Now it gets interesting, Zane Robertson's ex-girlfriend Betty Desalegn (Jama Aden athlete) is busted for Biological Passport

rekrunner wrote:

Anyone should be able to see for themselves based on performances, that most of the world significantly underperformed during the EPO-era, compared to relatively small groups of exceptions.

Say what dude? How can that be when the speed trends for the 5000, 10,000 & marathon improved significantly across the board after 1989, coinciding with the introduction of EPO. Then the speeds started to show a trend of leveling off after 2005, about the time a reliable test was implemented for the detection of EPO (the marathon speeds continue to go up and there's several theories for that). I think you better read this study which diminishes everything you've been chanting from your soapbox:

Now -- repeat the same analysis on non-Africans, and explain the lack of any "speed trend" for "most of the world". That is what I'm chanting from my soapbox. I know Africans ran fast in the last three decades. If the reason was EPO, why was African success not repeatable or repeated, for non-Africans (i.e. "most of the world") for decades? This doesn't follow logically from this simple view of a universally effective, widely abused, and hard to detect drug, in a sport where 57% or more of athletes are cheating, and that all athletes want to cheat and have cheated since the ancient Greeks. This study doesn't address the comparative under-performance outside of Africa. An alternative question is how was anti-doping near-100% effective for the very best non-Africans "at the top", while only 1-2% effective in all of anti-doping history? Furthermore, the study shows that the marathon doesn't fit this "speed trend".

Johnny-Come-Lately wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Anyone should be able to see for themselves based on performances, that most of the world significantly underperformed during the EPO-era, compared to relatively small groups of exceptions.

Say what dude? How can that be when the speed trends for the 5000, 10,000 & marathon improved significantly across the board after 1989, coinciding with the introduction of EPO. Then the speeds started to show a trend of leveling off after 2005, about the time a reliable test was implemented for the detection of EPO (the marathon speeds continue to go up and there's several theories for that). I think you better read this study which diminishes everything you've been chanting from your soapbox:

No I'm saying Coe and El Guerrouj are broadly on a par with each other. 1:41.7 is roughly similar to 3:26. Yet it shows potentially that epo can take a runner with inferior speed and make them aerobic machines. I do grasp your questioning of why there wasn't a fast westerner in the 1990s. But there was also Cacho.

Above ⤴I gave an example of two Olympic 1500m races, one definitely pre epo and the other when an epo test was first introduced, a year earlier El Guerrouj ran 3:27 to win the WCs, a year later (2000) 3:32 was a struggle. When epo is removed there is no evolution of times.

See, EPO doesn't make you just run faster from your individual baseline. It somehow magically improves your baseline to the pre-EPO era world record level and then you get the EPO boost from there. That's how it works...

I think the "argument" is that since Africans are faster than non-Africans, EPO does not work for the non-Africans - because otherwise they also could run 1:40, 3:26, 12:40, 26:20, and 2:03.

By extension then, EPO can't work for Africans either, because of their basically equivalent body chemistry.

"Logically "it follows then, according to the trolling here, that steroids don't work either:

Steroids do not work for the non-Africans - because otherwise they also could run 12:40, 26:20, and 2:03.

By extension then, steroids can't work for Africans either, because of their basically equivalent body chemistry.

In conclusion, PEDs don't work, and the athletes (with the exception of white males and Paula of course) only continue to dope because of unsubstantiated rumors.

Endurance Sport Doping wrote:

Maybe you should read the interview with Kisorio, who was popped for steroids a few yrs ago. He says it helped his stamina, and made him run "smooth."

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/athletics/suspended-kenyan-says-doping-is-common-8031835.html

So, if your scientific conclusion is that androgens & anabolic steroids are ineffective for distance running, I'd sure like an explanation as to why the dozens of runners popped for AAS would use such a worthless PED? ?

False attribution. He said, "I know that a lot of medical substances are used, which are injected straight to the blood for the body to have more oxygen. And when you run, you run so smooth."

He said he ran smooth with "medical substances" that give the body "more oxygen". He was clearly referring to EPO or something similar and not to anabolic effects of steroids. You are again desperately trying to link 10 second tests with sprinters or stimulants or EPO. You haven't provided any evidence that steroids help distance runners.

Kisorio said, "Then the prizemoney comes in the doctors want a piece of your. They open a pharmacy and claim they're selling legal medication. Then they approach the athletes. It's the same all over the country."

Uneducated runners from poor countries are being taken advantage of by doctors, medicinemen, or witch doctors who offer a cocktail of drugs or "potions". That's why they're getting popped. This is not evidence that steroids work. You're making a false link between correlation and causation.

Also my Harvard doctor article debunks your claim that people don't use "10 mg" of steroids per day. Again you haven't shown the contrary, so I'm still winning the discussion.

rekrunner wrote:

Furthermore, the study shows that the marathon doesn't fit this "speed trend".

Now you're trolling on steroids. The study gave possible for the marathon which sound plausible to me. I know you read those explainations, but instead you throw out a one-liner remark that the marathon "doesn't fit the speed trend" as if you pulled one over on the researchers. You could have followed up your one-liner by highlighting those possible explanations, but instead you didn't...just pure, unadulterated trolling! Just too much trolling on the subject...it's pointless to debate something with a troll who spins everything & ignores the facts. Better to just have fun with many of the immature, nonsensical threads than to get embroiled in this nonsense of EPO not effective with elites.

From the study:

"In the case of the marathon a number of empirical estimates and physiological modeling suggest the record is relatively slow in comparison to the 5,000 m and 10,000 m times and is merely catching up by comparison [20], [22], [23]. In this context, it is interesting to note that top speeds have not fallen for the shorter races but only leveled off.

The third element of any interpretation focuses on the changing financial incentives in professional distance running. Prize money for top marathon performances has increased. Specifically, in 1980 the highest total payout for any marathon was $50,000; just over two decades later the first million dollar race was run [24]. These incentives could be attracting a stronger pool of competitors to “move up” and focus on the marathon and forgo record setting attempts at shorter distances. This could lead to more competitive races among top runners at the major marathons. Second the highest profile marathon races are now being staged in a way designed for world record attempts that include the use of pacers. Along these lines, the use of pacers has been wide spread for races on the track for many years, and many top athletes have bonus plans and other financial incentives from sponsors that reward fast times at the shorter distances."

Johnny-Come-Lately wrote:

Say what dude? How can that be when the speed trends for the 5000, 10,000 & marathon improved significantly across the board after 1989, coinciding with the introduction of EPO.

Correlation does not equal causation.

There are confounding factors. From 1989 to 2010, something else also improved. Do you know what that is? It's called the internet. It's called cell phones. Technology has progressed, and this allows athletes to train better. New books are written about training every year. These books do not mention steroids or EPO at all. It's all about new training methods done naturally. Have you ever read a book about running in your life?

Guess what? They didn't have mobile cryotherapy machines for top athletes in the year 1989. There are so many reasons why athletes have improved. You just want to nail "steroids" or "EPO" to the improvement because it seems you have an axe to grind.

I just posted to one chronic troll and you sound like another troll on something. Kisorio tested positive for a steroid, which means he was using a steroid(s). What was he using a steroid for? Recovery from high-volume training perhaps? Didn't you read the studies posted here that prolonged endurance exercise causes suppressed testosterone levels? Didn't you look over the list of doping cases and make note of the numerous distance runners (from many countries other than the "poor, uneducated" ones) who tested positive for steroids and testosterone? Haven't you read the admissions of endurance athletes who have said testosterone & steroids helped in their recovery for hard traininf and injury rehab?

Once again hotshot, what is YOUR explaination as to why so many distance runners have tested positive for anabolic steroids or testosterone if your platform is that these PEDs are ineffective for distance runners? Correlation doesn't equal causation with zillions of runners popped for roids/testosterone...oh please troll pull your head out of your....

Too Many Trolls! (Part 2) wrote:

Didn't you read the studies posted here that prolonged endurance exercise causes suppressed testosterone levels?

Haven't you read the admissions of endurance athletes who have said testosterone & steroids helped in their recovery for hard traininf and injury rehab?

Nobody has posted any "admission" from a distance runner that steroids helped them with training or with improving their times. You are simply lying.

"Suppressed testosterone" does not prove that extra testosterone will improve times in distance runners. "Suppressed testosterone" does not mean that natural recovery cannot occur. Athletes sleep in altitude tents, get massage therapy, and cryotherapy to naturally elevate their hormone levels back after intense training sessions.

A car that runs out of gasoline will not go further on the road. So what? You can go to the gas station and refill. A human body that naturally uses up its reserve of testosterone in the blood stream can just refill if enough recovery time is given on slow days with easy runs. "Suppressed testosterone" doesn't mean anything without context. Have you ever trained before on a cross country team? It seems you never have because of your lack of knowledge.

I repeat again that I win this argument until you can show any evidence that steroids work on distance runners. All you're doing is denying.

Another Straw Man argument (yawn.). Hey hotshot...read the study where the data for the "speed trends" comes from:

Too Many Trolls! (Part 2) wrote:

Another Straw Man argument (yawn.).

Hahaha, that's the best you can do? You have zero proof of steroids on distance runners. I tore apart your argument.

You're just a sore loser basically admitting that I'm winning. You're busy yawning while I'm going round the bend to the finish line, and you can't catch up with me.

Zero proof that steroids work on distance runners if you want to be more specific. There are a few bad apples that have been caught with them because of bad advice from doctors or medicine men, but no proof of a conspiracy theory that distance runners are systematically cheating to win and steal prize money.

If a few students are caught cheating in the class, that doesn't mean that 100% of all students are secretly cheating to get high scores. Get out of here with that baloney. You have an axe to grind because of jealousy perhaps.

good_wiggler wrote:

Zero proof that steroids work on distance runners if you want to be more specific. There are a few bad apples that have been caught with them because of bad advice from doctors or medicine men, but no proof of a conspiracy theory that distance runners are systematically cheating to win and steal prize money.

If a few students are caught cheating in the class, that doesn't mean that 100% of all students are secretly cheating to get high scores. Get out of here with that baloney. You have an axe to grind because of jealousy perhaps.

So, that's your explaination as to why dozens of distance runners have tested positive for roids or T? I suppose the same explaination applies to female distance runners, such as Regina Jacobs' who tested positive for THG ("the clear"). Or some of the beast mode Russian mid-d runners who tested positive for roids or T?

Okay...you're right. I concede...it's all an illusion: roids & T don't work for distance runners, male or female. And all those positive cases listed...nothing to see there.

My most humble apologies...thanks for straightening me out on this. ? I couldn't bear the thought of going through the rest of life believng a fallacy that roids/T would be effective for distance runners (you think I spend too much time on LRC getting ideas like this?). Thanks again...you be da man! ?

good_wiggler wrote:

Too Many Trolls! (Part 2) wrote:

Didn't you read the studies posted here that prolonged endurance exercise causes suppressed testosterone levels?

Haven't you read the admissions of endurance athletes who have said testosterone & steroids helped in their recovery for hard traininf and injury rehab?

Nobody has posted any "admission" from a distance runner that steroids helped them with training or with improving their times. You are simply lying.

Perhaps these admissions were in Russian or Turkish?

Ali Saidi Sief and Baumann were only caught on steroids (though they were almost certainly doing epo as well).

Androgens potentiate the effects of rHuEPO:

The Russian's were using androgens in combination with rHuEPO to potentiate the effects of an ESA. ? One example given on page 141 of the McLaren report:

"11.7.3 Coach Vladimir Mokhnev"

"Coach Mokhnev is an ARAF running coach. The allegations against coach Mokhnev

stem from whistleblower Stepanova’s statements, which are supported by the secretly

recorded conversations.59 She is the IC’s main witness related to Mokhnev’s Code

violations. Through Stepanova’s statements and secret recordings, the IC investigation

uncovered evidence implicating coach Mokhnev in violations of the Code, specifically

sections 2.8 and 2.9. The following material discusses his role in providing athletics

athletes prohibited substances.

Mokhnev became Stepanova’s coach in 2006 and by the summer of 2007, Mokhnev

began providing her with erythropoietin (EPO) injections along with dosages of oral

Turinabolan. The IC notes that oral Turinabolan is banned in Russia under the Russian

Federal Criminal Code s. 234 and contains DHCMT, a prohibited substance. Mokhnev

instructed Stepanova how to inject EPO, initially in the arm and then into her veins. As

a result of her EPO and other PED usage, Stepanova’s 800 meter times improved to

2:03.47 from her early baseline of 2.13 and early personal best of 2.08:47. Stepanova was

informed by Mokhnev that the drugs would be detectable in her sample for 40 days

after her use of Turinabolan and nine days after the use of EPO.

Mokhnev instructed Stepanova to keep a journal of the prohibited and non-prohibited

substances she was taking.60 Stepanova complied and tracked and documented her PED

usage and then calculated the exact time she needed to stop taking PEDs in order to test

clean at competition events. "

No proof of a conspiracy that distance runners are systematically cheating? Really? Can you spell R-U-S-S-I-A? ? Again, the McLaren report will give all you need to know:

0/10 ?

This thread has spiraled from its original intention. We may lock it to future posts but in the meantime are requiring you to be logged in to post.

LetsRun.com wrote:

This thread has spiraled from its original intention. We may lock it to future posts but in the meantime are requiring you to be logged in to post.

Is anything in here violating a term of service? What differentiates this from the hundreds or threads the spiral from their original intention every day?

Is there a new moderation standard that is going to be consistently enforced?