Rita Jeptoo tests positive

With all due repsect, your arguments are somewhat like those of a creationist who says "show me a chimpanzee changing into a human and that will give me sufficient evidence to accept the existence of evolution". Members of the Flat Earth Society also put forward similar types of arguments to justify their beliefs.Again, with the current ethical laws in place for science and clinical trials, you will never have an official trial published on the effects of EPO in elite athletes and that is what you are asking for (i.e. the impossible). If professional cycling teams released their training files then you would clearly see the performance increases from EPO but then the argument would be made that cycling is different to distance running.And again you continue to completely ignore the fact no one else in Lombard's coaching group made the same dramatic breakthrough that he did, despite following similar training/coaching philosophies of the coach (i.e. more quality, plyos etc...). People like Eddy Hellebuyck have talked extensively about how EPO affected them, especially in how they could train more intensively and still recover.You classify Boulami, Mourhit, Ramzi as outliers but you should also look at all the other Moroccan distance runners who have tested positive for EPO and see how their careers have evolved if you want to have more evidence.You ask for East-African examples and you are unaware of the career of Abraham Kiprotich who for years was a ~14 min type runner and who made a dramatic breakthrough in his late 20s to run 2hrs 8 mins for the marathon. Shortly after this he tested positive for EPO.

But according to this Runner's World article from last year, some EPO study has been done on elite Kenyan runners:

http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/study-kenyans-get-performance-boost-from-epo

I'm not sure if the paper has actually been published yet, at least I cannot find it.

However, there is also some evidence that despite living at high altitude, Kenyan runners do not have higher Hb or Hct than other runners.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19952848

Therefore it is justifiable to assume that Kenyans get the same boost as other people when their Hb/Hct is artificially increased.

HardLoper wrote:

"Often those who don't know statistics feel compelled to explain what are otherwise natural low & high fluctuations in data." -Neil deGrasse Tyson

Care to explain how you determine a variation is normal? (And apply it to the relevant data, of course.)

J.R. wrote:

Agent Federico Rosa told The Associated Press that Jeptoo tested positive in an out-of-competition test in Kenya in September. Athletics Kenya said later Friday that the test was on Sept. 25 - just over two weeks before the Chicago race - and that the athlete's "A" sample "indicated the presence of prohibited substances."

Athletics Kenya said its medical and anti-doping commission would meet with Jeptoo early next week to determine whether she wants to have her backup "B" sample tested.

However, Rosa told the AP that the backup test was not required.

What a strange attitude from Rosa! How is Rosa sure that Jeptoo was on drugs, unless he had something to do with it!

Did Rosa really say that or was it "lost in translation" ? Got a link ?

I agree with you that these measurements might never be done, for many good reasons. But it is in this light, we must put statements like "EPO gives 4 minute advantage for marathons at the top", or "sub 2:06 marathon (or sub 3:30 1500) is not possible clean" into proper perspective.For mentally weak athletes, EPO's alleged effectiveness could be purely psychological, because the decision to buy into a myth removes a psychological barrier, not a physical one. In such a case, the same result could be achieved by a different coach that is able remove the psychological barrier.You might rightly claim this is also a hypothesis without evidence, but one equally supported by the existing evidence.Here's something that could be done: Repeat the WADA study, but first train the 11:00 subjects to run 9:00 minutes, then give them EPO. Can we still expect a 30 second improvement?Cycling is problematic for several reasons, besides the obvious "3 week grand tours" are not the same as a single running event.If I were to magically look at all the cycling data, I might find that they also took testosterone, HGH, cortisone, steroids, and blood transfusions.Attributing cycling's success to just EPO requires the assumption that the rest of these cocktails are ineffective. And it requires repeatable time measurements, something that is scarce in grand tours.Let's make a different analogy. Suppose we looked at the effectiveness of a diet. We might find:1) 300 pound subjects lost 150 pounds2) 200 pound subjects lost 50 poundsand conclude that this diet has been clinically proven to make you lose 25-50% of your weight.What can we predict for the 153 pound subject who goes on the diet? Does it make sense to extrapolate from known data?

Nope -- not elite athletes.

What about this wrote:

But according to this Runner's World article from last year, some EPO study has been done on elite Kenyan runners:

http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/study-kenyans-get-performance-boost-from-epo

I'm not sure if the paper has actually been published yet, at least I cannot find it.

However, there is also some evidence that despite living at high altitude, Kenyan runners do not have higher Hb or Hct than other runners.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19952848

Therefore it is justifiable to assume that Kenyans get the same boost as other people when their Hb/Hct is artificially increased.

[quote]rekrunner wrote:

For mentally weak athletes, EPO's alleged effectiveness could be purely psychological, because the decision to buy into a myth removes a psychological barrier, not a physical one. In such a case, the same result could be achieved by a different coach that is able remove the psychological barrier.

You might rightly claim this is also a hypothesis without evidence, but one equally supported by the existing evidence.

[quote]

So, I take it that you believe it is possible that Cathal Lombard trained hard (100 mpw altitude stays in Kenya etc ..) for several years and then in his late 20s in the space of 18 months he improved his 10k ability from ~29-30 to 30 mins to 27-30 mins largely because he had a psychological barrier to running so fast and EPO only removed this psychological barrier and had no noticeable physiological effects on his ability to run fast. You must also believe it is possible that the sudden improvements of Abraham Kiprotich and Hassan Hirt (high 13s/14 mins to 13-10 age 31/32) were largely because of the psychological barriers that taking EPO removed.

To hold this position, the onus is upon you to present the "existing evidence" that has led you to believe that simply removing psychological barriers can result in such performance improvements after almost 10 years of hard training.

Interestingly, Lance Armstrong for 10 years claimed that he no longer had the same "psychological barriers" as his competitors because he had survived cancer. He claimed that the press were cynical and did not "believe in dreams". We now know the truth behind these stories to the press.

rekrunner wrote:

If I were to magically look at all the cycling data, I might find that they also took testosterone, HGH, cortisone, steroids, and blood transfusions.

Attributing cycling's success to just EPO requires the assumption that the rest of these cocktails are ineffective. And it requires repeatable time measurements, something that is scarce in grand tours.

You would only have to look at the changes in cycling performance training and competitions from the late 1980s to the early 1990s when EPO was introduced to the peleton.

'If the study is repeatable, the next step is to repeat the results with elite subjects'

People will cheat if they think something improves performance regardless of wether is actually improves them

Federico Rosa, and those like him, are the problem. Get rid of these guys and you will be one step closer to a cleaner sport.

His daddy was dirty, and so is he.

The 5000m WR as it stood in 1990-94 often wouldn't get you 5th in Zurich by 1996 (Kennedy was 5th in 12:58.21). The tide was deep and unprecedented, just as in cycling.

The very best at the top were those not with just access to the drugs, but to the systemic coaching/medical support and protection of their federations, just like the Jamaican sprinters in the late 2000's.

Uppity wrote:

it often seems like you scorn all of science in general.

Big pharma is not science.

Ignoring the absurdity of concept that drugs don't do anything to people yet big pharma can somehow make bad "drugs" that kill people...

If drugs didn't do anything, then they wouldn't kill people.

You see, the more people who take drugs, the more people who die, the more drugs help people. It's the new way of thinking.

you must believe there are a TON of really, really fvcking evil people in the world if they are making these diseases and unleashing them on the world.

Yes, that is correct.

Of course there are different levels of corruption, and most people just close their eyes and minds to it.

J.R. is the other extreme from T-Rexing. One says raw veganism is the perfect diet, and all drugs, vaccines, etc., are fake quackery. The other says Kenyans are genetically superior to the rest of the world and that's all there is to it, Food Pyramid/MyPlate is the pinnacle of nutrition, and anyone who questions the medical establishment is crazy.

J.R. wrote:

Uppity wrote:

it often seems like you scorn all of science in general.

Big pharma is not science.

Ignoring the absurdity of concept that drugs don't do anything to people yet big pharma can somehow make bad "drugs" that kill people...

If drugs didn't do anything, then they wouldn't kill people.

You see, the more people who take drugs, the more people who die, the more drugs help people. It's the new way of thinking.

you must believe there are a TON of really, really fvcking evil people in the world if they are making these diseases and unleashing them on the world.

Yes, that is correct.

Of course there are different levels of corruption, and most people just close their eyes and minds to it.

These drugs have an effect, you admit. Why then is it not possible that some of these drugs could impact ones running?

You say big pharma is not science, but then go on to say insulin is not necessary. Something that has no connection to big pharma and is easily tested in any lab. Cells not given insulin die, unable to transport sugar in.

Thats pure science in its simplest form, and anyone that desired can readily test this hypothesis.

Can't we all just agree to ignore the troll J.R.? If you look at the last 10 pages or so of this thread, it has been derailed by his trolling posts that people fall for hook, line and sinker. If we all ignore him, he will go away.

J.R. wrote:

Big pharma is not science.

You're dodging. No one brought up "big pharma" except you.

kenyans and ethios have been competing internationally for decades ... since the 60s. It was not until the 90s, when epo was introduced, that they started their depth and breaking records by huge margins.

Why were they not running 2.05 marathons in 70s, 80s? I assume schools were all still 6 miles from any home back then?

Kenyans were running 2.08s in the 90s, two decades later...a whole lot of them are sub 2.05 runners and not mention a ton of sub 60 half runners. Sub 60 in the 90s was a special achievement.

the way the kenyan marathon groups use secretive training camps (mutai), it reminds me of Ma's army. They would hide out in China somewhere, race sparingly, and destroy records. Only to disappear again. The 2.03 kenyan marathoners do the same damn thing. Marathon training lends itself well to cheating. No one went to China tomdo regular testing for Ma's army...no one is going to Kenya to test either. Me thinks Kenyan Athletics Fedration is on it.

Well known in the circuit of pro running that the younger Kenyans are juicing. not the older ones who paved the road, but the older ones are. Fact.

cheatersunite wrote:

Why were they not running 2.05 marathons in 70s, 80s?

Because there was no money in it.