Dominguez detained in doping investigation

Thoroughly entertained wrote:

I cannot help wondering if these people believe that world-class athletes would also be immune to the effects of a cyanide injection.

I've never heard of anyone running faster due to injection of cyanide.

Let me know how this works for you.

I suppose it depends how many cyanide receptors he has?

trollism wrote:

J.0. wrote:

You have to understand the psychology to understand what I am saying, obviously you don't because you are obsessed with drugs and can't see outside your own little world.

As for altitude training, it doesn't increase RBC mass for those with optimal levels.

So I'm struggling with the 'psychology' and you're struggling with the physiology.

Fair enough.

************************************

No, you're struggling with both physiology and psychology and I am struggling with neither.

Running faster, cycling faster, both require a belief that you can. Drugs have been known to make people believe they can do certain tasks better. So too have placebos. Is that too hard for you to comprehend?

J.O. wrote:

trollism wrote:

So I'm struggling with the 'psychology' and you're struggling with the physiology.

Fair enough.

************************************

No, you're struggling with both physiology and psychology and I am struggling with neither.

Running faster, cycling faster, both require a belief that you can. Drugs have been known to make people believe they can do certain tasks better. So too have placebos. Is that too hard for you to comprehend?

Your grasp of logic is hideous. Running faster may require self-belief, but it also requires powerful muscles, oxygen update, and high red blood cell counts. There are many drugs that can improve one or all of these variables. I suppose you don't believe that steroids work either?

I never thought an athlete is not good because I'm not his coach. I highly respect the most part of coaches and of athletes, professionally and under the human side, but don't forget that this is my World from more than 40 years, while for the most part of posters is an argument for discussion without direct knowledge of the specific environment. I cant, of course, say that an athlete winning twice WCCCh is an athlete of "B" category, but it's unquestionable that, among ALL THE WORLD CHAMPIONS, there are different level of talent, and sometimes one athlete can reach important titles because has the fortune to compete in an "easy" period, empty from top talents in his event.

For example, the Olympic Champion in 5000m in Sydney 2000 was Million Wolde : can you compare his talent, remaining in the same Country, with the talent of Sileshi Sihine, that never won any title because of Kenenisa Bekele ?

So, I confirm that, under the point of view of TOP NATURAL TALENT, the level of Mourhit was not the same of many kenyans and/or Ethiopians runner of the same period, and that he was lucky in 2000 facing a Tergat at 80% of his previous value. The fact that Wilberforce Talel arrived 4" only behind Tergat clearly shows that the race was not very fast, and the technical level was not the same of the previous year (expecially 1997, when Tergat beated Hissou in Turin, when they where at their best shape). About the WCCCh 2001 (when Sergey Lebid was second), we are speaking about an event that has nothing to do with the ability to run fast. In Oostend, there were 5° negative, an not less than 30cm of mud. In this kind of conditions, always we had specific specialists, able to produce their best results as position, and other athletes (Gebrselassie, for example) that never were able to be competitive, not depending on their shape and personal strength, but on the objective situations of the surfaces. In 2001 (Oostend), John Korir dominated Kenyan Trials, and arrived in Belgium as main favourite of the competitions. The next days, on that mud, he was not able to finish in top 20...

Different is the fact, about Mourhit, of his PB on track. Personally, I don't consider his best PB the time of 10000m (26'52"30), or the time of 5000m (12'49"71), both European Records, but his 7'26"62 in 3000m, very much stronger than his PB in 1500m (3'36"14), obtained during the same season 2000.

In this case, there is no doubt that EPO worked very well, and that, doping free, Mourhit could be only one of the many high class athletes, but not one of the top.

So, on one side I well know that, for some athlete, doping can give advantages ; on the other side, I well know what is possible to do WITHOUT any doping, and frankly these cases show me that, for them, doping cant work (or, may be, could give very little advantage, that nobody can check because the athletes never used anything : who knows ?).

Because, when we speak about extra-talented athletes, the only thing we can know is what they are able to do using training (and this can be the WR, too), and not what they COULD BE ABLE TO DO IF...., I continue to remain of my idea, I continue to coach athletes knowing they can run fast with their training only, I continue to educate athletes in NOT THINKING DOPING CAN GIVE ADVANTAGES IF YOU ARE VERY TALENTED (that means also to explain to an athlete that he IS very talented, and this fact can give more motivation to the athlete himself), I continue to teach the athletes to look at their personal improvements, and not at what other athletes can do, and I continue to pretend from my athletes the full respect for all the other competitors.

That's a strange kind of logic: "I suppose that you don't probably know any athlete trying epo without effect, and therefore I'm sure that *every* athlete improves with epo."

Anyway, we have the words of Renato Canova referring blood doping:

If blood doping doesn't work for *some* athletes it's reasonable to assume that also epo doesn't work for *some* athletes.

Of course this is anecdotical evidence - but it is sufficient to refute the idea that *all* anecdotical evidence points to efficiency of epo for each and every athlete.

blood doping & epo use are not completely comparable in terms of use & effect

epo will give RBC boost & virtually certain improvement with side-effects unlikely to hinder performance - transient diarrhoea/nausea/raised BP/oedema

these are short-term, minor & non-serious & won't hinder performance boost effect

a transfusion from someone else risks transfusion reactions from incompletely matched minor antibody systems ( other than main ABO/rhesus systems ) - significant effect on health/well being of athlete which can hinder performance/useful effect of transfusion

for autologous transfusions the antibody mismatch is eliminated but you risk other transfusion problems - denaturing of blood if improperly stored ( i doubt these were stored in proper hospitals ) or thru expiry ( the blood is good for a few weeks before natural haemolysis of cells even in a fridge ), significant risk of CCF if blood not tranfused by a trained professional or too much administered too soon ( life threatening effect )

the risks from transfusions are much more serious & performance dehancing compared to epo

they are from being the same beast - there is a reason why when epo was medically available that the previous use of transfusions dropped drastically for anemics usually due to chronic renal failure - epo did all the job of transfusions with virtually no serious side-effects ( obviously taking a few weeks but you are not supposed to let your anemics get down to Hb of 5 or 6 beforehand ) - i can't even remember the last time i saw a hematologist's letter stating they had to give a transfusion to these anemics ( we are talking well managed patients, under constant hospital care ) when epo is outstanding 1st choice treatment

A few dozen "epos ves+" in athletics alone? A few dozen! Wow, that is a lot. How many athletes take EPO? Many dozen? Several scores?

Who takes EPO? The ones who are not winning already. Of course your samples are biased. You are only looking at one class of athlete: the one who wasn't winning before, and started winning by doping. We don't know anything about how the "clean" winners would respond, because there is no anecdotal evidence.

In 1997 and 1998, two controlled studies found a form of altitude training (live high, train low) that resulted in an improvement of about 14 seconds after 4 weeks in 5000m time trials. This effect lasted 3 weeks. Controls at sea level, and controls that only trained high, did not show performance improvements. For our 1500m runners, this sounds like about 3-4 seconds.

Maybe, for athletes who "live high, and train low", they become low responders, because their RBC is already relatively high, from training that increased their natural EPO production. Likewise, for Kenyans and Ethiopians, who are already winning cleanly, they will get remarkably little benefit from EPO, due to their unique combination of genetics and environment bringing them a naturally high RBC.

Maybe, if Ramzi found another situation, another coach, and more optimal training techniques, he would have progressed to low 3:30s without EPO.

We don't have much data, except for a biased sample of a few anecdotes of athletes who were not winning, and decided to dope and got caught. To quote Dr. Timothy Noakes, MD, DSc, and Professor of Exercise and Sports Science, from the "Lore of Running": "But what this last study shows is the relative dearth of quality studies of the effects of EPO use on athletic performance. The analogy with anabolic steroids is striking. The two most abused drugs in international sporting competition have evoked the least scientific interest among the research community."

Sorry -- I meant to quote: "epo +ves"

J.O you are a self claimed expert in pro cycling so I will give you an example and you can explain it to me.

One rider who has never been thought to dope (I have personal knowledge of him)is riding very well in a tour race. He is the superior rider normally over his main opponents. After some big mountain stages he is to ride a time trial.

He is the much better time trial rider.

The bio passports show his blood values to be gradually decreasing as expected. His main rivals all have better blood values than him after the mtn stages. One of them is later found to be +ve doper. In time trial the "clean" rider rides at a wattage below his normal tt wattage but at a level expected late in a tough tour event.

One rival rides beyond any previous tt wattage to secure the event win.

The winning rider has bio passport similar to the doping rider. The "clean" rider has very different bio passport.

Can "self belief" affect actual blood values in your opinion?

Did the clean rider lack self belief so therefore his blood deteriorated?

Or is it more likely one rider got away with doping and secured the win from another rider who was not doping?

ghost wrote:

The health of Madame Bezabeh should not be compromised at this important time, lest the health of the coming progeny be equally compromised.

I just want to point out that this is a fantastic line of defense for a doper.

A question for Ventolin and Renato.

When running 250kms+ per week wouldn't an athlete decrease his RBC from the stresses of training?

If this is the case wouldn't EPO help the athlete to cope with the stresses of hard training?

This is an example of comparing training and physical condition. with taking of EPO or some drugs. The numbers might not be exact but the principle is the same.

I was in a stressful situation at the dentist about 10 years ago and they had an oximeter on my finger. to show the oxygen percentage of my blood and also heart rate. I had not seen an oximeter before that and it was intriguing. I asked the attendent what the usual readings were and she said it should not above 80 and very people people got above 90. I'm not sure how accurate that is but that's what she said. My reading stayed right on 98 or higher the entire time, with a few 99's but mostly 98.

My Dad before he passed away a few years ago was using an oximeter to keep track of his readings, and if it got below a certain level, which I think was 50 but it might have been lower then that, he would go to the doctor and get a shot, which I think was EPO, and it was $1300 for one shot!!! I asked my Mom why not just give him vegetable juices, which will be much better than the EPO and help him to be healthy. Well if you know my parents it's like talking to a rock, especially be being their son, this has NO credence with them. They do everything that a doctor tells them and have no ears for anything else.

Now, after that shot my Dad's oxygen reading would be above 50, maybe 55 or 60, but not above 70. Even with the shot his reading would not be above 70!!!

So here is a comparison of someone not in shape, getting injection of EPO which gives a temporary boost, but does NOTHING for health or conditioning. This does NOT improve the health or the fitness of any person. To the contrary I consider this to be dangerous, because it is a temporary boost NOT SUPPORTED BY THE CONDITION OF THE BODY.

Now if they had given that shot to me, which would be a cold day in HELL because I stay away from anything like that, it would do absolutely nothing, because my o2 levels are already 98/99 and they would not go any higher. Probably the shot would make me SICK and would run down my body, trying to counteract the strange effects of the invader, not developed by my health or conditioning.

I think it is the same in EVERYONE else. It is a boost that does nothing, less than food, much less than fitness, much less than training, and no comparison to being a HEALTHY person.

Sorry, I meant to say, the attendent said the reading should not be less than 80 pecent. These were from from average people who went there, not athletes.

Renato Canova wrote:

Different is the fact, about Mourhit, of his PB on track. Personally, I don't consider his best PB the time of 10000m (26'52"30), or the time of 5000m (12'49"71), both European Records, but his 7'26"62 in 3000m, very much stronger than his PB in 1500m (3'36"14), obtained during the same season 2000.

Mourhit's 7:26.62 and his other times show he was a runner of TOP LEVEL, not any B athlete. He competed against the best in the world, and beat them more often than ot.

Whether any runner is A or B does not have anything to do with whether they used EPO or did not use EPO. Some A runner might use it or not, and many B runners probably not, but it makes no difference because it does absolutely nothing.

J.R. I use the oximeter many times per day at my work. If a patient drops below 80% it is a MET call. Even in 90yo with chronic illnesses I often get readings of 95+%.It is generally only COAD patients who drop below 85% (when not on O2)or those with more critical illnesses.

Unfortunately carrot juice won't usually fix those people.

mopak wrote:

J.R. I use the oximeter many times per day at my work. If a patient drops below 80% it is a MET call. Even in 90yo with chronic illnesses I often get readings of 95+%.It is generally only COAD patients who drop below 85% (when not on O2)or those with more critical illnesses.

Unfortunately carrot juice won't usually fix those people.

I'm pretty sure my Dad never got above 80 the last 6 months to a year and he was in very poor condition, with his readings going below 50 percent and I think even down to 30 percent. Maybe he got up to 70 percent AS I SAID BEFORE but I'm sure he didn't get up to 80. As to the dental office, they wanted the reading to stay above 80 as I posted before. There were all condition of people who went there, so it is not surprising to me that many would have lower readings. I am calling BS that everyone would have a reading above 80 - however it does not surprise me that YOU MISSED THE POINT of my message.

The main thing is as I pointed out before, his high reading (around 70) was NOT A CONDITION OF HEALTH or fitness and did NOTHING to support his health or conditioning. Only by improving his health would his health improve, only by improving his conditioning would his condition improve, NOT by giving him one $1300 shot with a needle. Anyone who does not understand this, especially medically trained people, are not helping people at all but are harming them, by promoting a FALSE HEALTH that makes people get sicker while their conditioning deteriorates and they die.

The shot has the purpose of padding the pockets of the medical people, which is THEIR MOTIVATION for keeping people sick and in that bad condition. In fact they do not like it when you help someone to get healthy, in better condition and away from them. I have seen this MANY many times. The ones who stay with them keep getting worse and die, and the ones who get away from them can improve and get healthy again, but NOT by doing what they say to do.

Also you have no conception of vegetable juices, not carrot juices, and what they can do so I am not going to discuss that topic with you. It is proven to my satisfaction and this is what counts. What would you do with the information if you were to comprehend what it does? Nothing, because you are not in that position.

There are also athletes (landiS, contadoR) who won and were caught. It could also be that Ramzi with better training+epo would have run 3.27 (3.30 with better training only).

J.R. I have no agenda to bullshit you but this is a simple fact, google oximeter readings if you doubt me. Anything under 90% is a cause for concern normally. Under 80% is of great concern. I am not a doctor but do work in the health care industry. I did non emergency patient transport for many years. If we attended a client with an oximeter reading below 90% we were not to transport them unless it rose above that mark with O2 therapy. The protocol was that anyone under that was to be transported by paramedics.

I have great confidence in the healing powers of natural medicines and good nutrition. Unfortunately they are not always a match for some illnesses.

As to the point of your message, well it seems you have some level of anger with the world of modern medicine,was that your point?

You did however suggest that EPO dramatically improved your fathers oxygen saturation for a short period, was that your point?