Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
drivel
Will you please stop ventolining this thread?
Thank you.
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
drivel
Will you please stop ventolining this thread?
Thank you.
rekrunner wrote:
"Suspicious" was defined by the two Australian anti-doping experts doing the expert analysis not too long ago in 2015 -- so I don't know so much about "way out of date". They used an HR-off score against a sea-level threshold, which is a metric based on hemoglobin and reticulytes. Falling below suspicion indicates that hemoglobin values are not unusually high, something you would expect would be the "doping goal", or "altitude training goal" for an important competition. And yet marathon medals were won 8 out of 9 times, without excessive hemoglobin and reticulyte parameters leading to suspicious off-scores (for every sample in the database at anytime in that athletes career). Most of those years, blood didn't count, so you wouldn't expect anyone to be gaming the system against thresholds which didn't yet exist.
By comparison, for the "way out of date statistics", the 1500m and race-walking medal winners were around 50%.
Whatever models were used in the Fancy Bears leak doesn't change the observation that excessive blood values on WCh and Olympic marathon podiums are the exception, rather than the rule, by far.
DHT123 wrote:
I think 'suspicious' was defined in the ST by values over an absolute level (i.e. Shobukhova's values, and one of Paula's values( as opposed to values being flagged up as 'suspicious' in the ABP. The more recent leak from Fancy Bears of athletes which showed a whole ton of athletes under the heading 'Likely Doping' or 'Passport Suspicious' means that this initial statistic is way out of date.
Rekrunner, sometimes you make a good argument for the defence, but this is just rubbish.
Where do I start? Well, firstly, during this period, for example in the Marathon Majors, there was a huge proportion of podium places taken by athletes who recorded 'suspicious' scores in their career - see this article:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/aug/09/seven-london-marathon-winners-in-12-years-doping-suspicionTo quote from it "In London, seven first places, six second and seven thirds were taken by athletes with blood tests deemed suspicious by experts who analysed the leaked database." That's in a 12 year period! (2001-2012).
As for Olympic athletes not being doped, perhaps you have heard of Jemima Sumgong? Personally I also think that some athletes who have taken part in the Olympics have deliberately avoided being tested, so that they can concentrate on their real paydays in other marathons. For example all of the Ethiopian male athletes in London 2012 not finishing, despite all having run 2:04/2:05 in Dubai and other places in the previous year. Really?
Finally, and most importantly, as I stated previously, the ST data was looking for results that tripped the off-score threshold, as you state. Whereas the whole point of the ABP is to provide a longitudinal profile of an individual athlete, and therefore flag deviations from the 'normal' values, which are individual for athlete. So the Fancy bear list of athletes which had 'Likely Doping' or 'Passport Suspicious' were all the athletes who had been flagged up by the ABP for unusual results. We don't know exactly what stage of the process they were at. and we don't know their blood values, but we do know that they were being investigated for tripping the ABP.
Anyway, we are getting side tracked again. I was still wondering if Coach Canova would like to answer the question about testing and blood values given that he had gone into immense detail on Moen's training over an extended period of time.
Even the London Marathon is not as damning as you think. "Huge proportion". Let's see how huge. At the London marathon, I count 20 podiums out of 72, or 27.8%. 27.8% is indeed far above the 11% average at the World competitions. These numbers can deviate from an average for several reasons, one of which is that repeat winners are counted multiple times. Yet, even at London, this still means that 52 winners, or 72.2% did not record any suspicious values. 52/20 is 2.6. So for every "suspicious" athlete, there are 2.6 "not suspicious" athletes. As huge a proportion as 20 is, 56 is 2.6 times huger. I did not say Olympic athletes like Sumgong did not dope. 1 out of 9 athletes had suspicious values, so we should be able to find an example from one of them, which had high blood values due to EPO. Yet, for every Sumgong Olympic medal winner, we can find eight athlete World medalists that never recorded suspicious values in the database. The statistics say that she is the exception, not the rule. And keep in mind: - "suspicion" means high blood values, not necessarily doping. A prolonged exposure to high altitude is enough to generate "suspicion", as is collecting blood within two hours of a strenuous effort - the standard of "suspicion" used by the Sunday Times is to count an athlete "suspicious" if at any point within this 12 year period, they had one sample that was "suspicious", and not necessarily the sample collected at the race connected to the medal. Both of these points exaggerate the prevalence of "suspicion", compared to the prevalence of high blood values at the instant of competition. We are not getting sidetracked -- I am asking you to consider and explain why you believe the blood tests matter, when so many podium winners are able to do it without bad blood.
DHT123 wrote:
Rekrunner, sometimes you make a good argument for the defence, but this is just rubbish.
Where do I start? Well, firstly, during this period, for example in the Marathon Majors, there was a huge proportion of podium places taken by athletes who recorded 'suspicious' scores in their career - see this article:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/aug/09/seven-london-marathon-winners-in-12-years-doping-suspicionTo quote from it "In London, seven first places, six second and seven thirds were taken by athletes with blood tests deemed suspicious by experts who analysed the leaked database." That's in a 12 year period! (2001-2012).
As for Olympic athletes not being doped, perhaps you have heard of Jemima Sumgong? Personally I also think that some athletes who have taken part in the Olympics have deliberately avoided being tested, so that they can concentrate on their real paydays in other marathons. For example all of the Ethiopian male athletes in London 2012 not finishing, despite all having run 2:04/2:05 in Dubai and other places in the previous year. Really?
Finally, and most importantly, as I stated previously, the ST data was looking for results that tripped the off-score threshold, as you state. Whereas the whole point of the ABP is to provide a longitudinal profile of an individual athlete, and therefore flag deviations from the 'normal' values, which are individual for athlete. So the Fancy bear list of athletes which had 'Likely Doping' or 'Passport Suspicious' were all the athletes who had been flagged up by the ABP for unusual results. We don't know exactly what stage of the process they were at. and we don't know their blood values, but we do know that they were being investigated for tripping the ABP.
Anyway, we are getting side tracked again. I was still wondering if Coach Canova would like to answer the question about testing and blood values given that he had gone into immense detail on Moen's training over an extended period of time.
It's all about openness and transparency, and we are not getting any here, or anywhere else in the running world. There's something rotten at the core of running, and there is a lack of will in unearthing it, facing up to the past, and making steps to improve things so that we can watch an event and have confidence that the athletes are clean. Attitudes like yours are part of the problem. Anyway, the purpose of my contribution on this thread wasn't about semantic arguments with you. It was rather to ask Coach Canova if he can enlighten us with the details of the testing and blood values of Moen through 2017.
#don'tfeedthetroll
DHT123 wrote:
It's all about openness and transparency, and we are not getting any here, or anywhere else in the running world. There's something rotten at the core of running, and there is a lack of will in unearthing it, facing up to the past, and making steps to improve things so that we can watch an event and have confidence that the athletes are clean. Attitudes like yours are part of the problem. Anyway, the purpose of my contribution on this thread wasn't about semantic arguments with you. It was rather to ask Coach Canova if he can enlighten us with the details of the testing and blood values of Moen through 2017.
#don'tfeedthetroll
You have it backwards. You are asking canova about blood values.... you are the troll. Take that garbage to another thread and stop clogging up the quality threads.
You have reason, also if your suspicions are a position I never can accept.
We want to demonstrate that it's possible to run fast in clean way, also if you come from sea level but want to change your situation with prolonged and continuous training in high altitude (so, the difference in results is not connected with genetic differences), and that, how I a lot of times said in this forum, EPO doesn't help athletes training in high altitude in the best way.
For doing this, and trying to cancel the stupid believe that EPO can give big advantages at the top level, and that the most part of top athletes of endurance are doped, we will publish, in few days, ALL THE OFFICIAL DATA OF BLOOD TESTS SONDRE HAD WITH WADA FOR THE BIOLOGICAL PASSPORT, NOT ONLY WITH THE OFF SCORE, BUT IN THE TOTALITY OF THE SPECIFIC TESTS.
NOT ONLY : WE GO TO PUBLISH ALSO THE TEST (obviously not from WADA) he had from 2007, when was only 16.
We already spoke with the sector of Antidoping of IAAF about this issue, because we want to organize the data inside a statement, for helping athletics to recover credibility.
I'm working at an article for comparing the data of Sondre 16 with the data of the current Sondre, in order to see how there is evolution of the values in the same athlete from the period as teenager till the period of maturity, how there is evolution provoked by continuous and systematic training, and which differences there are between periods at sea level and continuous training in altitude.
I'm very interested to study all these data, and to find some key that can change the idea that blood manipulation can produce advantages IF THE TRAINING IS IN ALTITUDE AND INCLUDES HIGH VOLUME AND HIGH INTENSITY.
Have patience I can study and elaborate the data (I received today by Sondre), and you can have some surprise, in a direction that is exactly the opposite of what the most part of you suppose.
Renato Canova wrote:
You have reason, also if your suspicions are a position I never can accept.
We want to demonstrate that it's possible to run fast in clean way, also if you come from sea level but want to change your situation with prolonged and continuous training in high altitude (so, the difference in results is not connected with genetic differences), and that, how I a lot of times said in this forum, EPO doesn't help athletes training in high altitude in the best way.
.
I help with that demonstration that it`s possible to run fast in clean way , but I also do it in the way to coach sealevel living runners to do remarkable improvement staying at sealevel and only run relatively low mileage.
kind of a worthless statement "I help with that demonstration that it`s possible to run fast in clean way"
if you had half a brain you would realize that EPO doesnt work nor does PEDs, so this whole "clean" idea is pointless. running clean or running with PEDs aka snake oil....is the same, or as Renato says they actually make you slower. so of course running "clean" will be faster.
basic intrinsic 3'24
Renato Canova wrote:
You have reason, also if your suspicions are a position I never can accept.
We want to demonstrate that it's possible to run fast in clean way, also if you come from sea level but want to change your situation with prolonged and continuous training in high altitude (so, the difference in results is not connected with genetic differences), and that, how I a lot of times said in this forum, EPO doesn't help athletes training in high altitude in the best way.
For doing this, and trying to cancel the stupid believe that EPO can give big advantages at the top level, and that the most part of top athletes of endurance are doped, we will publish, in few days, ALL THE OFFICIAL DATA OF BLOOD TESTS SONDRE HAD WITH WADA FOR THE BIOLOGICAL PASSPORT, NOT ONLY WITH THE OFF SCORE, BUT IN THE TOTALITY OF THE SPECIFIC TESTS.
NOT ONLY : WE GO TO PUBLISH ALSO THE TEST (obviously not from WADA) he had from 2007, when was only 16.
We already spoke with the sector of Antidoping of IAAF about this issue, because we want to organize the data inside a statement, for helping athletics to recover credibility.
I'm working at an article for comparing the data of Sondre 16 with the data of the current Sondre, in order to see how there is evolution of the values in the same athlete from the period as teenager till the period of maturity, how there is evolution provoked by continuous and systematic training, and which differences there are between periods at sea level and continuous training in altitude.
I'm very interested to study all these data, and to find some key that can change the idea that blood manipulation can produce advantages IF THE TRAINING IS IN ALTITUDE AND INCLUDES HIGH VOLUME AND HIGH INTENSITY.
Have patience I can study and elaborate the data (I received today by Sondre), and you can have some surprise, in a direction that is exactly the opposite of what the most part of you suppose.
Thanks. I appreciate the reply, and it sounds like you are trying to do exactly the kind of thing that I think is needed. I look forward to seeing this and I hope it's done with the openness and transparency that it sounds like you are proposing. One small point - I would encourage you/Moen to also include any blood data that you have outside of the official testing - that only adds to your credibility. One again, thanks for engaging and I appreciate your reply.
COACH J.S å ä ö wrote:
I help with that demonstration that it`s possible to run fast in clean way , but I also do it in the way to coach sealevel living runners to do remarkable improvement staying at sealevel and only run relatively low mileage.
What you just said has nothing to do with what is being discusses. You do not have promote yourself on every thread, specifically a thread that is about something completely different!
Please just get off this board
He is even more off shell than Calculo!
Top 11 all-time marathon times for women:
1 2:15:25 Paula Radcliffe (multiple suspicious blood tests, 21.88% in Hb in 2 days in 2003, 16.2 g/dL Hb level in 2012)
2 2:17:01 Mary Keitany (on leaked Fancy Bears Atypical ABP blood test result with follow up testing list)
3 2:17:18 Paula Radcliffe (multiple suspicious blood test results)
4 2:17:42 Paula Radcliffe (multiple suspicious blood test results)
5 2:17:56 Tirunesh Dibaba (bad luck, she was at the Sabadell Spain hotel with Genzebe and Jama during EPO raid)
6 2:18:20 Liliya Shobukhova (banned for doping with EPO, adverse ABP)
7 2:18:31 Tirunesh Dibaba (bad luck she was at the EPO raid in Sabadell)
8 2:18:37 Mary Keitany (Atypical ABP blood test result on Fancy Bears leaked list)
9 2:18:47 Catherine N'dereba....set in 2001. No ABP at the time.
10 2:18:56 Paula Radcliffe (multiple suspicious blood tests) GBR 17.12.73 London 14.04.2002
11 2:18:57a Rita Jeptoo (banned for doping with EPO) KEN 15.02.81 Boston 21.04.2014
The 2016 Olympic Marathon gold medalist Jemima Sumgong (and former training partner of Rita Jeptoo) has also been banned for doping with EPO.
Doping through increasing [Hb] increases physical performance in sport. Therefore, no cross-country skiers with [Hb] values above 16.0 g/dL for women (Ms. Paula Radcliffe was over this level in 2012) or 17.5 g/dL for men, respectively, may start in competitions (in 2001).
2003 study:
Blood doping undermines fairness and places athletes' health at risk. The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence of abnormal hematologic profiles in elite cross-country skiers, which may indicate a high probability of blood doping.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:
Samples were obtained as part of routine International Ski Federation blood testing procedures from participants at the World Ski Championships. Sixty-eight percent of all skiers and 92% of those finishing in the top 10 places were tested.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
Using flow cytometry, we analyzed erythrocyte and reticulocyte indices. Reference values were from the 1989 Nordic Ski World Championships data set and the International Olympic Committee Erythropoietin 2000 project.
RESULTS:
Of the skiers tested and finishing within the top 50 places in the competitions, 17% had "highly abnormal" hematologic profiles, 19% had "abnormal" values, and 64% were normal.
50% PERCENT OF MEDAL WINNERS and 33% of those finishing from 4th to 10th place had "HIGHLY ABNORMAL" hematologic profiles.
In contrast, ONLY 3% of skiers finishing from 41st to 50th place had "highly abnormal" values.
CONCLUSIONS:
These data suggest that blood doping is both prevalent and effective in cross-country ski racing, and current testing programs for blood doping are ineffective. It is unlikely that blood doping is less common in other endurance sports. Ramifications of doping affect not only elite athletes who may feel compelled to risk their health but also the general population, particularly young people.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12792206
Following the doping scandals at the World Championships in cross-country skiing in 2001, the International Ski Federation decided to generate individual blood profiles. From 2001 to 2007, 7081 blood samples from 1074 male and female elite cross-country skiers were collected and analyzed for hemoglobin concentration [Hb] and % reticulocytes (%rets). Data were applied to blood algorithms wherefrom blood model scores were calculated. From 1997-1999 to 2001-2002, the mean [Hb] was reduced by 0.9 g/dL to 15.3 g/dL in male skiers and by 0.4 g/dL to 13.8 in female skiers. From 2002-2003 to 2006-2007, the combination of increases in [Hb] and decreases in %rets led to pronounced increases in mean OFF-model scores. [Hb] was 0.2 g/dL higher at Olympic Games/World Championships (WOCs) than at World Cups competitions
post cut off
Hemoglobin data have been available from ski teams beginning from 1987, and from 1989 to 1999 we have followed hemoglobin values in elite cross-country skiers in international competitions. The mean values at the 1989 World Nordic Ski Championships were lower than population reference values, as would be expected from plasma volume expansion associated with endurance training. However, an increase, particularly in the maximal values, became obvious in 1994 and rose further in 1996. These extreme values provide both a health risk to the individual athlete and unfair competition. After a rule limiting hemoglobin values was introduced, the drop of the highest values was remarkable: among men 15 g/l (= 1.5 g/dL) (0.23 mmol/l) and among women 42 g/l (= 4.2 g/dL) (0.65 mmol/l). It would appear that the rule had achieved its goal of limiting extreme hemoglobin values. Yet the mean hemoglobin concentrations in men and women have continued to rise, suggesting the continued use of artificial methods to increase total hemoglobin mass.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10755280
Following the doping scandals at the World Championships in cross-country skiing in 2001, the International Ski Federation decided to generate individual blood profiles. From 2001 to 2007, 7081 blood samples from 1074 male and female elite cross-country skiers were collected and analyzed for hemoglobin concentration [Hb] and % reticulocytes (%rets). Data were applied to blood algorithms wherefrom blood model scores were calculated. From 1997-1999 to 2001-2002, the mean [Hb] was reduced by 0.9 g/dL to 15.3 g/dL in male skiers and by 0.4 g/dL to 13.8 in female skiers. From 2002-2003 to 2006-2007, the combination of increases in [Hb] and decreases in %rets led to pronounced increases in mean OFF-model scores. [Hb] was 0.2 g/dL higher at Olympic Games/World Championships (WOCs) than at World Cups competitions
no no no no no, i will YELL AT YOU LIKE RENATO!!!!
EPO DOESNT WORK!!!! in fact it makes you slower!!!!!!!!!!
basic intrinsic 1'38!!
Subway Surfers Affliction wrote:
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
drivel
Will you please stop ventolining this thread?
Thank you.
basic intrinsic!!! 3'24!!! are you dense?
i am a joke!
Cut off again:
Since the introduction of an enlarged blood testing program, the mean [Hb] values were lowered to close to normal levels, but over the last 2-3 years there has been a small elevation and an increase in OFF-model scores, which may indicate a change in the manipulations used to elevate the [Hb].
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18282224
It is just a coincidence.
m!ndweak wrote:
Subway Surfers Affliction wrote:
Will you please stop ventolining this thread?
Thank you.
basic intrinsic!!! 3'24!!! are you dense?
i am a joke!
hehe :)
Subway Surfers Affliction wrote:
m!ndweak wrote:
basic intrinsic!!! 3'24!!! are you dense?
i am a joke!
hehe :)
joke i am!
How am I part of the problem by showing you statistics we already know from a large database made public? You are simply barking up the wrong tree, and you already have the data you need to see that. When it comes to the marathon, high blood values statistically don't win more medals -- not even London.
DHT123 wrote:
It's all about openness and transparency, and we are not getting any here, or anywhere else in the running world. There's something rotten at the core of running, and there is a lack of will in unearthing it, facing up to the past, and making steps to improve things so that we can watch an event and have confidence that the athletes are clean. Attitudes like yours are part of the problem. Anyway, the purpose of my contribution on this thread wasn't about semantic arguments with you. It was rather to ask Coach Canova if he can enlighten us with the details of the testing and blood values of Moen through 2017.
#don'tfeedthetroll
MOEN is a man. Can you do a similar analysis for the top all-time marathon times for men?
SkyRunner.Shiva.11333ft.com wrote:
Top 11 all-time marathon times for women: