Did Sebastian Coe blood dope?

You ask why risk doping if you have talent. Athletes dope, not out of KNOWLEDGE that EPO will help, but out of BELIEF. Either the athlete, or their coach, believes that EPO will give the athlete an unnatural advantage.The basis for this belief is the science on non-elite athletes, and the long history of anecdotes from cycling. Yet with running, we have not developed the same degree of a long history of high performing blood doping anecdotes, like we did in cycling. The top running performances are concentrated on East Africans, then to a much lesser degree, North Africans, and then, again, to a much lesser degree the remaining non-Africans.Most of your long list is Moroccan athletes. This is a reflection of a combination of the talent of Moroccans, and a strong belief that EPO was necessary to bring them to the new level of East Africans. There is no doubt that some Moroccans believed EPO was necessary. Did so many Moroccans get busted, because testing is much better in Morocco?Can we see evidence of this talent/belief combination in non-Africans? I think it is no coincidence that most of the global athletic population -- representing 85% the global population of all athletes lacking an African heritage -- either lacked the natural talent, lacked the belief in EPO blood doping -- or both.I still think you exaggerate the importance of VO2max, and the ability of EPO to bring athletes to an unnatural level. The Kenyans in the Glasgow study were not well-trained, and had a 9:00 3K ability.I go back to the distribution percentages, by event, of the leaked "suspicious" values reported in the Sunday Times. This distribution is valuable information but it's a shame that these distributions combined the men and the women, because the Russian women, also taking steroids, skews the shorter and middle distance events. We can see from the percentages of medal winners (54%for 1500m, 28% for 5000m and 10000m, and 11% for marathon). This seems to support your repeated claim that VO2max is more important for 1500m (but again, I think it is exaggerated by Russian women on steroids), but clearly, high blood values are not that important for winning an Olympic or World Champion 5000m, 10000m, and marathon medal, when 7 out of 10, or 8 out of 9, athletes can win medals without ever having a "suspicious" value. Even for 1500m it's almost 50-50 that athletes who win have once had suspicious values or not. (I'm not sure where you are getting 133 from, unless you mean the men. 85-95 sounds normal for women -- the men should be higher (don't know the men's thresholds) -- and 103 (sea level) and 110 (altitude) are suspicious for women.

Is this a joke?

The Russell et al. paper showed a ~9.7% increase in maximum oxygen intake with low amounts of rHuEPO ("Effects of prolonged low doses of recombinant human

erythropoietin during submaximal and maximal exercise."/Eur J Appl

Physiol).

9.7% increase in VO2max - significant in the VO2max dependent race distances...nothing new there.

I don't think so. The Ashenden et al. paper showed that microdosed amounts of rHuEPO over several weeks raised Hb mass by 10% - equivalent to approximately 2 bags of reinfused blood ("Current markers of the Athlete Blood Passport do not flag

microdose EPO doping"). Sounds like the study didn’t need "serious, proper doses" to make the drug work 😉.

Not only can low doses of a pharmaceutical be efficacious, but they can be nephrotoxic as well...no surprises there.

.

Is this really a joke?

Athletes have been using microdosed amounts of several different PEDs synergistically to achieve performance benefits since the ABP debut (e.g., steroids, T, EP0, HGH, AICAR, HIFs). Haven't you been paying attention to the CIRC report & the Russian scandal? 🤔.

And if it's such "laughable nonsense," too bad someone didn’t warn Savinova that she didn't need to microdose EPO & steriods to win her Olympic & WC gold...she could have done it clean 😁.

This in all likelihood is correct, elite runners probably heard stories of cyclists dying and only took a low dosage.

Woeful response.

Coe was 20 when he ran 1:44.95 not 21 as you incorrectly state.

His pb at 21 was 1:43.97. So whatever point you were trying to make is irrelevant.

Coe spent a few weeks in Macolin during the competitive season. It has an altitude of 875m, which is not high compared to the likes of the Atlas Mountains, where EL G would spend months.

Coe did qualify for the 88 Olympics. He was selected to run the discretionary 3rd place for 800m after the trials, but the selectors decision was overturned by the BAAB the next day.

He had already beaten Ereng, who went on to win in Seoul, twice on the circuit.

Coe was last his best in 89 but wasn't 'dragged' to a 1:43. He won that race by some distance, and it was the 2nd fastest performance of the year. He also came 2nd in the World Cup 1500m. Yes, past his best, but being the 2nd best in 2 events is hardly woeful.

Great to see Seb and Paula back posting!

Revealer of names wrote:

Great to see Seb and Paula back posting!

rekrunner is still as funny as ever

"There is no doubt that some Moroccans believed EPO was necessary"

Your whole post is a joke.

Try reading the IAAF Manual. 6 lane tracks and those with different configurations to the 'standard' one ARE NOT ILLEGAL.

They are fine for record purposes and for holding meets at all levels. The only caveat of that is that they have to have 8 lanes and the standard configuration fir holding an international championship like the Olympics or World Champs.

One of the reasons given for the move towards a standard configuration is that it helps with the rhythm of the athlete to have a more gradual bend.

If performances on older tracks with different configurations or lane numbers were somehow advantageous, then the IAAF would have acknowledged this with some sort of asterisk in the listings as with A for altitude. This hasn't been the case.

Coe was still competitive in 1989 against Bile who was at his peak. https://youtu.be/YneaUw5pWyM

That doesn't make sense...the knowledge that it's effective with endurance athletes has been around for 2+ decades or so. Doping doctors don't have a belief...they have knowledge or they wouldn't have been advising athletes on the usage of EPO & blood doping. Ferrari was obsessed with 02-vector doping...think he might know a little something about this? 🤔. And don't forget Fuentes with his blood doping clinic for dozens of athletes (a la Operation Puerto).

I agree...absent studies with elites, it's based on anecdotes, i.e., cycling, female distance runners, men's race walking, and men's distance running with the EPO positive test cases.

You didn't like the studies with EPO & amateur cyclists...you said the results wouldn't apply to runners, and you're now incredulous with the Glasgow study? The researchers said the Kenyans were "endurance trained," and granted their average 65 VO2max is nothing near elite status, it's not "hobby jogger" level either. Besides, these were altitude natives with above average baseline Hct's that showed a significant improvement in 3k time (~5%) that correlated with an increased VO2max from moderate dosing of rHuEPO (and yes...I know it's not blinded and small based, and all that, but that's the best there is right now).

Here's another paper showing increaed Hb/Hct improves VO2max and endurance capicity:

Yes...the women mid-d runners are using steriods in a lot of doping positives. However, there are also cases where 02-vector doping has provided huge performance jumps. Take the most recent case of Gamze Bulut (1500 silver/London) just sanctioned for hematological anomalies on her ABP during that time period. She ran a PB of 4:01.18 in the semi's at London - up from her previous PB of 4:18.23 set in July of 2011. That's a mind-blowing 17 second (6%) improvement in 1 year! 😨.

On the off-scores, I'm getting the 133 from both the IAAF & UCI as the threshold needed for a passport sanction absent any other supporting evidence of doping (e.g., Shobukhova/153, Ugarova/141, Jonathan Tiernan-Locke/155).

rekrunner wrote:

In an aerobic doping thread, we are not talking about specialist events, rewarding non-aerobic technical ability. Steeple, like cross, requires a strong aerobic ability, but also requires non-aerobic technical ability, compared to pure running track events.

As an indication of Boulami's aerobic prowess, what has he done in flat 3000m and 5000m races? 7:38 and 13:28 are respectable times, to be sure, but Boulami was world class at steeple with less than world class aerobic ability.

Yes, it doesn't take any aerobic ability to run a great steeple. good point.

Once you eliminate runners who set world records on EPO, there is practically no evidence that EPO works..

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Yes, it doesn't take any aerobic ability to run a great steeple. good point.

Once you eliminate runners who set world records on EPO, there is practically no evidence that EPO works..

I guess now we have solid evidence that EPO helps technical ability and not so much aerobic ability. This is why it helped Boulami run faster than anyone else in the steeplechase and helped Mourhit run faster than everyone else in the World Cross where he navigated the technically difficult muddy surfaces....

We also now understand from this thread why EPO worked so well in cycling in that the riders using EPO had improved technical ability on their bicycles so they could descend mountains faster and ride in big groups together with less risk of falling down...

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Yes, it doesn't take any aerobic ability to run a great steeple. good point.

.

Of course not...it's only a ridiculous 7 1/2 laps around the track with very complicated, almost impossible to get over, gigantic hurdles and an extremely difficult & dangerous water jump. When are they going to start moving the 400m hurdlers up to this event?

justicer wrote:

I guess now we have solid evidence that EPO helps technical ability and not so much aerobic ability. This is why it helped Boulami run faster than anyone else in the steeplechase and helped Mourhit run faster than everyone else in the World Cross where he navigated the technically difficult muddy surfaces....

We also now understand from this thread why EPO worked so well in cycling in that the riders using EPO had improved technical ability on their bicycles so they could descend mountains faster and ride in big groups together with less risk of falling down...

10/10

How about Rashi Ramzi? CERA did not help his aerobic capacity?

justicer wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Yes, it doesn't take any aerobic ability to run a great steeple. good point.

Once you eliminate runners who set world records on EPO, there is practically no evidence that EPO works..

I guess now we have solid evidence that EPO helps technical ability and not so much aerobic ability. This is why it helped Boulami run faster than anyone else in the steeplechase and helped Mourhit run faster than everyone else in the World Cross where he navigated the technically difficult muddy surfaces....

We also now understand from this thread why EPO worked so well in cycling in that the riders using EPO had improved technical ability on their bicycles so they could descend mountains faster and ride in big groups together with less risk of falling down...

John Utah: you are a racist cop posting under a traceable name. Moron.

calculo wrote:

no serious track fan coud consider a 6-laner as a serious track !!!

when was the last time a 200m or above WR set on anything other than a 8-laner ???

when was last time a 100m WR set on any other than 8-laner ???

or on tracks that do not have the preferred configuration

is this a joke ???

it has to be 116 / 84

it makes coe's firenze run immediately illegal as no 8-lanes !!!

The poster you responded to was perfectly correct and you are wrong again. Coe's run did not have to be on a more recently accepted "Standard Track" to be a legal WR. It was ratified at the time and you have still to offer any evidence of note from a 3rd party that the track wasn't perfectly satisfactory.

What part of the IAAF handbook do you not understand? It's quite clearly explained in laymen's terms in their Technical Manual of 2008 (updated 2013): -

2.2 Facilities for Track Events

Although there are a number of different layouts for the 400m oval track, it is IAAF’s objective to create uniform criteria, not only with a view to improving the performance parameters necessary for equal opportunities for all athletes and for the suitability for competition but also to simplify the principles of construction, surveying and certification of facilities. Experience has shown that the most suitable 400m oval tracks are constructed with bend radii of between 35m and 38m, with an optimum of 36.50m. IAAF recommends that all future tracks are constructed to the latter specification and this will be referred to as the “400m Standard Track”.

This means that the IAAF have been in the process of establishing as many ‘Standard’ track configurations, as of when this was written, as new ones are built, to make it more suitable for all athletes. It does not state that those without a radii bend of 36.5m are illegal!

2.2.1.1 Layout of the 400m Standard Track

“The 400m Standard Track has the advantages of a simple construction, straight and curved sections of almost equal length and uniform bends which are most suitable to the running rhythm of athletes.”

That means ALL athletes, including those who run 800m.

“All lanes have a width of 1.22m ± 0.01m. The 400m Standard Track has 8, 6 or occasionally 4 lanes but the last is not used for international running competition.”

That means that a 6 lane track can be used for international competition.

“Further the outside lane could infringe the World Record rule that states the record should be made on a track, the radius of the outside lane of which shall not exceed 50m.”

So, as long as the outside lane, be it lane 6 or 8, has a bend radius of less than 50m, then it is eligible for a World Record.

2.2.1.8 Other Layouts for the 400m Oval Track

“Radii other than between 35.00m and 38.00m should not be used for tracks for international competition, except for double bend tracks where the dimensions of which ensures an infield size adequate for rugby. In this case, the minimum radius must not be less than 24.00m.”

Table 1.2.3a in the IAAF Manual shows that the radius of a double bend track, which is LEGAL for international competition, can range from 24 to 48m. It also means the straights can be 98m long.

There have been many world records set on 6 lane tracks, and there is nothing in any document published by the IAAF that states times on 6 lane tracks are not acceptable.

"Running tracks can have a variable number of lanes (typically from four to nine) and, in accordance with IAFF requirements (International Association of Athletics Federations), each lane is 1.22m wide."

Number of lanes are irrelevant and a total red herring. The only prerequisite is that it is a 400m track and the lanes are 1.22m wide.

Likewise, no IAAF rules state that tracks have to have 'standard' 84m long straights and 116m curves for record purposes.

Moreover, scientific testing on tracks with longer straights and thus tighter bends, shows it is actually a disadvantage to athletes and slows them down.

Even if the old Oslo track was of a different configuration to the current "standard" IAAF ones, that does not make them illegal nor faster. There were many tracks of different configurations being used in the last century, and any records set on them that were ratified by the IAAF made them legal.

With regards to the old Oslo track and others, with longer straights and shorter curves, being faster than the now preferred ‘Standard’ 84/116 configuration, a research paper published in 2004 by Vanessa Alday and Michael Frantz, entitled, “The Effects of Wind and Altitude in the 400m Sprint with Various IAAF Track Geometries”, actually shows the opposite to be true. It states: -

“We investigate the effects that wind and altitude have on the 400m sprint when run on various IAAF track geometries, with the work based on the senior project written by Vanessa and supervised by Michael. We validate Quinn‟s ordinary differential equations model using data from the 1999 World Athletics Championships. The model is based on Newton‟s Law for the energy balance of a runner, and Maple is used to solve the model‟s equations numerically. We confirm some non-intuitive results about…. performances on both an equal quadrant track and a track from the ancient Greek games. Comparing the tracks provides information about the effects on performances on different standard tracks.”

"Although the IAAF standard track is the norm for track dimensions, the IAAF accepts other tracks. One type of track is the equal quadrant track, which is a 400 meter track with 100 meter bends and 100 meters along each straightaway, measured along lane 1."

“We choose the equal quadrant track (to test) because before the IAAF standard track became so popular, the equal quadrant track was preferred. However, today THE STANDARD TRACK is by far the most widely used design for a number of reasons, including A WIDER TURNING RADIUS that favors runners and ENHANCES PERFORMANCES, ….”

When comparing times for equal quadrant and standard tracks in windless conditions over 400m, “The final TIME in the EQUAL QUADRANT track is 0.06 seconds SLOWER than the IAAF standard track simulation, due to the SMALLER RADII on the bends. This causes the runners to spend more time on the ground than in the air, which increases their time. An equal quadrant track has longer straights than the IAAF standard track, which gives the runners on an equal quadrant track an advantage to be able to run faster on the straights. However, THIS DOES NOT OUTWEIGH THE DISADVANTAGE THAT THEY HAVE ON THE BENDS.”

MICHAEL FRANTZ PHD - Professor of Mathematics and Chair of the Department of Mathematics, Physics, and Computer Science, University of La Verne, California.

So that would assume that Coe's run on the tighter bends of Oslo would have made his 800m performance at least 0.12 secs faster on a current standard configuration athletics track. And that isn't taking into consideration the improvements in surfaces since the 1970's.

So you are totally wrong in claiming it made times faster. It would have been the exact opposite, if indeed it even did have longer straights and shorter bends than the 'current standard' configuration.

calculo wrote:

I also seem to recall several of Ryun's races being held on 6 lane tracks

is this a joke ???

name them !

Thus they must also be dismissed for record purposes or posterity

name them

No?

which ones ???

no serious track fan coud consider a 6-laner as a serious track !!!

Ryun's 3:55.8 Mile and fastest 440 relay leg of 46.9 at the Kansas Relays were run on a 6 lane track. Presumably the number of lanes would have been the same the following year when he ran 3:54.7 and run his fastest 67 relay split of 47.0.

So it strikes me as odd that you are willing to dismiss a World record with a full video and FAT on a 6 lane track, but then use another performance (with limited footage, hand timing and a College level meet) on a 6 lane track to claim Ryun was in 44.0 sec form for 400m?

Yet another example of contradictory and hypocritical evidence.

If this is not the case then you have to admit that Ryun's runs there were 'a joke' and not a 'serious track'?

There was also only 7 lanes on the Dusseldorf track where he ran his 3:38. So does that make it half a joke track? Surely it's not 8 lanes so the performance should be dismissed out of hand!?

What has track dimensions got to with the Sebastian Coe and blood doping?!

Le Blaireau wrote:

What has track dimensions got to with the Sebastian Coe and blood doping?!

That's what I've been thinking.

I wonder if a lot of the Europeans were blood doping in the 80s in an effort to level the playing field against the East Africans. One of the Flying Finns, Kaarlo Maaninka, admitted to blood doping during 80 Olympics. It looks like he didn’t do too bad at Moscow: