Olympic Marathon Silver Medalist Eunice Kirwa Busted for EPO Doping

Subway Surfers wrote:

i got banned wrote:

- once cause i brought up a certain mod admitted to using ROIDs

Heck! This is THE number one no no on LRC.

lolz yes i know subway, but as i also found out i cant call a certain handle on here "gary" cause its insulting, and i cant argue with canova....so strange on LR how there are different set of rules for certain people.

- the poster formally known as m!ndweak

Slither slither slither. I'm happy to hear I'm doing a fantastic job, but I have exonerated no one. I must not be an apologist.

Armstronglivs wrote:

For you, every post is a court case for the defence. No opposing argument survives your self-declared passion for "accuracy", as though you alone know what that is. For someone who says he is opposed to doping you do a fantastic job of exonerating them. Yes, that is an apologist.

rekrunner wrote:

Slither slither slither.

I'm happy to hear I'm doing a fantastic job, but I have exonerated no one. I must not be an apologist.

Armstronglivs wrote:

For you, every post is a court case for the defence. No opposing argument survives your self-declared passion for "accuracy", as though you alone know what that is. For someone who says he is opposed to doping you do a fantastic job of exonerating them. Yes, that is an apologist.

hello again kids, here the narcissist strikes again, but no worries because Armstronglivs isnt a spoiled brat with emotional problems so this attack does no damage to his self esteem.

- the poster formally known as m!ndweak

LoneStarXC wrote:

Why would EPO only benefit sub-elites? Since EPO stimulates red blood cell production, it’s not like it would be any different in an elite athlete, a sub-elite athlete, or a rando taking it for anemia. Blood is blood.

Blood is blood, and I don't know why it is "any different", but different it is.

When the % increase in Vo2Max is combined from the data from all the studies (5) where 900 millilitres of cryopreserved blood was reinfused, there is a clear tendency that the higher the original relative Vo2Max (ml/kg/min, x-axis), the lower the boost. Even if one takes into the account the possibility that % increase in total hemoglobin is slightly less in elite level athletes, it can't explain why the Vo2Max boost is 3 times more with recreational athletes:

There are two additional studies using similar protocol with only the mean values available that nevertheless fit almost too perfectly into the chart, one with 50.0 ml/kg/min guys getting a 12.0 % boost and another one with 62.5 ml/kg/min with 10.2 % boost after blood reinfusion. (Brien et al, 1989; Malm et al, 2016)

So, at a certain point you say the studies suggest a law of diminishing returns. But there will still be returns, and with the narrow winning margins at elite level even small returns can be decisive.

rekrunner wrote:

Slither slither slither.

I'm happy to hear I'm doing a fantastic job, but I have exonerated no one. I must not be an apologist.

Armstronglivs wrote:

For you, every post is a court case for the defence. No opposing argument survives your self-declared passion for "accuracy", as though you alone know what that is. For someone who says he is opposed to doping you do a fantastic job of exonerating them. Yes, that is an apologist.

Well, you are doing a fantastic job. You don't exonerate anyone in particular, you exonerate all. You're like a climate-change denier who professes to be concerned about climate while minimising its effects. When we try to find out what you're actually concerned about the problem disappears into the mists.

Armstronglivs wrote:

So, at a certain point you say the studies suggest a law of diminishing returns. But there will still be returns, and with the narrow winning margins at elite level even small returns can be decisive.

Just one after thought about these "small returns".

In the only studies where both running speed and Vo2max boost were measured, it took 10-12 % increase in Vo2max to increase running speed by 1.7-2.0 %, so the there was some sort of 6:1 ratio in how much of the oxygen boost materialized in performance, explained by physiological (other performance determinants such as LT doesn't increase in tandem with Vo2max) and physical (air resistance etc) reasons.

If the highest 80-89 ml/kg/min (solid blue lines) group increased their Vo2Max on average only by 3.7 %, does this mean that two blood bags increase their speed only by 0.6 %?

The observed ratio can be slightly lower than the 6 to 1 because some running speed studies gave slightly higher than 1.7-2 % boost in performance even when Vo2max wasn't measured.

Here you have finally arrived exactly at one of my repeated concerns. Studies showing 5% improvement on non-elite performances, cannot be extrapolated to elite performances. The improvement will likely be less, according to some diminishing return model. But posters often miss this subtle non-binary nuance, and think "less" can only mean 0%. Or they accuse me of "minimizing" effect like a climate change denier.

Armstronglivs wrote:

So, at a certain point you say the studies suggest a law of diminishing returns. But there will still be returns, and with the narrow winning margins at elite level even small returns can be decisive.

Thanks -- it's great to hear that what I do here is "fantastic". Since you like analogies, think of illegal doping to enhance performance as "pre-meditated murder", characterized by "wilfull intent" and "success". "Involuntary manslaughter" (lack of intent), and "attempted murder" (lack of success) are also crimes. It is not an exoneration to say "manslaughter", and "attempted murder" are not "pre-meditated murder". And just because someone died (success), it does not mean they died due to the crimes of "pre-meditated murder", or "manslaughter". Other non-criminal possibilities exist, like death due to natural causes. One of my concerns is sweeping allegations that wrongly accuse potentially many clean athletes of doping. This only hurts the sport more. Doping hurts the sport, and is a real problem. Exaggerating the problem exaggerates the hurt.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Well, you are doing a fantastic job. You don't exonerate anyone in particular, you exonerate all. You're like a climate-change denier who professes to be concerned about climate while minimising its effects. When we try to find out what you're actually concerned about the problem disappears into the mists.

Exactly, improving 7 seconds from 13:03 is less than one percent but we all know it is massive, a huge game changer.

It has been said repeatedly though, it is not the Vo2Max but the speed (velocity) at the Vo2Max. One would suggest someone using EPO or a transfusion would not be focused on 30km runs but is instead concentrating on speed training. Now this is the very definition of "training properly."

I just brought up an interesting statistical observation that acute blood doping induced increase in 1500m and 3-mile running speed takes place with sixfold increase in Vo2Max.

12 % vs. 2 % (Goforth, 1999) = 6 to 1

10 % vs 1.7 % (Brien, 1989) = 6 to 1

As far as I know, these are the only double blind studies where both were measured from the same subjects in the course of the research.

When elites boost their Vo2Max by only a fraction after similar blood infusion vs. non-elites, it is just an interesting question whether the performance boost follows a similar ratio of 6 to 1 when compared to the Vo2max boost.

3.7 % vs 0.6 %? = 6 to 1?

(the first figure from Buick 1980 and Spriet 1986)

I don't know how accurate the ratio is or whether it holds true with longer distances, but I still think that running speed is the best predictor of running speed.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So, at a certain point you say the studies suggest a law of diminishing returns. But there will still be returns, and with the narrow winning margins at elite level even small returns can be decisive.

Exactly, improving 7 seconds from 13:03 is less than one percent but we all know it is massive, a huge game changer.

A 7 second improvement at that level a huge game changer is an understatement. I look at this way: Take your "13:03" runner who can't get any faster than that no matter what. Say he does 60 - 70 mpw plus hard speed work and the strength training, and all that, which appears to be his limit. Say his hardcore coach wants more mileage and harder, long speed sessions, etc. to improve and break 13 mins. But the athlete breaks down and gets injured. And at the insistence of his coach tries to run through the injures which exacerbates the injuries pushing them into the chronic major category consequently causing downtime or even sometimes surgical intervention.

In this scenario that athlete reached his physical limitations at 70 mpw and the initial speed workouts that were being done. A barrier of maximum training stimulus was set which can't broken without injury. This would be a point of no return. So, in this scenario the athlete implements a doping program and with the same current training (70 mpw max) he cuts 7 seconds off his PB and suddenly he's in 12:56 territory, which makes him more competitive and in the hunt for medals at major competitions. In this case, the athlete goes above & beyond what their natural physiology would allow.

These top elites aren't superhuman - they all have their limitations when it comes to training stimulus (including the Kenyans who get hurt from overtraining like everyone else). Some can handle mega-mileage and crazy killer workouts more than others. But so many top elites still get hurt, train & race through injuries, have major downtime, need pain meds and end up having shortened careers. Some turn to dope to try and circumvent this.

Aragon wrote:

In the only studies where both running speed and Vo2max boost were measured, it took 10-12 % increase in Vo2max to increase running speed by 1.7-2.0 %, so the there was some sort of 6:1 ratio in how much of the oxygen boost materialized in performance, explained by physiological (other performance determinants such as LT doesn't increase in tandem with Vo2max) and physical (air resistance etc) reasons.

"the only studies"? 12% higher VO2max for 2% speed gain? That doesn't sound right.

10.1371/journal.pone.0056151:

[quote]Relative to baseline, running performance significantly improved by ∼6% after administration (10∶30±1∶07 min:sec vs. 11∶08±1∶15 min:sec, p

Stupid software cut off my post because of the sign in the quotation... Let's try this again, deleting the scary smaller sign:

"the only studies"? 12% higher VO2max for 2% speed gain? That doesn't sound right.

10.1371/journal.pone.0056151:

60.7/56 = 8% VO2max increase for 6% increase in running speed, a 3/4 ratio

58/56 = 4% VO2max increase for 3% increase in running speed, a 3/4 ratio

Using the 3/4 ratio, they'd improve by 2.8%...

Which is quite similar to the various experts' estimates for elite runners discussed earlier here, such as up to 3%, 15 - 30 s for 5000 m, up to 1 minute over 10000 m.

I forgot the word "double blind" in the post you quoted (mea culpa), but emphasized that point in the last post.

Because the ratio is so different in the Glasgow/Kenya study contaminated with l the training effect + psychological factors, should it tell more about the validity of those results than about the ratio as such?

I'd have to look into more studies first, to see which ones are the exceptions. But I've always thought that relative VO2max increases translate better into higher speed.

You could also have a look at the various VO2max calculations, Daniels and otherwise.

For example Daniels, going from 80 to 84 (5% higher VO2max if running economy remained constant) changes theoretically changes the 10000 m time from 27:42 to 26:35. 1:07 out of 27:42 is 4.0%, corresponding to a 4/5 ratio.

With this proposed 1/6 ratio, one would have to rewrite all the oxygen power tables.

Right, the "Kenyan" study, let's have a look:

VO2max from 66.2 to 70.7 (+6.8%) for a 4.6% increase in running speed, a 2/3 ratio

VO2max from 66.2 to 68.2 (+3.0%) for a 3.3% increase in running speed, a 1/1 ratio

casual obsever wrote:

[quote]Aragon wrote:

In the only studies where both running speed and Vo2max boost were measured, it took 10-12 % increase in Vo2max to increase running speed by 1.7-2.0 %, so the there was some sort of 6:1 ratio in how much of the oxygen boost materialized in performance, explained by physiological (other performance determinants such as LT doesn't increase in tandem with Vo2max) and physical (air resistance etc) reasons.

"the only studies"? 12% higher VO2max for 2% speed gain? That doesn't sound right.

10.1371/journal.pone.0056151:

Relative to baseline, running performance significantly improved by ∼6% after administration (10∶30±1∶07 min:sec vs. 11∶08±1∶15 min:sec, p

Yes that was my thoughts although Aragon is quoting studies. Increasing a Vo2Max from say 68 to 71, what? A 4.5% increase? From years of data I'm guessing this equals the athlete going from 15:25 to c14:48 or about 4% perhaps a little less. Though this is good it is sub elite. An elite though could still get 20s gain for 5k.