jemima sumgong went from being a 2.29 marathon runner ,to 2.20.are these improvements normal for an EPO user?

Sprintgeezer wrote:

And BTW it's everywhere. There are a great many third-world-quality places in the USA where it's exactly the same...a GREAT many.

Also pathetic is the "pass" that people think they deserve as they age--things like old guys getting pervy, because they get away with it. The same thing applies to those who want to better their athletic performances.

Doping in masters not only exists, but is IMO widespread. I'm talking people who just plain don't care anymore, and who are a bit narcissistic--and there are many of them.

It goes all the way from kids who don't yet know any better, to seniors who just don't care anymore.

I agree with most of your persespective. And something's amiss when a late 50ish/early 60ish runner is training like a 25 yr old elite. Even if they're small in build with good biomechanics; running consistent 80 mpw, one or two weekly killer speed sessions, weekly 20+ mile LRs, no injuries/downtime and running eye-opening super fast times year after year when it can't be done naturally at that age (and some I've seen in both running & triathlon are buffed to the max and running a jaw-dropping times for what their bodyweight & age wouldn't dictate).

One of the problems is that low-T centers are everywhere. Retired pro-athletes are even in on the act aggressively advertising for some of these centers. This is a fast growing lucrative business targeting a wide spectrum of middle-age dudes. And if you're a loaded old guy, anti-aging clinics will prescribe high-octane HGH. Heck, some of these ageless wonders could be using a T/HGH combo, and even maybe more crap to the mix.

The other problem is no one questions these incredible, hard to believe, stellar performances coming from this age demographics. These unusual, incredibly-fast race results are never questioned. Instead, these ageless specimens are treated like heros & Gods. And they just take it in - never failing to keep reminding us of their fantastic training schedules and "smart training method" as if we're supposed to bow down and worship them.

rekrunner wrote:

In my search to look for evidence of EPO working at the top, I look at the ones running the fastest times, notably faster than pre-EPO records.

Why don't you look for the one's running the slower times, and not showing much potentional initially, and see how high-octane doping jettisoned them to a whole new level? (i.e., "donkey" to "racehorse" analogy). Looking at the fastest times first, you're going find most of the East Africans, who being naturally fast with their great biomechanics, come a dime a dozen anyway. OTOH, a donkey, who through high-octane doping, goes from average elite to racehorse, and now is competing for medals in major competitions...now that's something to show the power of high-octane doping with lesser talented elites.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Ha, ha, ha. Yes, you are diligently and earnestly seeking evidence...

rekrunner wrote:

In my search to look for evidence of EPO working at the top, I look at the ones running the fastest times, notably faster than pre-EPO records.

Yes. This is too funny. Rekrunner, have you explained to Ross Tucker how he got his numbers all wrong, as they are all coincidental, and that there is no reason to suspect the old world records like he does:

"a whole bunch of them [old word records] dating back to the 1980s that were arguably aided by steroids at a time when out of competition testing was non-existent, and then you’ll see a host of them dating to the late 1990s and early 2000s that are equally suspect because that’s when EPO use (and later blood doping) was rampant in the sport, also without adequate testing."

If you have some time, rekrunner, tell him, or us, why he is so very very wrong to state:

"I hope that the explanation I provided above, regarding the fossilization of world records, has shown this to be true – the steroid era prior to Out of competition testing, and the EPO era prior to an EPO test are certainly highly suspicious.

So yes, pre-2005 must be viewed with less trust than post-2005."

Starting with that there is no steroid era, and that there is no EPO era, and if they were, it didn't matter because doping doesn't help. Tucker apparently doesn't understand coincidences as you do, rekrunner.

i can answer that question.no,they cant.and also the russians were right.

Recall my preference is to talk about EPO and distance running, for the men.I have never expressed doubts about steroids, especially for the women, or for sprinting or strength events, and possibly shorter distance events. One of the reasons I don't like to talk about women, is because steroids are so powerful for them, it's hard for me to give that credit to EPO until steroids are positively ruled out.Regarding performances in the EPO-era, I have already "told you" several of the assumptions I do not make, where he does. He thinks cycling and running are the same, for purposes of this discussion. He says "EPO use (and later blood doping) was rampant in the sport, also without adequate testing." When you see which nationalities set the top times, and top 20 times, it is hard to make a case that EPO use was both effective, and rampant, for the "top" non-African nationals. This leads to a number of possible scenarios, like only Africans used EPO, or creative theories, like non-Africans replaced blood doping and steroids with EPO, for effectively no net gain.Ross Tucker admits that "neither of these graphs prove doping in those performances SPECIFICALLY".

casual obsever wrote:

Yes. This is too funny. Rekrunner, have you explained to Ross Tucker ...

If you have some time, rekrunner, tell him, or us, why he is so very very wrong ...

rekrunner wrote:

Regarding performances in the EPO-era, I have already "told you" several of the assumptions I do not make, where he does.

Exactly my point. You consider those well justified assumptions "making up stuff" or "creative theories", whereas fans of the sports are just getting cynical.

Tucker or we here on letsrun or my local running colleagues, to name a few, are convinced that athletes used steroids in the steroid era and EPO in the EPO era. That's not creative but consequent:

Not only is it typical for human nature to ignore rules when they aren't controlled (see taxes in Greece, or speeding when there's never police, driving in Rome,...), athletes also used steroids and EPO even after those eras, I.e. at risk of detection. Examples are abundant.

I find it ludicrous to assume that athletes did not use steroids or EPO while those drugs weren't detectable, and then started using them as soon as they could get caught. Absurd. But yeah, keep ridiculing this logic.

Jeezus, that's some military grade butthurt.

Renato Canova wrote:

I had periodic tests with my athletes, Italian or Kenyan. How already I wrote, after the big marathon (I'm in Boston then I'll go London) I have some time at home, where I have the data, and I can start to publish them. I don't think I have to ask the athletes some permission regarding the privacy : everybody was clean, so I don't see any reason for making secret their data.

Any progress on publishing this data?