EPO Does Work on Kenyans! Surprise!

that would be a shocker.

Renato Canova wrote:

[...]

When I say no one of the marathon runners inside 2:05:30 (about 30 in the World) gets any doping, it means that all the athletes trying to use doping were not able to reach the same level of performances. So, if a marathon runner for 2:06:00 gets some PED, doesn't improve his time, because nobody of the athletes faster than him uses PED. [...]

Or, what I believe, what we need for running a marathon at that level is to have very little viscosity, because the ability to transport Oxygen is not so important, since athletes use a percentage of this attitude, and a higher percentage is connected with the low viscosity more than with the "power" of the engine.

1. viscosity of blood - what about uv-radiation?

2. "nobody of the athletes faster than him uses PED" - define PED.

3. china well controlled, every 14 days - easy, very easy to avoid for all insiders. let´s talk about real impromptu testing!

this is not against you, mr canova, it´s against what is possible...

who knows wrote:

I tell you Makau is dirty...you hear it here 1st

I don't think you are the first to claim the world record holder is dirty.

the article states that the hematocrit and one other measure were similar among the test subjects in kenya and the elites, so it would certainly apply, except that you could not necessarily expect a 5% improvement by, say, 12:50 athletes. Maybe there would be 1.6% improvement, say (=12:37). At that level, it would be the difference between being an also ran not making much to world record holder.

ABSOLUTELY

that what i think for the guys near the top of 5k/10k

10-15 sec and 20-30 sec respectively performance gain

thereabouts imo

We don't know. Lombard went from outside the women's WR to considerably under the OLY A Standard.

Ramzi went from ~3:40 to 3:28.

Would El G have run 3:34 clean? 3:36?

Geb 12:55? 13:10? 13:40?

Sadly - we will never know.

Lombard went from outside the women's WR to considerably under the OLY A Standard.

say what

lombard a man first

and he dope from 29/30 min starting point

Renato Canova wrote:

So, if a marathon runner for 2:06:00 gets some PED, doesn't improve his time, because nobody of the athletes faster than him uses PED.

This quote makes no sense. Of course we don't know who dopes and who doesn't. But as has been stated before, you can't just take an arbitrary number and try to convince people that nobody under that number (within 2% of the world record) can get help from doping.

What happens when the world record improves? Does your arbitrary time where EPO doesn't help also go down? It is statistically illogical and irrational.

The Champ wrote:

SB wrote:

Another example of desire impairing reason. That an otherwise sharp guy could reason this poorly, and enlist pseudo-scientific speculation so cavalierly, is revealing. If anyone else but Canova tried to pull something like this he/she would be roundly ridiculed, and rightly so. Until we see a positive test for EPO for a sub-2:05 marathoner we must conclude that EPO does not improve performance to below 2:05, and that this kind of performance can only be achieved clean!? Wow.

ABSOLUTELY

The guy is clearly not too sharp. That logic is amazingly simplistic. The sad part is, because he has convinced some talented Kenyans to listen to him, many Lets Run posters believe everything this charlatan says.

just sayin wrote:

Lombard went from outside the women's WR to considerably under the OLY A Standard.

say what

lombard a man first

and he dope from 29/30 min starting point

Yes - he started at ~30min and doped to ~27:30.

First it´s normal that records did progress.

Second, why during the 96-99 the progress is done by East Aricans mainly ? Does EPO just work on East Africans ?

What happens when the WR improves ? Does your arbitrary idea that for beating a WR an athlete needs to be doped continue to work, also if the athlete is clean ?

Do you think the idea that, if an athlete runs fast, is only because of doping, can be correct ?

So, you don't want to research if he is doped or not. You think that he is AUTOMATICALLY doped, otherwise cant run so fast.

So, your idea is exactly like mine : under some times, athletes MUST be doped, because in your mind is not possible running so fast. And this in spite the fact statistically NO ONE OF THE BEST KENYAN AND ETHIOPIAN RUNNERS was caught for doping.

So, let me understand your thought : if some weak Kenyan is positive, ALL KENYANS ARE DOPED. If some strong kenyan is not positive , IS BECAUSE IS ABLE TO AVOID THE CONTROL (what are not able to do Russian, European and American, that of course have less technology).

In my opinion, this is statistically illogical and irrational.

And, I repeat for thousands times, the difference between mer and many posters of Letsrun is very simple, when we speak about the possibilities to run at the top without doping : THEY SUPPOSE, I KNOW.

First it´s normal that records did progress.

Second, why during the 96-99 the progress is done by East Aricans mainly ? Does EPO just work on East Africans ?

my assumption is that the doped EA athlete is better than a doped european

a clean EA is prob better than a clean european but not by the same margin

of course you don't know. Just as the LR crowd doesn't

know. You cannot certainly not guarantee that all EA runners

are dope free. Don't be silly.

Correction: You KNOW, Ferrarri KNOWS, Conconi KNOWS, the difference is that you dont tell the truth what you really knows.

Renato Canova wrote:

And this in spite the fact statistically NO ONE OF THE BEST KENYAN AND ETHIOPIAN RUNNERS was caught for doping.

lance armstrong-talk. he was always proud of his 500 negative tests and being the most controlled athlete on this planet.

perhaps he should have trained in kenya or ethiopia to stay 100% clean officially. no real tests there up to now.

Again, a reasonable person, even (especially?) one as well connected at the top levels of the sport as you, who was genuinely interested in discussing the possible impacts of doping in the sport would start by admitting that 100% certainty about who is doping and who is not is simply not possible. He/she would also admit that a powerful pharmaceutical like EPO, designed specifically to increase red blood cell production in human beings, is probably efficacious in ALL human beings, even already highly trained ones (but likely not to the same degree), unless actually proven to be otherwise. This person might also throw in that current testing methods, even in adequately tested populations, are known to be somewhat unreliable.

In order to suppose that EPO and other oxygen vector drugs and techniques have had and are having an effect on performance in the sport at all levels does not require assuming that all top performances must be drug-aided; it simply requires acknowledging that the drugs exist, that they work, and that 100% certainty about who might be using them, or have used them, is not possible. From here it's reasonable to begin looking at things such as the known rates of improvement for test subjects and banned athletes and the comparative rates of average performance improvement from different eras, in order to hypothesize what effects the availability of these drugs and techniques might be having or have had on performance, all without pointing fingers at individual coaches or athletes.

The introduction of these drugs and techniques presents some real problems for anyone involved in our sport (not least of which is the tragedy of never knowing for sure who is/was the best within the established rules). That a coach of some of the world's best athletes would publicly appear to be running away from these problems through a combination of wishful thinking and pseudo-science is troubling indeed.

P.S. That no "top" Kenyan or Ethiopian has been caught for doping may be considered evidence that that EPO does not work for the top athletes, and that they all understand and believe that it would not work for them; but, this is far from the only, or even most reasonable, hypothesis we could offer. That no "top" distance runner has been caught (and, BTW, don't women count?) could also be because the successful evasion of tests is now a basic requirement for getting to the "top", and evading tests in distance running, particularly in under-tested jurisdictions, may be easier than in other endurance sports.

P.P.S To quote one of your famous countrymen, when confronting the problem of drugs in sport we must engage a "pessimism of the intellect" but also an "optimism of the will".