Katir confirms what Ramzi already told us - full throttle EPO improves 1500m times by 8 - 10 seconds

Bioenergetics for beginners. wrote:

Ding dong Katir is gone wrote:

There you go wrong, mate. We continue to hear how HARD these athletes are training. And, with NO negative effects on the bodies, might I add. If anything all of that HARD, consistent day-in, day-out training + a couple of form tweaks is working magic in two particular camps. Funny how you make assumptions about people you've never seen, heard of or interacted with. Some of us are more embedded in the sport with actual athletes than you'd imagine.

Do you understand that better trained runners use less energy to run faster times than less well trained runners?

It's called efficiency. And it can be measured by oxygen economy.

You probably did know, but you weren't able to rationalize it intellectually. This is the doping problem in a nutshell. Science is supplanted by mystical beliefs.

Nice one you smug dunce. No run-of-the-mill athlete can train and race at each 1250 (!) /328 (!) /727 (!) levels and not break down, running efficiency notwithstanding.

Aragon wrote:

Bilbo Baggins the Fourth wrote:

Ramzi's progression was very similar - improving 9 seconds in one breakout season at age 24. We know now what was obvious to everybody except the usual hardened doping apologists here - it was entirely due to EPO.

You are 100 % on the spot that "hardened doping apologists" do think that it is autistic to put every 0.01 s improvement in someone's performance to one factor, be it EPO or something else.

Somehow the scientists also fall into the category of "hardened doping apologists" when they want to have control groups in their EPO-experiments in order to minimize the other factors affecting performance. Their experiences tend to be one-shot attempt time trials or Vo2Max-tests with similar conditions, equipment etc.

Thus far ~5 % boosts in speed have been rare (not totally absent) in the literature, when the strictest scientific conditions have been met.

Right, so you swap an 8 second improvement for 0.01 second improvement, and Coevett is the liar.

Right.

And why aren't you posting under your rekrunner handle anymore? They finally banned you?

On letsrun if you get fast really fast you are “on a trajectory”(whose?) but in real life it is actually just the culmination of your training combined with an increased exposure to competition that allow those fast times to occur and they do not “indicate” anything. Running is a lot more than math folks, if it was all about numbers and science then a lot of us would be world class.

Ding dong Katir is gone wrote:

Bioenergetics for beginners. wrote:

Do you understand that better trained runners use less energy to run faster times than less well trained runners?

It's called efficiency. And it can be measured by oxygen economy.

You probably did know, but you weren't able to rationalize it intellectually. This is the doping problem in a nutshell. Science is supplanted by mystical beliefs.

Nice one you smug dunce. No run-of-the-mill athlete can train and race at each 1250 (!) /328 (!) /727 (!) levels and not break down, running efficiency notwithstanding.

Ya don't shay

i am the mushroom man wrote:

On letsrun if you get fast really fast you are “on a trajectory”(whose?) but in real life it is actually just the culmination of your training combined with an increased exposure to competition that allow those fast times to occur and they do not “indicate” anything. Running is a lot more than math folks, if it was all about numbers and science then a lot of us would be world class.

What does that garbage mean? When guys get really fast really quickly beyond age 22, they often get popped.

Bergenkampf wrote:

Aragon wrote:

You are 100 % on the spot that "hardened doping apologists" do think that it is autistic to put every 0.01 s improvement in someone's performance to one factor, be it EPO or something else.

Somehow the scientists also fall into the category of "hardened doping apologists" when they want to have control groups in their EPO-experiments in order to minimize the other factors affecting performance. Their experiences tend to be one-shot attempt time trials or Vo2Max-tests with similar conditions, equipment etc.

Thus far ~5 % boosts in speed have been rare (not totally absent) in the literature, when the strictest scientific conditions have been met.

Right, so you swap an 8 second improvement for 0.01 second improvement, and Coevett is the liar.

Right.

And why aren't you posting under your rekrunner handle anymore? They finally banned you?

Aragon has been posting for years under that handle, Coevett.

Do your usual handle-stalking and see for yourself.

Katir was tested at Monaco. Fact, easily traceable.

Possibly that was the first time he had ever been tested. Highly improbable though.

My facts might be wrong - and would be keen to be put right if so - but I thought in DL meets the Top 3 in every event are tested as a matter of course and then a certain other number from 4th to 8th?

Also, wouldn;t he have been tested routinely at Euro indoors by virtue of his result there? And ditto his other very fast indoors (I forget where and can;t be bothered to check). And yes I know the argument that only idiots get caught doping at big comps.

I'd be not the slightest bit surprised if he gets busted but some of the narratives around his relative decline at and since Tokyo are a bit spurious. In his first season at global elite level he slightly screwed up the peaking - it happens, clean or otherwise.

Bioenergetics for beginners wrote:

So El Gerrouj coulda run 3.18?

No, he coulda run 3.34 - but ended up running 3.26.00

Isn’t Bilbo Baggins a fictitious character living in a fictitious world?

Your thread/post presumes many things, in order to confirm what was presumed, but rather than rehashing them, I’ll just limit my response to the presumption that you can speak on behalf of any objective observers here.

Andrew Wheating made an 8 second gain at the age of 23 in the 1500m — any thoughts there?

Jack Link wrote:

You honestly believe El G was clean? His training partners were busted (Kaouch) and his coach accused of doping the young Driouch.

Here is the progression of Kaouch performances in the 1500m over the years.

Do you see here any jump of 8 secondes or even 3 seconds?

He was tested negative in 2007 at the age 27.

Katir is still young and at my surprise I found he was younger than the two Aussi runners that were in the Diamond league final.

He has even better PB than Josh Kerr.

Hamza Driouch was coached by Jama Aden and is considered as a Qatari runner.

And as Canova said Ramzi has 50% of chance to defend himself. You never know the secret of his progression. He was punished for breaking a IAAF rule and that ends there.

As usual Coevett is jumping the gun. Let's see how Katir performs next year. I thought the whole theory was that he went EPO etc. full throttle in 2020 and between indoors and outdoors. Well now he's in the RTP and he can't do that or will get busted for an ABP/doping violation. A 3:32 run likely without egregious doping (he was part of RTP and has been regularly tested in-competition since May) is a solid result. If he returns to a 3:34-36 athlete, Coevett can celebrate. If he runs sub 3:31 and sub 7:30 different story.

Now, the athlete I think who is a complete fraud is the Jama Aden-coached women's 10,000 second-placer. Since winning the silver and getting put in the RTP, we have zero results. She's run a grant total of 1 race since June 2nd. Seems oh so plausible for an athlete who should be cashing in after Olympic silver. If we ever see her break 30:30 or 14:40 again I'll be surprised.

Passant wrote:

Katir is still young and at my surprise I found he was younger than the two Aussi runners that were in the Diamond league final.

He has even better PB than Josh Kerr.

Hamza Driouch was coached by Jama Aden and is considered as a Qatari runner.

And as Canova said Ramzi has 50% of chance to defend himself. You never know the secret of his progression. He was punished for breaking a IAAF rule and that ends there.

This says it all really. Somebody who openly defends and praises Ramzi is the main defender of Katir.

And Passant is the guy that the hardcore doping apologists such as Spade Detector/Casual Observer, and all the other trolls sleeping with.

Ding dong Katir is gone wrote:

BTW Canova, some scientists have written studies about the effectness of EPO on Kenyans which you've staunchly disputed and won't recognise.

I’m aware of one study on relatively fast Kenyans, with no control group, and no baseline controls, where the scientists got Kenyans to run 3000m at their marathon pace, and then, with EPO, got them to run 3000m at their half-marathon pace.

Multiple choice quiz — more than one answer may apply:

- EPO helped Kenyans run their 1 hour race pace for 8 minutes

- scientists are not very good coaches

- scientists drawing conclusions from studies without control groups are not very good scientists

Passant wrote:

Jack Link wrote:

You honestly believe El G was clean? His training partners were busted (Kaouch) and his coach accused of doping the young Driouch.

Here is the progression of Kaouch performances in the 1500m over the years.

Do you see here any jump of 8 secondes or even 3 seconds?

https://i.ibb.co/LYGkstB/Adil-Kaouch.jpg

He was tested negative in 2007 at the age 27.

Are you defending Kauch as well, or are you trying to make the argument that as many convicted dopers have normal looking progressions, the likes of Katir and Ramzi must be clean?

Knowing you, probably both. Oh and here comes RekRunner, the father figure of all the many doping apologists here.

Testing is a usually the podium, then one or two randoms, depending on the budget. It's not uniform across the meetings.

Bergenkampf wrote:

Aragon wrote:

You are 100 % on the spot that "hardened doping apologists" do think that it is autistic to put every 0.01 s improvement in someone's performance to one factor, be it EPO or something else.

Somehow the scientists also fall into the category of "hardened doping apologists" when they want to have control groups in their EPO-experiments in order to minimize the other factors affecting performance. Their experiences tend to be one-shot attempt time trials or Vo2Max-tests with similar conditions, equipment etc.

Thus far ~5 % boosts in speed have been rare (not totally absent) in the literature, when the strictest scientific conditions have been met.

Right, so you swap an 8 second improvement for 0.01 second improvement, and Coevett is the liar.

Right.

And why aren't you posting under your rekrunner handle anymore? They finally banned you?

Actually it was Coevett who write “entirely due to EPO”, and Aragon just reworded “entirely” as “every 0.01s improvement” and ridiculed the idea of attributing that entirety of each and every 0.01 seconds of Ramzi’s 9 second improvement to exactly one factor.

Historically Aragon posts under his handle, and I post under mine. It’s rather easy to tell us apart.

To my knowledge, neither of us were ever banned.

rekrunner wrote:

Ding dong Katir is gone wrote:

BTW Canova, some scientists have written studies about the effectness of EPO on Kenyans which you've staunchly disputed and won't recognise.

I’m aware of one study on relatively fast Kenyans, with no control group, and no baseline controls, where the scientists got Kenyans to run 3000m at their marathon pace, and then, with EPO, got them to run 3000m at their half-marathon pace.

Multiple choice quiz — more than one answer may apply:

- EPO helped Kenyans run their 1 hour race pace for 8 minutes

- scientists are not very good coaches

- scientists drawing conclusions from studies without control groups are not very good scientists

Playing along with this game, has anyone read:

Haile DW, Durussel J, Mekonen W, Ongaro N, Anjila E, Mooses M, Daskalaki E, Mooses K, McClure JD, Sutehall S, Pitsiladis YP. Effects of EPO on Blood Parameters and Running Performance in Kenyan Athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019 Feb;51(2):299-307. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001777. PMID: 30188362.

rekrunner wrote:

Bergenkampf wrote:

Right, so you swap an 8 second improvement for 0.01 second improvement, and Coevett is the liar.

Right.

And why aren't you posting under your rekrunner handle anymore? They finally banned you?

Actually it was Coevett who write “entirely due to EPO”, and Aragon just reworded “entirely” as “every 0.01s improvement” and ridiculed the idea of attributing that entirety of each and every 0.01 seconds of Ramzi’s 9 second improvement to exactly one factor.

Historically Aragon posts under his handle, and I post under mine. It’s rather easy to tell us apart.

To my knowledge, neither of us were ever banned.

Congratulations on having the courage to post under your regular handle.

How many studies show that EPO makes a massive difference, and how many studies show that it makes no or little difference to athletic performance?

Stop pretending at last to have the backing of science on your side. You're an autistic outsider who is going against the near universal tide of scientific opinion. This is why WADA spends so many resources on detecting the illegal PED EPO. Because the science says it works. Oh, and there's the obvious evidence of the eyes that it works when we see guys running 3:27 every week on non-Mondo tracks and old spikes in the brief period there was no testing, and then almost never again until 30 years later and super spikes and 2nd generation MONDO.