Alex Hutchinson calls out CANOVA over study confirming EPO works on Kenyan runners

So I completely agree with your honest answer -- "it's possible" and "you don't know". If we try to "go by the confirmed positives", we often have to fill in missing knowledge with "it's possible" and "don't know" -- this is why confirmed positives are not as convincing as they seemingly should be. So let's assume the worst -- Baumann was the best in history non-African responder to an EPO-roid stack, and he ran all-time non-African best of 12:54.70, in a race where he took 5th and lost by some 12-13 seconds (IIRC). The difference between Baumann and 12:37 then must not be drugs, but something else, like talent. Or let's assume the best -- Baumann did not lie, and someone spike his toothpaste, and his 12:54.70 was clean. If the EPO-roid stack is so effective, and we see these "substances time & time again in drug ring busts", none of the non-African dirty times are faster than Baumann. Either way, I'm not seeing strong confirmation in any non-African performances. The powerful effective EPO-roid stack seems rather selective in its effectiveness. Recall some years ago, my line of looking at non-African performances was triggered by one of the comments against Renato, that EPO works for East Africans "just like" it works for everyone else. Surely it is important to characterize just how EPO "works" for everyone else.

Posters do this when they accuse athletes of doping, simply on the basis of a fast performance. Suddenly running fast is one of the "red flags". They conclude that the fast performance can only come from doping, and not only from a good training. "m!ndweak" built a doping detection model, using a 4% jump as evidence of when doping started, claiming every breakthrough as a result of doping, rather than training. It's not wrong to think, looking at examples like "wejo" who improved his 10K by 7% after 5 years of college, by changing his training and going to altitude, that doping will not bring much more benefit, even if you have no direct experience with EPO.

The liar wrote:

Renato,

You seem to think that the two statements "Athletes can improve with good training" and "EPO works to improve performance" are somehow opposed to each other, as though proving that one is true somehow disproves the other one.

I don't think a single poster on here has ever denied that athletes can improve with good training.

Because people like to look into these "miraculous transformations" associated with rHuEPO abuse, Baumann had no sudden improvement in the 1990's. When the guy was only 22 years old in 1987, he recorded 3:33.54 at 1500m, only 3.66 % slower than the current world record of 3:26.00. The quality of the time would be roughly comparable to 13:05 time at 5000m (1.0366 x 12:37.75) a time that he surpassed only during three years in the 1990's (1995, 1997, 1999). His very fast 5000m personal best of 12:54.70 is actually only 1.3 % faster than this 13:05.

His pre-rHuEPO 1500m indoor time of 3:36.97 from the 1988/1989 season of is also noteworthy and only some five seconds (2.9 %) slower than the current world record.

I don't know what the guy did in the 1980's before rHuEPO and one can claim that his performances should've been worse after when he turned 30, but when one doesn't focus on only one distance, his seasonal best are pretty consistent from the late 1980's until 2002 and at least I can't see any three-four year period when he made a sudden leap where he surpassed his earlier capabilities.

1987 (1500m/3:33)

1989 (1500m/3:36) [indoor]

1992 (5000m/13:09.09)

1995 (5000m/13:01.72)

1997 (5000m/12:54.70)

1999 (5000m/13:02.63)

2002 (5000m/13:07.40)

He ran his fastest 1500m time in 1997 at 32 around the same time he ran 12:54 in the middle of the epo era. No that doesn't at all sound like Mo Farah.

Is your opinion that there is something statistically strange if someone improves his pre-rHuEPO potential (~13:05) he ran at relatively young age of 22 by only some 1.3 % after some decade of attempts and with the draft effect of running with a number of sub-13:00 runners?

Didn't those 2 hour marathon scientist refer to the research that the benefit of reduced air resistance when running in a group was several percents of saved energy and oxygen?

Have you been drinking? That ⬆makes absolutely no sense at all.

Actually at the time Baumann was 12.84s off world record pace in the middle of the epo era. 1.29s ahead of him that day was Khalid Boulami! Yes the gap must be explained by natural talent. Baumann was subject to random OOC testing for steroids in Germany, hence he was caught on Nandrolone, his rivals likely weren't.

22 is not an unusual age to run your best 1500m time.

If you look at the 1997 Zurich race again, Baumann ran along side Boulami, if not on his shoulder, for a large chunk of that race. So I'm not sure about the drafting part considering Boulami dropped him on the last lap. I believe Baumann and Boulami were clearly on the sauce.

Well I'm not sure if you're referring to Yannis or Nike's Sub2 experiment at Monza? Yannis may very well have discussed drafting. At Monza there was 100% drafting for the duration of the event. Kipchoge's performance in Berlin was likely superior. So yes drafting is likely beneficial however there have been several solo world records over the years Elliot, Bayi, Juantorena (x2), Rudisha, Ayana.

Speaking of Yannis, here's the study we've been debating.

https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/health/article/2001295637/study-shows-doping-helps-kenyans-run-faster

Maybe rek had a late one in the nightlife of Monaco. ?

You avoided the question whether "there is something statistically strange if someone improves his pre-rHuEPO potential (~13:05) he ran at relatively young age of 22 by only some 1.3 % after some decade of attempts and with the draft effect of running with a number of sub-13:00 runners".

Think it this way. If you take clean athletes who is 22 and think (unlikely) that there was no improvement in his/her physique from that point onwards, due to normal variation (good/bad day, weather, optimal pacing, psychological and physiological benefit of draft etc.), just by statistical odds they would almost certainly clock many improvements in their statistics some time in the future if they ran some 50-100 extra races during the next 10 years. Actually 1997 is the only year when Baumann's 5000m seasonal best time is more than a few seconds better than the potential ~13:05. And even if every change in his performance is PED-related, at least I can't pinpoint any time period when he started to take rHuEPO.

Yes, his 5000m PB is when he was oldish (32) and I think the consensus view is that nandrolone and rHuEPO give some benefit to most of the athletes and Baumann has an AAF, so maybe he used also the RBC hormone with a benefit. On other hand, the prevalence of the rHuEPO use could've be overestimated and when total of 99 blood samples were drawn in 1993 and 1994 -- some 2-3 years after rHuEPO had been pretty easily available -- at eight IAAF world cup meetings and analyzed, there was only one suspiciously high hemoglobin reading (18.9 g/dl). Of course only a portion of the samples came from endurance events.

Aragon wrote:

Baumann had no sudden improvement in the 1990's.

1987 (1500m/3:33)

1989 (1500m/3:36) [indoor]

1992 (5000m/13:09.09)

1995 (5000m/13:01.72)

1997 (5000m/12:54.70)

1999 (5000m/13:02.63)

2002 (5000m/13:07.40)

That's one way to look at it. Other facts are that this drug cheat improved his 5000 m by 7 seconds at age 30, and other 7 seconds at age 32. So, this doper improved by 14 seconds over 5000 m after turning 30, to become the fastest non-African 5000 m. Not only back in 1997, but in a time that is still not bettered by any non-African.

Try to find another runner who - at the very top - improved by over 14 seconds over 5000 m after turning 30.

It is also a fact that he risked taking 'roids to improve as a distance runner - why would such a cheat refrain from taking the likely more effective and likely less risky EPO?

rekrunner wrote:

So let's assume the worst --

Or let's assume the best --

Exactly, and either way (assuming the worst/best equally for Baumann and Bekele):

The difference between Baumann and 12:37 then must not be drugs, but something else, like talent.

Do the same for the best pre-1990 non-African mark: 13:00.41.

So let's assume the worst for the 12:54 + 13:00 --

Or let's assume the best for the 12:54 + 13:00 --

I tried to get you to understand this years ago: such a comparison, when done under consistent postulations, will either show the difference between a) clean times, or the difference between b) EPO times with limited roids and blood transfusions with unlimited roids.

In case a), you learn nothing about EPO.

In case b), you might learn whether or not EPO is better than blood transfusion (+ more steroids).

Yet you continue to claim that your numbers prove that EPO isn't an effective performance enhancer.

casual obsever wrote:

Try to find another runner who - at the very top - improved by over 14 seconds over 5000 m after turning 30.

Antonio Pinto.

13:25.35 aged 26, no time listed until his 13:02.86 aged 32.

I did have two cups of coffee after a full nights sleep, thank you. So, for an all time best of any large group (and North+South America, Europe, Russia, Asia, Oceania over nearly three decades is a fairly large sample), 12:54.70 is not a very strong all-time best time on a world scale. We were just told how powerful and how common the "EPO-roid stack" is. I'm just trying to make sense of that. So, is this not very strong all-time best a result of the powerful "EPO-roid stack", or not? Either way, since the time is not very strong, either the doping effect was strong, and therefore the talent is weak, or the doping effect is not that strong, either because the time is not that strong, or because the all-time best time is actually clean, and no one else could do better even with the help of the powerful "EPO-roid stack". Your answer is that all non-African athletes worldwide, for nearly three decades, were scared to take EPO because of OOC steroid testing, (even though Baumann apparently took it anyway), greatly reducing the impact of this powerful effect among non-Africans -- which raises more questions: given the wide scale of this micro-effect at best, why is the EPO-roid stack considered powerful? And why even take the high risk dosages targeting just a small micro-effect?

Subway Surfers wrote:

Have you been drinking? That ⬆makes absolutely no sense at all.

Actually at the time Baumann was 12.84s off world record pace in the middle of the epo era. 1.29s ahead of him that day was Khalid Boulami! Yes the gap must be explained by natural talent. Baumann was subject to random OOC testing for steroids in Germany, hence he was caught on Nandrolone, his rivals likely weren't.

No, he is still half asleep. Probably tossing and turning all night running new trolling ideas in his head.

So that one could compete against and even beat the Africans like Baumann did.

I think even I raised suspisions about his PBs when he was 30+, 14 improvement is huge no doubt about it. Perhaps due to his natural physique he should've actually been worse after 30, but on the other hand he ran against faster competitors than earlier and any kind of normal variation always play in the hand of PR by definition.

About his 5000m records improving, he also ran 13.00-13.01 caliber 3000m time (7:33.91) in 1991 only four years before his 13:01.72 record in 1995, so his 12:54.70 is only some percent faster than that potential time.

The other problem with Aragon's answer (I was going to respond to him directly but you will do) and IAAF tables in general is that epo has greatly distorted between event comparisons and modern updates to these tables. So we know that epo era improved WRs by an ascending amount the longer the event is run. The 800m by 0.5% (some of which could be tech/equipment gains), c1% for 1500m, 2.7% for 5,000m and 4.6% for the marathon. We know pre epo 1500m & 5,000m WRs were held by one man, Saïd Aouita, at 3:29 & 12:58 (though I can't completely rule out his use of the drug). So a time of 3:33 was +4s off the 1500m WR in the late 1980s x 3.33 for a 5,000m equivalent (add 13.33s to 12:58) or a time of 13:11/12. Not 13:05. An improvement of around 18s for and already world class athlete, and probably past his prime.

rekrunner wrote:

If you want to convince me, you have to work in two directions:

1) Explain to me why 30:35 represents Lombard's best, rather than Lombard being a sub-28 runner who consistently failed to reach his true potential for wrong training.

2) Explain to me why Lombard is the general rule rather than the outlier. If the 5% in the Scot and Kenyan study is an expected value, and up to 10% is possible in the highest responders, why could only 5 non-Africans after 1990 (2 in the 1990s, none in the 2000s, and 3 after 2010 under the ABP, not counting 3 from 1984-1989) could run faster than Carlos Lopes' 27:14.48 from 1984?

Lombard looks very much like a rather exceptional outlier in the non-African world, but I should believe that there were a hundred such exceptions in Kenya and Ethiopia, even when they were based in Japan, Denmark, and USA?

I'm not trying to convince of you anything - your mind is, and has been made up for years.

I've never said Lombard was the general rule - you're implying that. I merely pointed out some hard facts in his case: 1) Rapid & dramatic improvement of ~10% in his 10,000 time in 18 mos. 2) Similar improvement of ~8% in his 5000 (14:27.35 - 13:19.22) over a 3 year period paralleling 10,000 improvement period. 3) tested positive, OOC, 3 months after running his 10,000 PB and setting a new Irish National record by shattering Carroll's mark by over 11 seconds (take away the doping positive and this still would be one of biggest red flags ever!).

You're the one saying he's a "sub-28 runner who consistently failed to reach his true potential for wrong training"...as if you have a crystal ball or something and can determine what time Lombard should be running without dope. I say he's a 30:35 runner who improved to 27:33 in 18 mos and tested positive for dope...those are the basic facts.

In fact, the Irish Sports Council was on to him based on his profound improvements in the 5 & 10:

"Mr Treacy said the athlete had been on the sports council's radar because of the significant improvements he made late in his career."

And this case is so egregious that they flushed his record setting time from Palo Alto though he testing positive OOC 3 months later (no ABP to go back and look at like they did in Jeptoo's case)...when was the last time anti-doping flushed a time without an IC positive or ABP data to look at? ?