Cheptegei looked as relaxed as El G did here at the finish of his 5k and 10k meter world records.
Cheptegei looked as relaxed as El G did here at the finish of his 5k and 10k meter world records.
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Less. You have more oxygen in your bloodstream.
Which has to be extracted from the air by breathing more, not less.
No. When you have a higher red blood cell content you have more oxygen available and don't have to work as hard. That's why EPO/blood dopers make it look effortless. Dopers aren't gasping for air.
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Less. You have more oxygen in your bloodstream.
Which has to be extracted from the air by breathing more, not less.
If you can’t understand the point that was being made, you probably shouldn’t be on these boards.
Let me clarify - due to (alleged) EPO use, El G still seemed fresh at the conclusion of the race. He was not gasping for air as one might expect (perhaps) because his blood already had all of the oxygen it needed.
Lets not forget who also has the 2k indoor WR(and not the curved indoor type tracks of today that Kelejcha ran a 3:47 mile on which are faster than what Bekele had to run on). We all know Bekele is the greatest
GBohannon wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
Which has to be extracted from the air by breathing more, not less.
If you can’t understand the point that was being made, you probably shouldn’t be on these boards.
Let me clarify - due to (alleged) EPO use, El G still seemed fresh at the conclusion of the race. He was not gasping for air as one might expect (perhaps) because his blood already had all of the oxygen it needed.
Yes (to both points).
GBohannon wrote:
how does that work? wrote:
Which has to be extracted from the air by breathing more, not less.
If you can’t understand the point that was being made, you probably shouldn’t be on these boards.
Let me clarify - due to (alleged) EPO use, El G still seemed fresh at the conclusion of the race. He was not gasping for air as one might expect (perhaps) because his blood already had all of the oxygen it needed.
Isn't EPO supposed to increase oxygen uptake?
If his oxygen uptake was more than normal, how come he was breathing less?
Armstronglivs wrote:
wegvewg wrote:
3:49.60 at 1600m as per the broadcast.
Those last two laps - unbelievable- and scarcely breathing at the finish. Jeezus, EPO is a powerful drug!
I guess you say it is so powerful because of the high quantity of high quality performances in 2000m in the EPO era worldwide where EPO use is widespread.
In 1976 John Walker ran 4:51.5 and in 1985 Steve Cram ran 4:51.4.
Since Steve Cram, over the next 35 years, after EPO use became widespread in track and field, as a demonstration of its powerful effect and worldwide impact, as many as 10 runners have run faster than Steve Cram: 1 Norwegian, 1 Australian, 2 Moroccans, 2 Algerians, 3 Kenyans, and 1 Burundian.
5 runners have run sub-4:50 (within 1 second per lap) -- 1 Moroccan, 2 Algerians, 1 Kenyan and 1 Burundian.
Armstronglivs wrote:
GBohannon wrote:
If you can’t understand the point that was being made, you probably shouldn’t be on these boards.
Let me clarify - due to (alleged) EPO use, El G still seemed fresh at the conclusion of the race. He was not gasping for air as one might expect (perhaps) because his blood already had all of the oxygen it needed.
Yes (to both points).
Really? Explain how that works? Don't just keep repeating the same line. Try answering the question.
how does that work? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Yes (to both points).
Really? Explain how that works? Don't just keep repeating the same line. Try answering the question.
"EPO is a naturally occurring hormone in the body that stimulates the bone marrow to produce more red cells. Medically, it is given to patients with anemia of chronic disease whose bone marrow is suppressed to help them have more energy and increase daily function. But, inject it into an elite athlete and the extra oxygen increases their aerobic capacity. If the cell factory runs out of oxygen, it turns to anaerobic metabolism, whose waste products shut down the ability to perform. "
When you start running out of oxygen (which is carried to the muscles on the red blood cells) you quite literally run out of breath. That is when you see runners gasping and they may even collapse from lack of oxygen.
But if you increase your red blood cell content (which altitude training also does) you enable more oxygen to be carried to your muscles. Hence you can last longer with less effort. It doesn't involve breathing more because with each breath the increased red blood cells will carry more oxygen to the muscles. Everything becomes easier. That is why doped athletes can appear as fresh as a daisy at the end of a race.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Those last two laps - unbelievable- and scarcely breathing at the finish. Jeezus, EPO is a powerful drug!
I guess you say it is so powerful because of the high quantity of high quality performances in 2000m in the EPO era worldwide where EPO use is widespread.
In 1976 John Walker ran 4:51.5 and in 1985 Steve Cram ran 4:51.4.
Since Steve Cram, over the next 35 years, after EPO use became widespread in track and field, as a demonstration of its powerful effect and worldwide impact, as many as 10 runners have run faster than Steve Cram: 1 Norwegian, 1 Australian, 2 Moroccans, 2 Algerians, 3 Kenyans, and 1 Burundian.
5 runners have run sub-4:50 (within 1 second per lap) -- 1 Moroccan, 2 Algerians, 1 Kenyan and 1 Burundian.
I'd say it's pretty powerful when I compare 4.44 with 4.51. I also find it interesting that no one (clean) has gotten near any of El G's times in over 20 years, since tests were introduced for EPO. I also find it interesting that formerly unattainable world distance records have come down this year, when testing has been greatly reduced as a result of Covid.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I'd say it's pretty powerful when I compare 4.44 with 4.51. I also find it interesting that no one (clean) has gotten near any of El G's times in over 20 years, since tests were introduced for EPO. I also find it interesting that formerly unattainable world distance records have come down this year, when testing has been greatly reduced as a result of Covid.
You would say that because you are a strong believer in the powerful effect of EPO to produce elite performances otherwise not possible.
You'd also say its use was widespread, especially in the '90s when EPO was untestable.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I'd say it's pretty powerful when I compare 4.44 with 4.51. I also find it interesting that no one (clean) has gotten near any of El G's times in over 20 years, since tests were introduced for EPO. I also find it interesting that formerly unattainable world distance records have come down this year, when testing has been greatly reduced as a result of Covid.
You would say that because you are a strong believer in the powerful effect of EPO to produce elite performances otherwise not possible.
You'd also say its use was widespread, especially in the '90s when EPO was untestable.
Those are both views shared by the vast majority of the athletics community and anti-doping experts. Don't pretend you represent 'one side of the debate'. You're a flat-Earther. Covid conspiracy theorists have more science to back them up than you do on EPO and doping.
Coevett wrote:
Those are both views shared by the vast majority of the athletics community and anti-doping experts. Don't pretend you represent 'one side of the debate'. You're a flat-Earther. Covid conspiracy theorists have more science to back them up than you do on EPO and doping.
I understand these views are widely held among athletes, fans, and anti-doping experts.
I've always accepted without challenge that these views are popular.
Yet there are questions that cannot be decided by popular vote.
There can be no informed debate without sufficient information.
There is no doping science on the 4:50 caliber 2000m runner.
There is no debating the recorded history of all time performances.
This is the value added that I brought to this thread.
On the topic of flat-earth, I defer to the WGS 84 to best describe the shape of the earth.
On the topic of Covid, although the science is in progress, I'm in the camp that says we are in the middle of a pandemic caused by a highly contagious respiratory virus.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I'd say it's pretty powerful when I compare 4.44 with 4.51. I also find it interesting that no one (clean) has gotten near any of El G's times in over 20 years, since tests were introduced for EPO. I also find it interesting that formerly unattainable world distance records have come down this year, when testing has been greatly reduced as a result of Covid.
You would say that because you are a strong believer in the powerful effect of EPO to produce elite performances otherwise not possible.
You'd also say its use was widespread, especially in the '90s when EPO was untestable.
Actually, I don't say that. WADA and other antidoping experts say that. Of course, if the drug wasn't having an effect on sport there wouldn't have been a need to ban it and introduce a test for it - and nor would so many athletes in different sports continue use it today, despite the risks of being caught. If antidoping efforts were completely ineffectual we would see no difference in performances from the 90's to the years that followed the introduction of the test. But we do, which suggests the pre-testing era benefited from the use of the drug. El G's and Komen's records remain untouchable more than 20 years later.
WGS84 is actually a somewhat poor approximation of the shape of the earth. Much better than a flat plane if those are your only two options though.
uncle jamins wild rice wrote:
WGS84 is actually a somewhat poor approximation of the shape of the earth. Much better than a flat plane if those are your only two options though.
I guess "poor" is relative. It is suitable for satellite applications.
But I'm curious what you consider a better approximation.
Wikipedia says WGS 84 was revised in 2004.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Actually, I don't say that. WADA and other antidoping experts say that. Of course, if the drug wasn't having an effect on sport there wouldn't have been a need to ban it and introduce a test for it - and nor would so many athletes in different sports continue use it today, despite the risks of being caught. If antidoping efforts were completely ineffectual we would see no difference in performances from the 90's to the years that followed the introduction of the test. But we do, which suggests the pre-testing era benefited from the use of the drug. El G's and Komen's records remain untouchable more than 20 years later.
You are wrong on both counts.
Neither WADA nor anti-doping experts say anything about EPO's effect on sub-4:50 2000m performances.
When creating the banned list, WADA only considers "potential" to enhance performance, neither showing, nor requiring, any benefit.
Anti-doping experts often say the opposite -- that their findings cannot be projected onto elite performances.
And neither suggest that the potential benefits from EPO are exclusive, and could not be replicated, or even exceeded, by legal means.
You are also wrong again: even in the case of no performance benefit, there would be a need for WADA to ban it for health reasons.
And this thread isn't about general effect on any athlete in any sport, but specifically about El Guerrouj and EPO and his 2000m performance in the sport of athletics. Even more specifically, you were speaking about his last 2 laps.
In this instance we (including everyone of "the vast majority of the athletics community and anti-doping experts") lack two key pieces of information:
- Is EPO powerful for elite athletes, when compared to legal methods?
- Did El Guerrouj take EPO?
So that Stewart McSweyn guy could have been his rabbit for somewhere near 4 laps.
Coevett wrote:
Those are both views shared by the vast majority of the athletics community and anti-doping experts. Don't pretend you represent 'one side of the debate'. You're a flat-Earther. Covid conspiracy theorists have more science to back them up than you do on EPO and doping.
To put the views of "the vast majority" in perspective, in a letsrun doping survey:
- only a marginal majority (57%) thought El G was "dirty"
As "Armstronglivs" mentioned Komen, only a minority 39% thought he was "dirty".
You are correct to point out a clear lack of science. There are clearly two sides to a rather uninformed "debate".
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Actually, I don't say that. WADA and other antidoping experts say that. Of course, if the drug wasn't having an effect on sport there wouldn't have been a need to ban it and introduce a test for it - and nor would so many athletes in different sports continue use it today, despite the risks of being caught. If antidoping efforts were completely ineffectual we would see no difference in performances from the 90's to the years that followed the introduction of the test. But we do, which suggests the pre-testing era benefited from the use of the drug. El G's and Komen's records remain untouchable more than 20 years later.
You are wrong on both counts.
Neither WADA nor anti-doping experts say anything about EPO's effect on sub-4:50 2000m performances.
When creating the banned list, WADA only considers "potential" to enhance performance, neither showing, nor requiring, any benefit.
Anti-doping experts often say the opposite -- that their findings cannot be projected onto elite performances.
And neither suggest that the potential benefits from EPO are exclusive, and could not be replicated, or even exceeded, by legal means.
You are also wrong again: even in the case of no performance benefit, there would be a need for WADA to ban it for health reasons.
And this thread isn't about general effect on any athlete in any sport, but specifically about El Guerrouj and EPO and his 2000m performance in the sport of athletics. Even more specifically, you were speaking about his last 2 laps.
In this instance we (including everyone of "the vast majority of the athletics community and anti-doping experts") lack two key pieces of information:
- Is EPO powerful for elite athletes, when compared to legal methods?
- Did El Guerrouj take EPO?
Since you always twist what is being said to suit your fatuous arguments, I did not claim that WADA specifically said El G's performances (or anyone else's, for that matter) were doped. They never make claims about individual athletes except as findings from tests.
But they and other antidoping experts consider EPO to be a powerful performance enhancing drug - not that it only has the "potential" to be so. Only a religiously fanatical doping denier like yourself refuses to see it. Every thread has its flat earther and that is the role you always play when the subject of doping arises. Your failure to grasp the topography of the issue is your outstanding feature.