A closer look at EPO-era performances

rekrunner wrote:

For me, "EPO works" or "EPO doesn't work" are faithful declarations of belief we cannot resolve with current knowledge

We think that when we use the first-person plural, we're giving away the fact that even we know at some level that what we're saying is complete nonsense.

What WE know is that EPO has a certain well-studied mechanism of action and that this translates into improved performance in aerobic physical endeavors. That we cannot pin a precise percentage on this improvement, be it in individuals or across groups, does not negate the fact that is clearly "works." We have seen it in action in Eddy Hellebuyck, Deeja Youngquist, Cathal Lombard, Christian Hesch, and (anecdotally) Westly Keating, among many others who both are known to have used EPO and improved dramatically while on EPO (or in Hellebuyck's case, staved off an age-driven decline).

We think we need to pull our heads out of our asses, "we," of course, meaning "you" in selected instances.

The 5 Spaniards might be part of an "EPO effectiveness" discussion, but not part of a "fast EPO-era performance" discussion. Given that Spaniards are known for heavy EPO use, it seems like they should have factored much higher than they did. They didn't really even stand out among "5-continents".

obviously not a scientfic mind wrote:

Yes sorry why should you be worrying about multiple World Champions and marathon major winners from the EPO era? Nothing of interest for you to see there.

Let us also ignore the fact that these are the only sort of data that are going to give you an idea as to whether EPO is effective in a given elite athlete: longitudinal data over several months/years that document the changes in performance from when the athelete started taking EPO. So maybe you can analye them to show that EPO does not work in the same way that you have shown on this thread that times got faster in track and field after the introduction of EPO because of the ineffectiveness of EPO ....

I think that I meant this link, somehow things went wrong wrote:

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/843205/what-happened-retired-athlete-steve-ovett

Err no, male pattern baldness does not prove an athlete doped, not suffering any visible hair loss after alleged longterm steroid abuse is however an indicator of the absence of steroid abuse.

I've often been tempted to take steroids or at least the new SARMS (as a gym rat). As I don't compete in any sport, I see no ethical reason not to other than possible dangers to my health, including hair loss. If you guys know a sure way of taking steroids without experiencing any hair loss ever, I'd like to know, and a lot of others would too.

I took a look at fast performances, not world champions and major marathon winners. These 5 Spaniards ran as fast as 1984 Steve Jones and slower than a 1985 Carlos Lopes, and about 2 minutes slower than the world record. It looks like EPO just brought Spain up to pre-EPO European levels of performance.

Think This One Through wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Why would I be interested in these slow runners? The article looks like sour grapes from an even slower runner.

Are you kidding me Gary?!? Slow runners? How about World Championship runners? Soak this in: Between Anton & Fiz they have 3 WC Golds & 2 EC Golds all during the 90s!

60% of men suffer some male pattern baldness in their twenties, and 25% signifcantly. I'd guess the percentage of men who took steroids regularly in the 70's and have a full head of hair in their 60's is less than 5%.

I knew it would happen, but wait, what? "Threw everyone under the bus?" First, is a "closer look at fast EPO-era performances" debate a "PED performance debate"? If so, it seems like I effectively cleared "5 continents" of PED use over 28 years, and only threw Africans under the bus. Until you realize I'm also suggesting that a "global" drug should not produce "local" dominance, so we must look for better explanations of PE, than PED. Looking at East Germans, Russians, and Spaniards, they all qualify as "5 continents", a group I found to be not well represented at the top. If speed is the metric (and it is here), among North Africans Ramzi is 6th fastest all time, and in the world around top-20.

Coevett wrote:

Err no, male pattern baldness does not prove an athlete doped, not suffering any visible hair loss after alleged longterm steroid abuse is however an indicator of the absence of steroid abuse.

I've often been tempted to take steroids or at least the new SARMS (as a gym rat). As I don't compete in any sport, I see no ethical reason not to other than possible dangers to my health, including hair loss. If you guys know a sure way of taking steroids without experiencing any hair loss ever, I'd like to know, and a lot of others would too.

I don't know if Arnold is currently using TRT or anything like that, but as a career bodybuilder he was using significant amounts of roids. And at 70 yrs old, he not only has a full set of hair but looks pretty damn good working out in the gym. ? Also, one of his main competitors back in the day and the original "The Hulk," Lou Ferrigno, also has a full set of hair (@ 2:45 in):

This is what a full head of hair looks like :

http://assets.schwarzenegger.com/images/img-2.jpg

This is what the difference looks like :

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/NVLgQj8tVXE/maxresdefault.jpg

This is what Arnold looks like before a hair transplant :

http://www.folliclelychallengedcelebrities.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Arnold-Schwarzenegger-hair-loss-04-e1469699683753.jpg

And this is what he looks like after a hair transplant :

http://www.celebplasticsurgeryonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Arnold-Schwarzenegger-plastic-surgery-35.jpg

And this is what a 50 year old former steroid user and greatest bodybuilder ever looks like at age 50 after heart valve surgery caused by steroid abuse in his 20s/30s :

http://www.celebritybodytransformations.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Arnold-Schwarzenegger-body-physique-04.jpg

Populist Demagogue Iconic Hero wrote:

What WE know is that EPO has a certain well-studied mechanism of action and that this translates into improved performance in aerobic physical endeavors.

No. WE know no such thing. Do you or any of these well funded phsyiologists actually KNOW what Homeostasis is?

It's the regulation of all body systems operating together. Now tell me, by what mechanism do you or they or WE propose that homeostasis can be overridden by having more red blood cells than your body actually wants or needs?

And tell me why Lance Armstrong's power outputs were actually in the normal range?

I know, tough questions eh? Better look the other way and pretend I'm not here.

I was just advised to be careful about statistical interpretations from small sample sets. None of this negates the fact, that for "5 continents", nothing "clearly worked" to produce times much faster than the 1980s. None of this suggests that "what worked in the EPO-era can only be EPO".

Coevett wrote:

The problem with this thread is EVERYBODY is assuming that all top runners have and always have doped everywhere.

If EVERYBODY here says so, and you think it's nonsense, why do you say so?

Troll.

But for the records, I never said so. Actually most people here didn't say so.

Troll.

pariah wrote:

Do you or any of these well funded phsyiologists actually KNOW what Homeostasis is?

Yes of course. Do you?

Homeostasis does not mean that the human body and its performance can't be changed by drugs. Look at Arnold. Or Ben Johnson. Or A-Rod. Or Ramzi. Etc. etc.

The point is you can't increase your oxygen uptake beyond normal levels. There is a whole mythology around the subject of 'aerobic development' and oxygen delivery that is beyond pseudoscience and in another world of stupididty and ignorance. But almost everyone believes it.

Back to the Lance Armsrong (and all the other EPO doped cyclists) point, he wasn't producing 6.7 watts per kilo for an hour, nowhere near. But again, almost everyone believes it because it gets repeated so many times. So the belief that EPO is performance enhancing gets the biggest promotion by the very people who are supposedly the most against it. Can you not see how that might be a problem.

Journalists just lap this $hit up cuz it sells. How many of them actually care whether they write BS or not? The same with physiologists. It's not about morality or good science to them but a way to make more money.

rekrunner wrote:

If speed is the metric (and it is here), among North Africans Ramzi is 6th fastest all time, and in the world around top-20.

It's not the only metric unless you assume everyone has the same baseline Hgb & VO2max levels to start with. The training stimulus effect from O2-vector doping and being able to push through barriers that the athlete couldn't have accomplished clean resulting in improved performance is just as important.

And since you brought up Ramzi again, his suspicious improvement and coming out of nowhere into a WC caliber athlete should even have you taking note. However, his astronomically high off-scores (157.8/148) on two blood draws at Helsinki where he won double-gold is probably just a coincidence - nothing to see there. And btw, his Moroccan countryman & doper, Adil Kaouch, finished 2nd in the 1500...so you had two dopers going one & two in a WC caliber event. Again, probably just a coincidence - nothing to see there.

And it's beyond belief why Ramzi would use 3rd gen CERA with a glow period 20x that of 1st gen EPO when he could have competed clean at Beijing and kept the beautiful gold medal he won. Amazing how a top talented runner would throw his career down the toilet for an ineffective PED such as EPO. Box jumps, better nutrition, more meditation would have been just as effective. An ill-advised athlete...too bad you weren't his coach. Lol.

pariah wrote:

Back to the Lance Armsrong (and all the other EPO doped cyclists) point, he wasn't producing 6.7 watts per kilo for an hour, nowhere near. But again, almost everyone believes it because it gets repeated so many times. So the belief that EPO is performance enhancing gets the biggest promotion by the very people who are supposedly the most against it. Can you not see how that might be a problem.

Huh? His power #'s were up there with all the top TdF Champion dopers of the EPO-era (e.g. Pantani, Riis, Ullrich). Read & learn:

? "According to Vayer’s rating scale, any figure over 450 falls into the “mutant” category, while those between 430 and 450 are described as “miraculous”. Three more Tour winners appear among the “miraculous” – Jan Ullrich (441), Alberto Contador in 2009 (439) and Lance Armstrong in 2001 (438)."

Armstrong = "438" = "miraculous." ?

casual obsever wrote:

Coevett wrote:

The problem with this thread is EVERYBODY is assuming that all top runners have and always have doped everywhere.

If EVERYBODY here says so, and you think it's nonsense, why do you say so?

Troll.

But for the records, I never said so. Actually most people here didn't say so.

Troll.

Hmm...because this is an open forum and I disagree with your position which slanders countless great runners of the past? And you all have strongly implied it. Once again - RekRunner uses the exact words 'Everybody cheats' in the second post of this thread, and he also uses the exact words 'we know better' (meaning better than those who think not everybody dopes).

But that's why I started the other thread - I have no wish to intrude on this clearly closed shop mind wa***ing session.

Well if it's true that virtually all top runners have cheated whenever they've had the opportunity, then I couldn't care less whether or not Ovett doped. If he 'knew' that for example Walker and Scott and Bayi were doping and he had to as well in orer to compete, then fair enough. Similarly if Coe knew Ovett, Walker etc were doping and had to do the same. It just seems implausible to me. Cases like Aouita seem to indicate that there were a few obvious cheats, but until the EPO era, generally there just wasn't a culture of doping in middle-distance running. Aouita was obviously on some special new sauce from 83 onwards, and if so, why couldn't Coe, Ovett, Cram get hold of it? Cram, for example, did have his best season in 85, but there was nothing surprising about that given that that year (and 86) was his most injury free season and he was just about at his athletic peak after clearly rare talent demonstrated since he was a boy. He didn't suddenly stat running sub 13 5Ks as well and brag that he'd win gold at every event from 800 to 10000.

Coevett wrote:

But that's why I started the other thread - I have no wish to intrude on this clearly closed shop mind wa***ing session.

Yeah, sure Coevett...but that thread you started is corny. Weird posts are already coming in - just wait until later in the day when it'll be full of stupid posts. ?