VIOLAH JEPCHUMBA, a 65-minute half-marathoner and Ken-born athlete. busted for EPO.

The pre 1990 "5 continents" average was 13:05.4

16 athletes improved on the pre 1990 top 5 average (not saying they're all dopers).

Subway Surfers wrote:

16 athletes improved on the pre 1990 top 5 average (not saying they're all dopers).

Right. Those numbers don't help a lot without knowing who doped and who didn't.

In any case, during the first era, blood transfusions were undetectable (and at first, legal), in the second, EPO.

OOC testing started in the late 80s, curbing the steroid abuse more in the 90s than in the 80s. We all remember the blatant and successful steroid abuse of Ben all the way from 81 to 88 until he finally got caught.

So, as pointed out by many numerous times, when it comes to this 5-continent discussion:

"We" are comparing potentially clean and potentially blood-doping and all-out roid doping athletes with potentially clean and potentially all-out EPO doping athletes. Then we see that the second group improved a bit. Not a lot of evidence either way, especially for those of us who (pretend to) believe in a clean sport.

Yes -- if you change the criteria and lower the reference, the numbers will get bigger.

Subway Surfers wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I counted 8, and the best doped non-African was more than 2% slower.

Ah but if we use the top 5 average for non African/"5 continents" then the average is more like 13:06 for pre 1990 (with Aouita, Maree and Rono removed). And I think you will find more than 8 have improved on this.

They worked out just fine for me. Yes it was.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Talking about counting, how'd those North African stats work out for you?

Isn't it like 2AM where you live?

Judging by your replies, I don't think you understood the initial point.

Rekrunner is a liar wrote:

i think you have finally talked yourself in a circle, because this is just nonsensical here.

I understood the initial post just fine. Your answer was complete nonsense.

rekrunner wrote:

Judging by your replies, I don't think you understood the initial point.

Rekrunner is a liar wrote:

i think you have finally talked yourself in a circle, because this is just nonsensical here.

Oh please...they're not "conclusions" - but suggestions. Do you know the difference? There could be individual variability with dosing and different metabolic changes could occur within the scope of an individual's physiology.

The other thing is that your characterization of the ridiculous "low vs high resopnder" concept is termed quite a bit over at "The Clinic" forum, and I don't see you throwing a fret with any of those posters (e.g., Riis, Armstrong was a high-responder, Hamilton was a low responder, and so on and so forth).

You're right...my pre-existing beliefs based on the observation of the sudden improvement of times with confirmed dopers was higher than the ~1% of the researchers you referenced. In fact, it was just a few months ago that I stumbled on the Malm et al study seeing his professional opinion of 3% which matched up with many, but not all, of the doping cases I looked at.

I really don't know what the big deal is with this. Chad (mindweak) has said rEPO "can give a runner a ~4% gain in performance" based on his analysis. I recall casual saying, in his opinion, 2% - 4% performance gain. I'm basically in those camps. It's just an opinion, nothing more...nothing less (don't take it personal - agree to disagree. ?).

Too funny...why would I be concern for your respect or anyone else's on an aggressive, hard-hitting anonymous forum of this nature. Look at the exchanges with Chad & Canova ("Alex Hutchinson calls out CANOVA over study confirming EPO works on Kenyan runners" thread). He's getting no respect and is being attacked from all ends, and he even has a background in exercise physio and ran collegiately. So, he might just know a thing or two about this subject.

And just recently therecwere vicious exchanges going on for weeks between Coevett & ex-runner, who supposedly was an elite runner, over the issue of Kenyan doping. No respect there - just two major differences of opinions colliding (imagine that).

So, you can sit on your high horse with your pretentious, imperious attitude just because you can read studies and you have an obsession with 02-vector doping, but you have no background in the field - yet you feel compelled to dictate what studies I can reference and quote from. Too funny. ?

Delusions of grandeur to you.

Lets Tell It Like It Is wrote:

I really don't know what the big deal is with this...

I don't understand either, because sometimes people (Sgro, Malm etc) do make estimates and sometimes people quote them. It is nothing but reasonable to look into the material and others factors (motivations, how well thought the estimate appears to have been) affecting the basis of the estimates and on whether there is some tendency from anyone to prefer certain estimate over others (Malm vs. Eichner/Ashenden).

And this is exactly what I have done. My review of the source material is available for anyone to see for themselves, and sensible people can and will find the 3 % estimate still accurate. Sensible people can also find your prerence of Malm et al estimate over that of Ashenden or Eichner sensible despite the fact that the latter two have researched the subject from the 1980's (Eichner) and 1990's (Ashenden) whereas the Malm and his coauthors are relatively newcomers.

Think it this way. If someone quotes estimate by - say Michele Ferrari - about rHuEPO being ineffective, you would put the basis of the estimate under scrutiny as well asthe one quoting him, even more if he self admittedly likes his estimate because it fits his preexisting beliefs. That is what people do instead of blindly believing in any opinion.

I actually do believe in the context of high vs. low responder, but questioned whether speculation about someone being either one from some 1 percent deviation originating from the shaky y-o-y material, where there are notable variations even in presumably clean athletes.

Just to clarify, by "deviation" I meant a deviation from the expected performance enhancement, say 2 % or 4 % vs. 3 %.

1% estimate from these researchers? -- now that is interesting.

Aragon wrote:

... Mike Ashenden or E. Randy Eichner unquotable with their ~1 %...

A one looks almost like a straw to a drowning man.

Sorry, but your first response (that doped non-Africans and Africans would both run faster) failed to contradict me. I was told by "no mystery" that East Africans had more talent, and doped more, than non-Africans, in the 1990s. Let's test your understanding: what is the difference, in terms of talent and doping, between Baumann's 12:54.70 in 1997, and Geb and Komen's 12:39s in 1997 and 1998?

Rekrunner is a liar wrote:

I understood the initial post just fine.

Your answer was complete nonsense.

rekrunner wrote:

Judging by your replies, I don't think you understood the initial point.

1% improvement for a 14 flat runner would be 8.4 seconds. For a 13 flat runner, e.g. the best pre-EPO, it would be 7.8 seconds.

2% improvement for a 13 flat runner would be 15.6 seconds, or a time of 12:44.4.

3% improvement would be 23.4 seconds. 13m-23.4s=12:37.6

2-3% improvement is likely. Bekele could be a low 12:50s talent with EPO getting him 2% to 12:37.

And then the same improvement gets high 12:50s or low 13 talent to 12:40s.

zxcvzxcv wrote:

1% improvement for a 14 flat runner would be 8.4 seconds. For a 13 flat runner, e.g. the best pre-EPO, it would be 7.8 seconds.

2% improvement for a 13 flat runner would be 15.6 seconds, or a time of 12:44.4.

3% improvement would be 23.4 seconds. 13m-23.4s=12:37.6

2-3% improvement is likely. Bekele could be a low 12:50s talent with EPO getting him 2% to 12:37.

And then the same improvement gets high 12:50s or low 13 talent to 12:40s.

doing actually thought process...i like it! interesting that my last couple comments were deleted, what was so offensive about them i wonder?

An extended stay at high altitude predictably affects blood in only one direction. An intense effort lasting more than 6 minutes, affects blood in only one direction, until at least 2 hours after the effort. Hasty responders reproducibly bias survey results in one predictable direction -- something requiring correction. With only one measurement, containing a significant error, the difference between the measured value and the "true" value will have only one sign. First you called the IAAF response PR, and now propaganda. Dick Pound, the one you are so close to, was part of a 3 person commission that called the IAAF rebuttal scientifically sound. Can you give me some more examples of your generally moderate stance?

casual obsever wrote:

Uncertainties go two ways, as you can recognize by the +/- symbol.

Otherwise it would be a systematic error. That would have a reproducible history that not even the IAAF mentioned in its propganda piece.

Sorry, 12:36.6, not 12:37.6.

Weren't we talking about uncertainties, not altitude or dehydration? The effects of altitude are well known... And the IAAF response? Ashenden told your parliament:

rekrunner wrote:

I'll take your word that you are a scientist, but claiming I'm not is again another example of baseless imagination.

What now?

Did you, or I, imagine this:

rekrunner wrote:

it would be up to subject matter experts (e.g. no one posting here) to interpret the likelihood of these "excuses".