The emperor has no clothes: Jemima Sumgong has tested positive for EPO!!!

outsiderunner wrote:

Anytime a woman goes under 2:20, it raises an eyebrow (or two) with me. Not saying every 2:19 is dirty, but sub-2:20 for a woman is tough, tough runnning...just as, say, sub 2:07 or so is tough, tough running for a man.

The best of the best during the hey-day of running (when running was an important sport) in the late 70s and early 80s were putting up 2:08 and 2:09, off of some serious, back-breaking mileage...and that was the best they could come up with, 2:08s and 2:09s.

Thus, how could it be that all other normal people could only run about 2:08, but those E. Africans can run a full five minutes faster? Same with the women. It is all fake.

I will give a minute, or maybe two, for training improvents and perhaps some normal or "natural" progression over the last 30 years, and so my mendoza line for suspicion is somewhere around 2:06. That seems humanly possible. The rest is fake...and the people who dope to run those times are an embarrassment to sports.

One other thing...I may be a nobody in running, but I know this: out of all of the distances, the marathon is the trickiest and the hardest in which to improve. There are so many things that can go wrong in a marathon. Even people who are truly fit must have everything go right. This knowledge makes me even more skeptical of the crazy times these people are putting up.

Renato Canova wrote:

Since I'm honest when I speak about any problem (to be honest for me it means that I say what I really think, not necessary that my opinion is the Bible), I confirm that the fact EPO doesn't produce any improvement in athletes born, living and training with continuity in altitude, if their training is proper, is an idea I matured after more than 30 years of experience with top athletes in altitude, before with Italians (in this case for periods of about 3 weeks, repeated several times in one season), after with Kenyans and Ethiopians, with a period with Chinese too.

I continue to read a lot of explanations, coming from what is normally written in every book of physiology. For example, the fact that EPO can raise the hematocrit : this is something everybody knows, and of course I don't need somebody reminding me this fact.

But what I don't agree, is the fact that, increasing hematocrit, we increase the level of the performance. There is not a WR for who has the higher Hct, but for who is able running fastest, and the connection with Hct doesn't exist.

I give you something to think about, if you are not blind, thinking that all you read in some book of physiology is exact at 100%.

1) Hct is the volume percentage of RBC in the blood. If you increase the total volume of blood in your body, maintaining the same number of RBC, it means that the part of plasma in the blood becomes higher, so low Hct is a "false" number, because the number of "lorries" able to transport O2 remains the same (so the ability to transport O2 is the same), but the velocity of the circulation becomes faster, because the blood has less viscosity and there are less peripheral resistances. Final effect of this situation, with lower Hct we bring MORE oxygen to the tissues.

2) The increase of the total volume of blood in top athletes, with proper training (as volume, continuity and intensity) can reach values of 25%, while the books of physiology give a maximal value of 5%. Why this ? Because NEVER the subjects who were investigated had the some talent and the some training of the top in the World.

3) For this reason, if it's true that the only scientific proof that EPO doesn't work with top athletes born and training in altitude can come giving EPO to some top athletes, already in top shape with training only (and this never can happen), for looking at the possibility of further improvement, it's also true that all the researches carried out till now NEVER regarded this type of subjects, so nobody can say WITH PROVES that EPO can add something to the best athletes belonging to the well identified category (BORN, LIVING AND TRAINING IN ALTITUDE).

4) I can't deny that there are many athletes taking EPO. In the past no Kenyans (till 2010 I never heard any Kenyan athlete asking for some support, also legal) had the mentality of looking for external aids, like vitamins or supplements, but in the last 6-7 years is a fact that this mentality (common in all the world) found fertile ground in Kenya too. I was the first denouncing this fact to Isaiah Kiplagat in 2012 before Olympics, and he told me "this is not the problem for a mzungu". And I'm still more tough than the rules of IAAF : in my opinion, who takes EPO (like any other doping) not only must be banned for 4 years, but must have ALL the results of his career cancelled. But in the case of EPO, the main reason must be because in his mind he wanted to take advantage compared with clean runners, so because his ethic is AGAINST THE VALUES OF THE SPORT, not because the real advantages he can have. And the second reason is because he's too much idiot for using something that can't give real advantage in case of proper training, risking to be banned and spending money for making reach doctors and pharmacists cheater. And the third reason is because gives discredit to a full Country, and to a full Sport, creating the idea that only with doping is possible to win.

5) But the fact that many use doping ("so, why many take EPO if doesn't work ?") doesn't mean anything : they take EPO BECAUSE THEY THINK IT CAN WORK, and what they think doesn't have anything to do with the fact if really works or not. Don't forget that the "Pharma market" is the third business in the World, and many not honest doctors push for taking every kind of supplement (sometimes already over the borderline of legality) making in the mind of athletes that they can have big improvements using their proposals. In this type of cheating, the cheaters overrate the percentage of improvement, in order to sell their services at higher price (this is what happens in cycling, and in athletics with sprinters, who have by far the best market in the world under economic point of view). Typical example of this mentality is Tyson Gay : I believe he was completely against every type of doping, but what he took was a little bit over the line....

6) In the case of many women, the ruin of their career comes from their husbands. There are many cases of coaches who married their athletes, but in Kenya it's the opposite : there are husbands who, for having a role in the family of a top athlete women, decide to be the COACH without knowing anything about training an methodology. They use their wives for producing money and glory for themselves, and are the ruin of the careers of the wife. Noah Talam is the husband of Jemima, Mugo was the husband of Emily Chebet, they gave the wife every kind of substance and the wife took without any discussion. The same happened in other Countries : the coach of Aptekir (winning 1500m in London) was the husband, as the coach of Shobukhova. We need CERTIFIED COACHES, not family members without any knowledge for driving top runners.

7) The fact an athlete can move in one year from 2:28 to 2:20 in Marathon can be connected with many other factors than doping. : it's connected with a BIG INCREASE IN TRAINING. So, ALL THE RESULTS COME FROM THE LEVEL OF TRAINING. But it's true that many athletes never start a real tough training, before in their mind they think that can't be able to recover, or because they have some other business at the moment.

When somebody goes to them purposing some HELP ("so now you can recover, if you take EPO"), they change their mind, finally using the type of training that can produce results of international level. So, EPO doesn't have a DIRECT EFFECT on the performance, but the effect of SUPPORTING the change of volume and intensity, direct responsible of any improvement. This is because I speak about "weak mind", also if somebody uses my words in ironical way.

But when you have talented athletes with strong mind, accepting very hard training without thinking at the recovery (one of my preferred sentences is "don't let your mind to decide if a training is too hard or not, let your body to decide, and the most part of time you discover that at the end you are able to do something that before you considered impossible"), the level they can reach is absolutely not inferior the level reachable with doping (honestly, I think with EPO they can't reach the same level they can reach without doping, for a lot of factors, both physiological and psychological, that make different doped athletes from clean athletes).

This is what I think. And I'm still waiting for some SERIOUS RESEARCH on the top athletes in altitude. Till when there are not clarifications about the changes that training at maximal level can produce in the physiology of top champions, I NEVER WILL ACCEPT ANY CONCLUSION COMING FROM INVESTIGATIONS WITH AVERAGE PEOPLE.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Clean Sport wrote:

I just can't understand... The punishment for using PEDs needs to be harsh enough that will effectively prevent this from happening:

1. Ban for life. No excuses.

2. Criminal prosecution - fraud.

Whoever is responsible (IAAF, WADA, etc.) to enforce 1 and 2.

Can someone please explain me where is exactly the problem to implement it?

It sicks my stomach to see Jemima Sumgong smiling and winning the Olympics. She should be forbiden to ever step her dirty foot on a race track.

It's not a good a idea to have absolutely no wiggle room at all. What if I sabbotage you by dropping testosterone into your normal massage cream and as a result, you test positive, and it can be proved (on camera or admission of guilt) that I did this? There has to be some room for understanding.

I would like to see criminal prosecutions for doping, but there are nearly 200 nations that need to pass similar laws.

And even if we do both of the above, there will still be people that try to cheat. A murder conviction will get you a life sentence or a lethal injection and yet people still committ murder on a daily basis. But we don't throw our hands up and give up on trying to stop it.

i agree with spencer wrote:

yes im sure someone can make a graph that shows what the % or time boost for males is on EPO, its harder to track it for women because steroids gave them a much higher % boost than men in the 60-80s.

but i personally think rono was 100% clean of PEDs, not clean off of booze but i dont think that was enhancing him at all.

so if you take his times then compare it to WR's before and after the EPO days you will see the trend

13:00 flat ish is the WR for the 5k, you do blood doping you drop under, you take steroids and dope you get Said Auito. then you toss in EPO and boom big drop, so if someone can graph what they think the cleanest records should be vs the current you will see what EPO does for an athlete

13:00-12:37......23s improvement in the 5k, KB was a 13:12-20 guy before he started EPO'ing, so for him it was almost a minute improvement, but lets just say its a 20 second improvement for a 5k, thats 40 seconds on a 10k, and a marathon is approx 2:40 improvement.

KB runs a 2:05 low, now take 2:40 off that...2 min improvement.

but yeah EPO doesnt work

Renato Canova wrote:

Since I'm honest when I speak about any problem (to be honest for me it means that I say what I really think, not necessary that my opinion is the Bible), I confirm that the fact EPO doesn't produce any improvement in athletes born, living and training with continuity in altitude, if their training is proper, is an idea I matured after more than 30 years of experience with top athletes in altitude, before with Italians (in this case for periods of about 3 weeks, repeated several times in one season), after with Kenyans and Ethiopians, with a period with Chinese too.

I continue to read a lot of explanations, coming from what is normally written in every book of physiology. For example, the fact that EPO can raise the hematocrit : this is something everybody knows, and of course I don't need somebody reminding me this fact.

But what I don't agree, is the fact that, increasing hematocrit, we increase the level of the performance. There is not a WR for who has the higher Hct, but for who is able running fastest, and the connection with Hct doesn't exist.

I give you something to think about, if you are not blind, thinking that all you read in some book of physiology is exact at 100%.

1) Hct is the volume percentage of RBC in the blood. If you increase the total volume of blood in your body, maintaining the same number of RBC, it means that the part of plasma in the blood becomes higher, so low Hct is a "false" number, because the number of "lorries" able to transport O2 remains the same (so the ability to transport O2 is the same), but the velocity of the circulation becomes faster, because the blood has less viscosity and there are less peripheral resistances. Final effect of this situation, with lower Hct we bring MORE oxygen to the tissues.

2) The increase of the total volume of blood in top athletes, with proper training (as volume, continuity and intensity) can reach values of 25%, while the books of physiology give a maximal value of 5%. Why this ? Because NEVER the subjects who were investigated had the some talent and the some training of the top in the World.

3) For this reason, if it's true that the only scientific proof that EPO doesn't work with top athletes born and training in altitude can come giving EPO to some top athletes, already in top shape with training only (and this never can happen), for looking at the possibility of further improvement, it's also true that all the researches carried out till now NEVER regarded this type of subjects, so nobody can say WITH PROVES that EPO can add something to the best athletes belonging to the well identified category (BORN, LIVING AND TRAINING IN ALTITUDE).

4) I can't deny that there are many athletes taking EPO. In the past no Kenyans (till 2010 I never heard any Kenyan athlete asking for some support, also legal) had the mentality of looking for external aids, like vitamins or supplements, but in the last 6-7 years is a fact that this mentality (common in all the world) found fertile ground in Kenya too. I was the first denouncing this fact to Isaiah Kiplagat in 2012 before Olympics, and he told me "this is not the problem for a mzungu". And I'm still more tough than the rules of IAAF : in my opinion, who takes EPO (like any other doping) not only must be banned for 4 years, but must have ALL the results of his career cancelled. But in the case of EPO, the main reason must be because in his mind he wanted to take advantage compared with clean runners, so because his ethic is AGAINST THE VALUES OF THE SPORT, not because the real advantages he can have. And the second reason is because he's too much idiot for using something that can't give real advantage in case of proper training, risking to be banned and spending money for making reach doctors and pharmacists cheater. And the third reason is because gives discredit to a full Country, and to a full Sport, creating the idea that only with doping is possible to win.

5) But the fact that many use doping ("so, why many take EPO if doesn't work ?") doesn't mean anything : they take EPO BECAUSE THEY THINK IT CAN WORK, and what they think doesn't have anything to do with the fact if really works or not. Don't forget that the "Pharma market" is the third business in the World, and many not honest doctors push for taking every kind of supplement (sometimes already over the borderline of legality) making in the mind of athletes that they can have big improvements using their proposals. In this type of cheating, the cheaters overrate the percentage of improvement, in order to sell their services at higher price (this is what happens in cycling, and in athletics with sprinters, who have by far the best market in the world under economic point of view). Typical example of this mentality is Tyson Gay : I believe he was completely against every type of doping, but what he took was a little bit over the line....

6) In the case of many women, the ruin of their career comes from their husbands. There are many cases of coaches who married their athletes, but in Kenya it's the opposite : there are husbands who, for having a role in the family of a top athlete women, decide to be the COACH without knowing anything about training an methodology. They use their wives for producing money and glory for themselves, and are the ruin of the careers of the wife. Noah Talam is the husband of Jemima, Mugo was the husband of Emily Chebet, they gave the wife every kind of substance and the wife took without any discussion. The same happened in other Countries : the coach of Aptekir (winning 1500m in London) was the husband, as the coach of Shobukhova. We need CERTIFIED COACHES, not family members without any knowledge for driving top runners.

7) The fact an athlete can move in one year from 2:28 to 2:20 in Marathon can be connected with many other factors than doping. : it's connected with a BIG INCREASE IN TRAINING. So, ALL THE RESULTS COME FROM THE LEVEL OF TRAINING. But it's true that many athletes never start a real tough training, before in their mind they think that can't be able to recover, or because they have some other business at the moment.

When somebody goes to them purposing some HELP ("so now you can recover, if you take EPO"), they change their mind, finally using the type of training that can produce results of international level. So, EPO doesn't have a DIRECT EFFECT on the performance, but the effect of SUPPORTING the change of volume and intensity, direct responsible of any improvement. This is because I speak about "weak mind", also if somebody uses my words in ironical way.

But when you have talented athletes with strong mind, accepting very hard training without thinking at the recovery (one of my preferred sentences is "don't let your mind to decide if a training is too hard or not, let your body to decide, and the most part of time you discover that at the end you are able to do something that before you considered impossible"), the level they can reach is absolutely not inferior the level reachable with doping (honestly, I think with EPO they can't reach the same level they can reach without doping, for a lot of factors, both physiological and psychological, that make different doped athletes from clean athletes).

This is what I think. And I'm still waiting for some SERIOUS RESEARCH on the top athletes in altitude. Till when there are not clarifications about the changes that training at maximal level can produce in the physiology of top champions, I NEVER WILL ACCEPT ANY CONCLUSION COMING FROM INVESTIGATIONS WITH AVERAGE PEOPLE.

3...2...1 wrote:

Interesting argument.

2:06 / 2:20 is probably a good line to start asking questions. I can believe that some great runners can run really fast but the sheer number of people running 2:06 now is crazy.

Canova's argument that Sumgong is not elite is ... not well thought out. I think she had several minutes on great runners like Shalane, who has run 2:21.

outsiderunner wrote:

Anytime a woman goes under 2:20, it raises an eyebrow (or two) with me. Not saying every 2:19 is dirty, but sub-2:20 for a woman is tough, tough runnning...just as, say, sub 2:07 or so is tough, tough running for a man.

The best of the best during the hey-day of running (when running was an important sport) in the late 70s and early 80s were putting up 2:08 and 2:09, off of some serious, back-breaking mileage...and that was the best they could come up with, 2:08s and 2:09s.

Thus, how could it be that all other normal people could only run about 2:08, but those E. Africans can run a full five minutes faster? Same with the women. It is all fake.

I will give a minute, or maybe two, for training improvents and perhaps some normal or "natural" progression over the last 30 years, and so my mendoza line for suspicion is somewhere around 2:06. That seems humanly possible. The rest is fake...and the people who dope to run those times are an embarrassment to sports.

One other thing...I may be a nobody in running, but I know this: out of all of the distances, the marathon is the trickiest and the hardest in which to improve. There are so many things that can go wrong in a marathon. Even people who are truly fit must have everything go right. This knowledge makes me even more skeptical of the crazy times these people are putting up.

meekMike wrote:

...

I asked how you knew 100% that what you are saying about EPO use at altitude is true? How did you come to believe that, so much that you would spread it like truth? You only work with clean athletes you say but their performances would not do anything to further that belief because you wouldn't be seeing the right pieces. You would have to test you idea by training athletes while off the drug and then while on it and keeping charts and graphs (and all that sciencey stuff) seeing how their bodies responded to build a foundation of FACTS. That is the only way to get a definitive picture, and the only way that you can say if it works or not. Which is what you do. Which is why it bugs me. Because if you didn't go to that far with and don't have any sort of proof, then you know what the call that? An OPINION.

Argh! wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

It's not a good a idea to have absolutely no wiggle room at all. What if I sabbotage you by dropping testosterone into your normal massage cream and as a result, you test positive, and it can be proved (on camera or admission of guilt) that I did this? There has to be some room for understanding.

I would like to see criminal prosecutions for doping, but there are nearly 200 nations that need to pass similar laws.

And even if we do both of the above, there will still be people that try to cheat. A murder conviction will get you a life sentence or a lethal injection and yet people still committ murder on a daily basis. But we don't throw our hands up and give up on trying to stop it.

Murder is an apples and oranges comparison, as most murders are "crimes of passion," athletic doping is planned and calculated, never a spur of the moment decision... (of course someone can take some extra dose in an "emergency," like the American who won the TDF by taking some "extra" testosterone on one stage etc., but was likely previous and otherwise doping.)

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Clean Sport wrote:

I just can't understand... The punishment for using PEDs needs to be harsh enough that will effectively prevent this from happening:

1. Ban for life. No excuses.

2. Criminal prosecution - fraud.

Whoever is responsible (IAAF, WADA, etc.) to enforce 1 and 2.

Can someone please explain me where is exactly the problem to implement it?

It sicks my stomach to see Jemima Sumgong smiling and winning the Olympics. She should be forbiden to ever step her dirty foot on a race track.

It's not a good a idea to have absolutely no wiggle room at all. What if I sabbotage you by dropping testosterone into your normal massage cream and as a result, you test positive, and it can be proved (on camera or admission of guilt) that I did this? There has to be some room for understanding.

I would like to see criminal prosecutions for doping, but there are nearly 200 nations that need to pass similar laws.

And even if we do both of the above, there will still be people that try to cheat. A murder conviction will get you a life sentence or a lethal injection and yet people still committ murder on a daily basis. But we don't throw our hands up and give up on trying to stop it.

Clean Sport wrote:

So let's not punish harsh because there is a chance of sabotage?

Clean Sport wrote:

We're talking about professional athletes and organizations who know very well what they are doing.

Clean Sport wrote:

My room for understanding is with all those for who a medal has been robbed. A lifetime of dedication to sport and finishing 6th, 10th, whatever, because someone named Sumgong and others cheat without serious consequences. And this has to stop.

Clean Sport wrote:

We need to protect clean atlhetes. Dirty athletes banned for life - they can find another job.

Clean Sport wrote:

If this would be enforced, i truly believe the only ones doping would be the desperate ones, so yes there would still be people that try to cheat but far far less. Not what we see today - suspicions everywhere.