Doesn't Russian Doping Scandal Prove Canova is Right about EPO?

Montano ran her State Championship time very shortly after her 18th birthday. The similar time Stepanova ran was when she was 20...two years older than Montano. On Savinova: As I mentioned previously, the data you stand behind is from a Russian Athletic site that is questionable given their scandal.

I would suggest that 02-vector doping used synergistically with steriods and/or HGH, are a significant factor with a good responder resulting in a substantial percentage jump in an athlete's performance. For one, they're able to restructure their training allowing for harder and longer workouts, higher training loads, better recovery, less & faster recovery from injuries, etc. O2-vector doping results in an increased VO2max, which is the most important physiological variable determining performance in races from the 1500 to 5000 meters, and also plays a role in the 800. And some high-responders are able to produce exceptional results that in no way, shape or form could be accomplished clean.

When an athlete acheives exceptional performances and is caught for doping, with the drugs & methods known, we can go back and "connect the dots" and see the effects of the PEDs. For those that say that the PEDs didn't have that much of an effect, and that the athlete would have probably achieved the results anyway...IMO, is complete nonsense (why would the athlete need to use PEDs and risk getting caught if they could achieve the goals clean?). Many of the athletes weren't winning medals, titles, setting records, etc. until they implemented a PED program, or reorganized an existing PED program, or sought the services of a different doping coach, etc.

Take a look at another Russian doper, Yuliya Zaripova, who won, but was later stripped of her Gold medals, in both the 2011 WC & 2012 Olympic steeplechase events. Her 2012 PB time set at a Diamond League meet that summer is 8th on the all-time fastest list. She demolished a World class field in both events where she could have jogged the last 30 meters...plain ridiculous 😄

In 2013 she was sanctioned for a passport violation for anomalies in the hematological module of her ABP that resulted in her ban and losing her medals. Just recently, a retest of 2012 sample showed evidence of Turinabolan. So, here's another case of 02-vector doping used synergistically with steriods as the winning formula for a high-responder.

Leave it to "casual obsever" to argue that I made up 72-20 = 52.I asked you not to "over" think this -- looks like I got that completely backwards.Regarding Baumann, again, you will see whatever you want, in typical fashion, reaching into your bag of "logic" making up facts in your favor to replace your lack of knowledge. Call it logic if you want, but using Baumann, as an example, apparently one of the best examples, for EPO performance requires using your imagination -- twice.Another fact is that Baumann ran 7 seconds slower in 1999, when actually busted for steroids, taking 9th place.Ciao, bye bye.

I addressed the age difference, but nice that you are capable to read, understand and even repeat the substance of the sentence I wrote without adding anything new. That having been written, I think that the essence of my objection about your biased use of language was and is sound, but that is only my opinion.

The data appears to be from the U23 championships, so it isn't some random data from some neverheard competition from other side of the Ural Mountains. There almost certainly must've been people confirming that the results from event of that high caliber are accurate.

You can repeat your credo a thousand times or more if you want, but when you have ended the session, your credo is as (un?)true as it was in the beginning. I am familiar with the mechanism of steroids/HGH and rEPO and have read even a large portion of the original source material regarding blood doping from 1940s and have had some correspondence with a few blood doping researchers (not that much, to be honest), so you don't have to lecture me on the scientific side of the subject.

According to the Russian website you seem so to much distrust, Zapirova you mentioned also ran 2:08.75 when she was some 18 years and 9-10 months old also being faster than your "remarkable" Montaño when the latter was only a half a year younger.

You need to be lectured as you're about as naive as they come 😄. This is pointless with a Russian doping sympathizer. You've basically called Montano a liar, and consequently questioned her improvement when there's no evidence of doping. Newsflash: it's the RUSSIANS who are testing positive, blowing their passport with Armstrong-style 02-vector doping, caught up in one of the worst doping scandals in the history of T&F, etc...all while cheating clean athletes out of medals 😠

Rainbows & marshmellows.

Just eyeballing this list, it appears to represent people originating from pretty much all geographical areas of the world. Intuitively, this is not something you would expect to see if EPO was more effective in some populations than in others but of course further analysis is needed ...

Redemption wrote:

You need to be lectured as you're about as naive as they come 😄. This is pointless with a Russian doping sympathizer. You've basically called Montano a liar, and consequently questioned her improvement when there's no evidence of doping. Newsflash: it's the RUSSIANS who are testing positive, blowing their passport with Armstrong-style 02-vector doping, caught up in one of the worst doping scandals in the history of T&F, etc...all while cheating clean athletes out of medals 😠

Rainbows & marshmellows.

As the debate seems to have been ended, here some last remarks from a poster who is "a pretentious self-proclaimed 'expert'", "defender of a career doper", "naïve", "Russian doping sympathizer", "trying to undermine & minimize the effects of EPO & steroids" and who "supports PED use with Russian track & distance runners" while "arrogantly calling Montano a liar":

1) I've never called Alyisa Montaño a liar, only accurately pointed out that the quotation attributed to her about isn't an accurate assesment of Y-O-Y improvement pattern of Savinova's performances during any part of her career. Whether the "2:02 to 1:56" is due to Montaño's comparison of the race to an earlier race against the Russian or whether she confused the Savinova with another Russian isn't clear if the information is even originally from her (she might've just repeated what she heard).

2) I've never called her a doper either, quite to the contrary. I simply pointed out that both her late-teen performances as well as her natural improvement (6.2 seconds) within two-year time period are quite comparable to those of the two known Russian dopers.

3) While I can recall defending some known dopers on some issues (Lance Armstrong), I have never either defended the Russian habit of taking PEDs nor claimed that Russians hadn't doped nor implied in any way that there shouldn't be disciplinary measures against them.

Mr. Obvious, I fully agree with you. For saying EPO works, we need to know training and performances BEFORE the EPO assumption, and training and performances AFTER the EPO assumption.

This means, as you say, that for understanding the efficacy of EPO we need to have these parameters, but normally we don't have.

We have experiences and scientific researches, using the double blind, ONLY with normal people at amateur level. When we speak about top level, we only have SUSPICIONS that EPO works, since no one among the athletes caught positive was studied BEFORE and AFTER his EPO assumption.

I never said EPO doesn't work. For athletes born and training at sea level, or not using a proper training (as volume and intensity) for increasing the Aerobic Power, EPO can work, giving some advantage (however very much small than what people normally think). But, in spite of what many people think, IS A FACT THAT THE BEST IN THE WORLD ARE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THEIR PERFORMANCES WITHOUT USING ANY BLOOD DOPING.

At this point, we need to analyze the situation looking at many parameters that normally are not considered.

It's a fact that, with EPO, we can increase the transportation of O2. In other terms, we replace lorries of medium size with bigger lorries.

But is also a fact that the best are able to run at their best in clean way.

Could they run faster taking EPO ? There is no answer to this question, because they NEVER go to investigate this possibility.

Could athletes who achieved their best using EPO run at the same level WITHOUT taking anything (and, of course, changing their training) ?

Also in this case there is no answer, because it's very difficult to come back at high level after 4 years of ban, without real training and without competitions.

So, if I continue to say that for the best athletes born, living and training in high altitude, using a hard and smart training, EPO doesn't work, probably the assumption of EPO (that can clearly enhance the ability to transport Oxygen) is the responsible for a partial inhibition of some other physiological process, and the combination of the two actions (to increase the ability to transport oxygen, and to limit some other factor working better WITHOUT synthetic EPO) at the end doesn't produce advantage for the performance.

It seems that everybody, including the most part of physiologists, think that the most important factor for endurance runners is to enhance Hct and Hb.

Wrong, the final goal is to find the way FOR RUNNING FASTER, and this is a combination of several factors, some of them limited by the assumption of EPO.

I had, in these days, important discussions with Yannis Pitsiladis, who is not only a professor of physiology, but also a researcher and a member of the Antidoping commission. We want to study, together, the effect of training in altitude (we are involved in the first project "Under 2 hr" essentially following Bekele), looking at the changes proper training can produce, that are not well known by scientists who NEVER had the opportunity to study advanced training as DYNAMIC PROCESS, for understanding what happens when some athlete moves from point A (for example, a value of 27'30" in 10000m) to point B (for example, 26'30"), during ALL the process of training.

We know that the best talented runners can increase the total volume of blood till 25% (while for normal people this increase doesn't reach the 5%).

We know that using variations of speed we can improve the ability to remove lactate from the muscle fibers, when for normal athletes this system doesn't work.

We know that a blood with less viscosity has less peripheral resistances to the circulation, so the heart can work at higher regime (and this is the opposite if athletes take EPO, increasing viscosity).

There are a lot of other parameters that we have to investigate, for understanding IF EPO works, WHEN and FOR WHOM.

The fact to connect a performance ONLY to high values of Hct and Hb is a big mistake, showing that the most part of physiologists interested in the problem don't have any clue about training for top performances, and the same thing happens for the most part of runners, thinking that what can help them can also help athletes at the top of the World.

Many speak about "scientific approach", without thinking that, more we look at a SPECIFIC CLASS OF SUBJECTS, more we find results FAR from the average.

I think everybody has to reset the way to look at what can work, and what can't work, when we look at EXTERNAL AIDS in the training of top runners.

For example, taking Creatine for athletes of endurance can provoke a big fall in the performances, because this increase the consumption of fuel, when the final goal for a marathon runner is to REDUCE the consumption of fuel at the Marathon Pace.

I invite everybody to look at the problem of blood doping in different way.

Here it seems there are a lot of "scientists" knowing everything about doping, but really nobody has experience, apart what they can read in some articles, many of them written by journalists who don't have any specific knowledge, but want to create "scoops" or cases of discussion.

Let real scientists studying the problem to arrive to some conclusion (something at the moment still not possible). Only after this, it will be possible to discuss about the REAL effect of doping (and the fact that Russian runners are not able running fast, of course doesn't mean that can be a proof that EPO doesn't work).

after last night's 60-Minutes, I am thankful I am a runner and that machines have not infiltrated our sport

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-investigates-hidden-motors-and-pro-cycling/

Renato Canova wrote:

Let real scientists studying the problem to arrive to some conclusion (something at the moment still not possible). Only after this, it will be possible to discuss about the REAL effect of doping (and the fact that Russian runners are not able running fast, of course doesn't mean that can be a proof that EPO doesn't work).

Renato, lots of female Russians are able running fast, even in their 40's.

10/10

Renato Canova wrote:

I never said EPO doesn't work. For athletes born and training at sea level, or not using a proper training (as volume and intensity) for increasing the Aerobic Power, EPO can work, giving some advantage (however very much small than what people normally think).

Here are some stats from alltime-athletics that might support this, i.e. an advantage with EPO, but not a huge one - or one can call them coincidental. I went from top to bottom until I found a time that is neither from an East African/altitude born nor from a convicted doper nor from the generally accepted EPO era from 91 - 05. (Please correct me if I overlooked anyone.)

Women, 5000 m

14:23.75 Liliya Shobukhova 2008 – known EPO doper

14:24.68 Elvan Abeylegesse 2004 – EPO era, caught doping in 2007

14:28.09 Jiang Bo 1997 – EPO era

14:29.11 Paula Radcliffe 2004 – EPO era

14:29.32 Olga Yegorova 2001 – EPO era

14:29.82 Dong Yanmei 1997 – EPO era

14:31.48 Gabriela Szabo 1999 – EPO era

14:32.08 Zahra Ouaziz 1998 – EPO era

14:32.33 Liu Shixiang 1997 – EPO era

14:33.13 Gulnara Galkina 2008 – from Russia’s doping program

14:36.52 Mariem Alaoui Selsouli 2007 – known EPO doper

14:37.07 Jessica Augusto 2010 – fastest non-African/altitude-born non-EPO era runner (or Gulnara)

-> 10 or 13 seconds between fastest EPO doper or EPO era time and fastest not convicted doper post EPO era time, depending on whether we consider Gulnara a convicted doper

Women, 10000 m

29:31.78 Wang Junxia 1993 – EPO era, admitted doping

29:56.34 Elvan Abeylegesse 2008 - caught doping in 2007

30:01.09 Paula Radcliffe 2002 – EPO era

30:07.20 Sun Yingjie 2003 – EPO era

30:13.17 Molly Huddle 2016 – fastest non-African/altitude-born non-EPO era runner

-> 41 seconds between fastest EPO doper or EPO era time and fastest not convicted doper post EPO era time

Men, 5000 m

12:50.24 Hicham El Guerrouj 2003 – EPO era

12:50.25 Abderrahim Goumri 2005 – EPO era

12:50.80 Salah Hissou 1996 – EPO era

12:50.86 Ali Saïdi-Sief 2000 – EPO era

12:53.41 Khalid Boulami 1997 – EPO era

12:53.45 Salah Hissou 1999 – EPO era

12:54.70 Dieter Baumann 1997 – EPO era, caught doping in 1999

12:55.52 Hicham Bellani 2006

-> 5 seconds between fastest EPO doper or EPO era time and fastest not convicted doper post EPO era time

Men, 10000 m

26:38.08 Salah Hissou 1996 – EPO era

26:38.76 Abdullah Ahmad Hassan 2003 – EPO era

26:44.36 Galen Rupp 2014 – fastest non-African/altitude-born non-EPO era runner

(fastest European-born runner: 27:12.47 António Pinto 1999 – EPO era

-> 8 seconds between fastest EPO doper or EPO era time and fastest not convicted doper post EPO era time

I repeat that one should see better times from year to year, as we learn more and more about training and nutrition, and shoes and tracks may continue to improve...

The lists also demonstrate the huge success of the Kenyans and Ethiopians (but I leave that discussion for another day). Their numbers may indeed support Renato's theory that EPO barely if at all helps the properly trained, altitude-born runners, because there is no clear post 2005 slowdown.

Only for correcting something in your list : Ahmed Hassan Abdullah is a Kenyan training with me (Albert Chepkurui), and was completely clean all his life. Don't look with suspicion at the fact the Country is Qatar. All the best Qatari were Kenyan, at that time I was the head coach of Qatar for middle and long distances (also if I had some other collaborator), and I'm sure 100% about the athletes of my group. Ahmed Hassan ran in the same race won by Haile in 26'29", when Nicholas Kemboi ran 26'30". They were together till 3 laps from the end, but Albert was not so strong in the final (Haile and Nicholas ran the last 600m in 1'23").

Since, in this thread I'm talking about men and EPO, your extensive list of dopers needs to be trimmed two ways:- remove the women- remove the ones not busted for EPOI don't dismiss science, but say, once again, the existing science is not representative of the real world conditions of top runners when they are able to produce top times -- not 11:00 3K runners, or 9:00 3K runners, not cyclists on an indoor training bike cycling to exhaustion at 80% of VO2max, and surely not renal patients with hematocrits of 25.Lacking the specific science, at the very least, if EPO is universally effective, universally available, universally undetectable, widely prevalent, widely abused, and high responders exist in all nationalities, and testing was completely useless until the second generation EPO test, followed by the ABP, the effectiveness of EPO should be visible in race performances over the nearly two decades where EPO was available, and effectively undetectable.That's a scientifcally valid approach -- to look for confirmation of your "EPO works at the top for everyone" hypothesis by observing patterns in real world observations. Here are two possibilities:1) if we do see better performances, then "maybe" it was drugs, and it's worth a further look; or2) if we don't see "effective" performances, drugs or no drugs, for a large majority of the population, then we need to re-think the claim that EPO is effective at producing better performances "for everyone at the top".Given the "universalness" and the assumed prevalence of abuse, "effective" performances shouldn't be restricted to East Africans and the odd North African. We shouldn't have to dig below the top 40 to find the best example we can find of EPO effectiveness, from a runner actually busted for a steroid.I'm not talking about EPO working for individuals, but, looking at the MAGNITUDE of improvements (to help quantify the effectiveness), how it has failed to be effective at a macro-level. I'm not cherry picking one nation, or one or two years, but saying we have to look very deep and hard across the performances of the global population of non-Africans, over a period spanning two decades, to find a handful of performers that marginally surpass the performances of their predecessors of 1985. Again, this is the "EPO-era" you would be "naive" to deny. And the performance effect of EPO is also something you would be "naive" to deny. It must be exceptional to merit naming a period the "EPO-era". Re-read this whole thread for some of the best non-African examples of performances. They are much closer to 1985 top performances, than the world level performances of that time.Assuming the best case (or is it the worst case), that Bauman took EPO and steroids and other drugs in a potent multi-drug cocktail his whole elite career -- he has only run one 5000m race faster than 13:00 (1982 world record), in a race where he took fifth. That's a big career-long risk for one success which actually failed to achieve a podium finish -- from the BEST example of doping. Is that working for you?Baumann is the BEST non-African. 40 Africans, not known to have taken drugs, have run faster. If your job is to compete at world level, that's clearly NOT working. If EPO was effective, (or even steroids+EPO+HGH synergy cocktail), where were the other non-Africans all this time?Look at some of the other "best examples" in this thread. We have to dig deep in the all time results to find Spanish athletes like Sanchez, and Garcia. If your job is to break the indoor record in 2000, but do nothing outdoors, then, I guess you could say EPO worked.Some no-nonsense opinions:1) EPO is not more effective than we have observed over decades in non-Africans2) EPO is not more effective for East and North Africans, than for non-Africans3) It's nonsense to point to the success of non-Africans and EPO, when asserting East Africans are taking EPO for their top performances4) The difference between the best African (Bekele -- not known to take drugs) and the best non-African (Baumann -- busted for nandrolone) is due to one or more significant bigger factors than EPO.The IAAF published a prevalence study in 2011. It's not clear that the IAAF ever refused publication of any doping prevalence study -- this looks like it was a baseless and sensational accusation.

We must also consider body characteristics, so i think top level athletes are in the same condition (doping or not doping) or the clean athlete is much more talented than not clean ones, because differences are very small. Bekele 12'37" and 56kg weight, is not so different than a Baumann's 12'54" or Solinsky 26'59" that are 70kg boys.

There is nothing at all scientific about your approach and it proves or even suggests nothing at all.

All of the clinical studies we have show that EPO works to enhance performance.

It is up to those who claim it does not to produce comparable evidence.

All the rest is just distraction.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/33948924

rekrunner wrote:

Given the "universalness" and the assumed prevalence of abuse, "effective" performances shouldn't be restricted to East Africans and the odd North African. We shouldn't have to dig below the top 40 to find the best example we can find of EPO effectiveness, from a runner actually busted for a steroid.

You are making up this claim, and it is demonstrably false. Brahim Boulami ran faster on EPO than anybody else has ever run.

Regardless, the fact that somebody has not tested positive for EPO is not proof that they did not use EPO (during an era that there was ineffective testing). It is selective reading of the evidence to fit your theory and it is nonsense as science.

You are arguing that EPO was widely available, widely abused, and undetectable, then arguing that since very fast runners were not busted for using the undetectable substance, it is proof that substance didn't work for them...

i cant take it anymore for real. canova is like the idiots who dont believe in climate change.

epo works period end of discussion. the people not making huge gains with it can be easily explained. 1) they werent that talented to BEGIN with. 2) they are lazy so they use the EPO over bigger and longer base phase training 3) they arent great responders to EPO.

enough with canova trying to convince you it wont work on kenyans and ethiopians, its beyond annoying. i have used multiple examples of marathon guys dropping 4-5 min then getting an EPO bust, but every time the lamo brojs delete my posts.

use common sense and stop thinking canova is some sort of genius that somehow trains the BEST AND ONLY THE BEST and they are soooo GOOOD the PEDS could never work on them. enough!

PEDs work and will work differently on people. if your lazy the results might not be as good, if your not that talented your gains could be huge but still not be that good in the world stage. or your could take them and no have much of an effect cause your body doesnt respond to it. and that has nothing to do with being the top .01% canova athlete.

ask a doc or someone in the medical field, are there people out there that certain drugs and medication does not work on? so they have to try different drugs and medications.

when kenya and ethiopia get more and more strict you will see marathons go back to upper 2:06 again....and canova will have to try his best to micro EPO and blood dope.

you never answered the question canova what makes you the self proclaimed greatest coach in the world? what are doing that is soooo much better than timmons did for jim ryun? what rono was doing? what the finns and new zealanders were doing in the 50-70s, what komen, geb, and el G where doing? what about brother colm, do you think you are a better coach than him?

At the advanced age of 24, Rashid Ramzi improved his 1500 PR nine seconds.

He changed from being an also-ran on the world stage to being a double-world champion.

Busted for EPO, but for sure there is no proof that it works.

why not add in Mo...a top 10 kinda guy that hit his stride in his late years and continues to run at a top notch level...yeah PEDs dont work

i enjoyed finding this and reading it. canova can deny all he wants

https://www.goshen.edu/bio/Biol410/bsspapers96/Harris.html

from the link:

"Company

Epogen is produced by the company Amgen. Amgen located atThousand Oaks, California, is a global biotechnology company. It discovers, develops, manufactures, and markets human therapeutics based on advanced cellular and molecular biology. Amgen, founded in 1980, is now the largest biotechnology company in the world. It has 4,200 employers around the world and 2,700 of the 4,200 workers, work at the headquarters in Thousand Oaks. Amgen has centers of research in "Boulder, Colorado and Toronto, Canada; clinical research centers in Cambridge, England and Melbourne, Australia; the international distribution center in Louisville, Kentucky, fill and finish facility in Junco, Puerto Rico; and European regional headquarters in Lucerne, Switzerland. Amgen has other international offices that are located in Austria, Australin, Belgium, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Hong Kong, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom." (Amgen 1996)

Amgen's first product, Epogen was approved in June 1989 for use in the United States. Neupogen (filgrastim) Amgen's second product, received approval for use in February 1991, is used for preventing infections in cancer patients that receive chemotherapy for bone marrow and peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation patients and treatment for chronic neutropenia, which is a rare blood disorder. Amgen has research in the areas of hematopoiesis, neurobiology, inflammation/autoimmunity, and soft tissue repair and regeneration. Products from the research, in the four areas mentioned from above, may, sometime in the future, be used in treating conditions characterized by disorders of blood and bone marrow, neurodegenerative diseases such as ALS, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, or traumatic nerve injury."

marion jones...wasnt she from thousand oaks? research centers hmmm, boulder, cambridge england, regional center in Lucerne...approved in 1989...wonder when the first athlete got their hands on it, my guess 1990