Now it gets interesting, Zane Robertson's ex-girlfriend Betty Desalegn (Jama Aden athlete) is busted for Biological Passport

You are wrong. Runners World is wrong. Scottish runners improved 5.7%. Kenyan runners improved 4.5%.

I still disagree that many even try to develop a good grasp on what is efficacious. It's not "nothing new there" but "nothing there". They read studies like this, that didn't measure running performance, and hope for the best.

Just to recall for context, I was asked to explain why cycling is not the same as running, and gave a laundry list of differences, and you responded asking if I was aware of "Tucker's" cycling study, appealing to the sameness.

As I've already pointed out, this method is error prone, over-estimating the effects of EPO.

Some of the links I had before are dead. The Kenyans started at 9:20, improved 25 seconds to 8:55 on EPO, then fell back to 9:02, off EPO. The Scots started at 11:08, improved 38 seconds to 10:30 on EPO, then fell back to 10:46, off EPO. 5.7% and 4.5% come from these numbers. You can see how any conclusion of "the same 5%" is misleading. Here's a slideshow -- Slide 16 shows the same numbers on a graph of the time trial changes:https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/Application_to_EPO_Detection_Pitsiladis_2013.pdf Here's one showing the details of the Scottish peformances:http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0056151 Here's a "reference" for both: Wondimu DH, Durussel J, Mekonnen W, et al. Blood parameters and running performance of Kenyan and Caucasian endurance trained males after rHuEpo administration. Medi Sci Sports Exerc 2013;45:402–5.

mindweak wrote:

link please? scottish 5.7, kenyans 4.5....where is this at? pulling numbers from your arse?

reek it really upsets me that you troll so hard yet you go and get all my comments deleted. if you cant take the heat then you shouldnt be able to dish any out. you are a coward and a weakling

good_wiggler wrote:

This is simply gossip and rumor.

Someone posted an actual experiment of how EPO helps non-elite Kenyan athletes by 3%. But nobody, not even you, posted any scientific research showing that micro doses help with distance running. Steroids might help burn victims with healing, but you haven't shown anything about slow-twitch muscle fibers in elite athletes.

If only 1% to 2% of runners have been caught cheating, that doesn't mean then that 100% of athletes are cheating if you arbitrarily put a human limit of x minutes to an event.

You have to do a lot more to prove that there is some sort of conspiracy among Kipchoge and others. You can tell he works hard and is a down to earth guy, but you want to look at the 1% or 2% who are bad apples and then make a big leap and say 100% are cheaters.

Are you johnny-come-lately or are you just trolling? (is that you "rekrunner" using your alternative handle? ?). There's a plethora of info on this thread that addresses those issues. For one, who needs microdosing EPO when OOC testing is sketchy & selective (you get two freebies for not answering your door or running & hiding from the testers ?). Furthermore, the Durussel et al study with non-elite runners used slightly above microdoses (IM) of rHeEPO which raised Hct ~20% from baseline & improved running performance ~6% on on a 3K TT (indoor track). The ~20% increase would reach the upper limit proposed by the ABP adaptive model.

No kidding...androgens help burn victims, but they also raise suppressed T levels from the effects of prolonged endurance exercise. Chronic 100+ mpw hard training is not friendly to the endocrine system (who would have thought ?):

If you're rekrunner you've already seen this a million times, if you're not it's worth a read:

High-Octane Dopers wrote:

the Durussel et al study with non-elite runners used slightly above microdoses (IM) of rHeEPO which raised Hct ~20% from baseline

You're mistaken. I was responding to someone who accused Seb Coe of using steroids without any proof.

So far nobody has given any evidence that steroids would help a distance runner. The human body can naturally recover after sleeping in an altitude tent or using cryotherapy.

Watch this video to see Alberto Salazar using this for recovery.

good_wiggler wrote:

You can tell he works hard and is a down to earth guy, but you want to look at the 1% or 2% who are bad apples and then make a big leap and say 100% are cheaters.

LOL. Or 0/10. Or: where have you been the last 40 years?

Just in case, the facts from this now famous 2017 study:

"The estimated prevalence of past-year doping was 43.6% (95% confidence interval 39.4–47.9) at WCA and 57.1% (52.4–61.8) at PAG."

In other words, roughly have of the athletes are bad apples.

But wait, what does "estimated" mean? It means, there are likely more drug cheats than expressed in these 44 - 57%:

"Thus each of these three possible forms of noncompliance would have caused us to underestimate the true prevalence of doping."

Finally, what can one conclude?

"Conclusions Doping appears remarkably widespread among elite athletes, and remains largely unchecked despite current biological testing."

casual obsever wrote:

In other words, roughly have of the athletes are bad apples.

But wait, what does "estimated" mean?

Nice try, but you haven't proven that half of athletes are cheating.

The same study said, "World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) oversees testing of several hundred thousand athletic blood and urine samples annually, of which 1–2% test positive."

So the reality is that only 1 to 2% have tested positive. The survey is more about conjecture because it was done anonymously, and people can lie.

Plus the survey was done on all track and field athletes. That means that distance runners are getting mixed in with sprinters and shot putters. This might skew the results if distance runners are much less likely to use them.

"People lie to surveyors. They always have and they always will. This is why people adjust the number of sexual partners they'll claim if they're made to believe that they're hooked up to a lie detector. It's why kids will claim they've done drugs that don't exist. There is simply no amount of anonymity that an interviewer can give, no level of assurance that they've heard everything before, no guarantee that they just have a dispassionate interest in the facts, which will completely stop people from lying."

You can take the survey with a grain of salt, but the reality is that testing shows only 1% or 2%.

good_wiggler wrote:

So far nobody has given any evidence that steroids would help a distance runner.

That may be true. But if you look into the drug cheat lists, you might find more steroid than EPO users among the Kenyan dopers, for example. You'll also find Europeans of course (Baumann!), but naturally almost no one from the early 80s because of rudimentary testing back then, if any.

In the 80s, well, there was no EPO, but everyone and their dog could use steroids without fear of detection. Evidence comes from the 99.9% undetected East German steroid users.

Coe's 1:41 is still unreached by all non-Africans, despite over 30 years of new talent, and improvements in training and nutrition, and in shoes and tracks, and despite EPO, whereas all longer records from the 80s are gone now. The same is true for the women's 800, by the way. So one could postulate that roids are more important for the 800 than EPO, and the reverse is true for longer distances.

Alternatively, one can claim that Coe is that one rare "talent of the century" who just coincidentally cannot be surpassed for decades - and was plainly to honest to use like everyone else at the top in the 80s. But wait, that "talent of the century" claim was also made for Armstrong and Ullrich, Haile and Geb, El G, Paula and Liliya, Bolt and Rudisha, and now Mo and Kipchoge, Ayana and Genzebe, and Keitany and Jepchirchir, to name a few. Oh well, why not.

casual obsever wrote:

In the 80s, well, there was no EPO, but everyone and their dog could use steroids without fear of detection.

But you said Westerners didn't improve during the EPO years. Now you are saying around 1%. Which is an advancement upon the previous cold war generation that had unlimited blood transfusions and steroid abuse, not to mention pain killer doping.

good_wiggler wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--RbPQOXMak

Watch this video to see Alberto Salazar using this for recovery.

C'mon man!...didn't Salazar admit to carrying out testosterone experiments on his son?

Not Buying It wrote:

C'mon man!...didn't Salazar admit to carrying out testosterone experiments on his son?

"Salazar provided letters from Harp and his cardiologist supporting his use of testosterone, he has refused to share the medical records that led to his diagnosis of hypogonadism (the condition for which he is prescribed medication)."

Salazar says he has a legitimate use for testosterone. Have you ever heard of hormone replacement therapy for aging men? This is completely legal in America.

"Salazar previously admitted to carrying out a testosterone experiment on his sons; he says he did it in order to see whether it was possible to sabotage an athlete and make them test positive..."

He says he was honestly just checking it out to protect his runners. Neither Salazar nor his sons are top athletes who are competing. Whether or not they are taking medication does not mean that 100% of top athletes are cheating.

C'mon man!...he could just as well be testing glow times & clearance rates for his athletes. Anti-doping doesn't allow testing between 11:00 pm & 6:00 am, so an athlete could use a T gel at 11:01 pm and hope it's cleared the system before 6:00 am if they happen to be selected for testing. One way I would think a coach or doping doctor would want to check the glow times and make sure T clears in that 7 hr window would be to experiment on a non-athlete or someone not subjected to testing within the staff.

Who says "100%" of "top athletes" cheating? Whether it's 100% or 90% or 50%...who really knows. What do you think? Do you think all or the vast majority of the runners at the top are clean, or is that what you hope for? ?

IMO, I think the percentage is high simply for the fact that:

1)The ABP allows a lot of variation in the parameters of both the hematological & steriodal modules. It's almost like control doping where an athlete can just stay within their parameters and all is well & good (e.g., Poistagova & Savinova). Breach the parameters and get a "likely doping" warning to tone it down by increased OOC testing, and if the athlete does they'll be reverted back to a normal status (again all is well & good). Continue to breach the parameters and show a consistent pattern of "likely doping" and you might get an ABP sanction.

2) TUEs are easy to get for a wide variety of ailments. Many of the drugs used to treat these ailments are proven to be performance enhancing with endurance athletes (e.g., prednisone, ADHD meds, etc.). This is what I call "TUE doping." ?

Not Buying It wrote:

Many of the drugs used to treat these ailments are proven to be performance enhancing with endurance athletes (e.g., prednisone, ADHD meds, etc.)

You and others keep pointing to EPO or stimulants, but no evidence at all has been posted about steroids and distance running. We can nip that in the bud and also stop talking about "all humans faster than x minutes y seconds since the year 1990 are cheating".

This is a serious accusation to say Sebastian Coe was on steroids without any proof at all that it even works. Sprinters or bodybuilders I can see how explosive movements would help, but not distance running.

What this does is muddy the waters, and what you're doing may even encourage young athletes in high school to take the risk and experiment with drugs. This is wrong to slander your own sport with innuendo and suspicions of all the top athletes at a "high percentage". By making accusations, you may be doing more damage instead of cleaning up the sport. Young, desperate teenagers may read your posts and then start to think that drugs are the only way to get ahead.

I think that one person is on here arguing with themselves. Seriously, mentally deranged.

good_wiggler wrote:

You and others keep pointing to EPO or stimulants, but no evidence at all has been posted about steroids and distance running. We can nip that in the bud

Do you really think steroids don’t work for distance runners?

Hmm, then why do you think Rupp got testosterone medication?

And what about Baumann, Slaney, El Mehdi, Herzog, Kiyara, Kisorio? And starting only with A from the banned list: Alptekin, April, Aker, Asahssah, Artyomova, Awada, Ayhan, for the rest see:

Also from that page, regarding the testing in the 80s:

“Furthermore, a number of athletes who underwent state-sponsored doping programmes in East Germany between the 1960s and 1980s were competitors in athletics, but the quality of the international anti-doping work was so poor that only one East German athlete ever tested positive.”

What about history? Here a review from 1991:

“Thereafter, use of steroids diffused to endurance sports such as long-distance running and

swimming”

“thereafter” means, after the 60s, but read it for yourself.

If you prefer studies over examples (but you didn’t like the one proving the high prevalence of doping, though even rekrunner didn’t argue against that peer-reviewed, IAAF and WADA approved work):

“Rats receiving the anabolic-androgenic steroid ran 41% longer during the test of submaximal running endurance compared to the trained rats receiving saline (P < 0.05).”

good_wiggler wrote:

You and others keep pointing to EPO or stimulants, but no evidence at all has been posted about steroids and distance running.

Steroids & distance running? Lack of research on your part (all you have to do is look up this stuff...the power of the internet ?). Here's a few notable confirmed positives from Wikipedia's exhaustive list of doping cases in athletics (there's numerous steriods cases for both genders):

Dieter Bauman/nandrolone (1999)

Giuliano Battocletti/nandrolone (1999)

Andrea Longo/nandrolone (2001)

Ali Saidi-Sief/nandrolone (2001)

Mostafa Errebbah/stanozolol (2004)

Hezekiel Sepeng/nandrolone (2005)

Rajendra Bhandari/norandrosterone (2007)

Abdehadi Habassa/norandrosterone (2008)

Matthew Kisorio/nandrolone (2012)

The Kisorio case is interesting because in an interview he said that he blood doped in addition to the steroid use. However, in reading the description he gives it sounds more like he was injected with EPO as opposed to blood transfusions:

Kisorio interview:

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/athletics/suspended-kenyan-says-doping-is-common-8031835.html

You're right on the correct % improvement (I'm gonna cancel my RW subscription! ?). Also of interest on that study is the difference in baseline Hct (~42 for the Scots at sea-level & ~46 for the Kenyans at altitude) and the larger % increase in Hct for the Scots (~49/~18%) vs the Kenyans (~49/8%) given the same dose & schedule.

Maybe that's what Ramzi did was "read studies" and "hope for the best," and the best did occur: ~14 second improvement from 02 to 04 & ~9 second improvement from 03 to 04 in the 1500, double gold at Helsinki & gold at Beijing. ?

Sure, then do you have any evidence at all that the fast PBs set by Boulami (2 WR times), Mourhit, Ramzi, Ceplak, Shobukhova, etc., could have been achieved without the use of PEDs?

I always say look at the numbers. For 85% of the world, for the entire period of the EPO-era, even assuming 1987 to today, the number of examples of progress are low, and the magnitude of progress is low. The progress is both low in "quantity" and low in "quality" for non-African male populations. The 1% progress during decades doesn't suggest or support the existence of a universal and undetectable drug believed to give a 3-4% (up to 6-9%) improvement for everyone. Is it better testing? Not when the drug is undetectable, and still easy to avoid. Apparently, even the ABP is "too generous" so long as you stay within 20% Hct increase. Is it that non-Africans stopped doping? Not according to "casual obsever"'s conclusions from the new Tubingen study. Is it micro-dosing bringing micro-benefits? Not if " micro-dosing brings the same benefits". Bringing up the '80s blood transfusions and steroids only shifts the conversation: - did transfusions and steroids help in the '70s in the '80s? Not "did they do it?" but "did it help?" How much? - did athletes stop taking transfusions and steroids? Look at all these athletes busted for steroids, and all these studies about the synergistic benefits of steroids and EPO.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

But you said Westerners didn't improve during the EPO years. Now you are saying around 1%. Which is an advancement upon the previous cold war generation that had unlimited blood transfusions and steroid abuse, not to mention pain killer doping.