I don't find anything confirming that. For example, the New York Times wrote back in 1997: "He began working with Kenyan athletes in 1991, his first athlete being Moses Tanui".
Nor do I find anything confirming that Dr. Rosa used EPO on his athletes, nor that EPO could do something for East African athletes that it never did for sea-level Americans and Europeans.
Oh come on! lol
How many athletes associated with Rosa have been popped - and that’s with lax testing in Africa
Africans may possibly be higher responders to EPO, I believe a study should be done. After all, doctors have to take race into consideration when dispenaing all kinds of other drugs, EPO, Mircera,etc are likely no different.
I don't know how many of the popped athletes were "associated" with Dr. Rosa, the senior. But seriously, is that argument enough to persuade you? I was looking for something stronger than an "association fallacy" to confirm any and all of these points.
Agents and coaches are naturally associated with athletes, but that doesn't mean they are doping them, or doping them with EPO, or that EPO enabled unnatural performances. Rosa Associati is one of the larger agencies in Kenya. A better question would be how many, as a percentage, and how does that compare to other groups? Even then, there are other factors to consider.
Testing is no longer lax in Kenya -- as evidenced by the increased number of busts.
It is not obvious to me that high altitude athletes, already naturally stimulated to produce EPO, would be higher responders to synthetic EPO than sea-level athletes -- in fact the opposite seems more likely -- but sure, why not do an elite performance study before the 40th anniversary of EPO?
Drugs have been part of the sport for decades. You are the only one who doesn't yet seem to know that. You are also the only one who thinks runners use shoes for performance benefits but never gain from the drugs they use.
Shoes have been part of the sport for centuries, with rare exceptions like Abebe Bikila and Zola Budd. Didn't you know that?
But this thread is specifically about American performances of "Hocker 3:27? Fisher 7:22? Nico 12:45?", and more generally, "all these Americans". They have not been producing these performances for decades, but only in the last couple of years.
I have seen convincing and compelling scientific and peer reviewed evidence for recent shoe advancements strongly correlating with recent world/national/college/high school records. I have seen no evidence for any drugs, new or old, being any part of these American performances.
Surely someone with your deep knowledge of both drugs and sport could share some of that here with us.
Drugs have been part of the sport for decades. You are the only one who doesn't yet seem to know that. You are also the only one who thinks runners use shoes for performance benefits but never gain from the drugs they use.
Shoes have been part of the sport for centuries, with rare exceptions like Abebe Bikila and Zola Budd. Didn't you know that?
But this thread is specifically about American performances of "Hocker 3:27? Fisher 7:22? Nico 12:45?", and more generally, "all these Americans". They have not been producing these performances for decades, but only in the last couple of years.
I have seen convincing and compelling scientific and peer reviewed evidence for recent shoe advancements strongly correlating with recent world/national/college/high school records. I have seen no evidence for any drugs, new or old, being any part of these American performances.
Surely someone with your deep knowledge of both drugs and sport could share some of that here with us.
Comes off like one person arguing with himself. Strange.
We may be simply seeing a confluence of events with training and track and shoe technology all coming together - along with the massive scale drug use by Africans in particular.
Comes off like one person arguing with himself. Strange.
We may be simply seeing a confluence of events with training and track and shoe technology all coming together - along with the massive scale drug use by Africans in particular.
This "comes off like one person arguing with himself"? That is a strange thing to say. Do you think we are Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde?
While I am with you on a confluence of factors, I would simply like to see anything and everything that anyone else sees that shows these recent performances in the supershoe era, across the spectrum from high-school to the world stage, are connected to alleged massive scale drug use (and also why we wouldn't have seen them before the supershoe era -- the drugs were not as effective before new shoes?).
Maybe we are just seeing the confluence of "legal" bi-carb, PEBAX, and carbon-fiber, combined with wavelights and newer tracks.
Drugs have been part of the sport for decades. You are the only one who doesn't yet seem to know that. You are also the only one who thinks runners use shoes for performance benefits but never gain from the drugs they use.
Shoes have been part of the sport for centuries, with rare exceptions like Abebe Bikila and Zola Budd. Didn't you know that?
But this thread is specifically about American performances of "Hocker 3:27? Fisher 7:22? Nico 12:45?", and more generally, "all these Americans". They have not been producing these performances for decades, but only in the last couple of years.
I have seen convincing and compelling scientific and peer reviewed evidence for recent shoe advancements strongly correlating with recent world/national/college/high school records. I have seen no evidence for any drugs, new or old, being any part of these American performances.
Surely someone with your deep knowledge of both drugs and sport could share some of that here with us.
That shoes may benefit performances doesn't make them the only likely explanation for gains in a sport where drugs have long been present.
The new shoes have been available for several years. The performance gains in question have come only recently.
That shoes may benefit performances doesn't make them the only likely explanation for gains in a sport where drugs have long been present.
The new shoes have been available for several years. The performance gains in question have come only recently.
So are you arguing that drugs have been around for decades, have long been present, but simply were not effective before supershoes?
As you keep saying, drugs have been available for several years too. Yet the performance gains in question have come only recently.
Of course shoes are not the only recent change. See above where I explained: "Maybe we are just seeing the confluence of "legal" bi-carb, PEBAX, and carbon-fiber, combined with wavelights and newer tracks."
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Top stars cruise through testing according to officials, yet scores of their training partners are busted. Please, the contortions you apologists go into are hilarious.
That shoes may benefit performances doesn't make them the only likely explanation for gains in a sport where drugs have long been present.
The new shoes have been available for several years. The performance gains in question have come only recently.
So are you arguing that drugs have been around for decades, have long been present, but simply were not effective before supershoes?
As you keep saying, drugs have been available for several years too. Yet the performance gains in question have come only recently.
Of course shoes are not the only recent change. See above where I explained: "Maybe we are just seeing the confluence of "legal" bi-carb, PEBAX, and carbon-fiber, combined with wavelights and newer tracks."
You can never follow an argument so you make one up in your own head that you can debate with. Drugs have been around for decades and continue to be developed. That is because they are often derived from advances in medicine, which are ongoing. They also have to evolve to avoid detection by antidoping - which they mostly do. The across-the-board recent leaps in improvement in the sport strongly suggest advances in drugs because the new shoes have been available for years now.
Bicarb is not a ped or it would be banned and tracks aren't better than those El G ran on.
Top stars cruise through testing according to officials, yet scores of their training partners are busted. Please, the contortions you apologists go into are hilarious.
Some unnamed top stars, according to some unnamed officials? Scores of their training partners? Why do I find that unpersuasive?
From another thread (credit to Thoughtsleader): "The average testing level for Kenya’s Olympic team in the 9 months before 2024. 12.4 tests, 9 out of competition."
Top stars cruise through testing according to officials, yet scores of their training partners are busted. Please, the contortions you apologists go into are hilarious.
Some unnamed top stars, according to some unnamed officials? Scores of their training partners? Why do I find that unpersuasive?
From another thread (credit to Thoughtsleader): "The average testing level for Kenya’s Olympic team in the 9 months before 2024. 12.4 tests, 9 out of competition."
I’ll step in: How many stories like Aman’s have been buried? Suspended - but no one is told. it’s an African driven farce.
You can never follow an argument so you make one up in your own head that you can debate with. Drugs have been around for decades and continue to be developed. That is because they are often derived from advances in medicine, which are ongoing. They also have to evolve to avoid detection by antidoping - which they mostly do. The across-the-board recent leaps in improvement in the sport strongly suggest advances in drugs because the new shoes have been available for years now.
Bicarb is not a ped or it would be banned and tracks aren't better than those El G ran on.
It is hard to follow your arguments as you dance around any direct questions that would support them, and you often contradict your own arguments.
Your blind faith is causing you to get everything backwards.
The question of this thread is "what new drugs"? After 16 pages, as predicted, there is no answer to that primary question. We are still at square zero.
After 16 years, I predict there will still be no answer, outside of PEBAX, carbon fiber, and/or bicarb, combined with tracks, training, and/or wavelights.
You've constructed this fantasy world where nothing continues to be developed except some drugs, which apparently even many high school athletes know about, but no one can name, which are both more powerful and undetectable -- based on what? The Clear? This demonstrates a unique combination of both ignorance and faith.
What you fail to see is that everything you say about drugs might or might not apply to drugs, but has been demonstratedly applied to the shoes. The big difference is that with drugs, we know nothing and are asked to believe in their great powers even when we can't see them, but with the shoes, we know what the new developments are, and the proven benefits. Since you don't know which drugs, if any, and which benefits, if any, this is just you spreading your gospel, and insulting those who call out your attempts to proselytize, and demonstrating your failure to have garnered any new knowledge since your formative years five decades ago.
Regardless of any doping myths, shoes are continuously being developed, beyond the initial advancements from the first generation of carbon fiber shoes.
Many PEDs are not banned. Caffeine is a known PED. It is ignorant to talk in terms of PEDs as it permits conversations which fail to be specific. Bicarb counteracts and delays acid buildup, if you can find a way to get it past the stomach, in your blood, without gastro-intestinal issues. That is what is new -- a delivery method in a gel which prevents the bicarb from interacting with acids in the stomach, which often triggers imminent evacuation.
Tracks have also improved since El G's day. It is ignorant to not know this.
Your unwavering faith in these unnamed and untested potions dating back to the ancient druids is rendering you plainly ignorant of everything else that is being developed and advancing.
This post was edited 8 minutes after it was posted.
Some unnamed top stars, according to some unnamed officials? Scores of their training partners? Why do I find that unpersuasive?
From another thread (credit to Thoughtsleader): "The average testing level for Kenya’s Olympic team in the 9 months before 2024. 12.4 tests, 9 out of competition."
I’ll step in: How many stories like Aman’s have been buried? Suspended - but no one is told. it’s an African driven farce.
I don't know. How many? 0.1% of athletes tested? I call this "appeal to the unknown" or "appeal to ignorance".
In any case, it doesn't support the question of "lax testing", as Aman was tested.
You can never follow an argument so you make one up in your own head that you can debate with. Drugs have been around for decades and continue to be developed. That is because they are often derived from advances in medicine, which are ongoing. They also have to evolve to avoid detection by antidoping - which they mostly do. The across-the-board recent leaps in improvement in the sport strongly suggest advances in drugs because the new shoes have been available for years now.
Bicarb is not a ped or it would be banned and tracks aren't better than those El G ran on.
It is hard to follow your arguments as you dance around any direct questions that would support them, and you often contradict your own arguments.
Your blind faith is causing you to get everything backwards.
The question of this thread is "what new drugs"? After 16 pages, as predicted, there is no answer to that primary question. We are still at square zero.
After 16 years, I predict there will still be no answer, outside of PEBAX, carbon fiber, and/or bicarb, combined with tracks, training, and/or wavelights.
You've constructed this fantasy world where nothing continues to be developed except some drugs, which apparently even many high school athletes know about, but no one can name, which are both more powerful and undetectable -- based on what? The Clear? This demonstrates a unique combination of both ignorance and faith.
What you fail to see is that everything you say about drugs might or might not apply to drugs, but has been demonstratedly applied to the shoes. The big difference is that with drugs, we know nothing and are asked to believe in their great powers even when we can't see them, but with the shoes, we know what the new developments are, and the proven benefits. Since you don't know which drugs, if any, and which benefits, if any, this is just you spreading your gospel, and insulting those who call out your attempts to proselytize, and demonstrating your failure to have garnered any new knowledge since your formative years five decades ago.
Regardless of any doping myths, shoes are continuously being developed, beyond the initial advancements from the first generation of carbon fiber shoes.
Many PEDs are not banned. Caffeine is a known PED. It is ignorant to talk in terms of PEDs as it permits conversations which fail to be specific. Bicarb counteracts and delays acid buildup, if you can find a way to get it past the stomach, in your blood, without gastro-intestinal issues. That is what is new -- a delivery method in a gel which prevents the bicarb from interacting with acids in the stomach, which often triggers imminent evacuation.
Tracks have also improved since El G's day. It is ignorant to not know this.
Your unwavering faith in these unnamed and untested potions dating back to the ancient druids is rendering you plainly ignorant of everything else that is being developed and advancing.
No one argues that El G's records were accomplished on inferior tracks. I lost interest in the rest of your nonsense.
I really think it is the shoes plus better testing. If it is doping, I’m so tired of doped up East Africans going 10 deep all in the same Nike uniform I just don’t care.
For sure. The better testing is allowing for faster times. No doubt. Why didn’t we think of that earlier? That is a no brainer.
no, better testing is taking out doped competition leaving winning spots open. the times are from shoes and new training
No one argues that El G's records were accomplished on inferior tracks. I lost interest in the rest of your nonsense.
Are you joking? People talk about faster tracks all the time. Not too long ago, there was a thread entitled "If it isn't PEDS, what were the reasons for the incredible performances in Paris?" The first response was "The track is faster?" The next response was you, preaching that fast times can only be explained by PEDs.
So are you arguing that drugs have been around for decades, have long been present, but simply were not effective before supershoes?
As you keep saying, drugs have been available for several years too. Yet the performance gains in question have come only recently.
Of course shoes are not the only recent change. See above where I explained: "Maybe we are just seeing the confluence of "legal" bi-carb, PEBAX, and carbon-fiber, combined with wavelights and newer tracks."
You can never follow an argument so you make one up in your own head that you can debate with. Drugs have been around for decades and continue to be developed. That is because they are often derived from advances in medicine, which are ongoing. They also have to evolve to avoid detection by antidoping - which they mostly do. The across-the-board recent leaps in improvement in the sport strongly suggest advances in drugs because the new shoes have been available for years now.
Bicarb is not a ped or it would be banned and tracks aren't better than those El G ran on.
Yeah,i cant imagine it would do all that much. Now full throttle drug use does heaps.
No one argues that El G's records were accomplished on inferior tracks. I lost interest in the rest of your nonsense.
Are you joking? People talk about faster tracks all the time. Not too long ago, there was a thread entitled "If it isn't PEDS, what were the reasons for the incredible performances in Paris?" The first response was "The track is faster?" The next response was you, preaching that fast times can only be explained by PEDs.
So El G would be running 3:24 on today's tracks - or 3:41 for the mile? Who - apart from those afflicted by your idiocy - argues that? Or, conversely, that if Ingebrigtsen was running in El G's era, he would only be good for 3:29 because of the tracks. What an inferior athlete! You are witless.