Well that didn't take long: Asbel Kiprop gives up fight to prove innocence - Says he doesn't have resources to fight IAAF

Ryun ran 1:44.9 for 880y on a Grasstex track, an early synthetic track that was likely illegally hard by present standards. He never ran near this time again. Snell ran 1:44 on grass/dirt (though rolled for bumps, as it was a rugby ground for most of the year).

You are forgetting his 3'24.

Not an ex-runner wrote:

☝️Here's a scientific basis: Altitude native Kenyans improved an average of ~5% in a 3k TT after rEPO administration. This was off a moderate dose of 50 IU/kg 4x week for 4 weeks that only raised Hct about 10%. Imagine larger doses that would raise Hct much higher - no telling how much improvement would occur.

Impossible! Coach Canova is right, EPO doesn't work on Kenyans.

Hahahahaha!!!!!

Everyone's looking for an edge wrote:

What do you define as an "EPO-era" in the U.S. right now? It may not be widespread use like in Morocco or Kenya but I think you can't eliminate it's use currently in the U.S.

Review the FB leaked document of the "likely doping" list from 2016. Notice the number of athletes (including Rupp & Jager) with an "X" marked in the column that states "Test for ESA/4 to 2 weeks pre-comp".

ESA = Erythropoiesis-stimulating agent = rEPO

4 to 2 weeks pre-comp = targeting the time frame the athlete tapers off to avoid glowing IC.

Hey guys! Think about this system works for a minute. WADA generates a list of athletes they recommend testing. The sports federation is the recipient of this list because they are the only ones with the authority to test.

Imagine you are in the IAAF and are the recipient of this list. Nike's athlete is on the list of athletes with non-positive, but suspicious scores.

Choice 1: Surprise Rupp with a test running the risk of offending the #1 sponsor.

Choice 2: Make sure the rest of the IAAF is okay with testing Rupp. Now, critical information for ensuring the integrity of the sport is shared with people whose higher priority is making sure favored athletes do not encounter any doping controversy and #1 sponsor's athlete never tests positive.

Choice 2 is WADA compliant.

casual obsever wrote:

You are forgetting his 3'24.

How could I forget? Or his 1:38 or the fact that 7:20 is so rubbish(???) that Mo, Kamworor and Silas Kiplagat could easily beat it (despite the fact that no one has come near it in 22 years). ?

Yeah, I never said that doping started with Jeptoo. Lolz. I saw the 2007 start date claim from two separate public sources way back in 2014. Now that you mention it, that's around the time East African performances started declining. How did that court case with the Rosa Jr. and Berardelli end up?

m!ndweak wrote:

classic, so rosa jr claims 7 yrs at max ago was when doping in kenya started....that would be 2007. according to rekrunner, ghost and el k, kenyas doping started with jeptoo lolz,

About that decent piece of evidence, not to ignore or downplay that the group really did improve +/- 5%, here a few things to note: - The group studied was not elite. - There was no control group to measure how much training alone would have helped the same athletes improve. - A third group would be interesting to add -- legal altitude training. How much could be gained by a legal altitude training? - Initial level of training was not controlled. If these athletes started at a higher level of fitness, would we see the same relative improvements? - The final athletic potential was not determined. Could the clean control group eventually catch up with more training? Putting aside these notes, there were actually two studies, one on Kenyans and another on Scots: - The Kenyans started at 9:20, improved 25 seconds (4.46%) to 8:55 on EPO, then fell back to 9:02, off EPO. - The Scots started at 11:08, improved 38 seconds (5.69%) to 10:30 on EPO, then fell back to 10:46, off EPO. At these non-elite levels of performance, we can already observe a diminishing return with higher performance. This would be something interesting to follow-up. Regarding your suggestion about 3000m being the sweet spot -- I tend to agree that, if increased oxygen delivery is the key mechanism, that 3000m-5000m should benefit most, with the shorter distances also requiring non-aerobic strength and speed, and the longer distances requiring lower rates of oxygen delivery. When I did my controversial "performance analysis", I especially looked at Spain, a country famous for taking EPO, for examples of better performance compared to other Europeans and non-Africans. In the 3000m, Spain had 3 athletes, who averaged around 0.5% faster than a 1982 David Moorcroft (not an individual performance gain, but a relative comparison to a previous generation), out of a total of 9 for the "best of the rest". Compared to other events, this is the only one where Spain stood out, slightly. In the 1500m, 10000m, and the marathon, there was only 1 Spanish athlete in each event who I considered ran a "quality" performance. In the 5000m there were none, unless you count the Ethiopian Bezabeh, which I did not. I mention "mechanism" of EPO, because my personal hypothesis is that the main benefit of EPO comes from protective mechanisms, rather than higher rates of oxygen delivery. For example, this would help the cyclist over three weeks, but not over 1 day events. This is supported by the testimony of cyclists like Hamilton, and most recently Brian Fogel of "Icarus" fame. This is just a hypothesis, and not offered as proof or truth.

ex-runner wrote:

That is a decent piece of evidence, thank you.

It is my understanding that EPO has the largest performance enhancing effect on the 3k. The 3k hits the sweet spot of VO2 max performance. 7:20 anyone? The 800m is far less dependent on maximal oxygen uptake, as is the marathon, interestingly.

What mindweak is stating is that 4% applies to ALL events from 800m to marathon. That doesn't pass the common sense test, everyone knows that the energy requirements across those events differs drastically and EPO has one specific effect. He may as well start posting the progression of sprinters and claiming EPO is solely responsible for that also.

rekrunner wrote:

1)- A third group would be interesting to add -- legal altitude training. How much could be gained by a legal altitude training?

2) When I did my controversial "performance analysis",

3) For example, this would help the cyclist over three weeks, but not over 1 day events.

1) so are you saying epo + altitude will create super monstrosities? I agree.

2) the fact you started a thread on here doesn't make you world famous, gee you used to be so humble and polite. Not wanting to brag but I too started a thread on here once about a sitcom and it got to nearly 40 posts (and only 8 were mine).

3) that's why Maurice Greene and Marion Jones were also using EPO?

1) I'm not saying that. I've often said that altitude training would make EPO less effective if not superfluous. But why not -- add a 4th group to the study wish-list to see which one of us is right. 2) I didn't highlight that I started a thread, but that I performed an analysis of performances. I'm still humble and polite. Starting a thread is not brag-worthy. 3) My answer is always the same -- athletes use because they, or their manager/coach, have faith.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

1) so are you saying epo + altitude will create super monstrosities? I agree.

2) the fact you started a thread on here doesn't make you world famous, gee you used to be so humble and polite. Not wanting to brag but I too started a thread on here once about a sitcom and it got to nearly 40 posts (and only 8 were mine).

3) that's why Maurice Greene and Marion Jones were also using EPO?

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

3) that's why Maurice Greene and Marion Jones were also using EPO?

Rekrunner's observation seems to be correct; however his conclusion is not. Others have described these "protective mechanisms" as the ability to train harder while remaining injury free. That in turn would help literally everyone, from Maurice Green to Alex Schwazer (another example that Canova erroneously described as competing clean).

That may very well be the main reason why EPO is superior to blood transfusions, which "only" help by boosting Hct. Plus likely the often suspected synergistic effects with steroids.

If one really wants to know where EPO helps, just have a look at professional runners who used EPO. It's not that complicated.

rekrunner wrote:

3) My answer is always the same -- athletes use because they, or their manager/coach, have faith.

You keep forgetting that this has been going on for decades. If EPO would only provide a placebo effect, athletes/managers/coaches would have - during their attempts to find the best doses - found out that the best concentration is equal to zero.

No kidding...been over this with you before. There are no studies with elites because of ethical reasons (if you can find one be my guest). And just because the studies are done with non-elites doesn't mean the results wouldn't apply to elites.

True - not in this study (see the recently published meta-analysis ("Effects of erythropoietin abuse on exercise performance.") where many studies highlighted used controls.

Interesting meta-analysis on your Holy Grail of altitude training. For one, hematological values drop precipitously upon the return to sea level (so, if an altitude trained athlete is going to sea level for several weeks of competition the gains are pretty much lost). Secondly, there's considerable individual variability and just like with rEPO, there are "responders" & "non-responders." And a "significant increase in EPO level during altitude training does not guarantee improvement of hematological variables after the return to sea level."

How do you know if this particular group wasn't at their genetically determined highest level of fitness prior to the experiment?

The experiment didn't measure the "what ifs" of a non-rEPO control group. The conclusion was that rEPO use with altitude native Kenyans benefited similarly to sea level athletes.

The Kenyans baseline average Hct was ~46 vs ~42 for the sea level Scots. Though with moderate dosing (50 IU/kg - 4x week for 4 wks) both groups reached a ~50 Hct, but it was only a ~10% increase for the Kenyans vs ~18% for the Scots. My take: lower baseline Hcts can boost at a higher percentage than higher baseline Hcts at a given dosage.

The recently published meta-analysis suggests that sub-maximal aerobic capacity is improved with rEPO:

From the conclusion of the paper:

"Evidence coming empirical trials showed a consistent and positive effects of rHuEpo on VO2max of about 6-8% or 300-400 ml O2/min, if expressed in absolute terms, when moderate doses of rHuEpo are administered. In cycling, this improvement may be translated in an increase of 25-35 watts expressed at maximum aerobic power. Also in

running the improvement of about 6 % in 3 k time trial has been

observed. It appears to be clear at what extent rHuEpo administration

may affect VO2max and sport performance in events performed close

to VO2max; however, even sub-maximal aerobic variables seems to

be improved by rHuEpo administration. These forementioned effects

of rHuEpo appears to be elicited even by microdoses of rHuEpo."

Why wouldn't you count Bezabeh (12:57) who was a full-fledged member of the *Spanish* doping ring Operation Galgo? (remember he's the guy that was caught red-handed transporting his own BB to an infusion site! ?).

ex-runner wrote:

What mindweak is stating is that 4% applies to ALL events from 800m to marathon. That doesn't pass the common sense test, everyone knows that the energy requirements across those events differs drastically and EPO has one specific effect. He may as well start posting the progression of sprinters and claiming EPO is solely responsible for that also.

Funny that you would mention that: Here's two big name sprinters that were using rEPO as part of their doping program:

rekrunner wrote:

I mention "mechanism" of EPO, because my personal hypothesis is that the main benefit of EPO comes from protective mechanisms, rather than higher rates of oxygen delivery. For example, this would help the cyclist over three weeks, but not over 1 day events. This is supported by the testimony of cyclists like Hamilton, and most recently Brian Fogel of "Icarus" fame. This is just a hypothesis, and not offered as proof or truth.

Yeah...just a hypothesis and nowhere near proof or truth. Ever heard of Belgian Johan Museeuw? He was the best classics specialist in the 90s and considered one of the best one-day stage racers of all time. He was a doper who confessed to using 2nd gen Darbepoetin as his rocket fuel. ?

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

3) My answer is always the same -- athletes use because they, or their manager/coach, have faith.

You keep forgetting that this has been going on for decades. If EPO would only provide a placebo effect, athletes/managers/coaches would have - during their attempts to find the best doses - found out that the best concentration is equal to zero.

+1

Most logically-based reason why EPO is effective - why doesn't rekrunner get it? (btw, how long has he been preaching his Gospel that EPO doesn't work?).

Doped to the Max wrote:

My take: lower baseline Hcts can boost at a higher percentage than higher baseline Hcts at a given dosage.

+1

That provided a big boost for Armstrong and Radcliffe.

Doped to the Max wrote:

ex-runner wrote:

What mindweak is stating is that 4% applies to ALL events from 800m to marathon. That doesn't pass the common sense test, everyone knows that the energy requirements across those events differs drastically and EPO has one specific effect. He may as well start posting the progression of sprinters and claiming EPO is solely responsible for that also.

Funny that you would mention that: Here's two big name sprinters that were using rEPO as part of their doping program:

http://www.espn.com/olympics/trackandfield/news/story?id=2554220https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/mar/02/drugs-in-sport-athletics

I know that EPO has been used by sprinters. Most notably Dwain Chambers admitted to using it after being caught on other drugs.

But for them it's all about recovery, getting in more workouts in a week, Vs drugs that would give an outright performance enhancement such as steroids to boost their muscle strength.

EPO works by strengthing a specific pathway, increasing the amount of red blood cells so that more oxygen can reach working muscles. This has the biggest effect at events where VO2 max is very important, i.e. the 3k. Then it tapers off either side of those events, so the 1500m and 5000m are improved to a lesser extent, then the 10k, then the half marathon then the marathon/800m probably see an equal effect if not the marathon is slightly ahead.

It does not have the same effect across all events. That is making the assumption that all events have the same energy requirements, which is an assumption famously made by the short sighted Ventolin with his calculator, and why he predicted 44s times for Ryun and 3:26 for Rudisha.

I guess for almost three decades. It's an interesting idea, that athletes/coaches/managers adjust and optimize their doses based like they were good scientists, and that placebo effect wouldn't be a function of doses.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

3) My answer is always the same -- athletes use because they, or their manager/coach, have faith.

You keep forgetting that this has been going on for decades. If EPO would only provide a placebo effect, athletes/managers/coaches would have - during their attempts to find the best doses - found out that the best concentration is equal to zero.

If we've been through this before, why do you want to rehash old arguments I've already addressed? Can't you just go back and look at my answers from the last time?

Doped to the Max wrote:

No kidding...been over this with you before..