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

rekrunner wrote:

Yes some, non-Africans ran faster than 1985 standards, but, when you look at the numbers, very FEW, and by VERY LITTLE, while MANY Africans, from a much smaller population base, ran faster than 1985 standards by A LOT.

Correct, but your conclusion ignores, again:

- the dreadful situation in the 70s and 80s in East Africa, especially in Ethiopia

- the virtually unlimited steroid doping of the Cold War era in Europe and US

Facts for both have been provided ad nauseum here, but you keep up this lame trolling.

And you ignore the general decline from pre- to post-ABP, most notably among the more often tested non-Africans.

In short, hopefully for the last time, 1990 - 2005 vs. 80s:

Non-Africans: restricted steroids and unlimited EPO -> slightly faster times in the long distances, but not 800, compared to unrestricted steroids and no EPO

Africans: unlimited EPO -> much faster times compared to no EPO during war/famine times

Au contraire. When I said "other, BETTER reasons than EPO" this would include the two non-EPO reasons you give.No war and famine look like great reasons on their own, for explaining improvements.Post ABP we've seen massive improvements in the marathon, and a massive improvements in native-born Americans.

1. You have no actual proof and have presented no evidence of this. Your argument tends to go like this: Africans are faster than non-africans. Because whites don't run as fast as Africans, that proves that EPO doesn't work on white people. Because it doesn't work on white people, that means it doesn't work on Africans.It is a nonsense argument. Totally unscientific. It's a totally circular argument that assumes its conclusions.2. Africans may be faster than non-africans. We will concede for a moment that it is true. I have no idea why you lump northern Africans in with East Africans, though, as they are different populations and what is true of one is not necessarily true of another, but let's go with it.From a scientific perspective, the theorized reasons Africans are faster than non-Africans provide absolutely no insight into whether EPO works or doesn't work on either population (or multiple populations, North Africans share a good deal in common with southern europeans). In scientific terms, these would be called a "confounding factors." I know it is confusing to expect you to use scientific terms and scientific concepts as well, so I won't introduce any more in this post. There are a lot of potential confounding factors: genetics, war, famine, political openness, opportunity, professionalization, increasing participation, decreasing participation. Generally the presence of confounding factors means there are a lot of things that tend to make direct comparisons between the groups problematic from a scientific standpoint. This is one of many reasons that clinical trials are considered a stronger form of evidence, because they can control, analyze, or minimize the confounding factors. Scientifically, at least four different sets of conditions might exist:EPO might work on Africans but not on white peopleEPO might work on white people but not on AfricansEPO might work on both Africans and white peopleEPO might not work on Africans or white people.Pointing out that Africans are generally faster than white people does not provide any evidence at all that EPO works, or doesn't work, on either group. It just points out that there are confounding factors.The fact that both white people and Africans have run faster than the existing, baseline (again, your baseline) world records of 1985 would tend to support the fact that EPO works on both Africans and white people. But you are totally correct, if you exclude women (because EPO works on them), you exclude people who participated in clinical trials (because they are too slow), you exclude race walkers (because rekrunner doesn't like race walking), you exclude people who tested positive while setting a world record for EPO (because they are African?), you exclude people who became world and olympic champion while testing positive for EPO (because they are African?), you exclude people who ran under the 1985 world record (because other possible EPO users ran even faster), you exclude people who only set national records while testing positive for EPO, you exclude people who set masters records while testing positive for EPO, then there is practically no evidence that EPO works. Somehow you claim that I am the one who is desperate to prove something?

rekrunner wrote:

I'm not conflating two different ideas, but claiming for top males in the sport of running:

1) that EPO works, at best, VERY LITTLE, for non-Africans, and Africans alike

2) that Africans run much faster than non-Africans for other, BETTER reasons than EPO

These ideas are supported by looking at the race times of the different populations.

Yes some, non-Africans ran faster than 1985 standards, but, when you look at the numbers, very FEW, and by VERY LITTLE, while MANY Africans, from a much smaller population base, ran faster than 1985 standards by A LOT.

rekrunner are you really just canova posting ............

What , canova started this "epo doesnt work " nonsense over 2 years ago

and being pushing it ever since as Cover for his own doping and wider

african doping . ...worse than commies with rewriting history ....

no more "doping apologist b.s"

1.

simple data analysis on various times showes epo works amazingly well

beyond a doubt but keep pushing your agenda .

2.

again never explained Bekeles times when after epo testing ..

Micera was amazing and all need to know that epo works

higher constant hct it gauranteed proved even more enhancing .

I did'n want to waste my time with a total idiot like you, but when you say some unbelievable stupidity I can't shut up.

I don't want to speak about myself : I have the respect of athletes, coaches, managers and Federations that know me, and I don't care about the bad words of some liar like you.

But when you put in doubt the performances of Kenenisa, giving FALSE ideas about the reason because he never ran the same times after 2009, I become nervous, because one thing is to have an opinion (also wrong), another thing to ignore FACTS calumning people (only because you protect yourself under a nickname).

Kenenisa had a very bad injury in November 2009, running Seven Hills on the road in Nederland. Because he had very good indoor races in winter, he did the mistake to try to be ready in short time, and his injury AGAIN HAPPENED for other 6 times in 2010, becoming chronic. He had in his calves a scar that didn't allow his foot to have the full mobility, and that provoked problems to his Achilles tendon too.

Kenenisa tried several come-backs with very little training, because NEVER can put again spikes for trying any kind of speed, and for that reason decided to try Marathon. But also in this case, his calves and his tendon were not completely ok, so he ran in Paris (2:05:03) only with basic preparation, than ran worse in Chicago, and in that occasion he asked me to help him.

When we started to work together, he was not completely fit, needed always to control his speed and never could have a NATURAL way of running. For that reason he dropped out in Dubai 2015, and to stop every kind of training for other 10 months.

Only the intervention of Yannis Pitsiladis and his group of doctors and physios solved the problem, 6 YEARS AFTER THE BEGINNING, and now we can finally speak again about a FIT Kenenisa.

You are very sick under the mental point of view. Your nightmare is the IG eccetera that always appears in your posts, together with Micera (that can be a good name for a cat...).

Go to a good psycologist, and quit to insult and calumn people that you don't know, and the best athletes in the World.

I repeat again : IN SPITE OF WHAT YOU AND OTHER PEOPLE WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE OF TRAINING, TALENT AND SITUATION OF THE BEST ATHLETES IN THE WORLD, ALL THE WORLD RECORD OF KENYAN AND ETHIOPIAN ATHLETES BELONG TO RUNNERS TOTALLY CLEAN, who can also run FASTER with a better physiotherapic support.

Its a stretch to believe that bekele and gebresellasie never used EPO during all those years of dominance.

Hermens, their manager was exposed as having affiliationa with Spanish doping doctors.

durant.. wrote:

Its a stretch to believe that bekele and gebresellasie never used EPO during all those years of dominance.

Hermens, their manager was exposed as having affiliationa with Spanish doping doctors.

Seriously, from a civilised perspective, putting Aduck aside (I still barely grasp what the heck micera is) Renato do you believe that there was an epo era in our sport? Because if there was it is pretty clear that Kenyans and Ethiopians were the biggest beneficiaries of that period of time. Somebody posted a few pages back that the national records of Kenya for 1,000m to 10,000m are now getting quite old. Are Kenyans not training as hard? Are other sports (soccer and rugby 7s) stealing talent? Will a Kenyan run sub 13 this year? Will a Kenyan run sub 12:55 this year?

Just to put the record straight, do you know that the Italian courts are investigating that the sample from his failed 2012 test has been tampered with? They are looking at the fact claims that it was not anonymous and they lost track of it for a couple of days.... They are looking at, among others, the WADA lab in Koln (Germany).... Now imagine if he gets cleared and take down some of the crap at IAAF with him.... by the way he has now RETIRED...

This is just red herring. When there is a clear conflict of evidence, no serious and sincere person would prefer remarks of an opponent made in passing some 3-4 years after the fact over the official IAAF website. There is no "2:02 to 1:56" improvement and regardless of the word "watched", I am not still sure not whether the specific allegation about the time improvement is the opinion of Montaño or that of the author.

Where have I ever alleged that the coaches and doctors of Savinova and Stepanova expected a similar improvement with training as with the PED program + training?

Regardless of their expectations, there is no need to expect an improvement in the magnitude of 5 or 7 percent in order to enter a PED program because many athetes spend even larger resources on methods (high tech equipment, hypoxic tents etc) and supplements (fancy amino acid derivatives etc.) where the expected return is only marginally above zero. Whereas there are some peer-reviewed studies on hypoxic training and amino acids showing zero improvement, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence about the efficacy of steroids and rEPO and the literature on rEPO is almost too good to be true. The temptation is strong and many athletes succumb to PED use with more or less good results.

I don't dispute this at all. Even when there might exist a few "lazy" athletes looking for a chemical shortcut to use as a substitute for training, the idea of using PED is to be capable to go beyond your natural limits.

Where we disagree is how much the improvement was above their natural levels and here I think that it is fallacious to conclude that all (ie. every millisecond) improvement is due to PED program from the moment the first injection is administered. Perhaps I am reading too much between the lines, but your opinion seems to be that there should be zero Russian females capable to run sub 2:00 times at 800m whereas other countries could produce such runners. If so, this is just another case of double standard from your part.

The most convincing anecdotal item for the efficacy of the Russian PED program is the huge amount of Russian female runners at the top echelons in some women's events (I counted quickly that there were some 18 Russians out of the total of 81 athletes who made their 800m record below 1:59 between 2005 and 2016, a huge overrepresentation). And still I am not totally convinced about the "enormous improvement" (~5-7 %), because regardless of how much the success of the country of some 143 million has been PED-fueled, the fact remains that Russia has one of the most vibrant T&F cultures in the world. In the last nine (1999-2015) European Athletics Junior Championships (U20), the nation has been five times first and four times second in the medal table. Even in the case that all of those medals were PED-fueled, I still find it likely that T&F was and has been a central part of the culture of the country.

And twenty-seventh time I emphasize that I don't dispute that there most likely was a performance enhancing effect with rEPO, testosterone and steroids. Unlike you, I actually have made almost no "IMO"-allegations at all about the efficacy of the PEDs.

I have presented as supporting evidence, the entirety of race performances in track and field, combined with the entirety of known doping.For reference here is the context and set of ideas I am challenging:1) The "proof" that EPO works at the top for East Africans2) is because it works at the top for everyone3) and because it works in the middle in studies4) The proof that EPO works in the EPO-era is the massive improvements in performancesFor further context, (I don't offer as proof, or proven, but just as context) Renato suggests:5) EPO can bring you to about 90% aerobic fitness quickly6) Too much EPO can degrade performance as the blood viscosity thickensMy observation, consistent with the evidence of race times is that:- # 2) above is generally not well supported by what we observe in race times during the EPO-era. Many populations stagnated during the EPO-era. This might be (hypothesis and conjecture) because "EPO works" is undermined by factors like #6, and diminishes "at the top".- the massive improvements in # 4) above is not due to EPO but several other significant factors, including many unique to East and North Africans.The circle in the circular argument is broken by comparing non-Africans to their 1985 predecessors. Non-Africans ran slower than Africans by a lot, and some of them ran faster than 1985 non-Africans, by a little.I suggest, as a hypothesis, and not scientific conclusion, that the expected effect of EPO "on top times" is not more than what non-Africans ran after 1985 compared to before 1985, using the entirety of race performances as evidence to support this hypothesis.I present on its face, without supporting evidence, my assumption that the effect of EPO on top East Africans "on top times", cannot be more than non-Africans.I go further, at my own professional risk, and suggest that intuitively, the effect of EPO should be less for altitude dwelling East Africans, than sea-level non-Africans.In your four scientific choices, I chose "EPO might work on both Africans and non-Africans". The next step is to understand when it works, and when it doesn't, and how much can we expect.Let's try to look at it another way, since you pretend to be a much better scientist than I am: Suppose you were a PhD Physiology student assigned to write a thesis that explores "The impact of EPO on elite American track and field during the EPO-era". Hold yourself to your own high scientific standards. You will start looking at the top for evidence of impact, presumably by looking at top times, or maybe just top places, and then finding that American track and field generally stagnated, even regressed, during the EPO-era, you will relax your scientific integrity, and start looking deeper and deeper into the middle, only to come up with a handful of best examples, and a studies done on your undergraduate classmates. You might mention testimony from amateur Christian Hesch, Dutch-American master Eddy Hellebuyck, maybe mention the Kenyan-American Lagat's botched A-sample, the Moroccan-American Trafeh, maybe attempt to stain the not yet found dirty Moroccan-American Khanouchi, and female sprinters taking steroids like Marion Jones. And you will get a C- for a shoddy report that is more gossip and innuendo than a valuable scientific contribution, only because the professor liked your previous contributions. Or, conceding that you cannot find any alleged impact, you might come up with a bunch of excuses why you can't find any impact, because it is masked by pre-EPO era steroid use and blood transfusions, or the general decline of track and field participation, or the wrong direction of training. The student who will get honourable mention will be the one that explores "Why do we think EPO impacted elite American track and field during the EPO-era?" And not just America, but Europe -- with their top EPO-award winning indoor European record holders, and their imported Moroccan Belgian Mourhit -- and Australia and New Zealand, Japan, Russia, and all of the remaining countries left behind by the East and North Africans. You would struggle to find any evidence of the EPO impact in running, outside of the improved performances by East and North Africans, and then, if you are a good scientist, you will recognise the laundry list of confounding factors undermine that the cause was truly due to EPO.Why ignore the women? First, the OP said this thread was about the men. Second, several confounding factors not controlled: steroids, placebo, pace making, lack of maturity of sport, lack of depth, lack of rivalry, and regular cycle of fluctuating hormones and loss of blood and iron.Why don't studies settle it once and for all? Population sample not "at the top", and confounding factor "training" not controlled.Why ignore race-walkers? It's a different sport with different physiological limiting factors. Why look at race-walking (or worse, cycling) to draw conclusions about running? Why not look at running? Confounding factors not controlled: steroids, placebo, lack of maturity of the sport, lack of depth at the top, lack of rivalry.What about Olympic champions caught with EPO? Proofs by example are a start, but need further corroboration -- could be supported by looking for trends in the aggregate. Confounding factors not controlled: steroids, placebo. Best (only?) example of an aerobic drug producing a world record is the technical event of "3000m steeple"?What about sub-elite runners like Lombard and Hellebuyck? Below 1970's world standards, they don't belong in a discussion "at the top".

"Epo doesnt work Doping Apologists " out

lets not ruin your little manufactured lie that being pushing for ages

and stating that all ethiopian and kenyan records are clean

is a declaration of this agenda and says all . lies to cover lies ........bla bla bla

bekele = micera .

rashid ramzi never benefitted from it either , only he was sold out by iaaf

and never informed to get off stuff before test came in late summer 2008

worst than Paula you two ,

canova and rekrunnner

up a tree ,

D.O.P.I.N.G .

Again

simple data analysis on various times showes epo works amazingly well

beyond a doubt but keep pushing your agenda .

Are Dr ferrari ( another doping apologist ) and Lolo Ferrari related .

both inflated in many ways .

Biography - Lolo Ferrari - The woman with the biggest breasts in the world

aduck, are you just a random word generating bot posting? No more BS.

aduck2022 wrote:

rekrunner are you really just canova posting

aduck2022 wrote:

rekrunner are you really just canova posting ............

What , canova started this "epo doesnt work " nonsense over 2 years ago

No. There are differences, iirc:

1) JO: No doping works. Ever. Period.

2) rekrunner: Steroids work for everyone, but EPO does not work for anyone.

3) Canova: Steroids work for everyone, EPO works for most people, but not for top talents born and raised at altitude with top training at altitude.

Correspondingly, it is very easy to prove 1) wrong; for 2), we have lots of statistical evidence and several EPO drug cheats; for 3), we have less statistical evidence such as 10+ years old world and national records, and Rita's course record in Boston at age 33.

Rita is a great example of the difficulties here, since almost no one speaks out openly, in order to not lose all the money and titles. Also, she is one of the many proven liars, so we best ignore her statements.

In that context, Sage C. just wrote in the 7-7-7 thread that progressions don't lie. Well, look at Rita's:

For seven years, she ran consistent marathon times between 2:24 and 2:28. Clean? EPO-free?

Then:

2:22 in Chicago at age 31. Clean? EPO-free?

2:19 in Chicago at age 32. Clean? EPO-free?

2:18 in Boston at age 33. EPO-aided as per CAS decision.

Depending on when one thinks she started with EPO, one will estimate a different improvement coming from EPO. E.g.

- none if she used EPO all the time

- 1 minute if she started using at age 33

- 3 minutes if she started using at age 32

Personally, I'd go with 3 - 4 minutes to explain the jump at age 32 and 33 (progressions don't lie), unless there is evidence that she significantly enhanced her training at age 32. But which professional marathoner does that after seven years?

(Of course, for a higher precision we'd need to consider increased age, race details, weather,...)

casual obsever wrote:

2) rekrunner: Steroids work for everyone, but EPO does not work for anyone.

That's not really his claim. He says it works for women, and race walkers, and cyclists (not sure about cross-country skiers). He also allows that it works for runners in clinical trials. And people who are only able to set masters records and people who are only able to set indoor records...

I don't pretend to be anything. I just call you on your unscientific bullshit.The fact you think you're thesus is worthy of Ph.D. level work is hilarious. It might be good for a freshman stats class.Even then, you would actually have to do abd show some statistical analysis, whoch you have failed to do.You merely keep repeating your thesis, as though it is a proof by assertion. You have never presented a shred of evidence to support it.

rekrunner wrote:

Let's try to look at it another way, since you pretend to be a much better scientist than I am: Suppose you were a PhD Physiology student assigned to write a thesis that explores "The impact of EPO on elite American track and field during the EPO-era".

rekrunner wrote:

I go further, at my own professional risk,

I don't think there is much risk, your professional troll reputation is secure.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

I don't pretend to be anything. I just call you on your unscientific bullshit.

The fact you think you're thesus is worthy of Ph.D. level work is hilarious. It might be good for a freshman stats class.

Even then, you would actually have to do abd show some statistical analysis, whoch you have failed to do.

You merely keep repeating your thesis, as though it is a proof by assertion. You have never presented a shred of evidence to support it.

rekrunner wrote:

Let's try to look at it another way, since you pretend to be a much better scientist than I am: Suppose you were a PhD Physiology student assigned to write a thesis that explores "The impact of EPO on elite American track and field during the EPO-era".

I'm an economic analyst with an ill family member (so I have seen alot of drug trial data recently) and if rekrunner was writing a doctorate on his above thesis he would not pass because their simply too much conflicting evidence to support his claims. A double blind study on clean elite runners is what is needed the problem being is who is currently clean? If they are clean, getting them to partake in cheating might be troublesome and what happens if they fail a doping test while in the study their reputation will be ruined. Then there is the waiver from authorities who might be concerned that allowing certain athletes a waiver for short term epo use might give them a half-life/perpetual advantage.