Timothy Cheruiyot runs 3:29 FTW in Paris!!

Huh? Have you been spending too much time out in the sun along the Tour route over there in France? The Sunday Times didn't report more than Helinski for their story. And who's saying El G had Ramzi-level blood data? Are you privey to some info that you're not disclosing?

Boulimi was glowing when he was tested the day before he set the WR in 2002, and according to the IAAF report on the protocol for rEPO testing back then, he wouldn't have been targeted pre-comp without a high off-score. The Sunday Times didn't report on his blood data. How about Barbi when he was glowing pre-comp at Edmonton? Where's his blood data?

The Sunday Times used examples only from the 05 WCs, and the IAAF made it clear with this statement from their report: ☝️"These cases are just examples highlighted by The Sunday Times, but the IAAF followed up on cases where its blood screening programme identified abnormal values, including by targeted rEPO urine testing of the athletes concerned."

So, the cases the Sunday Times presented from Helinski was Ramzi and four Russian women that ran 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 5th in the 1500 final with all having high off-scores (imagine that. Lol). Was the Sunday Times suppose to report on other suspicious cases? There must be numerous athletes with suspiciously high blood values - were they obligated to report on all of them in this particular edition? I think you need to start using an umbrella out on those TdF routes. Lol.

I cannot "provide any published research showing that world-class Kenyans don't improve after doping?" I also don't make that claim, so I wouldn't be inclined to even look for a study to support a claim I never made. I'm not sure what point you want to make with these studies -- I don't doubt that amateurs in studies can gain 3-6% from EPO or blood transfusions. If the 33:00 runner can gain 1 minute 9 seconds from blood transfusions, I suspect that there are diminishing returns for the 27:15 runner. But at least running time trials are better than conversions from cycling peak power and cycling time to exhaustions. Regarding these studies: - None of them have control groups not receiving the intervention under study - The "blood transfusion" study has a very small sample (two groups of 3) To illustrate what I mean by over-estimates, we can compare the study design of the last two studies, with the Scots and the Kenyans, to a 1997 altitude study: "Living high-training low": effect of moderate-altitude acclimatization with low-altitude training on performance. Levine, Stray-Gundersen J. The Scottish and Kenyan study had a 2 week baseline phase, before jumping directly into a 4 week EPO intervention. They found a 5.7% and a 4.5% improvement respectively. The 1997 study had 3 groups: 1) a HIGH-HIGH group; 2) a HIGH-LOW group; and 3) a LOW-LOW control group. The study design then featured three phases: 1) a 2 week introductory phase 2) a 4 week "sea-level" training phase, before the intervention ONLY THEN: 3) a 4 week "intervention" phase -- specific for each group All three groups improved on average, by 23 seconds at the end of the "sea-level" training phase, BEFORE the intervention, or about 2.3% The "high-low" group improved again another 14 seconds on top of that, after 4 weeks of high-low training, or about 1.3%. The result of the altitude study for the high-low group was 1.3%, but if it was designed like the Kenyan and Scottish EPO study, the conclusion would have been 3.6% (nearly 3x as much). Imagine now that the Scottish and Kenyan studies included a 4-week "sea-level" training BEFORE the EPO intervention, and both groups improved by 2.3%. Should we still expect an additional 5.7% and 4.5% improvement? Or should we expect something smaller, like 3.4% and 2.2%? I suspect with a better study design, these numbers would be smaller, and that 5.7% and 4.5% are significant over-estimates, for these amateurs. The 1997 altitude study noted that the high-low results were smaller, due to particularly poor performances from two women (could be connected with iron). When they looked at men only (the high-low group was 9 men, and 4 women), the numbers were even higher: 6% improvement during the study: 3.5% during the "sea-level" phase, BEFORE the intervention, and about 2.5% during the high-low altitude training phase.

High-Octane Doping wrote:

Well...let's stick to running then. No exercise bikes, treadmills, etc. - just feet on the ground against the stopwatch.

-Median improvement in 10k of 1 min 9 secs (~3.5%)

-increase in Hct of ~11% upon 400ml of RBC infusion

-3k TT running performance improved by ~6% after rEPO (moderate dosing)

-increase of Hct of ~17% (corresponding increase of RET%)

-3k TT improved by ~5% (moderate dosing)

-increase of Hct of ~10% (corresponding increase in RET%)

Granted these studies are with non-elites, but can you "provide any published research showing that world-class Kenyans don't improve after doping?"

rekrunner wrote:

"Doping apologist" doesn't seem appropriate until 1) you show that someone doped, and 2) I somehow said it was OK.

Maybe "doping apologist" isn't appropriate but you seem to have a soft heart for some dopers and want to find mitigating circumstances in their cases. For example, take the Jeptoo case where she was stripped of both Chicago & Boston titles for doping. She ran relatively slow at Chicago, so you gave your ah-ha moment that EPO didn't work. However, she ran very fast at Boston (course record & 5th fastest marathon all time) but you said she had pacers and several of the other girls also ran fast, so therefore another ah-ha moment of yours that EPO didn't work. There's some stuff you said on Kiprop that seem to imply empathy for his situation. You've even gone as far to suggest than a career doper & full-throttle guy like Ramzi may have achieved his success through a change in his training and not the result of any EPO-induced benefit. There's other cases where you've shown mitigating factors for EPO doping cases wanting to suppess any notion that EPO had any influence on their performance. One thing is certain, you don't seem half as annoyed about the Kenyan doping problem as many here do.

Did you read what you've posted several times?

"In its 2 August 2015 edition, The Sunday Times referred to ‘a top British athlete' who 'on three occasions' recorded OFF-scores that 'were so "abnormal" that there was only a one in a thousand chance that they were natural’." (99)

(99) A dozen top British athletes have recorded abnormal blood scores, The Sunday Times, 2 August 2015, p.12.

El G would have been a bigger fish than Ramzi.

quote]High-Octane Doping wrote:

Huh? Have you been spending too much time out in the sun along the Tour route over there in France? The Sunday Times didn't report more than Helinski for their story.[/quote]

Coevett, I understand if you completely disagree with everything I write, but please stop putting words in my mouth that I did not say. I never argued that "Russians didn't match East Africa at distance running". I did not compare Russia with East Africa -- I compared them to a pre-1990 top-5 average. I compared them to Coe, Cram, and Moorcroft. and Steve Jones. I never said pre-1990 Africa was a mess. In fact, I've said East Africa dominated in the 1980s. Kenya and Ethiopia dominated World Cross country in the 1980's. I never said I live in Monaco. I've often said I do NOT live in Monaco. I never try to prove EPO doesn't work, but argue that figures like 4% are too high for elites. Sorry, "Guilt by association" is very much a logical fallacy. I do not do it myself. I argued that many Russians dope, based on evidence of busts. They are at the top of every WADA and IAAF list. I argue how they performed relative to 1990, based on historical evidence of all time best performances. When I say "no one performs" this includes all clean runners, and all doped runners, without requiring making that determination. I assume a doping prevalence between 0% and 100%, inclusive. Was Russia in the 2000s and 2010s also a mess? I looked at 28 years post-1990. You can suspect what you want. You cannot conclude Aouita doped in the 1980s from statements 20 years later, unless the statement is "I doped in the 1980s". I do this for free.

Again, "guilt by association" is a logical fallacy, according to rekrunner. I never said otherwise. So please don't say " notice how rekrunner brings up this "guilt by association is not a logical fallacy"", and attribute it to me. When I say Spain underperformed, this includes all clean and all doped runners. I do not assume "every single Spaniard who took to the track or roads was using PEDs", but assume a Spanish doping prevalance between 0% and 100%, inclusive. It is not my argument that any Spaniard dopes with EPO -- this is what everyone else tells me in all these threads -- look at Morocco and Spain. If I cannot have Spain both ways, then I choose that Spain is CLEAN. Cacho was CLEAN. Rey was CLEAN when he ran his best marathon. Bezabeh was CLEAN because the blood was in the bag, and not re-infused. This explains why Spain underperformed, because Spain did not take EPO. The "Spain really tried hard to dope with EPO" was not directed at Cacho, who I think is CLEAN, but all the other Spaniards who failed to join Cacho at the top. If no Spaniard took EPO, then I stand corrected, retract that statement, and say Spain was CLEAN during the entire EPO-era.

Please, stop to show the most stupid research EVER for corroborating a pseudo-scientific idea NEVER SPECIFICALLY TESTED.

"Kenyan runners improved their 3000-meter times by an average of 5% after taking EPO, which is the same improvement seen in Scottish runners, according to research presented Thursday at the annual meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine.

Twenty Kenyan runners based in Eldoret, Kenya (elevation of close to 8,000 feet) and 19 runners based at sea level in Scotland took EPO every two days for four weeks. EPO is one of the most popular and effective performance-enhancing drugs for endurance athletes, because it increases the blood's oxygen-carrying capacity.

The runners did a 3-K time trial before the study, and again immediately after they'd been taking EPO for four weeks. The average improvement in both groups was 5%. Four weeks after they stopped doping, both groups were still an average of 3% faster than they had been before they took EPO.

The improvements were similar even though before and after they doped the Kenyans had much higher hemoglobin and hematocrit values, which are markers related to red blood cell quality and density. The study shows that athletes who are born and train at altitude benefit similarly to sea-level athletes from EPO.

While this might seem like a bit of no-duh news, it's significant for two reasons.

First, at least one top coach has claimed that, because of their inherently different blood profiles, Kenyan runners don't receive a performance boost from EPO. Renato Canova, an Italian coach who has worked with many top Kenyan marathoners and now coaches Ryan Hall, has written this repeatedly on the Letsrun message board, such as in this thread, where he flatly states, "EPO DOESN'T HELP TOP KENYAN ATHLETES." (The all-caps emphasis is in the original.)

The runners in this study weren't as fast as those Canova coaches, but there's no published research showing that world-class Kenyans don't improve after doping; this study showed a significant improvement in Kenyans with hemoglobin and hematocrit levels similar to those of world-class Kenyans.

Second, doping in Kenya has been one of the leading stories in elite running over the past year. Mathew Kisorio (seen above), the third fastest half-marathoner in history, has alleged widespread doping in Kenya's training camps. Kisorio tested positive for a stimulant, and later admitted to taking EPO. In recent months, a handful of Kenyan marathoners, including one with a 2:05 PR, have received doping bans.

The World Anti-Doping Agency, which funded the above research, is trying to increase out-of-competition drug testing in Kenya and Ethiopia. A facility to conduct blood tests, which can detect EPO and other performance-enhancing drugs, is scheduled to open in Eldoret later this year. "

The fact that the research was funded by WADA can only demonstrate the total IGNORANCE of the effects of training by the scientists working with WADA itself.

NEVER there was some research where is possible to see the BASIC DATA requested for a real research :

1- The personal bests of the subjects (normally appointed as "elite athletes", and for some research elite means every marathon runner running under 2:40...)

2- The real training they did BEFORE the test

3- The real training they did DURING the period of EPO administration

4- The real training they did AFTER finishing tp take EPO.

In this particular case, the average in 3000m for the Kenyan boys was 9'35", the average for Scottish boys 11'15". This means they were not athletes, or were runners (the Kenyans) of medium talent without any training.

In this condition, with proper training only, administrated during the same period used for taking EPO (of course, without taking anything), we can easily argue that their final improvement COULD BE VERY MUCH HIGHER THAN THE REGISTERED IMPROVEMENT DURING THE RESEARCH.

I never become tired to explain one basic fact : if the researchers don't know the effect of training (or, better, DON'T KNOW WHAT TRAINING IS, making confusing between the training for normal people ad the training of top athletes, that is the same to do confusion between how to develop the engine of a small city car and how to develop the engine of a Formula One), can't speak about the effect of ANY DOPING.

When we speak about steroids, we can have several data showing that, without using these specific PEDs, it's not possible to achieve the same results : the fact that all the WR for throwers are still from 1988 (already 30 years ago), and that currently it's possible to win Olympics and WCh with performances very far from the past (for example, Hammer of Yury Syedik at 86.74 when now the bests are around 81 meters, or discus from 74 to 70, or shot were nobody is able to throw longer than Alessandro Andrei (22.91 in 1987) also if very much more talented than the Italian), clearly show that the performances directly connected with the muscle power in all the expressions have great benefit from the assumption of steroids.

But, looking at middle and long distances (particularly Marathon), we see very few athletes in the lists of top 100 all-time who were positive for EPO, and of course can't suppose that ALL the other are doped too, but were lucky or more smart of better supported by their Federation or by private lawyers, especially considering that the most part are from Countries not investing money in athletics (like Kenya) but only using the products of the ambience without supporting young runners in any way. When I see people speaking about "Kenya supporting doping", I can only laugh : Athletic Kenya doesn't spend any money for developing the best young athletes, the government doesn't support the Federation, there is no organization under the medical side. If one top Kenyan, maybe WR holder such as Dennis Kimetto, has some injury, the Federation doesn't do anything, in this case the management doesn't do anything too, and the athlete is abandoned (and we can see the final result). With this kind of organization, the only idea that the Federation can be the organizer of doping is something absurd and laughable, because if a Country is not able to organize the activity, you can imagine if can organizer doping...

I know that the most part of posters think my idea is stupid and I'm a defender of dopers. The last idea is the most wrong possible, because I want a clean athletics, and who takes doping MUST lose all the results of his career. But this doesn't mean I have to BELIEVE in the amazing effects of doping, when I know very well that is possible to better WR (and not only one...) using only training and normal food, without any LEGAL supplement too.

Are many years that I ask WADA or IAAF to create a pool of scientists able to follow the development of physiological parameters connected with long period of training, in order to understand WHY a top training can dramatically change the performances of the best athletes. But of course is very much easier to continue with the same tests, using the same protocols, with subjects who don't have real talent, don't have real training and are not tested for periods of long duration, continuing to achieve the same results, because the researches are the same, the subjects have the same level, the protocol is the same and nothing new can happen.

This is the best way for wasting money, not surely the way for having infos about human limits and effect of training.

Coevett wrote:

He'll threaten to.... wrote:

Watch out for this ex-guy, he threatens people when it doesn't go his way.

No I only threaten anonymous trolls when they threaten to doxx and kill me (and any children I have) for claiming there is a huge doping culture in Africa.

False. No one ever threatened to kill your hypothetical children. Spinning a web of lies again.

ex-runner wrote:

Coevett wrote:

But there's been good Russian and German athletes in the middle distances always. The point is they weren't dominating when they were doping to the max with the best steroids money could buy, unlike with the female middle-distance runners.

Well the were up there, picking up the minor medals in major champs and also Coe and Ovett both lost to Olafi.

The point would simply be that those with access to steroids were at the top, i.e the Russians Germans and the Brits.

What? The Russians and East Germans picked up a few medals in championship races where none of the other top athletic nations were taking place! Prague 78 was a European champs, and Moscow 80 was a boycotted games with no US, Kenyan, West Germans competing. Extend out to 82 Europeans, 83 Worlds, 86 Europeans, 87 Worlds, 88 Olympics, and there are a couple of Russian or GDR medalists in the men’s 800 or 1500m. Based on times on the circuit, they were even less of an entity in men’s middle distances during this period, only doing (relatively) well in championships at a European level.

So your point is a moot one. As I’ve outlined before, we know that the majority of GDR and USSR athletes doped (as part of a state sponsored programme) in the late 70’s and 80’s, and that they excelled by quite a margin in women’s events and men’s throwing/ jumping disciplines. But in men’s middle and distance events they generally lagged behind many other leading athletic nations. The comparison with the UK was even more polarised, suggesting one of 3 scenarios:

1. The USSR and GDR doped in all events except men’s middle and distance events, while the UK only doped their male middle distance runners and all others were clean and hence markedly inferior to standards set in the USSR and GDR.

2. The Germans, Russians and Brits doped in all events and with both sexes, but the UK only had a natural advantage in a few middle distance men events, while sucking big time in all others.

3. There was widespread state doping in the GDR and Russia, but they recognised that steroids were more beneficial in women’s and men’s power events, and thus their male distance athletes were not on any steroid programme. In the UK, steroid use amongst women was pretty non existent, but a few men in sprints and power events were dabbling independently, as everyone knew the benefits of steroids in those events at this time. In the middle and distance events, no drugs were being used, as the general consensus amongst coaches in the 70’s was that steroids were of no benefit in these events, and it was the one area of T&F where competition was conducted on a level playing field.

Strength in distance running had a long tradition in the UK, with the popular system of Harrier clubs and X country competition; grass routes county champs. Going back to Victorian times, Britain always had a reputation as a great source of distance runners.

IMO, the narrative in option 3 is far more likely and realistic than those expressed in 1 and/or 2

fact czech wrote:

Coevett wrote:

No I only threaten anonymous trolls when they threaten to doxx and kill me (and any children I have) for claiming there is a huge doping culture in Africa.

False. No one ever threatened to kill your hypothetical children. Spinning a web of lies again.

We all know it's you threatening people.

Give it a break ex-runner wrote:

fact czech wrote:

False. No one ever threatened to kill your hypothetical children. Spinning a web of lies again.

We all know it's you threatening people.

False. I have never posted as "ex-runner". Spinning a web of lies again.

You seem to be mixing up two things: 1) Is doping right or wrong? 2) What are the causes of best performances? One is a moral question, and the other is a scientific/mathematical modelling question. I never debate whether doping is right or wrong. In competition, it is always wrong, regardless of positive or negative or no impact on performance. If you call me a "doping apologist" this is not "maybe inappropriate", but it is ALWAYS wrong. It's a clear sign to me, that you've run out of merit for argument #2, or worse, you cannot tell the difference between #1 and #2. If you say doping is wrong, I will never argue. But if you say, for example, doping causes 4% improvement in elites, or the fastest performances can only be achieved by doping, this is not a moral question of right or wrong, but a scientific/mathematical question of cause and effect. If you want to talk about performance, playing with numbers, it is necessary to consider all potentially significant factors, and doping is only one of many. It is not me the ostrich, ignoring doping, but many others, ignoring everything else. I only have a "soft heart" for innocent victims of doping accusations. Regarding Jeptoo in Boston, can you estimate for me how much EPO helped, from her clean baseline, and how much Shalane's aggressive pacing helped, given that 4 women in that race broke the course record, including New York based and US tested Deba? Can you list for me the top 3 factors, that explain why Jeptoo was was 6 minutes slower in Chicago than Boston, given that EPO was common in both? Regarding Kiprop, I do not have empathy. I do have a couple questions though about the bizarre circumstances. Regarding Ramzi, are you suggesting that EPO was essentially the only factor? If not, what was the potential magnitude of other, not more than three, factors? Can you put the "Kenyan doping problem" in perspective for me? If it is two athletes in the top-100 all time, what is the appropriate level of annoyance that I should express? I don't deny Kenya has a doping problem, causing reputational damage. I don't deny Kenya also has an anti-doping problem, causing reputational damage. Now, if you want to connect these two factors to performance, you cannot ignore all other factors.

ex-runner wrote:

In fact I made a point of stating that Farah ran 3:28 whilst likely being tested more than any other athlete on Earth bar Bolt.

I also stated that this doesn't mean that Farah is clean, but that sub 3:30 times are evidently possible whilst under an intense testing regime. Therefore 'increased testing' will NOT cause times by Kenyan athletes to slow.

I was just 100% right of course. Anyone with basic skills in deducing facts would come to the same conclusion.

The thing is when posters that have no idea about running try and discuss athletics and doping, they simply don't have enough knowledge to make coherent arguments. Also I suspect 'mindweak' actually has something a bit wrong with him.

Bolt!

He was barely tested out of competition in Jamaica in his WR years. He then barely raced outside Championships and slowed down

That troll pretended for years that Jeptoo ran her 2:18 at Boston clean despite the evidence, arguing that that proves EPO made her slower. So yeah, doping apologist and doper defender of sure.

rekrunner wrote:

But if you say, for example, doping causes 4% improvement in elites, or the fastest performances can only be achieved by doping, this is not a moral question of right or wrong, but a scientific/mathematical question of cause and effect.

But you're not concerned if it is only 2%.

Renato, please explain to us how if epo doesn't work on Kenyans, why do hospitals and pharmacies in Eldoret stock it? And if it doesn't work on marathoners, why have so many champions used it?

Renato Canova wrote:

The runners did a 3-K time trial before the study, and again immediately after they'd been taking EPO for four weeks. The average improvement in both groups was 5%. Four weeks after they stopped doping, both groups were still an average of 3% faster than they had been before they took EPO.

This is how unreal performances are still being pumped out and cheaters aren't being caught.

Smaller errors concern me less than large errors, but I am still concerned.

The last 2% wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

But if you say, for example, doping causes 4% improvement in elites, or the fastest performances can only be achieved by doping, this is not a moral question of right or wrong, but a scientific/mathematical question of cause and effect.

But you're not concerned if it is only 2%.

Oooh, "that troll", "doping apologist" and "doping defender" of sure. If I ever argued "EPO made her slower", this does not mean I think that makes it OK to take EPO. But thanks for demonstrating a few more examples of arguments I never made -- it seems to be the only way some of you can find a way to disagree with me. It's like I say "screw" and you hammers only hear "nail". I'm sure I never said she ran Boston "clean", because I didn't know one way or the other, and said "we didn't know" about Boston. There you could say I made a mistake. I did say she ran slower in Chicago, two weeks after testing positive for EPO. This is really not even an argument, but historical fact. I did say that the early fast pace of Boston, with 7 women together at 20 miles, helped lead to the fast times, with four women breaking the course record. It's not like we have to pick only one cause. Fast pacing doesn't disprove any effect of EPO, but it should be considered when estimating effects.

its actually worse wrote:

That troll pretended for years that Jeptoo ran her 2:18 at Boston clean despite the evidence, arguing that that proves EPO made her slower.

So yeah, doping apologist and doper defender of sure.