Olympic Marathon Silver Medalist Eunice Kirwa Busted for EPO Doping

casual obsever wrote:

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

It isn't "proposed" but originates from the available research with the best protocols available. I don't know how valid it is or not.

Assuming the ratio is indeed closer to 1/1, it is strange why reinfusions constantly elevate Vo2Max of sub-elite runners by 10 % or more (see the chart), but the increases in running speed are in the range of 1.7 - 3.5 % depending on the protocol and distance etc. If you rely on Daniels fully, why wasn't running speed elevated by 8 or 10 % in the double blind running tests?

As I also brought up, the 1.7 and 2.0 % are lower than what Williams (1981) and Brien (1987) measured in running speed, so the ratio could and perhaps ought to be lower had they measured also Vo2Max.

I have my doubts about the conservative estimates of speed gain. As Lydiard showed over fifty years ago, to increase an athlete's aerobic capacity translated into significant improvements in speed endurance. Both blood doping and EPO's further increase that capacity, and even with an already highly-trained athlete the improvement in blood oxygen - however it is achieved - is key to running faster for longer. If an athlete tires less they perforce must be able to maintain pace for a longer period. Another factor to be taken into account is that EPO enables an athlete to train harder, which then translates into additional gains.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I have my doubts about the conservative estimates of speed gain. As Lydiard showed over fifty years ago, to increase an athlete's aerobic capacity translated into significant improvements in speed endurance. Both blood doping and EPO's further increase that capacity, and even with an already highly-trained athlete the improvement in blood oxygen - however it is achieved - is key to running faster for longer. If an athlete tires less they perforce must be able to maintain pace for a longer period. Another factor to be taken into account is that EPO enables an athlete to train harder, which then translates into additional gains.

Yep...that's the one rekrunner doesn't understand.

I understand it. I've seen it claimed often, but never with a citation to a study. Is it something more than unstudied hypothesis?

No surprises there wrote:

Yep...that's the one rekrunner doesn't understand.

Furthermore, thinking this through, a constant exposure to high-altitude, e.g. living there your whole life, with constant stimulation of high red blood cell production, should also allow you to train harder.

Here's a study (altitude, controlled, not blinded): ""Living high-training low": effect of moderate-altitude acclimatization with low-altitude training on performance": Benjamin D. Levine and James Stray-Gundersen, J Appl Physiol 83:102-112, 1997 After a 2-week lead in phase, and after a 4-week sea level training phase before any high altitude exposure: High Low group: - 5K Time trial: Improved from 17.23 to 17.00 (1.3%) - VO2max improved from 63.8 to 66.3 (3.9%) Ratio: 1 to 3 High High group: - 5K Time trial: Got worse from 17.04 to 17.10 (-0.35%) - VO2max improved from 64.8 to 67.0 (3.4%) Ratio: -1 to 9.7 NOTES on observed improvements: - 4 week sea-level control phase: 22.3 seconds - High-Low: 13.4 seconds - High-High: -3.3 seconds

Aragon wrote:

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?

rekrunner wrote:

Furthermore, thinking this through, a constant exposure to high-altitude, e.g. living there your whole life, with constant stimulation of high red blood cell production, should also allow you to train harder.

I'm not disputing the effect of high-RBC production with altitude-natives. But it doesn't seem to be a means to an end for altitude-native dopers. If it was that effective to allow harder training then why are so many top performing altitude-native Kenyans getting popped for EPO or ABP violations? If it was just a one or two, you could argue that these are just a few bad apples that were led astray but numerous Kenyans caught using EPO over the years? C'mon man.

And how about Colombian Yolanda Cabellero who holds the South American marathon record and served a doping ban for ABP hematological anomalies -- she lives and trains in Bogotá with an altitude of 8600 ft!

And the Colombian pro-cycling team Manzana Postobon just folded because of two many doping positives on the team!

casual obsever wrote:

"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

I take it you're referencing Durussel et al?

Aragon mentioned Brien et al, which I reference often. That was the double-blind cross over with sub-elite 10k runners at altitude (Albuquerque). 400 ml reinfusion showed a mean reduction of 1 min 9 sec in a 10k TT (~3.5%) over placebo with 5% + increase in Hct. However, I don't find reference to any VO2max data listed for the subjects? (PDF version):

And there's Prof. Schumacher's assessment stated in the Karamasheva CAS hearing, paragraph 77 (CAS/2017/05268):

"77. Moreover, EPO is typically taken as a course of many weeks, not as a single injection.Professer Schumacher explained that it can increase oxygen supply by 6% and take as muchas one minute off the time taken to run 10,000 metres, and proportionately more over lesser distances."

as i have shown before with the math using an average of 4% you see possible gains of

2-3 seconds in 800

8-9 seconds in 1500

15-17 for 3000

28-30 for 5k

and 60-65 for 10k

and 3-4 min for marathon

but all that work and showing how i made these conclusions were deleted years ago by some triggered doping apologist snowflake.

- the poster formally known as m!ndweak

From the intro of the text:

"The capacity of the organism to transport oxygen to the working

muscle is a key factor for endurance performance.[1] For many

years, one of the prime targets of manipulating athletes was

therefore to improve the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood

as it offered gains in performance of 5–8%.[2] As early as 1970,

athletes started to use the then legal transfusion of blood (blood

doping) to enhance their endurance. This technique was banned

in 1988 and is since a prohibited method listed by the World

Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). The logistical requirements for

blood manipulations were rather significant, which limited their

use in the athletic population. With the commercial introduction

of recombinant human erythropoietin (EPO) – the first erythro-

poiesis stimulating agent (ESA) – the increase of red cell mass

to boost performance became available to everyone and was

soon widespread in most endurance sports. This paper reviews

the development of the fight against ESA doping and blood

doping and focuses on the most recent technique, the haemato-

logical module of the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP)."

rekrunner wrote:

Here's a study (altitude, controlled, not blinded...

Thanks for the information. The Stray-Gundersen study also highlights the theme that performance boost can't be fully extrapolated from Vo2Max increase, because Vo2Max of the LHTH-group improved pretty much as much as that of the LHTL group. When subjects of the Thomsen et al study of 2007 did a time-to-exhaustion test with the same relative Vo2Max after rHuEPO treatment they had done before the hormone, the guys could cycle for a 27 % shorter time indicating that delta-Vo2Max isn't the sole predictor of watt output boost after rHuEPO.

Kenyan doping surfaces again wrote:

"77. Moreover, EPO is typically taken as a course of many weeks, not as a single injection.Professer Schumacher explained that it can increase oxygen supply by 6% and take as muchas one minute off the time taken to run 10,000 metres, and proportionately more over lesser distances."

Estimates by M. Ashenden & R. Eichner = c:a 1 %.

To paraphrase Sgt O'Neill from Platoon (1986): "Estimates are like a-holes - Everybody's got one!"

The hypothesis of "harder training" leading to better performances was not mine. I would be interested if this has ever been studied. But, hypothetically, if more RBCs from EPO enables it, more RBCs from high altitude should too, and a lifelong exposure to high altitude enabling harder training may help explain why so many East Africans run well. The question of "why" Kenyans take EPO too, has been asked many times. My response never changes. I think it is bad advice. Regarding "so many", I have two more comments: - According to WADA, Kenya has been getting "popped" about as much as France and Italy, and less than Morocco, India, and Russia. I often wonder why only Kenya is making headlines. - So many Kenyans are getting "popped", because there are so many more Kenyans competing to start with. It would be better to express this as a percentage of total population. To get a good sense of how many more, Coevett's article gave us a link to this paper: "RUNNING PERFORMANCE, NATIONALITY, SEX, AND AGE IN THE 10-KM, HALF-MARATHON, MARATHON, AND THE 100-KM ULTRAMARATHON IAAF 1999–2015" (link to PDF below -- see Figure 1, and Tables 3-10) Some examples: - In the 10km (road), Kenyans make up 67% of all IAAF athletes (822 out of 1234) -- USA has 11 - In the semi-marathon, Kenyans make up 57% of all IAAF athletes (3602 out of 6370) -- USA has 116 - In the marathon, Kenyans make up 45% of all IAAF athletes (6172 out of 13765) -- USA has 380 In 10km and semi-marathon, USA has fewer athletes than countries like Tanzania and Eritrea Regarding cycling, I generally don't express doubts about EPO for the Grand Tours. But Hamilton told us clean riders could win 1-day challenges.http://ku.ac.ke/schools/human_sciences/images/NIKOLAIDIS%20et%20al%202017.pdf

Altitude-Native Doping wrote:

I'm not disputing the effect of high-RBC production with altitude-natives. But it doesn't seem to be a means to an end for altitude-native dopers. If it was that effective to allow harder training then why are so many top performing altitude-native Kenyans getting popped for EPO or ABP violations? If it was just a one or two, you could argue that these are just a few bad apples that were led astray but numerous Kenyans caught using EPO over the years? C'mon man.

And how about Colombian Yolanda Cabellero who holds the South American marathon record and served a doping ban for ABP hematological anomalies -- she lives and trains in Bogotá with an altitude of 8600 ft!

And the Colombian pro-cycling team Manzana Postobon just folded because of two many doping positives on the team!

I can see why analogies are not really your style. To use examples of murder, manslaughter and accidental death, the key element that distinguishes them is degrees of intent, or its lack thereof. With doping, intent is not an issue; you are presumed to be responsible for what is found in your body. Examples of "accidental" doping - tainted beef, etc - are unlikely, and rarely credible.

I also don't take the view that doping is less culpable if it is either less efficient or effective than desired by some using it. We know enough about doping to know that its effects are not neutral. Individually, it confers advantage; cumulatively it greatly distorts the sport. Corruption becomes part of the sporting fabric.

I take the view that athletes and their entourages know what they are doing. The incidence of those caught, coupled with the difficulty of catching them, persuades me there are far more doping than is revealed by known violations. That is also the consensus of most involved in anti-doping, although the likely incidence remains at best an estimate. But whether doping is at the lower estimates of 15% or higher at around 40% it seriously taints sport today. To downplay the better-informed estimates that we have becomes an apology for the practice. And, whether you intend it or not, that is how many of your posts come across.

I didn't start out by wanting to point out the massive performance difference (LHTH got worse) for similar VO2max gains, but when I looked, it was there, and as you said, goes to show that VO2max is not the only consideration. What is noticeable here is that these groups were in the same study, at the same time, so VO2max was measured the same way, and the time trials occurred at the same time, so both groups were exposed to similar conditions, and rhythms, with the exception of the training that occurred during the altitude phase. Did you also notice the significant "pre-altitude" performance gains? This is significant to consider when looking at results of studies, like the Kenyan study, that lack them -- for example, looking at ratios of improved speed versus increased VO2max. The "LHTL" group actually gained 36 seconds by the end of the altitude phase, during the course of the study. But 2/3rds of that (22.3 seconds) was before they went to altitude, due to training at sea-level that occurred during the lead-in phases: 1) Sea-level lead in phase of 2 weeks of supervised training Why? "We have previously shown that this phase is necessary and sufficient to bring all the athletes to an equivalent level of training readiness, and that may account for a substantial portion of the supervised training camp effect observed in many training studies." 2) Sea-level training control phase of 4 weeks Why? "After the lead-in phase, athletes underwent a period of supervised training at sea level that was designed to provide a longitudinal sea-level control." The study design included other features like supervised training, recording of training distance and effort, and features like a 2-minute staggered start for the time trials to avoid a tactical racing effect. I bring up this point again, only because the Kenyan study repeatedly comes up here as a scientific support for whatever the discussion is (in this case improved speed versus VO2max), when, with a little scratching under the surface, we find fundamental issues, that significantly undermine, or inflate, the results: 1) The 5% improvement for the Kenyans was an improvement from their marathon pace, to half-marathon pace, for a time-trail lasting 8-9 minutes. They ran 1 minute or more (12%-17%) under their potential capability, predicted by their half-marathon/marathon times. When the 5% is moving from -17% to -12% of their potential, it hardly seems that impressive, and certainly does not require EPO to realize that 5% gain. 2) The lack of lead in phases, something previous scientists have shown "is necessary". That "may account for a substantial portion of the supervised training camp effect observed in many training studies." The Kenyans needed more specific training at 3000m (often not their event) before the EPO intervention, and incentive to try harder to run the time trials at race pace.

Sea level athletes need to work on their sprint speed when they travel to altitude. The real secret is to go to altitude towards the end of the sharpening phase hence trips to St Moritz and Font Romeu. The classic tale is Jim Ryun who had a Vo2Max of 79.2 but then spent 2 weeks training at altitude, he lifted this to 80.2 and promptly broke the mile WR on his immediate return to sea level. He then traveled back to altitude for 2 weeks lifting his vo2 to 80.7 and the returned to sea-level to beat Kip Keino and break the world 1500m record (3:33.1). The mile record was a 0.2 improvement on his previous WR, so this is a ratio of 5 but the ratio for his 1500m WR is far more complicated as it was unlikely that he had run many 1500s but we could guess that his 3:51.3 is the equivalent of 3:33.8, so he increased his Vo2Max by 1.5 for a time improvement of about 0.7s. Nonetheless he would have been doing alot of speed work at altitude during these phases. The fast times of Filip and Jakob at Monaco last year occurred after a day trip from St Moritz.

You don't realize it but you are mostly agreeing with me. Intent and effect have no influence on guilt. This is why, when I talk about effect, or lack of effect, it is not exoneration or apologizing for the act of doping. You keep co-mingling prevalence and and guilt with effect, while I maintain they are separate topics. There is no dispute about high prevalence and the presumed guilt of doping. Besides that, I want to talk about effect, including from legal substances and methods too, because they exist. I do not downplay better informed estimates. When you said 50% for athletics, I downplayed that, calling it an exaggeration that was not a better informed estimate. Prevalence is high. Guilt is high. Doping tainting sports is high. Dopers should be punished. Agreed. Conceded. Now it's time to close this point that was never contested and move on. You say "We know enough about doping to know that its effects are not neutral." Is it possible for you to have a conversation about the extent of "what we know" about the "effects", without the obfuscation of "prevalence" and "guilt" and all the childish name calling?

Aragon wrote:

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

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

Aragon, could you kindly provide the link, or the full citation, for these two? Couldn't find them yesterday night.

Aragon wrote:

Kenyan doping surfaces again wrote:

"77. Moreover, EPO is typically taken as a course of many weeks, not as a single injection.Professer Schumacher explained that it can increase oxygen supply by 6% and take as muchas one minute off the time taken to run 10,000 metres, and proportionately more over lesser distances."

Estimates by M. Ashenden & R. Eichner = c:a 1 %.

???

Ashenden and Parisotto told the Sunday Times in their 2015 blood doping overview:

Experts say blood doping can improve the performance of a 5,000m runner by about 30 seconds – the difference between first place and last in the men’s final at London 2012. In the 10,000m the advantage could be more than a minute.

That's over 3%.

I don't agree with your general position that the effects of doping are less than many might think. Not do I believe that the effects can be understood through statistical measurement alone. Each athlete is different - some are higher responders than others - and each stimulant has a different effect from others. Effect also depends on the programme the athlete has undertaken, which often includes a range of drugs taken over a cycle. Like the full extent of the prevalence of doping, we have to make a judgment about these things. No exact answer is available.

I frequently prefer the anecdotes of sportsmen who have doped over academic researchers, because the athletes have directly experienced its effects for themselves. I recall the experience of an amateur cyclist who experimented with drugs (he wrote an article about it) and his doctor warned him when using a particular drug, to "be careful with this stuff". He thought the doctor was advising him about his health but was in fact saying to him to be careful because his improvement would be so dramatic it would draw attention. When it comes to elite athletes, the professional baseball player Jose Canseco knew a thing or two about doping; he called his autobiography "Juiced". He said, "doping makes an average athlete good, a good athlete outstanding, and an outstanding athlete invincible". I've seen that for over forty years, from schoolboys to the world's best. Everybody gets a whole lot better when they dope. Ben Johnson never broke 10-flat clean.