Did Sebastian Coe blood dope?

You can only peak using blood doping not perform for months on end. Otherwise why would anyone use EPO. That's why Viren was suspected.

Blood doping would also be less effective over 800m than 1500m but Coe was fastest over the shorter distance. Compare Coe 400m speed to El G or Mo then their times over a mile.

Builder wrote:

Steroids have minimal effect on 800m runners and practically no benefit for 1500m.

I don't agree with that at all, take a look on Kratochvílová - stronger built than Ben Johnson - maybe from blood transfusions?

Steroids helps you with recovery and you can practice all day long and you will be much better athlete - in any sport.

Name Mark McGwire rings a bell maybe, if you are American?

Why he needs it?

What ?

Krafochvilova was a 400m runner who had become so huge on testosterone that she was able to run the 800 m as well on pure strength.

Women benefit much more from steroids than men in all events, because it is male hormone.

Building extra bulk and muscle is no benefit for middle distance guys.

All of the studies and all of the evidence, anecdotand otherwise, indicates that EPO works for everybody. It is up to you, if you find the evidence to be insufficient, to conduct your own long term study involving 600 weeks of training prior to any intervention.

Nandrolone, from my limited information, is best for thigh bulk/strength. Many years ago it was believed that it was an excellent masking agent, but I am not so sure about this.

rekrunner wrote:

3) Given the chance of success in getting the training of the marathon right, and getting in the right race with the right conditions and competition and tactics, 9 minutes of improvement, even after 8 marathons in 7 years, does not raise a red flag requiring a PED-only explanation. Nor are PEDs a particularly good explanation for a 9 minute improvement in the marathon, unless it removed a psychological block that permitted a better specific training and performance.

Builder wrote:

Rekrunner, you must live in Colorado.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

All of the studies and all of the evidence, anecdot and otherwise, indicates that EPO works for everybody...

It always depends on the definition of the verb "works", because - as far as I know - there has been exactly one rEPO-research with a time trial setup.

But do enjoy applying the "all studies show"- sentence as long as you can, because the sentence is gone for good if and when the Dutch Mt. Ventoux study is published. Regardless of the possible flaws and limitations, then there exists two rEPO experiments with a time trial setup, of which the positive one (Durussel) had no control group and the one with dismal results (Heuberger, Cohen et all) did have a placebo group.

Aragon beat me to a couple of the points, quite briefly, but I lack this gift of brevity, feeling compelled to exhaustively list all the flaws I find:- "EPO works" is so broad and vague and can mean anything to everyone, so as to be rendered meaningless.- If "EPO works" significantly for "everybody", even high altitude dwelling natives, we should see the universal effectiveness reflected broadly across the real world results of "everybody" -- at least in the 90's before EPO testing, and before WADA. Instead, we see narrow ethnic populations massively outperforming the rest of the world, whose progression seems nothing out of the ordinary.- In this instance, I was explicitly solicited to give my thoughts about EPO's potential role in a 9-minute improvement for a 2:30 runner.- No study, evidence, or anecdote indicates EPO can cause a 9-minute improvement for a 2:30 marathon runner.- My "600 weeks" training preparation is one proposed solution to emphasize what is lacking in all existing studies. Subjects should be selected where their endurance development is known to be mature. We could better conclude "EPO works" for everybody, by eliminating training as an uncontrolled source of improvements.- You need it too, before claiming "(indications are) EPO works for everybody" with any degree of certainty.- Do all EPO studies indicate "EPO works" for everybody?- An upcoming Dutch study indicates EPO didn't work for amateur cyclists, compared to a placebo group. Early pre-published findings:"On average, riders on EPO were 38 seconds slower than the control group"- Did the EPO riders offer anecdotes that they felt invincible, like they were on rocket fuel?"the EPO users hardly felt like they were running on rocket fuel; 62% guessed they were on a placebo."- There is another 2012 study -- conducting a literature review of EPO studies, and finding that they cannot be conclusively connected to elite cyclist performance -- despite what we think we know about EPO, this study does not indicate that all studies indicate "EPO works" for everybody.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

All of the studies and all of the evidence, anecdotand otherwise, indicates that EPO works for everybody. It is up to you, if you find the evidence to be insufficient, to conduct your own long term study involving 600 weeks of training prior to any intervention.

Aragon wrote:

Regardless of the possible flaws and limitations, then there exists two rEPO experiments with a time trial setup, of which the positive one (Durussel) had no control group and the one with dismal results (Heuberger, Cohen et all) did have a placebo group.

Right. Neither allowed the EPO users to train harder/more, although that is a well-known EPO effect. Also, the alleged better muscle recovery was neither studied nor considered.

No. I considered moving there once. I'm currently in Europe.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

3) Given the chance of success in getting the training of the marathon right, and getting in the right race with the right conditions and competition and tactics, 9 minutes of improvement, even after 8 marathons in 7 years, does not raise a red flag requiring a PED-only explanation. Nor are PEDs a particularly good explanation for a 9 minute improvement in the marathon, unless it removed a psychological block that permitted a better specific training and performance.

Rekrunner, you must live in Colorado.

It is very bad for Kenya and should it be a such a surprise? Neither Kenya nor Ethiopia are currently part of the ABP because of no WADA-accredited labs in the region to conduct the blood tests. Other than not being subjected to target testing based on suspicious hematological and/or steriodal anomalies on their ABPs, these athletes can blood dope with impunity.

You are right...EPO's effectiveness has never been studied in marathon type distances. However, the Thomsen et al. study showed that rHuEpo administration prolongs submaximal exercise performance ~54% independently of the increase in VO2max. The marathon is run at submaximal effort (about 65-78% of VO2max) where I would think time to exhaustion would be a key factor over that distance.

Additionally, the assumption that PEDs can a produce a 9 minute improvement is, in fact, supported by elite anecdotal evidence. Take a look at the biological passport violations for athletics since 09; 11 out of the 48 female violations are for runners whose primary discipline is the marathon (23%). First case is Inga Abitova who ran a 2:33 & 2:34 (London) in 06 & 07, respectively. In 09 she runs 2:25 at London...a 9 minute improvement. Consequently, she was sanctioned in 2012 for an abnormal Hgb profile detected over the 09 time period (also one of her retested samples from Beijing came up positive for Turinabolan).

The second case is Jaili Wang who ran a time of 2:39 in 07 followed-up with new PBs of 2:26 in 2011 & 2:22 in 2012...a 13 minute improvement from 07 - 11! 😨. Her 2:22.41 is fifth fastest Chinese time. She was also sanction for hematological anomalies over that time period. Btw, when she returned to competition in 2015 she ran two marathons that were no where near her pre-ban times (2:33/2015 & 2:41/2016).

rekrunner wrote:

- No study, evidence, or anecdote indicates EPO can cause a 9-minute improvement for a 2:30 marathon runner.

You better start analyzing some of the women marathoners who were sanctioned for hematological anomalies on their ABP 🤔. I just gave you a couple of profound examples with Abitova & Wang...I can't do "all the research" for you 😁.

casual obsever wrote:

Right. Neither allowed the EPO users to train harder/more, although that is a well-known EPO effect. Also, the alleged better muscle recovery was neither studied nor considered.

(emphasis added)

As far as I know, there has been no finished study nor any official preliminary report published thus far, so you are debunking a study that doesn't exist. And you are at least partly wrong, as Science could write some nine months ago that "Cohen’s group is now analyzing mountains of data on EPO. Among other things, they plan to look at its effects on blood clotting and muscle recovery".

The "well-known EPO effect" of allowing one to increase training load is so "well-known" that I haven't managed to locate a vaguest reference to the effect in peer-reviewed articles even in the discussion sections. It has been referred now-and-then in popular books such Tyler Hamilton's The Secret Race where is there is a quote in a footnote saying that "some people respond more than others to the increased training enabled by EPO".

That information is in the same context where blood doping specialist Michael Ashenden provided some information, but it isn't that clear that he is the actual source of that specific allegation.

rekrunner wrote:

1) Someone, maybe her husband, believed Sumgong should take EPO. We don't know when or how much or for how long or for which races. That's bad for her, for Kenya, and for the sport.

2) Or worse, what if the EPO came from a local doctor not aware of Sumgong's restrictions -- showing Sumgong was negligent/incompetent, but not intentionally willing to cheat. This would be extremely stupid on her part, given the "close call" she had with a legal steroid injection for her hip, but still not out of the realm of possibility.

Thanks for a replay,

but this above statement are at least very strange - she IS an Olympic champion and for SURE she is not stupid person, do you really believe that SOME doctor give her EPO just now and that she was clean in Rio?

Is there any evidence that she took for example bottle of water during any of her marathons from some spectator, for sure not, just like cyclists due to possible contamination, she is in multimillion $ business and she and her husband are not stupid, AND THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO POWER TO DECIDE WHEN AND HOW TO DOPING, ITALIANS ARE DOWN THERE FOR THAT TO DECIDE.

Every time the same story - UNNAMED doctor if Kenyans are willing to stop that AND THEY ARE NOT OBVIOUSLY then they should be after that doctor but that is just another BS story just like "Weak Mind athletes". Now it looks like she is also not elite according to Mr. Canova.

Of course that EPO will never be tested on elite since they will be banned afterward for using PEDs, aren't they?

So people will always have excuses that EPO is not working on elite, strong minded etc.

Running in Ethiopia and Kenya is organized crime running by Italians and Dutch. No difference from Russians and they should and must be banned from competitions until their athletes and federation are not in acc. with WADA rules for OOC testing.

Regarding the ABP, despite the logistical difficulties of not having a local lab, Kenya and Ethiopia are still part of the ABP.

Regarding Thomsen et al. they measured peak power, and time-to-exhaustion at 80% measured peak power. The TTE times started at 22 minutes and increased to 33.5 minutes after four weeks. Although 54% at sub-VO2max effort sounds impressive, these efforts are much harder than the marathon lasting 2:30:00. It's a study on cyclists (average pre-test peak power 325 W) in a TTE test. Although the study had a control group, the EPO subjects were not blinded. Would be better to have running time-trials.

Regarding anecdotes -- I'm going to regret that huh. But hey let's look at your examples.

Regarding Abitova, she ran a 2:33:55 in Mumbai in 2006, and 2:25:55 in London in 2009 -- a race they let her keep BTW -- was there yet evidence of an ABP anomaly? The improvement is 8 minutes. Mumbai was a slow race, where she placed second, 40 seconds behind the winner, and London was a fast race, where she took sixth, 3:44 behind the winner. Statistics at arrs.net calculate a net 3:00 due to course conditions between the two races.

Considering she would run 30:31 in a 10K just six months later (equivalent to a 2:22 marathon), maybe 2:33:55 was not representative of her current marathon ability and/or true potential.

But hey it's close -- I said anecdote (my bad), and this is an 8 minute anecdote for a 2:34 runner, who got busted for ABP.

Regarding Jia-li Wang, while a 2:26:12 in 2011 was a PB, she had already run 2:26:34 in Mar. 2008 -- the 13 minute improvement occurred within 6 months from her two debut marathons in Oct. 2007 and Jan. 2008. Who knows, maybe she already doped then, in preparation for the Olympics. She DNF'd the trials in Apr. 2008 -- maybe 4 marathons in 7 months was ambitious. Maybe her third marathon in six months could have been faster if she were fresh. The 2:22:41 in 2012 is less than a 4 minute improvement from 2008.

It's a shame Shobukhova didn't debut at 2:27 -- that would be a good anecdote.

Thanks for the reply --I guess.You asked me for my thoughts -- the "accidental doctor" scenario was one thought, which shows incompetence, but not willingness.I don't think there is any scenario where Sumgong and/or her husband are not stupid, unless the A-Sample is a false positive, not confirmed by the B-Sample.As for the rest -- nice story.

Did Rashid Ramzi consistently compete in the Golden League or did he just have one off races here and there? Didn't cyclists use blood doping months on end?

ukathleticcoach wrote:

You can only peak using blood doping not perform for months on end. Otherwise why would anyone use EPO. That's why Viren was suspected.

Blood doping would also be less effective over 800m than 1500m but Coe was fastest over the shorter distance. Compare Coe 400m speed to El G or Mo then their times over a mile.

I am not afraid to follow the evidence where it leads.

rekrunner wrote:

I don't think there is any scenario where Sumgong and/or her husband are not stupid, unless the A-Sample is a false positive, not confirmed by the B-Sample.

Well, after she got surprised by the OOC, she should have pretended to not hear the doorbell, so yeah, not exactly smart.

On the other hand, she literally piled up 100s of 1000s of dollars, for living in Kenya. Just like Jeptoo. That is a certain kind of - despicable - intelligence.

See also Carl Lewis, Gay, Gatlin, etc. etc., not to mention your "favorite" female marathoner.

Not sure what you are talking about. I referred to the very two studies that you brought up, with the later, non-conclusive one still not having passed the review stage.

Have you ever failed to get positive reviews for a manuscript? Must be so very embarrassing; I wonder what that means for the grad students. Here it would a catastrophe for them...

Where am I wrong here? Note that you cited "they plan to ..." and I claimed that they didn't a couple years ago.

Exactly my point. That's what "witnesses" reported from their personal experience, not studies that just looked at one time trial or so.