jemima sumgong went from being a 2.29 marathon runner ,to 2.20.are these improvements normal for an EPO user?

Okay...if you say that a 28:27ish runner is sub-elite, then I guess we better adhere to this conclusion and never dare question it.

Well then, since you didn't like Prommer et al.'s study with "elites," who don't fit your criteria, here's one that's an eye-opener with Kenyan runners as part of a test group with elite track cyclists:

Ashenden et al. reports that the six (6) Kenyan "elite" runners used as the test group "collectively won three Olympic medals, five World Championship medals and numerous World Records."

The Kenyans lived & trained at 2100m and had blood samples taken at 7 & 14 days after arriving at sea level to compete in races. Their average 15.8 Hgb # dropped to ~14.1 & ~ 14.2, respectively. A corresponding drop with reticulocytes & EPO concentration was observed over the same time period. That's a *1.7* pt drop in Hgb (~11%) over a 7 day period after descending to sea level.

It may not be 2 days, but it's very close, and certainly a far cry from 2 -3 months that you had stated.

"Idiotic works" with the Prommer et al. study...how do ya figure? 🤔. The abstract was only posted and it wasn't from "some specific magazine" (whatever the heck that means?). The study is a multi-authored, peer-reviewed paper published in a reputable journal...I think it's worthy of discussion without being deemed "idiotic works."

Newsweek and National Geographic are examples of magazines:

http://www.newsweek.com/

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/

American Journal of Physiology is a journal:

http://www.physiology.org/

Got the difference?

Aragon wrote:

In the case of the altitude adaptation study you referred to, just the following sentence raises so many red flags to render the study basically meaningless from point-of-view of how elite Kenyans react to altitude training:

"In this study, hematocrit was analyzed in three persons that arrived to sea level or to a fixed altitude, where they remained sedentary and in comfortable living conditions."

Okay...I agree it's not the best study on how elite Kenyans react to adaptation at sea level. However, if you're so on top of this issue I'm surprised you didn’t save me the work by posting the Ashenden et al. study ("Effect of altitude on second-generation blood tests to detect erythropoietin abuse by athletes"), involving "real" Kenyan elites, the one's suitable to Mr. Canova's liking.

All my posts have logic. Many posts have evidence. Some posts express my opinion.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

"He's picking on me."

Tell you what, I'll make you a deal. Stop making posts that are lacking in any evidence or logic and I'll stop pointing out that your posts are lacking in evidence and logic. Deal?

In ABP cases, the verdict doesn't come from the Off-Score -- this is just one flag that can trigger a closer look by experts. The ABP software comes up with a probability score for the whole ABP sequence. Even then, the experts look for other patterns, like cross-checking with competition schedules, and at some point, consider the defense of the athlete.The difference between Radcliffe and Sharmina's use of similar explanations with different conclusions:1) Were the samples collected before, or after, 2 hours post-race? After 2-hours, the "hemo-concentration" explanation is rejected.2) Were the samples collected before or after 2009? In 2007, and 2009, the IAAF made important changes to the rules to prevent the process from creating false positives. After 2009, the "improper process" explanations are rejected.

Passport era wrote:

You got that right; Shobukhova's Off-score was an astronomical 153. So high, in fact, that one of the anti-doping experts reviewing her case stated that her values were deemed high enough to be declared a "medical emergency." 😮.

However, an the other end of the spectrum, Radcliffe's highest Off-score (114) was higher than Ekaterina Sharmina's highest Off-score of 111.10, as part of her passport data during her CAS/IAAF hearing (CAS hearing/page 3).

Interestingly, CAS rejected Sharmina's defense of altitude training, dehydration, illness, improper collecting of samples and so...wasn't that some of the explanations that Radcliffe used?

Maybe, for shorter distances, up to 5K. But then steroids also helps shorter distances, and also recovery, so is an important factor to eliminate.

Passport era wrote:

So, to clarify your position; you believe EPO is marginally effective, if at all, with properly trained M/F marathoners as opposed to the VO2max dependent distances?

The term "random distribution" isn't the universally specific term as you think.Notwithstanding the OECD definition used by economists, "random distribution", the way I used it, is a correct term according to both English and Math sources:Oxford dictionary: "(Statistics) a probability distribution, especially the Poisson distribution."Wolfram Alpha: "A statistical distribution in which the variates occur with probabilities asymptotically matching their "true" underlying statistical distribution is said to be random."I can blame you now because I already gave you these two sources.I'm not using the extreme outlier to "prove" that EPO doesn't work, but arguing that if EPO worked a lot, for elite women marathoners, up to 9 minutes, it doesn't seem likely that EPO could both be the cause of Paula's "outlier" performance, while EPO failed to bring anyone else in history closer than 3 minutes. Even more so, since Paula's performance cannot be linked to EPO, according to your "evidence based" standards.The appeal to statistics is not to offer a "proof" from the end of the tail, but to highlight that a 3-minute gap, alleged to be from a common drug universally and powerfully effective, should be something viewed as extremely improbable.As you point out, we don't see anything like this in any other sport or event, for EPO or any drug. Compared to the men, and these 3 minutes would include 70 athletes.I would have no problem providing credible non-doping sources explaining why Paula is an outlier in the women's marathon, while we don't see other outliers in other events. It doesn't come from a factor like EPO -- common to all distance events, but from factors unique to women's marathon, Paula and Paula's individual performances.

rekrunner wrote:

All my posts have logic. Many posts have evidence. Some posts express my opinion.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

"He's picking on me."

Tell you what, I'll make you a deal. Stop making posts that are lacking in any evidence or logic and I'll stop pointing out that your posts are lacking in evidence and logic. Deal?

rekrunner wrote:

All my posts have logic.

"ALL?"

rekrunner wrote:

Many posts have evidence.

Evidence of what? That PEDs don't produce the results you're looking for. It's not all "one size fits all" in the doping cartel. There's individual variations of the type & dosage of PED...or combination of PEDs being used. And things are simply out of control with the women...haven't you been paying attention to current events? Doping postives & BP sanctions galore! Abeylegess, Alptekin, Bulut, Savinova and now Sumgong (and this is just the recent stuff!). Just coincidence that all happen to be "medal winners" at either the Olympics or WC's?

rekrunner wrote:

Some posts express my opinion.

Definitely!

rekrunner wrote:

In ABP cases, the verdict doesn't come from the Off-Score -- this is just one flag that can trigger a closer look by experts. The ABP software comes up with a probability score for the whole ABP sequence. Even then, the experts look for other patterns, like cross-checking with competition schedules, and at some point, consider the defense of the athlete.

.

I believe it can come from one or more Off-score's of >133, which both the UCI & IAAF use as "conclusive" evidence of blood-manipulation. Over that number and it's an ABP sanction...no exceptions. Under that number, then the factors you bring up come into play with patterns, fluctuations, etc., within the baeline parameters, and the explanation by the athlete.

Ugarova's ABP sanction case had only five samples over 10 months to analyze, with one extreme Off-score of 141.00 (16.5 Hb/0.16 RET%). Her defenses were rejected and the 141 score alone is clearly conclusive evidence of blood-manipulation (the ~8% boost in Hb from baseline and the ridiculously low retics is what set that Off-score so high).

if you take all the drugs out of the equation,and 28.27 would be elite,not sub elite.and of course it would be much easier for an athlete to qualify for the olympics,across all events.the qualifying standards would be much lower.

Renato Canova wrote:

For your information, an athlete running 10000m in 28'27" at the moment is number 1720 in the all-time list, so it's difficult to consider him "elite", with any system we want to use.

This is where I always really struggle with this argument. I am just not sure what is different physiologically in a 28'27" runner than from a 26'40" runner. I mean something specific and measurable that would change how and why one runner would react to EPO and the other one wouldn't.

I'm not saying there aren't differences as clearly something leads the one runner to be nearly 2 minutes faster. I'm just not sure if that is something biomechanical, biochemical, or something else?

Your arguments are so weird. You posted earlier that if EPO worked somebody should be withing 2:55 of Paula's record. I am not sure why you think EPO means that somebody should run within X time of Y record, but that was your contention. I wonder if EPO works a little more now that Keitany closed that gap?

Renato Canova wrote:

800m : 1'43"22 - 1'43"82

1500m : 3'30"83 - 3'31"96

5000m : 12'55"52 - 13'00"60

10000m : 26'58"38 - 27'13"94

3000m SC : 8'08"14 - 8'12"04

HM : 59'22" - 59'43"

Marathon : 2:05:30 - 2:06:22

.

If you take out the Monaco track performances for most elite top track distance runners your list becomes troublesome. Centro would just make it 3:31.96, Willis would not (I think). Ramzi wouldn't qualify over 800m, nor would Ovett, Snell (grass), Ryun and Walker or Bayi or Kipkurgat. Sub-1:45 is elite to me. Sub 3:33 is elite as well.

Only 3 (??) ran sub 13 mins last year, the quickest being Mo 12:59.

Sub 61 for the HM is elite.

I might be alone on this but sub 2:10, I consider elite.

I ould have thought that you would have fast times for the 3000m SC?

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Renato Canova wrote:

800m : 1'43"22 - 1'43"82

1500m : 3'30"83 - 3'31"96

5000m : 12'55"52 - 13'00"60

10000m : 26'58"38 - 27'13"94

3000m SC : 8'08"14 - 8'12"04

HM : 59'22" - 59'43"

Marathon : 2:05:30 - 2:06:22

.

If you take out the Monaco track performances for most elite top track distance runners your list becomes troublesome. Centro would just make it 3:31.96, Willis would not (I think). Ramzi wouldn't qualify over 800m, nor would Ovett, Snell (grass), Ryun and Walker or Bayi or Kipkurgat. Sub-1:45 is elite to me. Sub 3:33 is elite as well.

Only 3 (??) ran sub 13 mins last year, the quickest being Mo 12:59.

Sub 61 for the HM is elite.

I might be alone on this but sub 2:10, I consider elite.

I would have thought that you would have faster times for the 3000m SC?

VO2maximum wrote:

Okay...I agree it's not the best study on how elite Kenyans react to adaptation at sea level. However, if you're so on top of this issue I'm surprised you didn’t save me the work by posting the Ashenden et al. study ("Effect of altitude on second-generation blood tests to detect erythropoietin abuse by athletes"), involving "real" Kenyan elites, the one's suitable to Mr. Canova's liking.

I didn't refer to the study for the obvious reason that I wasn't aware of its existence and even had I been, with only fragmentary knowledge on this specific issue, it would've been difficult to put it into the continuum of altitude adaptation research or contrast it with the huge body of literature on the subject.

What I did know was that there is evidence for large interindividual variation in altitude adaptations as described in the editorial (I referred it erroneously as "letter") authored by Benjamin D. Levine, and whose ideas were developed "in collaboration with and endorsed by 76 scientists" among them Michael J. Joyner, Harm Kuipers, Carsten Lundby, Heikki Rusko, Tim Noakes and Jim Stray-Gundersen, just to name a few and without knowing into which portions they had specifically provided any input nor whether how much they stood behind that particular allegation.

What I find striking is how similar this issue is on the question on how long the beneficial effect/evelated total hemoglobin associated with rEPO/blood infusions lasts. Whereas most of the studies talk at most a few weeks until values have returned to normal, in one Canadian notable blood reinfusion study published in 1980, it took a full 16 weeks before hemoglobin concentrations of the subjects had returned to normal levels after been elevated by some 10 % via reinfusion of 900 ml of blood equivalent of RBCs. I have a recollection that the Hb elevation at rest was from 15.1 g/ to 16.5 g/l, an elevation not sounding astronomically high to reach through long adaptation process + correct exercise regimen.

I'll acknowledge that that was a cherrypicked piece of evidence from my part just to illustrate the nature of problem. In the sense that it wasn't about altitude adaptation at all, it was in some ways inferior to the study you referred to.

Perhaps when/if Mr. Canova opens his files for researchers, he or an academic researcher can shed up some light on the issue and back up his claims.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

why one runner would react to EPO and the other one wouldn't.

I don't think this is a well-researched question, but it's a good one.

Based on what has been written over the years about many different cyclists who took EPO, there is a combination of factors that seem to turn some "donkeys into racehorses" and other donkeys into somewhat faster donkeys with enormous advances in time to exhaustion.

Once upon a time, there was an interview with the infamous doper Angel "memo" Heredia who basically said getting sensational results on a doping program was about discovering the right combination of numerous PEDs to increase performance on a per-athlete basis. The combinations of PEDs and what the athlete is missing to improve to world-beating performance is almost infinite.

So, give a dozen international elites EPO and you'll see a variety of improvements.

Yes, yes -- weird, tortured, no logic, etc., I get it.If you go back to page 4, we find quotes like:"Can you imagine we are having this long conversation over a 2h20m potential EPO user and some people still believe Paula Radcliffe at 2h15m (done in London, she will be protected for a life time) is clean... haha""It's that story that YET ANOTHER massive talent, with massive training improvements, and EPO, still managed to 'hit a wall' minutes behind Paula's 2:15. Hmmm...."What I find "weird" is the idea that "doping" necessarily enabled Paula's times, while everyone else "hit a wall" minutes behind. That pattern is unprecedented, and has never been repeated in any other event or sport.If EPO was a primary direct cause of Paula's superior performance, then I think my post that "if EPO worked somebody should be within 2:55 of Paula's record" is not as weird as you pretend.If Keitany and Dibaba (and for that matter, Paula) are shown to have taken EPO, and it can be shown that EPO was necessary for them to produce sub-2:18s, that would help make the case for EPO working at the top stronger.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Your arguments are so weird. You posted earlier that if EPO worked somebody should be withing 2:55 of Paula's record. I am not sure why you think EPO means that somebody should run within X time of Y record, but that was your contention. I wonder if EPO works a little more now that Keitany closed that gap?

Whanint we know:

fastest PRs of female marathoners

1 2:15:25 Paula Radcliffe

2 2:17:01 Mary Keitany

3 2:17:56 Tirunesh Dibaba

4 2:18:47 Catherine N'dereba

5 2:18:57 Rita Jeptoo

6 2:18:58 Tiki Gelana

...another 19 women or so...

25? 2:20:41 Jemima Sumgong Jelagat

We know Rita Jeptoo and Jemima Sumgong were using EPO. Rita was busted right after running that time, Sumgong somewhat later but I tend not to give cheaters the benefit of the doubt so I'm would assume she was using PEDs when she ran her PR in 2014. We also know that Paula had some leaked off scores which some have claimed nearly proves she was using EPO or blood doping while others have claimed they can't be interpreted without full context.

Do we know anything else about what these ladies were doing?