That statement doesn't require that the improvement be definitively quantified. It will vary from athlete to athlete - as with other forms of doping. No doped athlete will supply the data that will demonstrate the gains they made. However it can be concluded that if a drug that has existed for over 30 years did not provide significant gains its use would have long ago discontinued - especially in the light of the penalties that can be incurred if caught using it. It would be seen as no more performance enhancing than drinking hot chocolate or wearing a lucky charm - and as innocuous.
i used it during an approximate 8 week period during 2007
AMA
You used EPO? How did it affect you and what kind of gains did you make?
I should add that what I wrote precisely doesn't indicate that each doper gets a benefit. Doping would be prevalent if a majority of dopers would end up getting no benefit at all, but only a fraction would. Whether a majority gets a boost nor the magnitude of boosts they get from each doping method / substance is another question and is difficult to extrapolate from the prevalence of the use alone.
In summary - the decision to dope is based on ex ante - odds, "based on forecasts rather than actual results" as Oxford dictionary puts it.
That is an unsubstantiated myth, Aragon, to use rekrunner's favorite words. More realistically, the coach or doctor prescribes the doping because of their earlier, positive experiences (example Gay), or the athlete dopes because of the positive experiences of a colleague, as people know people (example Z. Robertson). After all, even outsiders can see the various testimonies of coaches like Canova, Flanagan, and Salazar, and athletes like Kisorio and Z Robertson. Insiders know much, much more. It's not like they are operating in a vacuum, or the PED concept is new.
For example Zane here on letsrun in March 2023: "The one time I took it, I did feel that I could move in training like I was in great shape, and clearly I wasn’t in great shape before it. It just makes you feel a lot easier when you’re pushing out your maximum for a lot longer. "
One would also think that dopers would stop doping, if they see next to no benefit, considering the potential punishment if caught. Ask Shelby or Zane or Kisorio.
I should add that what I wrote precisely doesn't indicate that each doper gets a benefit. Doping would be prevalent if a majority of dopers would end up getting no benefit at all, but only a fraction would. Whether a majority gets a boost nor the magnitude of boosts they get from each doping method / substance is another question and is difficult to extrapolate from the prevalence of the use alone.
In summary - the decision to dope is based on ex ante - odds, "based on forecasts rather than actual results" as Oxford dictionary puts it.
You are assuming that point above. It also goes against your own calculus for why athletes dope, which is because a performance gain from doping is more likely than not. Your point is further undermined by what is known about the effects of drugs - especially by the athletes that use them. All the evidence suggests that drugs make a difference - and typically a big difference. You are not acknowledging that doping today is not new or experimental. It is a long established practice involving some of the best scientific and sporting expertise. That is why it is so prevalent and impossible to stop.
That is an unsubstantiated myth, Aragon, to use rekrunner's favorite words. More realistically, the coach or doctor prescribes the doping because of their earlier, positive experiences (example Gay), or the athlete dopes because of the positive experiences of a colleague, as people know people (example Z. Robertson). After all, even outsiders can see the various testimonies of coaches like Canova, Flanagan, and Salazar, and athletes like Kisorio and Z Robertson. Insiders know much, much more. It's not like they are operating in a vacuum, or the PED concept is new.
For example Zane here on letsrun in March 2023: "The one time I took it, I did feel that I could move in training like I was in great shape, and clearly I wasn’t in great shape before it. It just makes you feel a lot easier when you’re pushing out your maximum for a lot longer. "
One would also think that dopers would stop doping, if they see next to no benefit, considering the potential punishment if caught. Ask Shelby or Zane or Kisorio.
I should add that what I wrote precisely doesn't indicate that each doper gets a benefit. Doping would be prevalent if a majority of dopers would end up getting no benefit at all, but only a fraction would. Whether a majority gets a boost nor the magnitude of boosts they get from each doping method / substance is another question and is difficult to extrapolate from the prevalence of the use alone.
In summary - the decision to dope is based on ex ante - odds, "based on forecasts rather than actual results" as Oxford dictionary puts it.
You are assuming that point above. It also goes against your own calculus for why athletes dope, which is because a performance gain from doping is more likely than not...
If the unknown is almost exclusively upside, there is no contradiction in using any doping method/substance even if there is a miniscule likelihood of a boost if the financial burden wouldn't be enormous and the risk of getting caught is very low. Many athletes would roll a dice even if it cost them $1,000, if number six would give them a 1 % boost in performance whereas the other numbers would give no boost at all. To add to the problem of decision making, it is very difficult to know what factor contributed to any good or bad performance or what the performance should've been in absence of factor X or Y. One's 1-2 % boost in performance might have nothing to do with doping, and even if there was no boost, one could rationalize that the performance could've been even worse if doping wasn't used.
And yes, perhaps there is more information on some doping methods vs. the others. But how huge boost or how predictable boost the athletes would expect from any method / substance or how fine-tuned the methods are are different questions, but the prevalence of use conveys surprisingly little information.
You used EPO? How did it affect you and what kind of gains did you make?
20' power (sea-level) went from 390w up to 430w
for most runners getting that same sort of increased power output, the approximate correlation would be taking 4-6% off your 8k time
i was the cycling equivalent of an 800m runner, def not a 5k-10k type
Rai on the rocket fuel could run 1:44 most likely
Interesting but you do know that it was only a "belief" that it aided you, that any improvement was only a "placebo" effect and that it definitely wouldn't have helped you if you were a Kenyan distance runner training at altitude (even though they, too, will use it)?
You are assuming that point above. It also goes against your own calculus for why athletes dope, which is because a performance gain from doping is more likely than not...
If the unknown is almost exclusively upside, there is no contradiction in using any doping method/substance even if there is a miniscule likelihood of a boost if the financial burden wouldn't be enormous and the risk of getting caught is very low. Many athletes would roll a dice even if it cost them $1,000, if number six would give them a 1 % boost in performance whereas the other numbers would give no boost at all. To add to the problem of decision making, it is very difficult to know what factor contributed to any good or bad performance or what the performance should've been in absence of factor X or Y. One's 1-2 % boost in performance might have nothing to do with doping, and even if there was no boost, one could rationalize that the performance could've been even worse if doping wasn't used.
And yes, perhaps there is more information on some doping methods vs. the others. But how huge boost or how predictable boost the athletes would expect from any method / substance or how fine-tuned the methods are are different questions, but the prevalence of use conveys surprisingly little information.
I think you are saying more about how you think than the way athletes would view these things.
You are also suggesting that they make a decision to dope with no real assurance of making gains. Anecdotal accounts of doping (such as we've just seen on this thread) says that isn't their experience - doping had a significant effect. They expected rewards from doping and they gained them. The kinds of performances we have seen from those caught tend to confirm that. I am persuaded more by the account of an admitted doper over twenty years ago, Jose Canseco, who said "doping makes an average athlete good, a good athlete outstanding and a top athlete invincible". That is why doping is worth the risk for so many athletes - they can experience feeling like Superman, and the tangible rewards of medals, money and fame can be irresistible. That is why whistleblowers have said "99%" of Russian athletes doped and we see a similar parade of drug cheats emerging from Kenya.
for most runners getting that same sort of increased power output, the approximate correlation would be taking 4-6% off your 8k time
i was the cycling equivalent of an 800m runner, def not a 5k-10k type
Rai on the rocket fuel could run 1:44 most likely
Interesting but you do know that it was only a "belief" that it aided you, that any improvement was only a "placebo" effect and that it definitely wouldn't have helped you if you were a Kenyan distance runner training at altitude (even though they, too, will use it)?
sarcasm aside, i do of course it will help virtually anyone outside of those suffering from chronic polycythemea or something extreme like that
while i have tremendous respect for the mind of Renato, i can't quite come to grasps how it would have zero impact on the very best of the very best distance runners
someone like Kipchoge for instance i would think it would help at least some measurable amount, albeit much smaller than most on this board would likely have guessed
for someone like Rai it would most likely lead to a substantial (maybe 10% like me) increase in aerobic capacity, but on top of that the ability to clear/utilize lactate is also a massive game changer that a lot of people don't understand. in Rai's case his training load could increase substantially and a race like the 800 he could stay fluid at a higher lactate level than he otherwise would be able to
lactate clearance for me as an example meant instead of waiting 3-5 minutes between huge attacks/efforts to be ready to go again, i would only need to wait about 30-45 seconds. it was sobering.
If the unknown is almost exclusively upside, there is no contradiction in using any doping method/substance even if there is a miniscule likelihood of a boost if the financial burden wouldn't be enormous and the risk of getting caught is very low. Many athletes would roll a dice even if it cost them $1,000, if number six would give them a 1 % boost in performance whereas the other numbers would give no boost at all. To add to the problem of decision making, it is very difficult to know what factor contributed to any good or bad performance or what the performance should've been in absence of factor X or Y. One's 1-2 % boost in performance might have nothing to do with doping, and even if there was no boost, one could rationalize that the performance could've been even worse if doping wasn't used.
And yes, perhaps there is more information on some doping methods vs. the others. But how huge boost or how predictable boost the athletes would expect from any method / substance or how fine-tuned the methods are are different questions, but the prevalence of use conveys surprisingly little information.
I think you are saying more about how you think than the way athletes would view these things.
You are also suggesting that they make a decision to dope with no real assurance of making gains. Anecdotal accounts of doping (such as we've just seen on this thread) says that isn't their experience - doping had a significant effect. They expected rewards from doping and they gained them. The kinds of performances we have seen from those caught tend to confirm that. I am persuaded more by the account of an admitted doper over twenty years ago, Jose Canseco, who said "doping makes an average athlete good, a good athlete outstanding and a top athlete invincible". That is why doping is worth the risk for so many athletes - they can experience feeling like Superman, and the tangible rewards of medals, money and fame can be irresistible. That is why whistleblowers have said "99%" of Russian athletes doped and we see a similar parade of drug cheats emerging from Kenya.
I am only suggesting that almost 100 % certainty of gains isn't a prerequisite to dope, but that even lower odds are incentives enough if the downside is negligible particularly if one knows that the competitors can also give the method a try.
This doesn't outrule that there can be methods with almost guaranteed boost for most athletes which is a completely different topic I didn't address at all.
for most runners getting that same sort of increased power output, the approximate correlation would be taking 4-6% off your 8k time
i was the cycling equivalent of an 800m runner, def not a 5k-10k type
Rai on the rocket fuel could run 1:44 most likely
Interesting but you do know that it was only a "belief" that it aided you, that any improvement was only a "placebo" effect and that it definitely wouldn't have helped you if you were a Kenyan distance runner training at altitude (even though they, too, will use it)?
"Sarcasm is also established as the lowest form of wit."
No, this is sarcasm. 'Yeah and all the Kenyan's (and others) who have been banned are taking EPO (and other pharmaceuticals) for their placebo effect. Gotcha.
I think you are saying more about how you think than the way athletes would view these things.
You are also suggesting that they make a decision to dope with no real assurance of making gains. Anecdotal accounts of doping (such as we've just seen on this thread) says that isn't their experience - doping had a significant effect. They expected rewards from doping and they gained them. The kinds of performances we have seen from those caught tend to confirm that. I am persuaded more by the account of an admitted doper over twenty years ago, Jose Canseco, who said "doping makes an average athlete good, a good athlete outstanding and a top athlete invincible". That is why doping is worth the risk for so many athletes - they can experience feeling like Superman, and the tangible rewards of medals, money and fame can be irresistible. That is why whistleblowers have said "99%" of Russian athletes doped and we see a similar parade of drug cheats emerging from Kenya.
I am only suggesting that almost 100 % certainty of gains isn't a prerequisite to dope, but that even lower odds are incentives enough if the downside is negligible particularly if one knows that the competitors can also give the method a try.
This doesn't outrule that there can be methods with almost guaranteed boost for most athletes which is a completely different topic I didn't address at all.
We may be at cross-purposes here. You may be right that there is an incentive to dope even if the outcome is uncertain or at least minimal, but I am suggesting that the reality of doping is that while its results aren't predictable by any exact measure the general effect will be gains that surpass what talent, training and nutrition alone can achieve.
Interesting but you do know that it was only a "belief" that it aided you, that any improvement was only a "placebo" effect and that it definitely wouldn't have helped you if you were a Kenyan distance runner training at altitude (even though they, too, will use it)?
"Sarcasm is also established as the lowest form of wit."
Armstronglivs
It isn't sarcasm but I wouldn't expect you to know that.
This doesn't outrule that there can be methods with almost guaranteed boost for most athletes which is a completely different topic I didn't address at all.
Which methods/substances besides EPO would enhance a DISTANCE runner's performance?
Anabolics enhance tissue building and repair. They allow for improved & better recovery from hard workouts by combating high cortisol levels associated with hard training.
There's been a high number of positives with Kenyans over the years for testosterone & anabolic steroids (i.e. Norandrosterone). Kenyans are noted for brutal workouts & excessive high mileage. How do you think they've been able to recover so well from this stressful training.
EndurElite Chief Endurance Officer Matt Mosman discusses how EPO and steroids work physiologically and why some endurance athletes choose to illegally dope w...
Interesting but you do know that it was only a "belief" that it aided you, that any improvement was only a "placebo" effect and that it definitely wouldn't have helped you if you were a Kenyan distance runner training at altitude (even though they, too, will use it)?
"Sarcasm is also established as the lowest form of wit."
Armstronglivs
Dumb is so extremely inconsistent in all his behavior.
Look at his reaction to your fair quoting of him.
Doing jokes about some small spelling mistake of some non English speaker - while he himself often does big spelling mistakes as an native English speaker. His posts are full of something like this.
This doesn't outrule that there can be methods with almost guaranteed boost for most athletes which is a completely different topic I didn't address at all.
Which methods/substances besides EPO would enhance a DISTANCE runner's performance?
Honest question.
Most of the stimulants, corticosteroids, painkillers, asthma medicine have shown to have some benefit for most of the endurance athletes both scientifically and anecdotally. Interestingly also caffeine and baking soda are shown to be beneficial even when far from all athletes use them despite them not being banned (likely the boost in the studies is overestimated).
Likely testosterone and steroids also are beneficial even when it has been difficult to show any clear benefit in controlled studies even in modestly trained athletes not to mention elites. After some studies showing (albeit inconsistently) boosts in some parameters, prevalent use from the 1970s if not earlier and anecdotally athletes vouching for their benefits, it would difficult to think that they are totally useless.
I wouldn't even see EPO nor blood doping as miracle methods despite the anecdotal evidence about enormous gains. While they have gained almost mythological status as performance boosters, there has been very little published scientific level material with truly elite level athletes. The mechanism is sound, the scientific research robust enough, but the enormous 10-15 % boosts in Vo2Max / Watt output in recreational athletes not necessarily extrapolated to elite level athletes automatically.
Which methods/substances besides EPO would enhance a DISTANCE runner's performance?
Honest question.
I wouldn't even see EPO nor blood doping as miracle methods despite the anecdotal evidence about enormous gains. While they have gained almost mythological status as performance boosters, there has been very little published scientific level material with truly elite level athletes. The mechanism is sound, the scientific research robust enough, but the enormous 10-15 % boosts in Vo2Max / Watt output in recreational athletes not necessarily extrapolated to elite level athletes automatically.
By default, you're going to have one hll of a time using banned PEDs on competitive athletes for a scientific study
Anyone thinking this stuff doesn't work comes across as being intentionally ignorant at this point
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.