No, the criticism (by experts) is clearly referred to and name checked in the comments. Don't worry, I'm not like you - claiming that El G was scientifically proven clean because a poll on LetsRun found a slight majority of anonymous IPs voted him clean.
I'm not going to do your homework by searching for points you are unable to bring here. The fact is that 8 weeks of EPO did not make these 24 cyclists faster than the control group, despite a range of physiological changes.
That doesn't sound like me -- I never claimed that El G was scientifically proven clean. I think what I claimed is that the idea that El G is clean is not so extreme according to a recent letsrun poll.
Absolute nonsense. 8 weeks of EPO will make a massive difference in performance. I spent more than a decade racing my bike on two continents. Max power, threshold power, endurance, recovery from one stage to the next… all dramatically better on EPO.
More the training becomes hard and specific, less blood doping can "work", and when the training is at the top, blood manipulation can't add anything else. This is the reason because the current WR are clean, and because the doped athletes (who exist in some percentage) normally are not at the top of their events.
On the contrary, when we speak about doping with steroids, more doping there is, more muscle strength and power it's possible to develop. This is the reason because, after 1988 (year when the REAL fight against steroid started), we didn't have any improvement in the following WR :
MEN
Discus, Hammer, Javelin (before Zelezny with the old javelin), and Shot Put till last year, when a phenomen such as Ryan Crouser, after 33 years, was able to improve. And we have WR lasting 31 years (Long Jump), 29 years (High Jump) and 26 years (Triple Jump).
WOMEN
100m (34 years), 200m (34 years), 400m (37 years), 800m (39 years), HJ (35 years), LJ (34 years), SP (35 years), DT (35 years), JT (34 years with the old model, very much better than the new model).
This means we have the PROVES that steroids worked, producing a big advantaged to the athletes used them (especially at women level), also if many athletes were "officially" clean, and it's not possible to think that, while sprinters, jumper and throwers at top level were banned, the 99% of specialists of middle and long distances were able to find some solution for avoiding to be positive, when tested.
All due respect, you are completely wrong. EPO makes a massive difference. Don’t believe me? Try it.
I'm not going to do your homework by searching for points you are unable to bring here. The fact is that 8 weeks of EPO did not make these 24 cyclists faster than the control group, despite a range of physiological changes.
That doesn't sound like me -- I never claimed that El G was scientifically proven clean. I think what I claimed is that the idea that El G is clean is not so extreme according to a recent letsrun poll.
Absolute nonsense. 8 weeks of EPO will make a massive difference in performance. I spent more than a decade racing my bike on two continents. Max power, threshold power, endurance, recovery from one stage to the next… all dramatically better on EPO.
Apparently it will do all that but still not make your Mont Ventoux time any faster than a control group over the same 8 weeks.
Was your EPO regime double blinded? Did you take other drugs as potential confounders? What controls did you put in place to decide "dramatically better" was due to EPO?
All due respect, you are completely wrong. EPO makes a massive difference. Don’t believe me? Try it.
What would you consider a "massive difference" for these top distance running athletes in question.
What is your basis that EPO would massively help an athlete already training long term at high altitude, given that altitude is similarly proven to bring these benefits naturally?
Absolute nonsense. 8 weeks of EPO will make a massive difference in performance. I spent more than a decade racing my bike on two continents. Max power, threshold power, endurance, recovery from one stage to the next… all dramatically better on EPO.
Apparently it will do all that but still not make your Mont Ventoux time any faster than a control group over the same 8 weeks.
Was your EPO regime double blinded? Did you take other drugs as potential confounders? What controls did you put in place to decide "dramatically better" was due to EPO?
I don’t need a scientist to tell me that it’s raining out. All one needs is a computrainer or power meter, if cycling, a stop watch and a heart rate monitor.
A personal experience… showed up for an early season camp with a new SoCal team (I didn’t live in California) and spent a week dropping them. Power to weight, outright power, endurance, and recovery between sessions for me was significantly better than these guys who were all suffering… getting completely dropped off the back before the pace ever got hard. I was not on anything except an altitude tent. About 6 weeks later when we came together for a stage race these guys had all gained several years’ worth of fitness. They admitted to a trip south of the border to pick up supplies (one supply in particular). I have several other experiences of people around me making miraculous improvements in a very short period of time. My last race (14 years ago) I did EPO myself. Results were about an 8% power increase, could train longer and harder, recovered much faster after tempo efforts, but most importantly between workouts. I could train so much harder and so much more frequently. I was already using a tent and only did EPO. Your study might need to be redo.
All due respect, you are completely wrong. EPO makes a massive difference. Don’t believe me? Try it.
What would you consider a "massive difference" for these top distance running athletes in question.
What is your basis that EPO would massively help an athlete already training long term at high altitude, given that altitude is similarly proven to bring these benefits naturally?
On average mileage of less than 50 mpw I ran a 4:34 marathon. On an average of a bit under 60 I ran 3:29. On about 80 I ran 3:05. On 100 to 150 I got to 2:35. Maybe it was just the passage of time, maturation, and racing the distance over and over that got me to run two hours faster and not the miles but when you make that kind of improvement after running so much more, when you see others do the same, it's reasonable to conclude that mileage makes most of us faster. But we can never prove that.
When you see someone like Cathal Lombard go from a 30:10 plus 10,000 guy to 27:40 something and temporary Irish record holder after taking EPO it's hard not to think most if not all of that improvement was due to EPO. It's going to be much harder to find other examples as dramatic as that largely because even when we find definitely that someone took EPO we don't have a clear before and after to look at as in Lombard's case. So you're probably always going to be able to argue that there's no clear, objective, proof that it does what we suspect.
But that doesn't matter in terms of dealing with EPO and those who use it. There is enough information around to make a pretty good case that it improves the performances of endurance athletes and even if that turns out not to be the case it still should be banned because athletes taking it are trying to cheat even if doing so isn't getting them the results they want. There is no valid reason for an athlete to take it unless they're a chemotherapy patient.
You always make the unsupported points about Kenya or Ethiopia suffering in the post-EPO test era. What is your evidence?
Have you looked at the marathon/half-marathon lists/depth for each of those two countries? Is EPO only effective for races if 1,500-10,000 all of a sudden?
I think everyone acknowledges (besides one poster here) that North Africa has fallen off the most in the wake of improved anti-doping efforts. But you just throw out your East Africa stuff unsupported blind to the fact Kenyan/Ethiopian success has continued unabated.
I think everyone acknowledges (besides one poster here) that North Africa has fallen off the most in the wake of improved anti-doping efforts. But you just throw out your East Africa stuff unsupported blind to the fact Kenyan/Ethiopian success has continued unabated.
Did you know that we were the first to get World Cross Country Title in Africa:
Abdeslam Radi
Gammoudi
Al Gazi
all these got a Gold world title of Cross Country in the 60s.
Where were your East African Coutries at that time?
Even Ali Mimoun Would Kasha (4 Gold Titles and several Olympic Tittles) has his origin from Algeria.
Athletics is way organized in Morocco than any other East African Country:
2 retired guys and a C-level Kenyan don’t bother to abide by the testing protocols. Really grasping for straws are we?
Kimutai, now age 29, has run a 2:09:46 in Taiyuan. Sure, let's call that C level.
Gachaga, now age 26, has run a 2:05:09 in Paris.
Kisorio, now age 32, has run a 58:46 in Philadelphia and a 2:04:53 in Valencia.
That they haven't raced since the pandemic, does not mean they are retired (and coincidentally forgot to notify AKAD/AIU/WADA). With 26 and 32 years, they are certainly not too old to race.
Let's wait and see what their excuses for the missed tests are.
Considering both the Robertsons claim Kipchoge is actually older than his listed age (and they lived with him), a phenomenon common among top Kenyans. These guys are likely not really retired just victims of Covid, just like High school and University athletes around the world.
Absolute nonsense. 8 weeks of EPO will make a massive difference in performance. I spent more than a decade racing my bike on two continents. Max power, threshold power, endurance, recovery from one stage to the next… all dramatically better on EPO.
Apparently it will do all that but still not make your Mont Ventoux time any faster than a control group over the same 8 weeks.
Was your EPO regime double blinded? Did you take other drugs as potential confounders? What controls did you put in place to decide "dramatically better" was due to EPO?
Please. The guy used EPO for 8 weeks and saw a massive improvement. You don't need detailed scientific testing to see this
The banning of EPO is an interesting precedent, because the decision was really precautionary and based on very little solid evidence. Unlike with the ban on steroids (1974), transfusions (1985) and stimulants (1960s), there existed no published studies with even recreational athletes when the IOC banned EPO in 1990 (one non-controlled study was in the publishing process). There was also no indirect or anecdotal evidence about the benefits, because there didn't exist a single confirmed case of an athlete using the substance.
Interestingly the International Ski Federation had banned EPO way back in 1988 with even less information about its effects on athletes, because only a few hundred patients had been treated with the substance by then.
But EPO almost certainly would've been banned even had they waited for more robust studies and evidence of misuse accumulating by the mid-1990s. It is another - albeit interesting - question if every athlete indeed could benefit from using the substance or whether there are groups of non-responders.
I have the impression they banned Meldonium the same way, largely on the premise that many athletes were taking it, so it must be doing something they don't know yet. Or possibly to better target Russians and Ethiopians.
Well just like reporters experimenting with epo for a story and being amazed at how fresh they felt whilst experiencing for longer than normal periods. You really don't have to look very far for evidence of meldonium benefits. Stories of hard workouts and not feeling tired the next day. The classic real time example is Maria Sharapova, once off it she wasn't a top 200 player. On it she was one of the greats.
'Through Donati’s tireless efforts, Italian sports scientists who had enjoyed their time on a pedestal, such as Francesco Conconi and Michele Ferrari, were brought down in the 1990s. And although the hope that times have changed is a prevalent one, Donati remains skeptical. Very skeptical: “I do not remember the name of any champion, of any world record holder, from 1990 up to now. None of them are worth anything. They are records without human worth,” he says. “The 12 years between 1988 and 2000, when EPO was undetectable, served to eliminate all of the honest people from sport; coaches, athletes, directors, doctors... It resulted in an ethnic cleansing of honesty in sport. The honest people still have to win back the world of sport.”'
Considering both the Robertsons claim Kipchoge is actually older than his listed age (and they lived with him), a phenomenon common among top Kenyans. These guys are likely not really retired just victims of Covid, just like High school and University athletes around the world.
Your argument doesn’t make a ton of sense. If they were fading into obscurity and several years older than listed, it’d be more likely they would retire as they got even further away from their physical prime.
Who are you to judge a region of 100 million population to defend accusations for your country Kenya?
We lived, we live we will live and rise from from our ashes at any time.
Sorry I knew it’d rile you up. It is on Moroccan/Algerian athletics to win back the trust of fans. Develop younger athletes, avoid questionable associations with coaches like Jama Aden, Kada and the like. Do not carry around doping paraphernalia like Makhloufi, compete with a regular schedule that doesn’t arouse suspicion and carry out all the OOC tests required and more.
Apparently it will do all that but still not make your Mont Ventoux time any faster than a control group over the same 8 weeks.
Was your EPO regime double blinded? Did you take other drugs as potential confounders? What controls did you put in place to decide "dramatically better" was due to EPO?
Please. The guy used EPO for 8 weeks and saw a massive improvement. You don't need detailed scientific testing to see this
Massive improvement how? He measured everything but time. You need science, and double-blinding, to be able to separate real effect from placebo.
Apparently it will do all that but still not make your Mont Ventoux time any faster than a control group over the same 8 weeks.
Was your EPO regime double blinded? Did you take other drugs as potential confounders? What controls did you put in place to decide "dramatically better" was due to EPO?
I don’t need a scientist to tell me that it’s raining out. All one needs is a computrainer or power meter, if cycling, a stop watch and a heart rate monitor.
A personal experience… showed up for an early season camp with a new SoCal team (I didn’t live in California) and spent a week dropping them. Power to weight, outright power, endurance, and recovery between sessions for me was significantly better than these guys who were all suffering… getting completely dropped off the back before the pace ever got hard. I was not on anything except an altitude tent. About 6 weeks later when we came together for a stage race these guys had all gained several years’ worth of fitness. They admitted to a trip south of the border to pick up supplies (one supply in particular). I have several other experiences of people around me making miraculous improvements in a very short period of time. My last race (14 years ago) I did EPO myself. Results were about an 8% power increase, could train longer and harder, recovered much faster after tempo efforts, but most importantly between workouts. I could train so much harder and so much more frequently. I was already using a tent and only did EPO. Your study might need to be redo.
Would be interesting if some of the critics of this study redid it instead.
You give a bunch of metrics, but the one that matters is a stopwatch.
There are too many variables with personal experience. Apparently your experience could not be replicated by a group of 24 cyclists double-blinded on EPO in a time trial up Mont Ventoux.
I haven't seen the massive decline in performances you suggest are linked to increased testing.
Then you're being willfully obstinate. Morocco's men almost disappeared off the map, while Kenya's 5K times went backwards 15 seconds. Similar in the 1500m, even before you scrub the times of the dope cheats Kiprop and Manangoi.
On average mileage of less than 50 mpw I ran a 4:34 marathon. On an average of a bit under 60 I ran 3:29. On about 80 I ran 3:05. On 100 to 150 I got to 2:35. Maybe it was just the passage of time, maturation, and racing the distance over and over that got me to run two hours faster and not the miles but when you make that kind of improvement after running so much more, when you see others do the same, it's reasonable to conclude that mileage makes most of us faster. But we can never prove that.
When you see someone like Cathal Lombard go from a 30:10 plus 10,000 guy to 27:40 something and temporary Irish record holder after taking EPO it's hard not to think most if not all of that improvement was due to EPO. It's going to be much harder to find other examples as dramatic as that largely because even when we find definitely that someone took EPO we don't have a clear before and after to look at as in Lombard's case. So you're probably always going to be able to argue that there's no clear, objective, proof that it does what we suspect.
But that doesn't matter in terms of dealing with EPO and those who use it. There is enough information around to make a pretty good case that it improves the performances of endurance athletes and even if that turns out not to be the case it still should be banned because athletes taking it are trying to cheat even if doing so isn't getting them the results they want. There is no valid reason for an athlete to take it unless they're a chemotherapy patient.
Agreed that there is no reason for healthy athletes to take it. Regardless of performance, ban it for health and spirit. I'd go even further (or higher) -- if you want to increase your blood values -- go to altitude. Absolutely no reason to take the risk of taking EPO.
There is also no valid reason to accuse athletes who are only guilty of running fast, of taking EPO, or accuse their coaches of giving it.
It's easy to think that other factors are also signficant -- that's why controls and double-blinding are used.
Cathal Lombard completely changed his training and his coach. He reduced his mileage and increased the intensity.
Our very own "wejo" made similar "Lombard-esque" gains after 5 years of competing at university, off of high mileage and altitude training, jumping from 30:14 to 28:06.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
