome without controlled studies. It is simply premature to jump to conclusions based on the nationality of a coach, and the winning times of a race.

What's the controversy? wrote:

Is it interesting that the poster 'rekrunner' shows up around the canova threads? And/or is it the lousy English cabral threads?