Doesn't Russian Doping Scandal Prove Canova is Right about EPO?

If Canova is able to set world records without experimenting with EPO, seems that should carry some weight.

But otherwise, I'm not trying to undermine your logic. I'm saying it goes both ways. Anyone who says "EPO works" is talking from faith without any real knowledge or evidence. It's just a hypothesis that has yet to be confirmed. Little point in commenting on it, and if they do, it carries very little weight.

No. We are talking about two different things. My key distinction is the phrase you used "in this way".We started when I said "extrapolating observations of the 11:00 3K runner may fail to accurately predict what happens at the extremes". I'm talking about accurately predicting performance, and how "extrapolation" is not always accurate, especially at predicting at the extreme.You are talking about any clinical effect in the desired direction, with no attempt to address magnitude of effect. "Projection" is probably a better word for what you describe.You seem to think you disagree with me, but then repeat what I say in a different way. When you say "this is not always true, but it is the operating assumption", I agree completely. "This is not always true" because of "the dangers of extrapolation", but it is simply assumed. WADA makes the same unproven and unobserved assumption. Neither medicine nor WADA take the next step to, how do you put it, determine "differences in efficacy aris(ing) from post-release reports (that) take a long time to be observed and correlated".I didn't define the question at all -- I'm addressing popular claims about the alleged cause of East African performances. I suggest that the effect of EPO in East Africans cannot be greater than what we have observed in "Western" records by "Western" men, over two decades, compared to pre-EPO records. (Furthermore, if anything, I think intuitively it should actually be much less for high altitude inhabitants). The potential effect of EPO might be enough to allow Spanish runners to break weak indoor European records, with relatively slow times, but these small effects cannot explain the much larger drops we have seen at the world level in the same timeframe. The population (the entire world population of non-Africans) and time span (two decades) seem broad enough to be able to observe a universal effect from a universally available, yet nearly undetectable, drug. We should see a pattern we can compare to cycling. EPO shouldn't widen the gap between the two populations, but move all populations in the same direction with similar magnitude, compared to their predecessors, like we observed in cycling.This seems particularly relevant when a supporting argument for the massive drops in times during the mythical "EPO-era", by East Africans, (plus North African El Guerrouj) is the assumption that it also works in "Western" populations. Yet after two decades, this "operating assumption" is largely unobserved at the top of the West. We don't see the same pattern or magnitude in the two populations.From the data, it makes more sense to draw the opposite conclusion -- EPO does not work for East Africans because it has not worked for North and South Americans, Europeans, Russians, Japanese, Indians, Australians, New Zealand, etc. That's not a narrow population, but about as broad as you can get. Note this is the exact opposite of what we have observed in cycling, where Americans, Germans, Spanish, Kazahks, etc. showed similar performance improvements, describing EPO as a "game changer".Intuitively, sea-level inhabitants, unadapted to low oxygen environments, should respond more than high-altitude adapted inhabitants to EPO. Yet looking at the movement in the respective records over decades, the data suggests the opposite."Trolling in support of drug use"? Arguing "statistically the data shows EPO does not work at the top for anyone" is "trolling for drug use"?OK, for the avoidance of all doubt, here's my personal recommendation to all aspiring elites: I believe the data shows EPO does not work for running on the track or on the road -- don't use it. It is all risk with no reward. Don't fall for the hype and mythology, and don't listen to anyone who has.

Part of the illusion of moving goalposts comes from you interpreting quotes out of context. I did not *JUST* say "you can not argue that EPO helps set European records" but severely qualified it with "If the documented Spanish and Portuguese cases are not the ones who set the European records, you can not argue that EPO helps set European records." That's because you said "Spain (and Portugal to a lesser extent) have a multiple cases of EPO use documented".You curiously replied directly with Mourhit. Mourhit is not Spanish or Portuguese. This is you attempting to argue "EPO helps set European records" with NOT "documented Spanish and Portuguese cases". Furthermore, you did not give me a single example of a documented Portuguese case, but now attempt to argue it is reasonable to assume the conclusion to prove the conclusion. This is you moving the goalposts, again arguing "EPO helps set European records" with NOT "documented Spanish and Portuguese cases".My original goalpost was NOT "in terms of (personal) performance improvement" but in terms of record-level improvements, by comparing how much area records dropped (also considering the nationality of the one who dropped them), compared to world records of the same timeframe.My original goalpost (with the Hellebuyck and Lombard exceptions) compared "low altitude dwelling Western men" to "high altitude dwelling East Africans". I also do not consider Mourhit a "low altitude dwelling Western man".I did not mean to say "indoor records" did not count, but that I had not previously considered "indoor records" in my claim. This is a fair point, and I admit an oversight on my part. Now, adjusting my claim to consider "indoor records" too, it doesn't materially change my original claims. I repeat my originally goal posted claim that EPO did not significantly improve European record times. Your Spanish exceptions did not improve the records by nearly the same magnitude of the East Africans, nor by comparison to European outdoor times, as far back as 1972.Mourhit had dominant victories. The Moroccan born Mourhit was clearly better than all Europeans a decade before and after him. But, when attempting to quantify effects of EPO on record times, performances in World Championships, which tend to be tactical, are poor sources. World Cross is even worse, as distances are not exact, and course difficulty and conditions can vary widely. And Mourhit's records did not move European records as much as the East Africans moved the world records.You seem to not completely grasp what I argue. When I said the West were "low responders" while East Africans were "high responders" -- I said this was "counter-intuitive". My understated implication is that this is actually an absurd conclusion. What I argue is that *ALL* elite runners, whether East, West, North or South, when rightly trained to their clean peak ability, are low-responders to EPO. Canova is right about EPO in elite East Africans, but, in my opinion, the data suggests he doesn't go far enough.

If we are to follow deductive reasoning from what you have written here, we would actually reach the exact opposite conclusion: EPO clearly works better on East Africans than it does on non-Africans. That may not be intuitive, but intuition is often wrong, which is why the standard of proof are actual studies instead of anecdotal evidence with a huge number of confounding factors. Anyway, once again, you have invented the question you are answering. All of the clinical studies about efficacy of EPO for performance show that it works. The practice of medicine would make the assumption that it works for everybody, as you have admitted. If you wish to claim differently, it is up to you to do the studies and provide the evidence.

rekrunner wrote:

My original goalpost was NOT "in terms of (personal) performance improvement" but in terms of record-level improvements, by comparing how much area records dropped (also considering the nationality of the one who dropped them), compared to world records of the same timeframe.

My original goalpost (with the Hellebuyck and Lombard exceptions) compared "low altitude dwelling Western men" to "high altitude dwelling East Africans". I also do not consider Mourhit a "low altitude dwelling Western man".

But, when attempting to quantify effects of EPO on record times, performances in World Championships, which tend to be tactical, are poor sources. World Cross is even worse, as distances are not exact, and course difficulty and conditions can vary widely. And Mourhit's records did not move European records as much as the East Africans moved the world records.

"Record-level improvements" is a vague an all encompassing term and you can twist it to mean whatever you want as you did in your post (Lombard and Garcia broke national records but that does not count for you). Besides if you did not mean personal improvements when using EPO then why on earth did you bring up two INDVIDUAL examples of exceptions of western men who improved when using EPO? That defined your goalposts there and then when citing these individual improvements as the only exceptions in Western men, and from then on you kept changing your goalposts whenever facts (eg there are many other examples of individual improvements in top level Western distance runners when using EPO) were brought up that did not agree with your arguments (EPO does not help set European records, now world records etc ..).

What you say about world champs or world cross does not really help your case at all. You now appear to be trying to argue that Mourhit, Garcia, and Sanchez only won their multiple global titles, and medals not because of the increased ability EPO gave them but because the races they ran in were "tactical"! The world cross in the 1990s and early 2000s was arguably the most difficult distance race to win but you will discount that because you feel that the performance cannot be quantified according to your very narrow criteria (which you will also continually adjust to fit your argument). I guess that you will also argue that Boulami's still unbeaten "world record" time in the steeple chase is not an argument for the effectiveness of EPO because he had to jump over barriers and the event is "technical" or because he did not break 7 mins etc ...

Hong Kong Fuey, there was clearly an "epo era" on the track and it started sometime around 1992. If you do not believe that then there will be no civilised debate. When this "EPO era" ended is a matter of debate but I'm guessing that the ABP intro plus or minus 6 months would be a fair hypothesis. Since then only one race, Paris 2012 (dubbed the Ethiopian Olympic trials), is the only sub 12:50 5,000m race since.

The question of blood doping also must be raised, which clearly stopped in 2009. It could be argued that blood doping may have been the numero uno means for cheating all along. It may also have been common prior to the introduction of epo. Which blurs the historical impact of epo in the sport.

You say that epo doesn't work on track athletes. Then why were Mo Greene and Marion Jones and even throwers taking it in their cocktails? Because it made them fitter. You say that across countries and races it doesn't show any benefit for runners. But you assume epo is accessible across all countries, but nations with definite borders (seas) like Australia and NZ it is impossible to bring it in unnoticed, especially in nations with centralised/government drug purchasing authorities, unless you want to go to jail.

As I have said I know a TDF cyclist with two Olympic medals who took epo (even reinfused blood containing epo) circa 2003-2007 without being caught. So it obviously wasn't detectable about ten-twelve years ago. Yet it clearly helps a white guy going for a 2 hour cycle but somehow it doesn't benefit a white guy going for a 2 hour (or less) run. This is nonsense.

If we are looking at top athletes, it makes sense to me to observe movements in record times and look for correlations. If EPO has a universal effect, we should see this universal effect everywhere, no matter how we chose to look. And again, it's important to look at the magnitudes.We might be able to conclude EPO works better on East Africans, if we could link the faster times of East Africans to EPO, without creating a circular proof.The evidence I provide, and I have provided to you multiple times, is the entirety of two decades of the world population of non-African performances -- a period when EPO was virtually undetectable, and cheap enough to dope hundreds of Kenyans, even the juniors -- showing a tortoise-like progression in record times by any non-Africans, juxtaposed against the massive drops in world record times from East and North Africans in these two decades of the EPO-era.The non-Africans we can link to EPO, (and even those we cannot) have not made significant progress, when compared to the pre-EPO standard of 1985 from their predecessors, and when compared to East and North Africans. EPO was a universal, undetectable, widely available, and widely abused, drug presumably effective on Africans and non-Africans alike. If only North and East African nationalities profited from two decades of the EPO-era, (completely unlike cycling) something is not adding up.Regardless if EPO has some effect at the top for East Africans, (I suggest) you can hardly argue that "EPO works at the top for East Africans" because "EPO works for weak non-Africans (in studies and anecdotes)", when two decades of race performances does not conclusively show that it worked for top non-Africans.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

If we are to follow deductive reasoning from what you have written here, we would actually reach the exact opposite conclusion: EPO clearly works better on East Africans than it does on non-Africans. That may not be intuitive, but intuition is often wrong, which is why the standard of proof are actual studies instead of anecdotal evidence with a huge number of confounding factors.

Anyway, once again, you have invented the question you are answering.

All of the clinical studies about efficacy of EPO for performance show that it works. The practice of medicine would make the assumption that it works for everybody, as you have admitted.

If you wish to claim differently, it is up to you to do the studies and provide the evidence.

I think it's clear what I mean by records. To discuss if EPO works at the top, you need to look at top times. Records are top times. I'm comparing times relative to the 1985 world records, as a pre-EPO benchmark, and relative to the contemporaneous world records, alleged to be set by EPO.Lombard set an Irish national RECORD in the 10K. Hellebuyck set an American masters RECORD in 10K, 15K, and marathon. My goalpost is and always was RECORDs.These two are often presented as poster-boy counter-examples that EPO works for elites.Their records do count, but when you compare them to the TOP, or to 1985 records, they just count very little, because the times are slow, and I'm looking at the MAGNITUDE of relative comparisons. Lombard did not beat the 1973 times of the UK nationals Foster and Bedford. Hellebuyck did not beat his own personal bests from a decade earlier.I'm not arguing anything about Mourhit, Garcia, and Sanchez, but they just don't keep world records for Cross. If they won hard cross and world titles due to EPO, without setting records, I cannot quantifiably compare these slow performances to the top performances of TOP East Africans of the EPO era.Boulami is Moroccan.

Number One Super Guy, for the sake of civilised debate, let's call the EPO-era 1990-2009, and pretend I believe. That's not really the question in this thread. I am talking about "is Canova right about EPO". I'm saying that, during the EPO-era, there is a lack of Russian men, European men, American men, Australian men, Japanese men, benefiting from EPO to move their national or area records significantly below 1985 world records, especially when compared to East and North Africans from the same time period. As we have seen so far the best European was actually born in Morocco, and the second and third best could only break weak indoor records with weak times.I'm puzzled seeing you suggest that the impact of EPO is somehow blurred by blood doping, after emphatically insisting it is clear there was an EPO-era. In cycling, EPO was called "game changing", and here it looks like you are arguing both that it is, then is not, on the track.I also note here that times dropped dramatically in the marathon after 2009. I guess you mean this has nothing to do with EPO or blood doping? Then Canova is right again.This thread was really about long-distance men. Mo Greene and Marion Jones and throwers did not set any distance records. In any case, "why" athletes take EPO is not the same as "EPO works". They take EPO because someone believes it works. If it really works, we should see it in the times of records.I do not limit my choice to Australia or NZ, but make the same claim about the world-wide population of non-Africans over the two decades of the EPO-era.Cycling is not running. They have different limiters. Whether EPO absolutely benefits the "white guy" running absolutely, it has not helped the top "white guys" compete with East Africans, and barely, if at all, helped him beat his 1985 predecessors.

Let's take a look at the women's all-time 5000m list for women from Europe:

#5) Gabriela Szabo PR 14:31.48, from Romania, story below.

#4) Olga Yegorova PR 14:29.32, EPO positive, banned for doping 2008.

#3) Paula Radcliffe PR 14:29.11……………..CLEAN…………………..

#2) Elvan Abeylegesse PR 14:24.68, from Turkey, banned for doping.

#1) Liliya Shobukhova PR 14:23.75, European record, banned for doping.

Do you see anything that 4 out of the top 5 women of all-time at 5000m from Europe have in common?

Here is the all-time women's 3000m list:

1 8:06.11 Wang Junxia CHN 09.01.73 1 Beijing 13.09.1993

2 8:12.18 Qu Yunxia CHN 25.12.72 2 Beijing 13.09.1993

3 8:12.19 Wang Junxia CHN 09.01.73 1h2 Beijing 12.09.1993

4 8:12.27 Qu Yunxia CHN 25.12.72 2h2 Beijing 12.09.1993

5 8:16.50 Zhang Linli CHN 06.03.73 3 Beijing 13.09.1993

6 8:19.78 Ma Liyan CHN 03.11.68 3h2 Beijing 12.09.1993

7 8:20.68 Helen Obiri KEN 13.12.89 1 Ad-Dawhah 09.05.2014

8 8:21.14 Mercy Cherono KEN 07.05.91 2 Ad-Dawhah 09.05.2014

9 8:21.26 Ma Liyan CHN 03.11.68 4 Beijing 13.09.1993

10 8:21.42 Gabriela Szabo ROU 14.11.75 1 Monaco 19.07.2002

Where are all of Renato's SPECIAL KENYANS AND ETHIOPIANS BORN, LIVING, AND DOING HIGH VOLUME-HIGH INTENSITY TRAINING WITH SPECIAL BLOCKS, ETC., ETC., AT HIGH ALTITUDE???

Answer:

The top 6 times by Chinese women in 1993 are STILL FASTER THAN ALL KENYAN WOMEN AND ALL ETHIOPIAN WOMEN IN THE LAST 23 YEARS.

Marathon all time list:

1 2:15:25 Paula Radcliffe GBR 17.12.73 1 London 13.04.2003

2 2:17:18 Paula Radcliffe GBR 17.12.73 1 Chicago 0,571782407

3 2:17:42 Paula Radcliffe GBR 17.12.73 1 London 0,73431713

4 2:18:20 Liliya Shobukhova RUS 13.11.77 Chicago 09.10.2011

5 2:18:37 Mary Keitany KEN 18.01.82 1 London 0,942731481

6 2:18:47 Catherine N'dereba KEN 21.07.72 1 Chicago 0,321770833

7 2:18:56 Paula Radcliffe GBR 17.12.73 1 London 14.04.2002

8 2:18:57a Rita Sitienei Jeptoo KEN 15.02.81 1 Boston 21.04.2014

Two of the top five women of all-time (= 40%) have been banned for doping with EPO.

Rekrunner will say that ANY number which does not agree with his arguments …DOES NOT COUNT…because…etc…etc…

For example:

1) Rekrunner says that the 21.88% increase in hemoglobin value in 2 days in blood test results for Ms. Paula Radcliffe (which are explained by an autologous blood transfusion by Ms. Paula Radcliffe)…DO NOT COUNT…because…etc…

2) Mourhit DOES NOT COUNT…because he does not fit his "correct definition" of European record holder..etc…

3) All medical journal references (for example: the study below with 83 references) DO NOT COUNT because…etc…etc…etc…

4) rekrunner will now say:

………… WOMEN DO NOT COUNT…because…etc…etc…etc…

In conclusion:

Go ridiculo rekrunner!!!

Your argument looks reasoned but again you are making numerous oversights which weakens your case. Russian men have under performed in running events long before EPO and when they have done well it has been fuelled by Anabolic steriods (shorter events mainly). The inability of Eastern Bloc/Russian women to break records during the EPO era again does not prove EPO's failure but simply that the copious amounts of testosterone used gave a better performance result back in the 1980s. Russia just doesn't seem ideal for runners.

Medalists in cycling in the 1984 & 1988 Olympics have admitted to blood doping. EPO would appear to be a simpler, quicker less cumbersome means of enhancing fitness. However, Lance Armstrong admitted to blood bags via IV in the US Postal team bus. Reports are that current wattage rates of TdF cyclists are lower than the Armstrong era, the same observations are visible in 3k, 5k and 10k times compared with 10-20 years ago, a definite slowing.

Since the introduction of the ABP in 2009 (or the strengthening of tests) there has been a real decline in Moroccans dominating the scene. Only Iguider. The Moroccan men running for European nations were actually going "home to train." Interestingly, an Olympic miler (from an Anglo-Saxon country who roomed with my brother) that decided to do a stint in Ifrane in the mid-90s (after he finished University). He claimed that it was the most perfect place to train but he observed that they were taking something but it wasn't steriods/hgh, he later (years later) learnt that it was EPO. As a top NCAA track athlete in the mid-1990s he had never heard of it, which casts doubt on the idea that all athletes had equal access to it. In most advanced countries EPO is a tightly controlled prescription drug and athletes have to go abroad to take some.

Also demographics are probably exacerbating the decline observed in the late-80s through to the early Millennium. A sharp uptake in birth control (the pill) in the West from the mid-1960s saw a steep decline in births, add 20-25 years and you see a smaller pool of potential champion runners arrive on the scene circa 1990, hence the decline relative (of White Americans, Canadians, Australasians, Brits, Dutch, Japanese etc) to East African nations with high birth rates. If these Western distance runners also happen to be clean whilst their rivals are on EPO, chances are a generation from many Western nations were excluded from the fast races and did not perform at their potential. A negative feedback loop of accumulated variables occured. Anyhow, the premise that all top runner's, particularly western, are willing to try EPO to be rich & successful in running is not the case. Most western men if they want be rich either start a software firm, play pro sports (soccer, basketball, baseball, cricket, rugby, NFL, NHL) or do a law degree. Whereas an East African might need EPO as means to pay the bills. TDF cyclists get paid way more than most distance runners and it is more beneficial financially for them to try EPO.

I am certain that EPO is beneficial for all endurance athletes. I am just implying that the EPO era maybe a sub-period of a wider doping era, that had a "blood doping era" prior to 1990 which briefly made a comeback in the early new Millennium. And if the national records of say Finland for example were set by blood dopers prior to the introduction of epo then we should not be surprised if athletes during the EPO era failed to break them. Especially if the blood dopers also had no out of competition testing for steriods too.

In 1990 and 1991, there were 3 to 5 men who ran under 13:10 for 5000m a total of 3 to 5 times per year.

In 1993, 14 men ran under 13:10 a total of 21 times. All of them were African except for Arturo Barrios from Mexico…and Francesco Panetta from Italy.

I am looking right now at my January, 1994 issue of Track and Field News for these numbers.

The African countries have had almost ZERO out-of-competition testing from way back then until just very recently in the last few years…while Western countries have had OOC testing for many years.

That is a very important difference.

Look at the top 2 men from the 2016 Houston Marathon:

http://www.chevronhoustonmarathon.com/birhanu-gedefa-declared-2016-mens-marathon-winner/

http://www.zegabi.com/articles/10617

The top 2 men in 2016 from Ethiopia were banned for doping.

It is just a coincidence.

My old Purdy tables have Wang Junxia's (China) 8:06 3000m as equivalent to a 14:03 5000m, which is STILL FASTER THAN ALL SPECIAL KENYAN WOMEN AND ALL SPECIAL ETHIOPIAN WOMEN IN THE LAST 23 YEARS.

(Paula Radcliffe's 2:15:25 is equivalent to 8:00 for 3000m and 13:52 for 5000m on the Purdy tables.)

The top 2 women on the women's all-time marathon list are Ms. Paula Radcliffe (Brit) and Liliya Shobukhova (Russian banned for doping, European 5000m record holder).

A Brit woman and a Russian doper are STILL FASTER THAN ALL SPECIAL KENYAN WOMEN AND ALL SPECIAL ETHIOPIAN WOMEN BORN, LIVING, AND DOING HIGH VOLUME-HIGH INTENSITY TRAINING AT HIGH ALTITUDE WITH SPECIAL BLOCKS, ETC., ETC., ETC….IN ALL OF RECORDED HUMAN HISTORY ON THIS PLANET.

IT IS JUST A COINCIDENCE.

This is fun.

Ha ha ha

Are you having fun ridiculo rekrunner???

I am having fun right now.

Do you know why???

Look at the time of my last post.

The time of my last post was:

3:33 am

IT IS JUST A COINCIDENTAL SYNCHRONICITY.

https://www.facebook.com/hypo2/photos/a.181731141864880.32731.154386924599302/1096897340348251/?type=3&theater

No it's not clear what you mean, You are now taking national records and masters road race records into consideration yet you chose to discount European indoor records in previous posts when considering whether EPO works in Western elites.

Anyway if you are now considering national records then yet again you ignore that in addition to your two poster boys for the efficacy of EPO in elites that Alberto Garcia set several Spanish national records, as did Sergio Sanchez. Interestingly Alberto Garcia'a national 5000m record was broken by someone caught red handed taking blood transfusions. Julio Rey broke the Spanish national record in the marathon and he was caught using nandralone, a drug which is used to potentiate the effects of EPO so you can join the dots there. There are other examples but all of these fit into your goalposts of "RECORDS".

Boulami is Morroccan but relevant because you widened the debate (or shifted the goalpoasts) to whether EPO works in any world class athlete regardless of their geographical location (I copied from your previous post so that readers can follow). He tested positive for EPO and to date no one has surpassed his performance for the 3000m steeplechase.

Anyway going full circle, for your argument to be valid you have to be assuming that every single elite level European or African distance runner competing in the 1990s to 2000s was using EPO. That is something that you do not know and that is why yet again, with the information available to us, the only way to examine whether EPO works in elites is to look at individual cases where you have good reason to assume that an elite was using EPO.

rjm33 wrote:

The African countries have had almost ZERO out-of-competition testing from way back then until just very recently in the last few years…while Western countries have had OOC testing for many years.

That is a very important difference.

There are lots of such important differences, which can answer the questions here.

1) Why were several European Records improved after 1990 despite better steroid testing?

Improved training and track (and shoes), and EPO replacing blood and steroid doping. Despite decreasing popularity of running.

2) Why did the Africans improve more?

Improved training and track (and shoes), and EPO added. Likely next to no blood and steroid doping in East Africa in the 80s. Plus increasing popularity of running.

3) Why are the Africans faster than the Europeans?

Culture, altitude, even weaker out-of-competition tests, better genes, popularity of running, lack of more lucrative sport alternatives, etc.

casual obsever wrote:

rjm33 wrote:

The African countries have had almost ZERO out-of-competition testing from way back then until just very recently in the last few years…while Western countries have had OOC testing for many years.

That is a very important difference.

There are lots of such important differences, which can answer the questions here.

1) Why were several European Records improved after 1990 despite better steroid testing?

Improved training and track (and shoes), and EPO replacing blood and steroid doping. Despite decreasing popularity of running.

2) Why did the Africans improve more?

Improved training and track (and shoes), and EPO added. Likely next to no blood and steroid doping in East Africa in the 80s. Plus increasing popularity of running.

3) Why are the Africans faster than the Europeans?

Culture, altitude, even weaker out-of-competition tests, better genes, popularity of running, lack of more lucrative sport alternatives, etc.

Interesting,

1) running remained popular but new sports took the gloss, triathlon and mountain biking particularly. Also multi-sport, Kayaking etc and Cycling took away alot of talent. Alot of national records have been broken by non-indigenous (immigrants) since 1990.

2-3) I believe that there are talented runners in East Africa and in the early 1980s there wasn't alot of doping there. I also do believe that altitude does help some people. But Globalization has made it easy to obtain PEDs in Africa, on a smartphone a Kenyan can order Cardarine or Ostarine and it will delivered within 10 days for $85, they then hide and train for 12-18 months. Out of the blue (to us at least) some Kenyan super athlete emerges doing mesmerizing times only to slowly fade. Fitting this description, a young Chinese girl in 2012 came out of the blue and blew away everyone in the pool only to suddenly disappear.

What people are forgetting in this debate is with EPO you can have a hematocrit level of 44 one day and a few days later it can be 47. This has to improve oxygen uptake.

casual obsever wrote:

[quote]rjm33 wrote:

The African countries have had almost ZERO out-of-competition testing from way back then until just very recently in the last few years…while Western countries have had OOC testing for many years..

Yeah...no kidding as all is not well and good in Kenyan Land 😯

A reported *40* doping postives since 2011 and allegations of bribery & corruption ("Athletics doping: Kenya misses WADA deadline." Dan Roan/BBC Sports/021116):

And neither Kenya nor Ethiopia are part of the ABP program because of no WADA-accredited labs in the region to conduct the blood tests.

Who thinks EPO isn't effective for endurance athletes, particulary when synergistically used with HGH and/or steriods? Anyone heard of the high-responder concept? For example, in pro cycling, Dr's Concini & Ferrari were obsessed with oxygen-vector doping. Rider's such as Bjarne Riis & Armstrong practically became overnight sensations with either EPO or blood doping in combination with other PEDs. Riis was an average domestique, who after going EPO, became a Tour de France champion😨. Armstrong ,who couldn't climb in the high mountains worth beans, got on Ferrari's "program" boosting his low baseline Hct to much higher levels and suddenly became a world-class climber winning 7 TdF's in a row! And wasn't it alleged that Savinova of Russia was using a EPO/Oxandrolone combo when she won Gold in the 800m at London? (I believe WADA is calling for a lifetime ban). There are many more examples in both cycling & athletics...can't Imagine how EPO /blood doping doesn't work with a high-responder.