I think it's the discovery of HIF stabilizers combined with hypoxia and training. The EPO test was updated in 2022 and 2024, so athletes switched and then discovered other benefits (capillary density) besides producing EPO in the kidneys.
HIF stabilizers have been around for a while, and banned by WADA since 2011, so not all that new.
You mentioned before "research and WADA documents" -- what does the research say about HIF stabilizers and peak distance running performance, say relative to altitude training?
I found a mouse paper on cobalt chloride showing performance gains. It has been used in horse racing.
High altitude/hypoxia training is known to improve physical performance in athletes. Hypoxia induces hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1) and its downstream genes that facilitate hypoxia adaptation in muscle to increase physica...
The disadvantage of altitude is reduced mitochondria adaptations. It's a very complicated subject though. I think only the doping doctors know the full answer.
I think the biological passport is deliberately weak so that times don't slow down. Same with molidustat detection.
So has he only just cottoned on to using the new shoes? If he has been wearing them from when they were made available why hasn't he been setting comparable records in the last several years? Maybe he's a great "responder" to something else.
lol. idk, maybe he switched from vaporfly to alphafly? but you're right. drugs work the same way as shoes. some definitely respond better than others. good for kiplimo to be a super responder to both the shoes and the drugs.
Shoes help but they don't enable a runner to run 56x mins for a HM.
"Apparently, you have have no idea how drugs are developed either, but simply believe that all advancements are geared primarily to help athletes do what was impossible before, as if athletes are driving drugs R&D."
You're such a chronic liar. That isn't what I said. Drugs aren't developed primarily to aid doping cheats but as a corollary of continuous advances in pharmaceuticals and medicine drug cheats are able to exploit these medical developments. An example is the heart drug, meldonium, which I had never heard of till the tennis player Maria Sharapova was busted. The drug is intended to aid patients with cardio vascular deficiencies; when used by elite athletes it gives them supercharged stamina - which is why athletes have been using it and it has been placed on the banned list. Because you choose not to acknowledge the role played by doping in sports you are utterly ignorant of all this.
"Apparently, you have have no idea how drugs are developed either, but simply believe that all advancements are geared primarily to help athletes do what was impossible before, as if athletes are driving drugs R&D."
You're such a chronic liar. That isn't what I said. Drugs aren't developed primarily to aid doping cheats but as a corollary of continuous advances in pharmaceuticals and medicine drug cheats are able to exploit these medical developments. An example is the heart drug, meldonium, which I had never heard of till the tennis player Maria Sharapova was busted. The drug is intended to aid patients with cardio vascular deficiencies; when used by elite athletes it gives them supercharged stamina - which is why athletes have been using it and it has been placed on the banned list. Because you choose not to acknowledge the role played by doping in sports you are utterly ignorant of all this.
Meldonium isn't the new powerful supeshoe era drug you are hoping exists. Notably it was banned in 2016, at the start of the supershoe era. Before that, all athletes could take it as it was WADA legal. It was developed more than five decades ago in 1970, and there is next to no evidence that it is performance enhancing.
The banning of meldonium only raises a lot of questions about the process WADA uses to put drugs on the banned list, and it seems more political to add this "gotcha" drug in order to target certain Eastern nations, including Ethiopia, that use the household drug like aspirin.
Some quotes from researchers about meldonium:
Michael Joyner, at the Mayo Clinic ... told (Forbes) that "Evidence is lacking for many compounds believed to enhance athletic performance. Its use has a sort of urban legend element and there is not much out there that it is clearly that effective. I would be shocked if this stuff (meldonium) had an effect greater than caffeine or creatine ...."
Ford Vox, a U.S.-based physician specializing in rehabilitation medicine and a journalist reported "there's not much scientific support for its use as an athletic enhancer".
Don Catlin, a long-time anti-doping expert and the scientific director of the Banned Substances Control Group (BSCG) said "There's really no evidence that there's any performance enhancement from meldonium – Zero percent".
Some headlines from 2016:
Rita Rubin. "Banned drug Sharapova took is widely used, study shows, despite little evidence that it boosts performance". Forbes.
Ford Vox. "Sharapova suspension: doping agency's unfair game of 'gotcha'?". CNN.
"Experts say there's little evidence meldonium enhances performance". USA Today.
"Banned Drug Sharapova Took Is Widely Used, Study Shows, Despite Little Evidence That It Boosts Performance".
I think because they don't, you have nothing to support your baseless speculation and beliefs.
Well, we know there are athletes doping. So where have they come forward to tell us exactly what they are doing?
I agree with you that you have no basis for your speculation and beliefs. You are the one speculating and relying on the athletes' motives, when they are telling no tales.
The math doesn't look good. Suppose that all the microdosing methods that are undetectable have a combined worth of 30 seconds in the men's 5,000 meters (rumors were that EPO used to be 20 to 50 seconds). Last year there was about 55 guys from 12:36 to 13:05, and the world record is 12:35. Let's pretend that all 55 guys were clean. Well if 1 of those guys decides to start using the microdosing methods he takes the world record. Can we really believe that all 55 guys would resist that opportunity? Their coaches and doctors know how much the doping methods are worth, so those conversations happen. They are professionals.
"Apparently, you have have no idea how drugs are developed either, but simply believe that all advancements are geared primarily to help athletes do what was impossible before, as if athletes are driving drugs R&D."
You're such a chronic liar. That isn't what I said. Drugs aren't developed primarily to aid doping cheats but as a corollary of continuous advances in pharmaceuticals and medicine drug cheats are able to exploit these medical developments. An example is the heart drug, meldonium, which I had never heard of till the tennis player Maria Sharapova was busted. The drug is intended to aid patients with cardio vascular deficiencies; when used by elite athletes it gives them supercharged stamina - which is why athletes have been using it and it has been placed on the banned list. Because you choose not to acknowledge the role played by doping in sports you are utterly ignorant of all this.
Meldonium isn't the new powerful supeshoe era drug you are hoping exists. Notably it was banned in 2016, at the start of the supershoe era. Before that, all athletes could take it as it was WADA legal. It was developed more than five decades ago in 1970, and there is next to no evidence that it is performance enhancing.
The banning of meldonium only raises a lot of questions about the process WADA uses to put drugs on the banned list, and it seems more political to add this "gotcha" drug in order to target certain Eastern nations, including Ethiopia, that use the household drug like aspirin.
Some quotes from researchers about meldonium:
Michael Joyner, at the Mayo Clinic ... told (Forbes) that "Evidence is lacking for many compounds believed to enhance athletic performance. Its use has a sort of urban legend element and there is not much out there that it is clearly that effective. I would be shocked if this stuff (meldonium) had an effect greater than caffeine or creatine ...."
Ford Vox, a U.S.-based physician specializing in rehabilitation medicine and a journalist reported "there's not much scientific support for its use as an athletic enhancer".
Don Catlin, a long-time anti-doping expert and the scientific director of the Banned Substances Control Group (BSCG) said "There's really no evidence that there's any performance enhancement from meldonium – Zero percent".
Some headlines from 2016:
Rita Rubin. "Banned drug Sharapova took is widely used, study shows, despite little evidence that it boosts performance". Forbes.
Ford Vox. "Sharapova suspension: doping agency's unfair game of 'gotcha'?". CNN.
"Experts say there's little evidence meldonium enhances performance". USA Today.
"Banned Drug Sharapova Took Is Widely Used, Study Shows, Despite Little Evidence That It Boosts Performance".
I only mentioned meldonium as an example of how drugs that are developed in medicine can come to be used in sports. I was not presenting it as some kind of super drug. So you show you cannot follow an argument without converting it into something that suits your doping denial agenda. Those that say there is little evidence of meldonium's performance enhancing qualities ignore the fact - as you do - that no athletes using it (or any other banned substance) volunteer to describe their experiences. I have seen however accounts from other tennis players who had tried meldonium before it was banned that it substantially boosted their aerobic levels. Notably, WADA has not taken it off their banned list. So they don't accept the claims that you tout that it has no performance enhancing capabilities. But since you say the same about EPO that simply reinforces how worthless your opinions are.
I have seen however accounts from other tennis players who had tried meldonium before it was banned that it substantially boosted their aerobic levels.
Well, we know there are athletes doping. So where have they come forward to tell us exactly what they are doing?
I agree with you that you have no basis for your speculation and beliefs. You are the one speculating and relying on the athletes' motives, when they are telling no tales.
Speculating on doped athletes motives? What are their motives for doping except to make gains from it? What is speculative about that? We know there are athletes doping in the sport (in all sports) but since few are caught we mostly don't know who they are (although we may suspect who they are). Yet you have no idea why they do it. To cure pimples? As a laxative? To risk being banned from the sport while gaining nothing from doing it? It is impossible for you to conclude they do it to gain a competitive advantage, which is the main reason antidoping has sought to combat it. You are truly the dopers' champion here.
I have seen however accounts from other tennis players who had tried meldonium before it was banned that it substantially boosted their aerobic levels.
Wow! That's great! Please share the source!
The source was an account from tennis players who described on a tennis site their experience of using the drug in the wake of the Sharapova bust. Unlike you I don't itemise every detail of everything I have read over my life. But you can choose to disregard it and adopt the belief, as rekrunner does, that athletes are idiots and will risk disgrace and a ban from the sport for no reason.
The source was an account from tennis players who described on a tennis site their experience of using the drug in the wake of the Sharapova bust. Unlike you I don't itemise every detail of everything I have read over my life. But you can choose to disregard it and adopt the belief, as rekrunner does, that athletes are idiots and will risk disgrace and a ban from the sport for no reason.
You are an anonymous poster saying that you read somewhere something that supports your claims. Cute.
The source was an account from tennis players who described on a tennis site their experience of using the drug in the wake of the Sharapova bust. Unlike you I don't itemise every detail of everything I have read over my life. But you can choose to disregard it and adopt the belief, as rekrunner does, that athletes are idiots and will risk disgrace and a ban from the sport for no reason.
You are an anonymous poster saying that you read somewhere something that supports your claims. Cute.
Just like every poster here. Including you. Show me the articles where athletes who have used peds identify themselves when they haven't been caught.
However the point you ignore is that there is known to be widespread usage of the drug and WADA retains it on the list of banned substances. So this is a drug that has no performance enhancing effects?
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
The math doesn't look good. Suppose that all the microdosing methods that are undetectable have a combined worth of 30 seconds in the men's 5,000 meters (rumors were that EPO used to be 20 to 50 seconds). Last year there was about 55 guys from 12:36 to 13:05, and the world record is 12:35. Let's pretend that all 55 guys were clean. Well if 1 of those guys decides to start using the microdosing methods he takes the world record. Can we really believe that all 55 guys would resist that opportunity? Their coaches and doctors know how much the doping methods are worth, so those conversations happen. They are professionals.
Your math, based on your supposition and rumors, doesn't look good? I suppose it wouldn't, depending on your supposition. But I don't suppose doping is worth 30 seconds compared to clean and legal training (e.g. lengthy training at altitude). But let's suppose...
In 1982, Brit David Moorcroft ran 13:00.41, beating Henry Rono's previous record of 13:06.20 from 1981, who beat a number of records from Quax, Puttemans, Viren, and Clarke from the '70s and '60s. Clarke ran 13:16.6 in 1966.
Now let's suppose that micro/macro dosing any and all drugs in all combinations are worth 30 seconds, or heck, even 50 seconds, for 5000m. We know East Africans have been performing well since the 1980s World Cross Country, if not the 1960s. But how many non-African athletes from 5-continents, would you expect to run faster than David Moorcroft, from all drugs, in the 28 years from 1990-2017 spanning the EPO-era? Recall that EPO testing and blood doping testing and WADA didn't exist for anyone in the 1990s. Would you expect just 8 athletes, with 5 from the USA, 1 from Europe (Germany), 1 from Australia, 1 from Saudi Arabia, and none from Spain or Russia, with the fastest one being Dieter Baumann at 12:54.7? Would you expect 2 of these to be in the '90s, before any testing was possible, while 4 are from 2009 onwards, when IC and OOC urine testing was in place and the IAAF introduced the ABP for blood profiling? Would you expect only 10 North Africans in that same 28 year period, with 2 from the '90s, and with the fastest running 12:49.3?
How good does that math look for these 18 non-East Africans over 28 years of the EPO-era? By comparison, 81 East Africans ran faster than David Moorcroft, with two Ethiopians and 1 Kenyan running sub-12:40. Correcting for population, that is about 150 East Africans per non-African worldwide.
Note that WADA legal altitude training is also thought to be worth 20-30 seconds, and that East Africans are born and raised and train at altitude.
Since 2018, or about 7 years of the supershoe era, we have Fisher and Ingebrigtsen running in the 12:40s, and 15 non-Africans running faster than Moorcroft.
Recall we are seeing similar patterns across the board, in all distance events from men and women and even in college and high school. Clearly if this is not coming from the new supershoes, but from new drugs in the supershoe era, many athletes worldwide must know how to profit from it, in a way that was not possible in nearly three decades of the EPO-era -- yet no one can say what the new doping formula is. Armstronglivs mentioned the 1970 drug meldonium, which wasn't banned until the supershoe era.
I only mentioned meldonium as an example of how drugs that are developed in medicine can come to be used in sports. I was not presenting it as some kind of super drug. So you show you cannot follow an argument without converting it into something that suits your doping denial agenda. Those that say there is little evidence of meldonium's performance enhancing qualities ignore the fact - as you do - that no athletes using it (or any other banned substance) volunteer to describe their experiences. I have seen however accounts from other tennis players who had tried meldonium before it was banned that it substantially boosted their aerobic levels. Notably, WADA has not taken it off their banned list. So they don't accept the claims that you tout that it has no performance enhancing capabilities. But since you say the same about EPO that simply reinforces how worthless your opinions are.
Apparently it is you who cannot follow your own argument. You were originally talking about recent and continuous developments in drugs, as relevant to the performances of the supershoe era, when you brought up meldonium, a drug that was developed in the 1970s. Again -- meldonium was being used without any restrictions since the 1970s, like one would use aspirin, and wasn't banned until 2016. Maria Sharapova was quite open about her use of it before the ban.
What WADA accepts and doesn't accept is part of a secret closed door process where many questions have been raised about their decisions.
The disadvantage of altitude is reduced mitochondria adaptations. It's a very complicated subject though. I think only the doping doctors know the full answer.
I think the biological passport is deliberately weak so that times don't slow down. Same with molidustat detection.
I agree it is a complicated subject.
This is a paper from 2012. Performance was "swimming time to exhaustion".
We are still some distance away to explaining running new world records in the supershoe era.
Speculating on doped athletes motives? What are their motives for doping except to make gains from it? What is speculative about that? We know there are athletes doping in the sport (in all sports) but since few are caught we mostly don't know who they are (although we may suspect who they are). Yet you have no idea why they do it. To cure pimples? As a laxative? To risk being banned from the sport while gaining nothing from doing it? It is impossible for you to conclude they do it to gain a competitive advantage, which is the main reason antidoping has sought to combat it. You are truly the dopers' champion here.
You conceded that the dopers do not come forward and tell us exactly what they are doing.
Yet you argue without basis that the world record holders are among these silent dopers motivated by hope.
Blood transfusions were legal until 1984 after several Olympic cyclists admitted to doing it, and there was still no way to enforce that. Lasse Viren said in the 70's he didn't know what it was. Does that sound believable?
EPO is more convenient and allows training with more oxygen. Many Kenyans were busted for EPO or the ABP (Rhonex Kipruto) despite living at around 7,000 feet elevation.
Race results are a filtering process of talent, training, and who chooses to dope.
The math doesn't look good. Suppose that all the microdosing methods that are undetectable have a combined worth of 30 seconds in the men's 5,000 meters (rumors were that EPO used to be 20 to 50 seconds). Last year there was about 55 guys from 12:36 to 13:05, and the world record is 12:35. Let's pretend that all 55 guys were clean. Well if 1 of those guys decides to start using the microdosing methods he takes the world record. Can we really believe that all 55 guys would resist that opportunity? Their coaches and doctors know how much the doping methods are worth, so those conversations happen. They are professionals.
Your math, based on your supposition and rumors, doesn't look good? I suppose it wouldn't, depending on your supposition. But I don't suppose doping is worth 30 seconds compared to clean and legal training (e.g. lengthy training at altitude). But let's suppose...
In 1982, Brit David Moorcroft ran 13:00.41, beating Henry Rono's previous record of 13:06.20 from 1981, who beat a number of records from Quax, Puttemans, Viren, and Clarke from the '70s and '60s. Clarke ran 13:16.6 in 1966.
Now let's suppose that micro/macro dosing any and all drugs in all combinations are worth 30 seconds, or heck, even 50 seconds, for 5000m. We know East Africans have been performing well since the 1980s World Cross Country, if not the 1960s. But how many non-African athletes from 5-continents, would you expect to run faster than David Moorcroft, from all drugs, in the 28 years from 1990-2017 spanning the EPO-era? Recall that EPO testing and blood doping testing and WADA didn't exist for anyone in the 1990s. Would you expect just 8 athletes, with 5 from the USA, 1 from Europe (Germany), 1 from Australia, 1 from Saudi Arabia, and none from Spain or Russia, with the fastest one being Dieter Baumann at 12:54.7? Would you expect 2 of these to be in the '90s, before any testing was possible, while 4 are from 2009 onwards, when IC and OOC urine testing was in place and the IAAF introduced the ABP for blood profiling? Would you expect only 10 North Africans in that same 28 year period, with 2 from the '90s, and with the fastest running 12:49.3?
How good does that math look for these 18 non-East Africans over 28 years of the EPO-era? By comparison, 81 East Africans ran faster than David Moorcroft, with two Ethiopians and 1 Kenyan running sub-12:40. Correcting for population, that is about 150 East Africans per non-African worldwide.
Note that WADA legal altitude training is also thought to be worth 20-30 seconds, and that East Africans are born and raised and train at altitude.
Since 2018, or about 7 years of the supershoe era, we have Fisher and Ingebrigtsen running in the 12:40s, and 15 non-Africans running faster than Moorcroft.
Recall we are seeing similar patterns across the board, in all distance events from men and women and even in college and high school. Clearly if this is not coming from the new supershoes, but from new drugs in the supershoe era, many athletes worldwide must know how to profit from it, in a way that was not possible in nearly three decades of the EPO-era -- yet no one can say what the new doping formula is. Armstronglivs mentioned the 1970 drug meldonium, which wasn't banned until the supershoe era.
I said meldonium is a drug developed in medicine and used by athletes for performance enhancement; I didn't say it was a new drug, you stupid ****. It is but one drug amongst many banned by WADA but it is known by antidoping there will be many many more for which there is no effective test.
Speculating on doped athletes motives? What are their motives for doping except to make gains from it? What is speculative about that? We know there are athletes doping in the sport (in all sports) but since few are caught we mostly don't know who they are (although we may suspect who they are). Yet you have no idea why they do it. To cure pimples? As a laxative? To risk being banned from the sport while gaining nothing from doing it? It is impossible for you to conclude they do it to gain a competitive advantage, which is the main reason antidoping has sought to combat it. You are truly the dopers' champion here.
You conceded that the dopers do not come forward and tell us exactly what they are doing.
Yet you argue without basis that the world record holders are among these silent dopers motivated by hope.
When athletes dope in every sport and at every level and have been used for decades, and are known to be used for performance gains, only someone as ****** stupid as you are can say we don't know why they take them.
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.
