as long as epo .
or maybe he made them pregnant .........
as long as epo .
or maybe he made them pregnant .........
you know something has changed in track over past decade
like in 1990's were running alot faster and wondered how or didnt question
then became obvious that was culprit epo .
now know same with IGF-1 lr3 and where all this speed coming from .
...............................................................................................................
But problem is still not a whisper of the ped that responsible for change in times
also running quicker younger and alot alot older .
leading to only conclusion that this ped is heavily managed and controlled
to source it need to know the right few people/coaches /agents.
like have at moment in scotland or south africa or kenya
it has got to be pharmaceutical grade or else rubbish
fact that media controlled by government and intelligence agency's
suggest that this is too .
they decide where it goes and if flood country with it , they are literally
deciding winner of race long before.
and their next pet project is 400m .
give wayde some added competition as he is being pushed as future.
will they dope a kenyan in 400m in same way
also mildronate alpha has to be mentioned just as controlled
............................................................................................................
and used with peptide for added endurance and speed endurance
see in recent marathon record .
a reason for whole meldonium debacle and reason found in ethiopia of
all places due to dibaba being one of first to use combo .
then switched to similar ped and have total control over its supply .
this screams collusion of wada /iaaf .
now have afew scots , next watch out for kenyans and 400m .
Mr. Obvious wrote:
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...
Here is one possible clue about what might be different between normal subjects and well-trained athletes from a review titled "Limiting factors for maximum oxygen uptake and determinants of endurance performance" (Bassett, DR; Howley ET; Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000 Jan;32(1):70-84):
Modern researchers have verified that the pulmonary system may indeed limit VO2max under certain circumstances.
Dempsey et al. showed that elite athletes are more likely to undergo arterial O2 desaturation during maximal work compared with normal individuals. Trained individuals have a much higher maximal cardiac output than untrained individuals (40 vs 25 l/min). This leads to a decreased transit time of the red blood cell in the pulmonary capillary. Consequently, there may not be enough time to saturate the blood with O2 before it exits the pulmonary capillary.
This pulmonary limitation in highly trained athletes can be overcome with O2-enriched air. Powers et al. had highly trained subjects and normal subjects perform two VO2max tests. In one test the subjects breathed room air and in the other they breathed a 26% O2 gas mixture. On hyperoxic gas, the highly trained group had an increase in VO2max from 70.1 to 74.7/kg/min and an increase in arterial O2 saturation (SaO2) from 90.6% to 95.9% during maximal work. None of these changes were observed in normal subjects (VO2max = 56.5 ml/kg/min).
If the limiting factor turns out to be "the factor" with elites, my personal preference would be to substitute the "certain circumstances" with "certain class of individuals".
Evidently this is a very underresearched subject and the study referred by the authors is only one piece of evidence with a relatively small cohorts (normal subjects n= 13, highly trained n=7) and only a few pages later Bassett and Howley refer to blood doping studies in which "[r]einfusion of 900-1,350 ml blood elevates oxygen carrying capacity of blood" which in turn "has been shown to increase Vo2MAX by 4-9 % in well designed, double-blind studies".
The authors deal the limiting factors in isolation, which is somewhat strange, because my reading is that if the tendency is that even the existing oxygen carriers aren't fully saturated with elite athletes, adding extra carriers doesn't necessarily help that much or at least there are diminishing returns when compared to sub-elite athletes where the pulmonary function isn't a limiting factor.
It should be emphasized that this hasn't necessarily that much to do with submaximal performance where heart rate and Q are lower and there is no "decreased transit time of the red blood cell in the pulmonary capillary", if the underlying theory about low saturation is even the correct one as there might be other factor causing it such as elevated 2,3DPG-level. In addition, if the theory above is sound, I find it difficult to believe that it can work in tandem with the viscosity theory where the elevated hemoglobin concentration increases viscocity and peripheral resistance enough to slow blood flow and cardiac output while simultaneously the blood flows so quickly that the new RBCs aren't capable to bind oxygen.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
It is perfectly logical to believe that EPO works and that Paula ran a time that is a large outlier in marathon performance.
I agree. These are logical. Where logic breaks is thinking that the outlier can only be caused by EPO or blood doping.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
The question regarding Jemima Sumgong is whether EPO helped her run faster than she did prior to using. Whether she ran within 2:55 of Paul or not is irrelevant to that question.
I agree. That question is still open. And the 2:55 gap between Paula and all known EPO-users sheds no light on why Sumgong improved. And vice-versa, the EPO busts of Sumgong, Jeptoo, and Shobukhova are not sufficient to explain the 2.55 gap.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
The idea that she is a large outlier and EPO users can't approach her time proves (or tends to prove) that EPO doesn't work is consistent with your frame of reference shifting you constantly engage in. It's illogical, and yes, weird and bizarre.
In any and all frame of references, it is difficult to find a significant impact of EPO "working" "at the top", on any significant scale, either in quality, or quantity. It is ridiculous to suggest that EPO is the likely cause, or significant factor, of a 9 minute improvement in Sumgong, while historically, only 9 women during the EPO-era have run sub-2:20, and 13 more women, post-ABP, have run sub-2:20. Either, top women are simply not taking EPO, or many top women are taking EPO, and it is simply not resulting in top times.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Does EPO work more now that Mary Keitany closed with 1:35 of Paula
The comparison was to Paula, not known to use EPO, and known EPO users, who could only run as fast as 2:18 during the EPO era. Keitany hasn't changed this set of known EPO-users.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
jeff tallon wrote:my god that reads like a whose who of drug cheats,and various walking pharmaceuticals.
Just like the all-time men's 100m list.
lol mindweak, I'm always ready...That has turned out to be a good thread series. I don't think there are any coaches on it, though.
Yet.
Hey Sprintgeezer, ever seen that list of fasted ever 100m times, it's like
9.58 Usain Bolt Clean
9.63 Usain Bolt Clean
9.69 Usain Bolt Clean............... then every one down to 9.83 was involved in doping. It cracks me up every time. It just shows how corrupt the sport is at the top.
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
Hey Sprintgeezer, ever seen that list of fasted ever 100m times, it's like
9.58 Usain Bolt Clean
9.63 Usain Bolt Clean
9.69 Usain Bolt Clean............... then every one down to 9.83 was involved in doping. It cracks me up every time. It just shows how corrupt the sport is at the top.
Certainly looks like that. But wait for rekrunner to argue that
- Bolt is clean
- Blake only doped once
- Gatlin only doped twice
which will then "prove" that there is nothing wrong or suspicious with a 2:15 or a 9.58.
In all this analysis, there is no consideration for the most important point : the individual talent.
I was in Kingston when, in 2002, he won World Junior Championships when not yet 16 years old, against athletes 3 years older than him.
He ran 48"28 in 400m without training, when was 14 years and 8 months old, ran 45"35 with very little training when was 16 years and 8 months old, and always was the best in 200m and 400m at young age.
When I saw him in Kingston, I immediately said "this guy will be the next WR holder of 200m and 400m", because his talent was absolutely different from any other athlete I saw in my long athletic life.
Maybe doped or not, but "logically" are the other sprinters who need some doping, for running only 0.20 slower than him in 100m, and 0.40 slower in 200m.
he hasn't been caught, but many other Jamaicans have. All organizers should do like the Diamond league organizers in Oslo. Convicted dopers are not invited.
This is not completely right : last year the winner of Discus Throwing (Women) was Sandra Perkovic, previously banned for doping.
Or doping is bad only for runners ?
oh east africans are cheating alright ! and hopefully theyll be exposed,and their dominance will come to a grinding halt. and when it does,the japanese will suddenly become very competitive indeed at 5000 and 10'000 meters.
yyy wrote:
he hasn't been caught, but many other Jamaicans have.
Yes, including at least two from his team. Bolt may also have been part of the hushed up clenbuterol scandal.
Actually, Renato, you said repeatedly that a coach knows whether or not his athletes are clean. What does that say about the star athlete of a team with a couple of doped athletes (as well as their coach)?
I think that, if some athlete of top level followed on daily basis by his coach, and by a full staff including physiotherapists, doctors, biomechanics, nutritionists (the situation of the best sprinters in Jamaica and US), is doped, some of the staff has absolutely to know what is going on.
The situation is very different when we speak about athletes followed by coaches who are not resident in their Country, and follow the athletes in direct way for some period only, giving detailed programs for the rest of the season.
When I say that I'm completely certain that Shaheen and Nicholas Kemboi were clean, I'm in the first situation, since I was with them in the same apartment, sometimes in the same room, when they had all their training in Kenya (everybody was in Kerio View Hotel for long continuous periods as official training camp of Qatar) and when they were in Saint Moritz.
When I say I'm certain about other athletes I coached, I can't have the same level of certainty based on direct knowledge, but I base my feeling on the fact I know very well the athletes under human point of view.
The recent events show that today it's more difficult than some year ago to have complete faith in athletes (better, in the husbands of top athletes) who follows the coach for 4 hours in one day, and have the opportunity to stay 20 hours per day at home, free to do what they want.
However, I always prefer to give credit to athletes of whom I know values and mentality from long time.
There is a different feeling between some coach, working, teaching and listening with the athletes, and some management that, also if not directly involved (or maybe BECAUSE not directly involved...) really doesn't have strict relations with the athletes, apart speaking about competitions and money. I still give a lot of importance to the human aspect of any relation between athletes and coach, and always move in this direction.
And, believe me, all the athletes currently caught for doping were part, in the past, of a group with not clear mentality, and their behavior was different from the behavior of the most part of top athletes : not open with the other top runners, frequently full of "training secrets", and trying to avoid every "social life", that in Kenya is part of the culture. So, not big surprises, when the feeling of something wrong is confirmed by objective tests.
Aragon wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote: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...
Here is one possible clue about what might be different between normal subjects and well-trained athletes from a review titled "Limiting factors for maximum oxygen uptake and determinants of endurance performance" (Bassett, DR; Howley ET; Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000 Jan;32(1):70-84):
Modern researchers have verified that the pulmonary system may indeed limit VO2max under certain circumstances.
Dempsey et al. showed that elite athletes are more likely to undergo arterial O2 desaturation during maximal work compared with normal individuals. Trained individuals have a much higher maximal cardiac output than untrained individuals (40 vs 25 l/min). This leads to a decreased transit time of the red blood cell in the pulmonary capillary. Consequently, there may not be enough time to saturate the blood with O2 before it exits the pulmonary capillary.
This pulmonary limitation in highly trained athletes can be overcome with O2-enriched air. Powers et al. had highly trained subjects and normal subjects perform two VO2max tests. In one test the subjects breathed room air and in the other they breathed a 26% O2 gas mixture. On hyperoxic gas, the highly trained group had an increase in VO2max from 70.1 to 74.7/kg/min and an increase in arterial O2 saturation (SaO2) from 90.6% to 95.9% during maximal work. None of these changes were observed in normal subjects (VO2max = 56.5 ml/kg/min).
If the limiting factor turns out to be "the factor" with elites, my personal preference would be to substitute the "certain circumstances" with "certain class of individuals".
Evidently this is a very underresearched subject and the study referred by the authors is only one piece of evidence with a relatively small cohorts (normal subjects n= 13, highly trained n=7) and only a few pages later Bassett and Howley refer to blood doping studies in which "[r]einfusion of 900-1,350 ml blood elevates oxygen carrying capacity of blood" which in turn "has been shown to increase Vo2MAX by 4-9 % in well designed, double-blind studies".
The authors deal the limiting factors in isolation, which is somewhat strange, because my reading is that if the tendency is that even the existing oxygen carriers aren't fully saturated with elite athletes, adding extra carriers doesn't necessarily help that much or at least there are diminishing returns when compared to sub-elite athletes where the pulmonary function isn't a limiting factor.
It should be emphasized that this hasn't necessarily that much to do with submaximal performance where heart rate and Q are lower and there is no "decreased transit time of the red blood cell in the pulmonary capillary", if the underlying theory about low saturation is even the correct one as there might be other factor causing it such as elevated 2,3DPG-level. In addition, if the theory above is sound, I find it difficult to believe that it can work in tandem with the viscosity theory where the elevated hemoglobin concentration increases viscocity and peripheral resistance enough to slow blood flow and cardiac output while simultaneously the blood flows so quickly that the new RBCs aren't capable to bind oxygen.
Very interesting. Unfortunately I can only seem to find the abstract and not the complete article online.
I do have a question of whether this addresses my question, which isn't really about the difference between untrained and well trained athletes but the differences between um, maybe we will refer to them as sub-elite runners (28:40) and elite runners (26:40ish). I mean I understand there are infinite gradations along the spectrum from "untrained" to "world record holder" and it does make a certain kind of sense to say that the ones at the very top would have different physiological parameters and limiters to the people who are untrained or minimally trained or even recreational level runners. It has always made a lot less sense to me to say that people who are "very, very good" but not "among the very best" are likely to be substantially different in their physiology and the way they would react to exogenous stimuli than people who are "among the very best."
Of course all of this in under-researched with small cohort groups and short timelines.
It is also true, I believe, that the more limitations you place on claims of certain athletes reacting to drugs, the more you make it impossible to falsify such a claim and the less it becomes a scientific claim at all.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Aragon wrote:Here is one possible clue about what might be different between normal subjects and well-trained athletes from a review titled "Limiting factors for maximum oxygen uptake and determinants of endurance performance" (Bassett, DR; Howley ET; Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000 Jan;32(1):70-84):
If the limiting factor turns out to be "the factor" with elites, my personal preference would be to substitute the "certain circumstances" with "certain class of individuals".
Evidently this is a very underresearched subject and the study referred by the authors is only one piece of evidence with a relatively small cohorts (normal subjects n= 13, highly trained n=7) and only a few pages later Bassett and Howley refer to blood doping studies in which "[r]einfusion of 900-1,350 ml blood elevates oxygen carrying capacity of blood" which in turn "has been shown to increase Vo2MAX by 4-9 % in well designed, double-blind studies".
The authors deal the limiting factors in isolation, which is somewhat strange, because my reading is that if the tendency is that even the existing oxygen carriers aren't fully saturated with elite athletes, adding extra carriers doesn't necessarily help that much or at least there are diminishing returns when compared to sub-elite athletes where the pulmonary function isn't a limiting factor.
It should be emphasized that this hasn't necessarily that much to do with submaximal performance where heart rate and Q are lower and there is no "decreased transit time of the red blood cell in the pulmonary capillary", if the underlying theory about low saturation is even the correct one as there might be other factor causing it such as elevated 2,3DPG-level. In addition, if the theory above is sound, I find it difficult to believe that it can work in tandem with the viscosity theory where the elevated hemoglobin concentration increases viscocity and peripheral resistance enough to slow blood flow and cardiac output while simultaneously the blood flows so quickly that the new RBCs aren't capable to bind oxygen.
Very interesting. Unfortunately I can only seem to find the abstract and not the complete article online.
I do have a question of whether this addresses my question, which isn't really about the difference between untrained and well trained athletes but the differences between um, maybe we will refer to them as sub-elite runners (28:40) and elite runners (26:40ish). I mean I understand there are infinite gradations along the spectrum from "untrained" to "world record holder" and it does make a certain kind of sense to say that the ones at the very top would have different physiological parameters and limiters to the people who are untrained or minimally trained or even recreational level runners. It has always made a lot less sense to me to say that people who are "very, very good" but not "among the very best" are likely to be substantially different in their physiology and the way they would react to exogenous stimuli than people who are "among the very best."
Of course all of this in under-researched with small cohort groups and short timelines.
It is also true, I believe, that the more limitations you place on claims of certain athletes reacting to drugs, the more you make it impossible to falsify such a claim and the less it becomes a scientific claim at all.
The "well-trained" runners in the study only had a VO2max of 70 ml/kg/min.
Really?
WTF?
That means that these " well trained runners" in the study are only "hobby joggers" for Renato and rekrunner.
None of the studies use the "special elite runners."
None of the studies apply to the "special elite runners."
All of the studies are useless and are not needed at all.
All of the studies should be put into the trash can where they belong.
You just need to listen to Coach Renato and rekrunner.
They will tell you the real truth.
Renato Canova wrote:
This is not completely right : last year the winner of Discus Throwing (Women) was Sandra Perkovic, previously banned for doping.
Or doping is bad only for runners ?
No....and even swimmers get in on the act with EPO. Being from Argentina, I wonder if he's an altitude-native or a sea level dude without proper training:
http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1038068/argentine-swimmer-withdrawn-from-rio-2016-team-after-testing-positive-for-epoUpdate Please Stop It Italians:
http://road.cc/content/news/220416-italian-doping-doctor-michele-ferrari-jailed-18-months1) It looks like Dr. Michele Ferrari is finally going to stop it.
ha ha ha
SkyRunner.at.Altitude 9,033ft. wrote:
1) It looks like Dr. Michele Ferrari is finally going to stop it.
ha ha ha
Yeah...maybe for 18 months.
The use of AICAR by CYCLISTS goes all the way back to 2009.
Can I remember Operation Skype located in Spain in the year 2012?
Answer:
Yes.
This is old news.
http://road.cc/content/news/55184-spanish-police-arrest-ten-they-break-next-generation-superdrug-doping-ringThis is not a big surprise.
SkyRunner.at.Altitude.9,033ft. wrote:
http://road.cc/content/news/55184-spanish-police-arrest-ten-they-break-next-generation-superdrug-doping-ringThis is not a big surprise.
And neither is this:
https://www.thelocal.es/20170324/spanish-police-arrest-14-and-seize-massive-doping-stashThree (3) freaking MILLION doses of HGH confiscated by Spanish anti-doping authorities!!!
So, while people here are splitting hairs on the effectiveness of rocket fuel, high-octane HGH is alive & well.