2:11:53 - not possible w/o drugs, supershoes?

Armstronger wrote:

Nieman, D. C., & Nieman, K. S. (2018). The Prevalence of Doping in Marathon Running: A Review of the Evidence. Sports Medicine, 48(12), 2725-2735.
Eichner, J. N., & Joyner, M. J. (2014). Doping in Marathon Running: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 46(12), 2289-2296.
Tucker, R., & Bester, N. (2010). Doping in Marathon Running: A Review of the Evidence and Potential Solutions. Sports Medicine, 40(11), 911-927.

Eichner, J. N., & Joyner, M. J. (2014) provide strong evidence that doping can significantly improve performance in marathon running. This is a significant finding, as it suggests that doping is a serious problem in the sport.
Other studies have also found that doping can lead to significant improvements in performance, such as the 2010 literature review by Tucker and Bester, which found that there is "strong evidence" that doping can improve performance in marathon runners.
While the evidence for doping in marathons is not definitive, the evidence that does exist suggests that it is a problem. And, given the potential benefits of doping in marathon running, it is likely that it will continue to be a problem in the future.
Therefore, given the evidence that doping is a problem in marathon running, and the potential benefits of doping, we should critically suspect outlier performances and records.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronger wrote:

Nieman, D. C., & Nieman, K. S. (2018). The Prevalence of Doping in Marathon Running: A Review of the Evidence. Sports Medicine, 48(12), 2725-2735.
Eichner, J. N., & Joyner, M. J. (2014). Doping in Marathon Running: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 46(12), 2289-2296.
Tucker, R., & Bester, N. (2010). Doping in Marathon Running: A Review of the Evidence and Potential Solutions. Sports Medicine, 40(11), 911-927.

Eichner, J. N., & Joyner, M. J. (2014) provide strong evidence that doping can significantly improve performance in marathon running. This is a significant finding, as it suggests that doping is a serious problem in the sport.
Other studies have also found that doping can lead to significant improvements in performance, such as the 2010 literature review by Tucker and Bester, which found that there is "strong evidence" that doping can improve performance in marathon runners.
While the evidence for doping in marathons is not definitive, the evidence that does exist suggests that it is a problem. And, given the potential benefits of doping in marathon running, it is likely that it will continue to be a problem in the future.
Therefore, given the evidence that doping is a problem in marathon running, and the potential benefits of doping, we should critically suspect outlier performances and records.

"doping can significantly improve performance"

"can lead to significant improvements in performance"

"doping can improve performance in marathon runners"

"given the potential benefits of doping in marathon running"

All of these describe a potential about what can be. "Can be" leaves open the possibility that it "might not be" for reasons unknown. That is apparently the best scientific conclusion from a systematic review of the literature.

Furthermore, nothing in your post shows me any relevant facts or evidence behind these speculative conclusory statements (from you?) that there is evidence for a potential that can lead to improvement.

Nor does it describe the limitations of these studies that might caution against projecting limited observations onto elite athletes capable of world class performances.

But if these studies have provided strong evidence, as you suggest, why not provide them here, rather than these titles and names? Did any of them conduct marathon time trials? What was the protocol? What were the results?

If you want to justify being suspicious that doping caused outlier performances, it is not enough to point to experiments on a small sample of amateurs that show these amateurs improved over the course of a few weeks, from some unknown and uncontrolled starting condition. You first need a good measure of the best performance possible clean when the athlete peaks, all other things equal, and then compare the doped performances to that reference, to demonstrate that the doped performance is unnaturally improved.

Armstronger wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

We should consider "PEDs don't exist for the marathon" not as something I "categorically dismiss" but as the "null hypothesis" that has yet to be disproved. Establishing the existence of a PED not only requires a representive set of data that includes doping data and performance data strongly correlated, but also requires disproving the null hypothesis that all of the data collected thus far may have no statistical significance.

eh?

Uh, yo, it absolutely IS possible to prove that a performance-enhancing drug (PED) exists even if the data we have is not statistically significant!

The null hypothesis, which is the assumption that there is no difference between athletes who dope and those who don't, is not the same as the alternative hypothesis, which is the assumption that there is a difference.

In other words, even if neither you nor I can't say for sure that the data we have is enough to prove that doping helps athletes perform better, we can still say that the data suggests that doping might help athletes perform better.

For example, if a study finds that athletes who dope are able to run faster marathons than athletes who don't, even if the difference in performance is not statistically significant, this would still be evidence that doping can improve marathon performance.

Try on this analogy to help elevate your comprehension:

You flip a coin 10 times and it lands on heads every single time. Is this statistically significant? No, but it does suggest that the coin is biased towards heads.
In the same way, even if we don't have enough data to say for sure that doping helps athletes perform better, the data we do have suggests that doping might help athletes perform better.

rekrunner wrote:

Hogan Rodscommon wrote:

It's important to approach such claims with a critical and evidence-based perspective. Let's address each of these statements with specific examples:

No scientific evidence that any PED exists for the marathon: FALSE
PEDs may not provide the same immediate and dramatic benefits in marathon running as in some other sports, but they can still improve performance. One example is EPO to increase red blood cell production and oxygen-carrying capacity. Has EPO ever been used by some marathon runners to enhance endurance and performance? Yes.

No strong anecdotal evidence from athletes/coaches that any PED exists for the marathon: FALSE
Listen, here's what I want you to see: while athletes and coaches may not openly admit to PED use due to the stigma and consequences associated with doping, have there been no cases of marathon runners being implicated in doping scandals? Rita Jeptoo testing positive for EPO in 2014, demonstrates that some marathon athletes have been involved in doping.

No evidence of other mechanisms, like PEDs permitting quicker recovery for faster performances: FALSE
PEDs improving recovery can indirectly lead to faster marathon performances. Take anabolic steroids for example. Look at how they can aid in muscle recovery and allow athletes to train more intensely and frequently. This improved training can lead to better marathon performances over time.

Lack of world-class fast marathon performances by most of the non-African world: DUBIOUS
Listen, mate, your argument doesn't necessarily imply that PEDs are not used. Do athletes have different training methods? Different genetics? Different and various access to resources? Furthermore, some non-African athletes have achieved world-class marathon performances.

East Africans dominating world distance running: INACCURATE
Yo, it's true that East Africans have had significant success in distance running, but it's wholly inaccurate to claim that non-Africans have "failed to replicate" their success. Athletes from various countries, including those in Europe and the Americas, have achieved competitive marathon results. The dominance of East Africans may be attributed to a combination of genetic factors, altitude training, and cultural emphasis on distance running.

Marathon being the cleanest event according to anti-doping researchers:
Your claim that marathons are the cleanest events may be based on specific criteria and data analysis. However, I can't believe that not even you can acknowledge that it doesn't negate the fact that doping can still occur in marathon running, as demonstrated by doping cases in athletics.

Think about what you're communicating. I concede that marathon running may not be as synonymous with doping as some other sports. However, it would be incorrect to categorically dismiss the existence of PEDs in marathon running based on the evidence and examples provided above. Doping remains a concern in endurance sports, including marathons.

I appreciate the detailed response. First, the question that I answered was "why would they not be doping?", not "do some athletes dope?" or "does doping exist/occur". I do not doubt that doping exists and that some athletes use banned substances. My doubts are about whether such doping can produce *unnaturally* fast marathon performances, compared to legal methods like training at altitude, and where the evidence for that can be found. Establishing otherwise would make allegations that performances like 2:11:53 are unnatural more credible.

I claimed there is no scientific evidence that a PED exists, for the marathon, and you responded with "they can still improve performance" (speculation) and "increase red blood cell production and oxygen-carrying capacity" (not evidence of performance). This does not rise to the level of scientific evidence that a PED exists for the marathon -- an sub-VO2max event which it is not obvious how increasing oxygen carrying capacity would result in faster performances. It looks more like personal speculation about what can be, but might also not be. But more fundamentally, to my knowledge, doping performance in the marathon is completely unstudied in all of the scientific doping literature. Similar with the 1500m/mile. All of the time trial studies I've seen range from 3000m-10000m -- events which are run much faster than the marathon, making VO2 more important, and too short to have to worry about factors like energy management after 30km and heat dissipation.

I claimed that there was no strong anecdotal evidence that PEDs exist for the marathon. It is not enough to say one elite athlete was busted suggesting other athletes might also be involved. In addition to doping use, the evidence of a PED has to include the data that shows the "performance enhancement" -- that's what the "PE" is. Simply providing examples like Jeptoo (and Shobukhova) rises to the level of a "proof by example" fallacy, and not "strong anecdotal evidence". As an indication of stronger anecdotal evidence, compare it side by side with what happened in cycling, where many athletes came forward, and many lists were produced showing figures like 7 out of the top-10 were busted or otherwise linked to a dirty team, and the yellow jersey might rightfully belong to the guy who finished 8th. Better still would be enough examples to be representative of the whole group that can be used to establish a correlation between doping and faster performance (which still might be spurious).

I claimed no evidence (forgot to put "scientific") of other mechanisms like recovery. Compared to studies looking at red blood cells and oxygen and lactate, the connection to recovery and improved performance is relatively unstudied at all, let alone for the marathon. Again you respond with "can indirectly lead to faster marathon performances" -- this is speculation and not evidence.

I pointed to the lack of world-class fast marathon performances from non-Africans, and you responded that I cannot imply PEDs are not used. I am not implying that banned substances are not used, but that if they are used, they are not producing unnaturally fast marathon performances for non-Africans. When I looked at all-time performances in 2018, over the span of 33 years from 1985 to 2018, only 9 non-Africans worldwide ran faster than Steve Jones (2:07:13) and Carlos Lopes (2:07:12), the fastest being Ronaldo da Costa (2:06:05). None of them were implicated in doping, with the exception of Spaniard Julio Rey (2:06:52), who ran slower when busted for doping (2:07:37). That covers the entire EPO era up to 2018. Then we enter the era of new shoes.

I claimed that East Africans have been dominating endurance running since 1981 -- with a demonstrated depth of top quality. Think of this like cross-country scoring, where you need a team of 5. Sure the best non-African might beat the 5th best runner every once in a while. You respond again asking if PEDs are being used -- I don't question whether some athletes used banned substances. You also respond say "some non-African athletes have achieved world-class marathon performances" -- which is far short of "demonstrated depth of top quality". Recently, at the top of the non-African list are a few Japanese athletes -- a country not associated with doping. The fastest are just sub-2:05, not a big improvement from Ronaldo da Costa (1998) or Steve Jones (1985). I'm asking how powerful and how widespread can PEDs be if the best non-Africans have only improved 2 minutes in almost 40 years now (including all the other benefits from non-doping factors), and the best of those athletes (Japanese) are most likely clean?

I claimed researchers looking at 12 years of blood data showed the marathon to be cleaner than other events. You repeat again that doping can still occur in the marathon. Sure doping exists and occurs. With respect to blood doping and EPO, these scientists were only (indirectly) suspicious about 1 in 9 of the Olympic and World Championship medals won, meaning 8 out of 9 did not raise any red or yellow flags for these scientists.

We should consider "PEDs don't exist for the marathon" not as something I "categorically dismiss" but as the "null hypothesis" that has yet to be disproved. Establishing the existence of a PED not only requires a representive set of data that includes doping data and performance data strongly correlated, but also requires disproving the null hypothesis that all of the data collected thus far may have no statistical significance.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronger wrote:

eh?

Uh, yo, it absolutely IS possible to prove that a performance-enhancing drug (PED) exists even if the data we have is not statistically significant!

The null hypothesis, which is the assumption that there is no difference between athletes who dope and those who don't, is not the same as the alternative hypothesis, which is the assumption that there is a difference.

In other words, even if neither you nor I can't say for sure that the data we have is enough to prove that doping helps athletes perform better, we can still say that the data suggests that doping might help athletes perform better.

For example, if a study finds that athletes who dope are able to run faster marathons than athletes who don't, even if the difference in performance is not statistically significant, this would still be evidence that doping can improve marathon performance.

Try on this analogy to help elevate your comprehension:

You flip a coin 10 times and it lands on heads every single time. Is this statistically significant? No, but it does suggest that the coin is biased towards heads.
In the same way, even if we don't have enough data to say for sure that doping helps athletes perform better, the data we do have suggests that doping might help athletes perform better.

If it IS possible to establish the existence, has someone already done it? If not, why not?

I don't find it interesting to say "the data suggests that doping might help". That suggestion is not strong enough to conclude that outlier performances are only possible doped, as is done so often here.

Is there a study that "finds that athletes who dope are able to run faster marathons than athletes who don't"? That would be a study I find interesting, if it were conducted properly.

But the point is, it is not enough to attempt to suggest the existence of PEDs with multiple proofs-by-example. You have to address the null hypothesis that the performance improvements did not come from drugs, but other confounding factors, and work to disprove that. Otherwise, the possibility remains that extreme outliers are clean, say from new shoes, good pacing, good weather on a flat course, and good altitude training.

After 40+ years of research, at what point do we stop talking about suggestions and potential for improvement, and start talking about observed improvements using concrete verbs in the past tense? Keep in mind here that a small handful of believers in potions here claim that Assefa gained as much as 4-5 minutes -- or maybe even 22 minutes -- from doping, without proof of doping and without any proof that doping can even deliver these improvements.

runn wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

If it IS possible to establish the existence, has someone already done it? If not, why not?

I don't find it interesting to say "the data suggests that doping might help". That suggestion is not strong enough to conclude that outlier performances are only possible doped, as is done so often here.

Is there a study that "finds that athletes who dope are able to run faster marathons than athletes who don't"? That would be a study I find interesting, if it were conducted properly.

But the point is, it is not enough to attempt to suggest the existence of PEDs with multiple proofs-by-example. You have to address the null hypothesis that the performance improvements did not come from drugs, but other confounding factors, and work to disprove that. Otherwise, the possibility remains that extreme outliers are clean, say from new shoes, good pacing, good weather on a flat course, and good altitude training.

After 40+ years of research, at what point do we stop talking about suggestions and potential for improvement, and start talking about observed improvements using concrete verbs in the past tense? Keep in mind here that a small handful of believers in potions here claim that Assefa gained as much as 4-5 minutes -- or maybe even 22 minutes -- from doping, without proof of doping and without any proof that doping can even deliver these improvements.

Your response should be on the letsrun homepage. Too many of these people are just speaking through their anonymity because they lack the intelligence to think like you do.

As far as I am concerned: I've watched the marathon evolve since 1972 or so. I remember a woman running somewhere around 2:50 and setting a world record.

I read articles that asked how fast men would run when sub 4 milers started moving up- we saw a dramatic drop in times and in the number of runners running them.

Maybe these times were inevitable. I thought that by now we'd have a sub 2, back when I was 24 (40 years ago). I didn't consider drugs or shoes.

I remember when the "best" running shoes weren't as "protective" as the minimalist shoes sold today.

My point- the sport has evolved more than the average person in their 20's/30's can imagine.

The stories of Bill Rogers eating mayonnaise by the spoonful in the middle of the night are true.

We used to eat ANYTHING just to get calories.

I don't know if there are human limits to how fast we could run, maybe we've reached it and drugs and shoes are the only way to improve.

Or ... maybe .... it's just the shoes ...

* It's funny but writing this made me nostalgic. I only run about 25 mpw now but I really miss the days of running heavier mileage and eating half gallons of ice cream before bed and a pound of pasta or 24 pancakes ... and still feeling hungry.