jemima sumgong went from being a 2.29 marathon runner ,to 2.20.are these improvements normal for an EPO user?

That would be funny if some of these celebrity PEDs were designed primarily for cheating in the first place and as a side effect helped sick patients.

This the contentious issue, I suspected that blood dopers were not at a massive disadvantage to epo users. Heck it may even be superior (I have no personal experiences of doing either). It would be interesting to see some sort of equalized ratio (again a study that will never happen). But Armstrong/US Postal were doing transfusions & epo (and other stuff). I think that the combination of the two was the magic elixir that emerged in the 1990s but is no longer viable with ABP. But if LeMond was on EPO in 1989 every thing else falls into place logically.

I would not say epo and transfusions aren't viable. We know the IAAF and cycling were burying positives. Everything is still in place to bury positives. In fact, there is less transparency now.

Generally speaking, one day bike races favor a crazy amount and variety of luck. Where Epo really shines is stage racing.

In running Epo would strongly favor any event over maybe 6 minutes. It will generally help in training cycles for any event.

With the marathon, if you can run each KM a few seconds faster AND get the Epo bonus of much greater fatigue resistance, then you'll get amazing times not possible clean. Whether or not you end up on the podium in Boston is another thing entirely.

rekrunnner wrote:

How dare you say this about Paula? Paula is not only British, but she is a Member of the Order of the British Empire, as bestowed by the Queen herself. Paula regularly associates with knights and royalty. Her honour is unimpeachable.

Her title and place in society alone make your statement libelous. Again I ask, How dare you, sir? How dare you?

Hey there...don't scare the cat away (this Paula discussion is just starting to get interesting).

test2 wrote:

Yeah, we may argue about the scientific evidence that EPO enhances performance or not but there certainly isn't sufficient evidence to support the claim that it uniformly raises performance. It's possible it does, but it's also possible that some people, for whatever physiological reason, are higher responders. My guess is that people with naturally lower hematocrit have more to gain because they can add more RBCs before their blood begins to thicken.

And that's basically what the University of Glasgow cohort showed with the endurance-trained Kenyan & Scottish runners. The baseline average Hct's for the sea-level Scots are 42% vs 46% for the altitude-native Kenyans. Both groups received identical weekly rHuEPO injections over several weeks and the Kenyans raised their Hct to ~49%, increased VO2max by ~6% and improved a 3k TT by ~4%. However, the Scots with the lower baseline Hct's were able to also increase Hct to ~49%, increase VO2max by ~9%, and improve their 3k time by ~6%. So, the Scots with the lower baseline Hct's received a greater boost and performance benefit than the altitude-native Kenyan runners.

Though the study was not blinded, nor using elite runners, I think it suggests that athletes with lower baseline crits would be able to boost Hct with rHuEPO by a higher percentage and receive a greater increase in VO2max, and a greater performance improvement than an athlete with a higher baseline Hct. Or course, if the athlete with the lower Hct isn't in the same talent level as the one's with the higher values, it probably wouldn't matter much (and in this study, the Scots still weren't as fast as the Kenyans).

VO2maximum wrote:

I think it suggests that athletes with lower baseline crits would be able to boost Hct with rHuEPO by a higher percentage and receive a greater increase in VO2max, and a greater performance improvement than an athlete with a higher baseline Hct...

The Vo2MAX data of the Scottish group points also to the direction that participants with better initial aerobic level react less to rEPO-injections. Through backward reconstructing the data from the charts, there are total of four athletes with relative Vo2MAX figure in excess of 60ml/kg/min (70.0, 64.0, 63.5 and 62.0) and after the rEPO period their corresponding values are 72.0, 62.5, 67.0 and 64.5, with the mean improvement being only 2.5 %, whereas the Vo2MAX increase was around 10 % in the sub-60 ml/kg/min group.

It is always possible that their hematological parameters reacted less to the rEPO injections, but it is striking that this is far from the first dataset where this phenomenom is seen.

and thankfully the blatently cheating cow never won olympic gold.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

This the contentious issue, I suspected that blood dopers were not at a massive disadvantage to epo users. Heck it may even be superior (I have no personal experiences of doing either). It would be interesting to see some sort of equalized ratio (again a study that will never happen). But Armstrong/US Postal were doing transfusions & epo (and other stuff). I think that the combination of the two was the magic elixir that emerged in the 1990s but is no longer viable with ABP. But if LeMond was on EPO in 1989 every thing else falls into place logically.

My reading is that LeMond taking rEPO in 1989 doesn't still explain the inconsistency of Gewiss-Ballan wiping the floor with the rest of the peloton in the 1994 edition of Flèche Wallonne with a substance introduced already some half decade earlier.

Do you know that Yannis Pitsiladis himself told me he was surprised when discovered that Wilson Kipsang (whith whom he started to work this winter) had 42 of Hct, that is exactly what I discussed with him : high Hct doesn't mean athletes can run faster....

This for demonstrating that all the researches carried out with subjects different from top athletes reach final conclusions far from the reality.

Aragon wrote:

My reading is that LeMond taking rEPO in 1989 doesn't still explain the inconsistency of Gewiss-Ballan wiping the floor with the rest of the peloton in the 1994 edition of Flèche Wallonne with a substance introduced already some half decade earlier.

The definite answer can give only one person - Michele Ferrari.

Maybe someone can try to contact him since guy looks like very normal in some interviews, actually I think hi is proud in himself for his achievements - and those are impressive achievements, like it or not. When he was asked did we come close to the limits - answer was: "not even close, Lance in 2005 was the most powerful so we have to slow him down so that doping is not so obvious". That was after EPO test was introduced and Lance was even stronger then before acc. to Ferrari - so maybe blood doping is more powerful?

For him EPO = orange juice indeed. He has all the answers we like to know in %.

EP(O)idemic wrote:

The definite answer can give only one person - Michele Ferrari.

Maybe someone can try to contact him since guy looks like very normal in some interviews, actually I think hi is proud in himself for his achievements - and those are impressive achievements, like it or not. When he was asked did we come close to the limits - answer was: "not even close, Lance in 2005 was the most powerful so we have to slow him down so that doping is not so obvious". That was after EPO test was introduced and Lance was even stronger then before acc. to Ferrari - so maybe blood doping is more powerful?

For him EPO = orange juice indeed. He has all the answers we like to know in %.

IMO, Armstrong holds the cards on all that. It's nice that he confessed to using EPO/blood doping, HGG, T, etc., but wouldn't it be interesting to get some details on his high-octane program from the horse's mouth? Who would know better than LA himself on what his baseline blood values & VO2max/LT were, and percentage improvements he saw in those areas on Ferrari's program (LA has referred to high-octane doping, i.e., 02-vector doping, characterizing it as the "10 percenters" vs low-octane doping as the "1 percenters"...in terms of performance gains). Another question would be if he felt that the combination of EPO & HGH were more effective than just EPO alone.

It also would be interesting to know if Ferrari was able to work around the 50% Hct upper limit, or if LA was permitted to exceed it. His domination is way to bizarre during his dynasty period when the Hct "speed limit" was in force. I mean, really, take a look at this clip from his iconic battle with Pantani at Ventoux in 2000. He rockets away from all the top GC contenders (who also were doping) and runs down super-climber Pantani, where he's struggling to keep up with Armstrong. LA looks possessed giving what seems to be much less effort than Pantani. Think what you want to think skeptics...high-octane doping is the game changer for many athletes.

Aragon wrote:

The Vo2MAX data of the Scottish group points also to the direction that participants with better initial aerobic level react less to rEPO-injections. Through backward reconstructing the data from the charts, there are total of four athletes with relative Vo2MAX figure in excess of 60ml/kg/min (70.0, 64.0, 63.5 and 62.0) and after the rEPO period their corresponding values are 72.0, 62.5, 67.0 and 64.5, with the mean improvement being only 2.5 %, whereas the Vo2MAX increase was around 10 % in the sub-60 ml/kg/min group.

Very interesting. Btw, where did you obtain the full text of this study? It's not indexed in PubMed nor accessible through Google Scholar.

Yes...that particular set of data would suggest that initial maximum 02 intake levels react less to rHuEPO use in that study design. However, what about running time improvement from baseline of the four (4) runners with values in excess of 60? If the individual improvement is still in the realm of the overall reported ~6%, then I don’t think the VO2max issue is that important since a TT measurement of running speed was the primary objective of the study (and there may be other mechanisms with rHuEPO on running time improvement other than VO2max).

Interestingly, the Durussel et al. cohort has similar results as the Scottish group of the Glasgow study. Using near identical dosage & schedule (50 I.U./every 2 days) the trained runners (group -1) reported baseline Hct at ~42%, increased to ~49% with an ~8% increase in VO2max (base/~56), and an overall ~6% improvement in a 3k TT. The time improvements appeared to consistent at ~6%.

And a little something on Kenyan altitude-natives: Prommer et al. reports that in reference to adaptation at/near sea-level with Kenyan elite runners, their blood values, as well as VO2max, shows similar parameters in the same range as elite German runners. Therefore, I think if doping was the strategy, they would starting at the same baselines as their German counterparts.

Renato Canova wrote:

Do you know that Yannis Pitsiladis himself told me he was surprised when discovered that Wilson Kipsang (whith whom he started to work this winter) had 42 of Hct, that is exactly what I discussed with him : high Hct doesn't mean athletes can run faster....

This for demonstrating that all the researches carried out with subjects different from top athletes reach final conclusions far from the reality.

I don't think that that is what is being argued any more. There will be individual variation in Hct values for various reasons.

The question is would Kipsang run faster if his Hct was increased to say 44 or 45 (either through EPO or changes in diet etc) all other things being equal.

Yannis Pitsiladis is my friend, and we discussed, few months ago, about the level of intervention of EPO on the performance.

At first, we have to say that the research his group of scientists did with Kenyan and Scottish boys can't demonstrate anything else that "EPO can work with EVERY not trained person, in every part of the World".

I never said EPO doesn't work with Kenyans. There is a big mistake considering the subjects of my statement "Kenyans" : the subjects are "top athletes, born, living and training in altitude AT THEIR TOP LEVEL OF PROPER TRAINING".

In the case of the research of Yannis, there are different subjects, and the situation is totally different : average in 3000m for Kenyans of 9'30" and for Scottish of 11', and NO INFO ABOUT THEIR TRAINING.

I repeat again : with athletes, the effect of training can strongly vary according to different training (training structure, volume, intensity, proper recovery).

In all the researches, NEVER TRAINING IS CONSIDERED.

For example, in the case of the research of Yannis' group, we have to ask some questions :

a) Which type of training the selected runners had BEFORE the test ?

b) Which type of training they had DURING THE PERIOD OF EPO ADMINISTRATION ?

c) Which type of training they had AFTER the period of EPO administration?

If they, for example, didn't have any serious training, and the system was the same before, during and after, we can say that ALL THE IMPROVEMENT is due to the EPO assumption.

But if they, during the period of assumption, increased their little training (nothing to do with REAL training), the improvement is due to two different elements : EPO and training itself. Which percentage of the improvement can we give to each of the two elements ? It depends on the increase of volume and intensity of the training. How much is the DIRECT INFLUENCE of EPO on the performance ? If training really improved seriously, the percentage is ZERO, because moving in one month not trained boys (I don't consider a Kenyan running 9'30" or a Scottish running 11' a trained person) from 9'30" to 9', and from 11' to 10'30", with proper training, it's very easy for every coach of medium level.

The problem is that, if we want to see the effect of EPO, we must do exactly the same training (maybe nothing, or 40' easy run every day, or very tough training) before, during and after the administration, AND WE HAVE TO CERTIFICATE THIS TRAINING IN CLEAR WAY (in all the researches physiologists speak generally of "well trained athletes", of course without having any idea about what the real training of the best athletes is).

So, that research doesn't give absolutely any new information, apart the fact EPO can work for not trained people. If it works DIRECTLY, increasing the performance of low level, of NOT DIRECTLY, supporting the ability to have more training (which produces the improvement), is something that the research doesn't explain.

And, at the end of all the story, also if Yannis is my friend, that research was totally useless, and didn't demonstrate anything, if we look at the effects on top performances, achieved by athletes with well different level of training and of talent.

Interesting, the claim that EPO doesn't work for marathons is looking shakey. Women marathoners do show good gains (6%), whereas a 2% gain over 1500m or 5000m is the difference between barely qualifying for the Olympics or WCs in the first place and being a competitive finalist.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Interesting, the claim that EPO doesn't work for marathons is looking shakey. Women marathoners do show good gains (6%), whereas a 2% gain over 1500m or 5000m is the difference between barely qualifying for the Olympics or WCs in the first place and being a competitive finalist.

The question nobody has asked about all of this. If Sumgong got away with doping at Rio, what would her appearance fee look like on the Marathon circuit as Olympic champion?

Renato,

You claim that you have blood test results that support your thesis that EPO doesn't work for your best athletes.

You must have thousands and more likely tens of thousands of data points in blood tests.

Will you release all of the data you have?

If not, why not?

I'm normally in Kenya or around the World. When I'll go home again (I think at half of May) I start to publish the data I have (everything is in my house in Torino), and you can see how there is not a clear trend, but every situation must be considered as "individual". Every research considering the "average" is a total bullshit, when we refer the results to a well identified and very small category.

Renato Canova wrote:

I'm normally in Kenya or around the World. When I'll go home again (I think at half of May) I start to publish the data I have (everything is in my house in Torino), and you can see how there is not a clear trend, but every situation must be considered as "individual". Every research considering the "average" is a total bullshit, when we refer the results to a well identified and very small category.

Great, I look forward to the release of that data and to see what it can show us.