Doping experts, why would a distance athlete like Kiprop be on EPO at the end of the year?

Basically when you train you stimulate the secretion of endogenous(made by your body) erythropoietin (EPO) which is a hormone in charge of the production of red blood cells, which in turn carry oxygen to working muscles. If you stop exercising you will not stimulate, as much, the secretion of erythropoietin this, will reduce your RBC count in blood (hematocrit), and will have a negative impact on your fitness levels as your body will have seen its capacity to transport oxygen reduced, hence VO2max will reduce.

If you take exogenous EPO during a period in which you are not training or not (injury, holiday etc) this will prevent such a big loss in your fitness levels and VO2max and whenever you resume training you will be fitter than, if you had taken nothing.

PhDoping wrote:

Yes, but he's reportedly tested positive for EPO, not an AAF.

My understanding is that testing positive for EPO is an AAF? The AAFonly becomes an ADRV after the investigation is finished.

AAF = Adverse Analytical Finding = prohibited substance is sample (as opposed to violating some other rule, such as failing to tell testers where you are)

ADRV = Anti-Doping Rule Violation = official finding that an athlete has broken the rules (as opposed to testing positive with a TUE)

[quote]rojo wrote:

Not being an expert on how to actually dope, I"ll admit the first question that popped into my head was, "Why would someone be on EPO at the end of the year? Not knowning the ins and outs of how to dope, that makes little sense to me"

How did you become such a dope if you don't know how to dope?

My guess is that if you are not being OOC blood-tested (or are protected by bribes/system) then you would do full EPO during the "safe" offseason, then go to microdosing in-season.

Why not just ask your boy Steve Magness? He seems to be the resident LRC doping expert.

Lol nobody on here is a doping expert let’s be real.

Ok some say is a dark day for athletic??? No no no this is a very bright day !!! Very bright!!

Corruption , bribe , not out of competition test for many years , made very very difficult to bring to the light positive test!!!

This is the truth!!! People that investigate about it already say it all , but the so called " experts" always minimize the thing.

Is very hard to be test positive cos there are many many ways to not been caught altough I m using ped.

Anyway if you want to know how it works a doping program from the "university of doping " here it is:

from the infamous operation puerto with Dr Fuentes . Everything is there , all types of peds, dosage, costs, and days to take em

https://www.gazzetta.it/Ciclismo/09-02-2013/tabella-dopante-914209557067.shtml

PrZ wrote:

Lol nobody on here is a doping expert let’s be real.

Speak for yourself. I spent 2 hours reading up on doping yesterday. And it wasn't all blogs. I read a couple of articles from Men's Health and Outside, some abstracts on PubMed and I skimmed a bunch of threads on LRC.

So, yeah, I'm up to speed.

I just assumed that it could be put into a softgel or suspended in a gummy. Perhaps this is naiive thinking.

Someone said EPO is a hormone. I didn't know that. Are all hormones just a peptide string? If so, I would expect the digestive tract would disassemble it into component amino acids, thereby disallowing any EPO molecules from being absorbed & used by the body. So I guess you're right to question my scenario.

plausible deniability wrote:

I just assumed that it could be put into a softgel or suspended in a gummy. Perhaps this is naiive thinking.

Someone said EPO is a hormone. I didn't know that. Are all hormones just a peptide string? If so, I would expect the digestive tract would disassemble it into component amino acids, thereby disallowing any EPO molecules from being absorbed & used by the body. So I guess you're right to question my scenario.

The most effective EPO administration is subcutaneous.

Amgen, the inventor and marketer of EPO is supposed to have a "signature" such that it can be detected in urine very shortly after dose. But, 48 hours out, and urinalysis test results are false negative.

If Kiprop is in good with the IAAF, his b-sample will likely go to Switzerland where miraculously, or not, it will be negative. It just depends on how many and how much he's willing to pay in bribes.

The bottom line is, there are so many gaping holes in the test process only he and the IAAF know how clean he is.

Fun fact: the guy behind U.S. Postal Cycling team and owner of USA Cycling was an angel investor in Amgen.

Anally.

Take it with a Tossed Salad and it makes it easier.

You and your ilk are so naive. The "African Takeover" of distance running coincided exactly with the arrival of EPO. Rosa saw his chances for $$$$ by combining the drug with athletes who could avoid testing most of time, and the political protection now granted to these cheats simply for being from the right countries or groups has added to the problem. Sure, they get tested, but since they go most of the year without being tested and are generally warned ahead of time when they are going to be tested, they can skate along with little worry.

The flip side is that many of them if not all have developed an attitude of invulnerability. And that is what will bring more of them down, just not enough of them. Year round, full scale testing of all topflight talent is the only answer. It will be fought tooth and nail behind the scenes because this goes beyond the sport in terms of the politics behind allowing certain groups and countries to dope.

On a side note, expect more stories about NOP or "The Russians" doping to pop up in order to help this story go down the memory hole.

Without EPO and other drugs being used freely off season and much of time during the season, the E. Africans would still have a huge amount of talent out there. But in terms of their top athletes dominating on the track, we'd see a reduction of 50% (some feel 70% or more). And yes, different peoples respond differently to drugs. Bodybuilders can tell you which drugs work best for different ethnic groups. Track is no different, and despite the ridiculous claims of people like Canova, many feel that E. Africans in general are high responders to "endurance drugs" due to their already good genetics for endurance sports, rather than the lies to the contrary.

Laugh if you want. Been saying that for years. Just as we've been saying "you'll see" for years. Bit by bit the truth is coming out. When the truth is eventually laid bare - we're hoping it will be - you'll finally understand that the sport was destroyed not only by greed, but by politics and a desire for brainwashing certain masses to think and believe certain things about themselves. Things that aren't positive at all. At the very least, the world records from 800m on up are all bogus. All of the current WRs at those distances were set by cheats. Every. Single. One.

The BP looks for variations, WADA has a profile on Kiprop that goes back to 2007; you have to continue doping to keep your numbers in range.

So suppose that Kiprop, unable to match his previous results (again, suppose for the moment that they were run clean), tried to revive his career starting last year by using EPO. Would the IAAF then rescind his previous medal awards? Or would they have to prove contemporaneous violation of the doping rules in those earlier years?

alanson wrote:

So suppose that Kiprop, unable to match his previous results (again, suppose for the moment that they were run clean), tried to revive his career starting last year by using EPO. Would the IAAF then rescind his previous medal awards? Or would they have to prove contemporaneous violation of the doping rules in those earlier years?

Short answer, no.

A positive test and the sanction are forward looking. Typically, an athlete will have results forward from the date of the positive test disqualified, with the remaining time of the sanction being a ban from future competitions.

Retroactive bans only happen with retests, where the forward looking sanction from the date of the test includes results already recorded.

ABP cases bans are forward looking, with disqualification from the period in question. The case decides the extent of the doping. If an athlete competing since 2010 shows doping on their ABP from September 2015 to October 2017, and the case is decided in May 2018, they will be disqualified from results since Sep 2015, and banned 4 years from the date of the case: May 2018, back competing in 2022.

If an athlete admits to doping to get a lighter sentence, the authorities get to determine when to start the ban. It has been the case that athletes admitted doping in testimony on other cases, such that some results were disqualified, but not all of them since the violation.

If an athlete appeals a case, gets permission to compete, and then is found ban, their ban starts from the date the case opened. It is possible that an athlete is caught in Jan 2016, appeals the case, is allowed to compete, but then appeal is denied in May 2017, then there 4 year ban starts/started in Jan 2016, meaning there results since then are vacated, but their "ban" is only another 2.5 years.

I hope that made it clear, although I may have muddied the waters.

Spaghettimonster wrote:

Jack E Frost wrote:

Yes but after the ice is removed a flushing effect takes place. Think of how your extremities feel after a good dose of near frostbite.

This guy put it better than me.

Thanks, both of you. I'd think then applying heat would work just as well, and maybe faster?

Why lesser inflammation? I guess the vasal constriction forces some lactic acid, etc, out, then flushed as heat is applied and blood flow returns?

I have 13 years of performance data in an Excel spreadsheet, which I periodically use to do pivot tables. If you aren't unfamiliar with Excel pivot tables, think of it as a database query, with the added analytical tools of a spreadsheet. Over the last decade, there has been a slew of young African athletes run mind-boggling times in sub-major marathons and non-sanctioned road races. In many cases, these athletes almost completely skipped the track and went straight to the roads. In some cases, these athletes were not being tested because they were not even in the testing pool. I think some of these young athletes started their career doping. A clean junior athlete will most likely continue to progress, but a lot of these young African athletes 10 years on, never progressed beyond their debut and in some cases literally disappeared after a couple of races. I have also seen a slew of young Jamaican athletes like Blake, Jaheel Hyde, Kemar Bailey-Cole, Rasheed Dwyer, Julian Forte, Nickel Ashmede, Jevaughn Minzie, Warren Weir, Rusheen McDonald, Michael O'Hara and Jovan Francis who with the onset of legit OOC testing have are barely running faster than their Jamaican H.S. Champs or junior level performances. Jamaica has lost nearly a generation of sprinters.

Eastern Europe doped young athletes during the 80s and so did the Chinese during the 90s, why would anyone think the Africans would not do it.

all smoke and mirrors ................

when go after the brother then you know serious

this just taking one for the team , then carry on as was

that fast time was all about speed and the speed peptide as much as other endurance peds .

aswell as the other races ,where won by a distance outside of monaco ,

he switched to form like a sprinter down home stretch says alot .

what idiot said cera gone out of system in days , weeks at least 40-50 days .last time i heard.

Interesting, in a vacuum of no testing these guys do phenomenal times, pay attention to them and the fast times quickly disappeared. Just compare the IAAF testing pool to the fast half and full times or biggest improvers over any event.