Alex Hutchinson calls out CANOVA over study confirming EPO works on Kenyan runners

Of course it's an opinion wiseguy! That's why I noted: "we get an estimation." Man...you're just as confrontational now as you were last year with your imperious EPO isn't effective attitude. FFS; you, rekrunner & Canova are three of a kind. So what's up with you now...just going from forum to forum suppressing people's opinions of the effectiveness of EPO?

Renato has said more than once that part of his "coaching" is to tell his athletes exactly that, and that a necessary part of the solution to the increasing doping problem is a proper education for the athletes (or coaches) that the desired effects can be achieved with the right training, and without external aids. What hurts anti-doping, and the sport, are the headlines from poorly designed and executed studies, and sports journalists and bloggers eating it up. This is why the vitriol needs to extend beyond the athletes.

Renovate Kenya wrote:

You should maybe start telling Kenyans they don't need to dope. Save your vitriol for them.

You prop up this "opinion" attempting to give it weight coming from a "qualified researcher" because it appears in a meta-analysis. It's not a very strong opinion, including a bunch of wiggle words, "it can be estimated that elite athletes may improve performance by up to 3%". What puzzles me more, is not the opinion itself, but that you keep it calling it "interesting", and linking the paper. What about this opinion of a qualified researcher, given the shown lack of basis for it, makes it interesting?

RFM wrote:

Of course it's an opinion wiseguy! That's why I noted: "we get an estimation." Man...you're just as confrontational now as you were last year with your imperious EPO isn't effective attitude. FFS; you, rekrunner & Canova are three of a kind. So what's up with you now...just going from forum to forum suppressing people's opinions of the effectiveness of EPO?

RFM wrote:

Of course it's an opinion wiseguy! That's why I noted: "we get an estimation." Man...you're just as confrontational now as you were last year with your imperious EPO isn't effective attitude. FFS; you, rekrunner & Canova are three of a kind. So what's up with you now...just going from forum to forum suppressing people's opinions of the effectiveness of EPO?

I am not suppressing anyone's opinion, but only point out that they are just opinions and in the end one shouldn't get too excited after seeing word "elite" in some reference regardless of the author of the paper. There is no harm done in mentioning it, which is OK, but thinking that it ends the discussion or referring to it like 10-15 times ("but Malms uses specifically the word 'elite'... blaa blaa blaa") is just idiocy.

The problem is that if you make "an appeal to authority"- reference to Christer Malm and another poster makes similar reference to the research by Jules Heuberger or Hein F. Lodewikjx, you will lose, because Malm's area of expertise isn't efficacy of blood doping as such but its detection, whereas Heuberger and Lodewijkx have meta-analysed and reviewed the literature extensively and their conclusion is that the efficacy of rHuEPO is overstated. When I see that the Dutch researchers have written a few hundred of pages of material to back up their (right or wrong) claims with a few hundred footnotes, your source has like half paragraphs of material with a handful of sources.

I'll try to follow my advice and to refer to most original material available (instead of opinions) and I didn't even take victory laps when half of the media touted that EPO was ineffective roughly a year ago when Jules Heuberger did the Mt. Ventoux experiment.

0/10

I don't use vitriol with anybody but who are not able to read numbers, to discuss REAL facts, and are blind when we speak about doping and performances.

The numbers I wrote before are FACTS, not opinion, and only idiots can think that 3000 performance are ALL doped, before finding the first CLEAN performance. Also, 400 athletes, all doped, before the first CLEAN WR holder, is something that doesn't exist also in the mind of the most stupid people.

But, of course, when we show numbers and facts, or when we ask methodological question involving scientific answer (that nobody here is able to give), the reaction is "Canova is a liar", "Canova does it for money", "Canova abuses Kenyan", and so and so.

Of course I don't care about the attacks of people who never met me, doesn't know anything about myself, and fill their mouth with the most idiotic words. How my grandmother teached me, "You have to take words from where they come", and if I think somebody is a not honest idiot, simply I don't care.

But, instead escaping from the analysis of the real numbers, maybe better to try to review their FAITH in the effects of EPO.

How already I pointed out several times, I'm not a defender of doped athletes. On the contrary, I want them banned for longer time, and their results cancelled from the beginning of their career.

But one thing is to ask for a right punishment because you are against the ethic and wants to cheat, another thing to believe that doping can do advantages clearly out of every evidence.

Where the advantages are evident (for example, with steroids), I well know the effects of this type of doping. If there is no one WR in throwing, or in all the activity for women where the muscle strength is the most important factor, from 1988, this means that it's not possible, till now, to replace the effect on steroids on the performances with the most advanced training used today. And you can see how many top throwers were caught for doping in the past, and how much the performances decreased, when the antidoping against steroids became more effective.

But when we speak about long distances, the percentage of athletes caught by antidoping is really very small, and the most part of them are not for EPO, but for something else (Lucy Kabuu, the last, for morphine : somebody can explain me the effects of morphine as substance enhancing the performance ?).

But, of course, if you think that the clean WR are 4% slower than the official WR, you need also to think that ALL THE DOPED ATHLETES who had performances better than the WR were so smart to avoid the risk of the test, and African athletes are covered.

Probably is because they are covered that the athletes caught were Olympic Champions like Jemima Sumgong or Asbel Kiprop, or winner of the jackpot like Rita Jeptoo, or World Cross Country Champions like Chebet.

Probably is because the increased level of antidoping test that the performances of 5000m and 10000m continue to go down... Oh, sorry, this year in ONE race they were able to run 12'43" - 12'45" and 12'46", obviously they were "doped to the gill" but were covered by IAAF and by Haile Gebrselassie who was the first asking for jail for the Ethiopian dopers !

But, if in spite of the increased level of antidoping, the performances of Half Marathon and Marathon continue to improve, this is because the athletes of these events are allowed to take some drug, because absolutely is not possible they are not caught because are CLEAN !

How is it possible not understand that who thinks in this way doesn't have any logic, and only is FAITHFUL in the effects of doping, maybe because reads a lot of fake researches, without any practical clue ?

I know what is possible to do without any doping, and is not 4% slower than the official WR, but is the WR itself (maybe also better than the current WR, we wait some good new tomorrow).

This Is Getting Ridiculous wrote:

And the worst, IMO, is the promising youngster Kipyegon Bett. My goodness, 20 fvcking years old and already on the sauce!

We all know who you are so the least you could do would be to be coherent.

According to you, Bett is at least 26 (don't you say Zakayo is at least 23?). So which one is it gonna be?

Aragon wrote:

I am not trolling you "Mr. 75 % wind", I just want to point out your contradictions

Then please do so correctly, if possible. For one, the wind point was correct, for two, instead of saying "that the Kenyans were on average 2:12 marathoners?" I said that their marathon PRs were on average 2:12, and that the group included mid-distance runners - and both are correct statements.

For three, I have regretted multiple times on this thread that there was no control group. Honestly I don't understand what your problem is with my statements, other than me pointing out your cherry-picking (which ironically you started).

As for Armstrong, I remember how upset you got when I pointed out that he had no credibility. Did I misunderstand or remember wrong? Then I apologize.

Aragon wrote:There is a nice contradiction to you particularly when you yourself insisted that the TT performance in the test 4 weeks after the rHuEPO treatment should've been worse in absense of rHuEPO.

Also, what is that about? I contradicted myself there? Both you and I correctly stated that that performance increase was statistically significant vs. the baseline...

Maybe you want to turn around and start arguing against JonO and rekrunner.

JonO. wrote:

What is the mechanism that allows more chemical work to be done without disturbing homeostasis.

I told you years ago that homeostasis is only a concept, not a law, and even therein it's only a tendency towards homeostasis, which does not constitute a hard core border. And finally, none of that has anything to do with Newton's laws.

In practice, see Schwarzenegger, or Canova's observations about steroids in women's sprinting and mid-distance running, or try this for fun:

JonO. wrote:

Can't you see that the authors in these studies work backwards from the assumption of the efficacy of the drug? And that's what they are being paid to do?

No they don't. You only think they did because they didn't provide the evidence in the abstract. If you looked further, you would have seen references for the evidence in the introduction.

The first accusation of cherry-picking came from this post you made a few days ago and were related only to it and to nothing else. I fail to see anything about mid-distance runners:

That is wrong for two reasons. It is an error that their "average personal bests" were 1:03/2:12 and readers not familiar with the study could not've been aware that the 5 % improvement was on a distance very different than their key distance. I pointed those mischaracterisations and other issues about the study my reply which is openly posted for everyone to read, dissect, debunk and criticize.

But let's leave it just there, OK? And my opinions about Lance Armstrong have absolutely nothing to do with nothing. Your accusation of "fanboy" is your opinion, but the claim that I've claimed that he would've dominated without rHuEPO is not true.

It was a contradiction (or perhaps an inconsistency) in the data when compared against other blood doping research, not a contradiction made by you. I think my key problem with the study is sound and I've seen very little to question my suspisions yet.

Oh, and regarding

" And that's what they are being paid to do?"

Well, who is paying? This was a WADA grant, supported by various universities, not by Amgen or anyone like that.

So, apparently you think WADA ordered these university researchers to pretend that EPO is a performance enhancing drug. Why, and how do you know?

Jon is a conspiracy theorist among other theories.

Jon, are you aware of heat shock protein/heat shock factor and the like?

If WADA wanted a REAL research, needed to look at a scientific approach, including factors that in this case were not considered, such as :

a) a right distance for every subject, that can't be the same, since they are specialists of different distances. If, how you say (I didn't read the study, but you explained there were runners not only with average of 63' and 2:12', but also specialists of short distances), there were athletes of 800 and 1500m, to ask everybody the same test, before and after the administration, is something not only useless, but building a wrong idea about the final goal of the research.

It's clear that, administering EPO for one month with athletes (not too strong) of short distances, you can have better results in a test of 3000m. One of the problems of athletes specialists of those distances is HOW to enhance their aerobic power, that is the base for their specific training, and already I pointed out that, in this case, EPO can work WITH ATHLETES REFUSING TO USE A RIGHT METHODOLOGY FOR INCREASING THEI LACTIC THRESHOLD. Not only, but athletes for 1'47" in 800m probably never ran 3000m in their life, and in their first test don't know how to distribute the energy and don't use an even pace without acustic rabbits (I don't think these rabbits were used for the test).

On the other side, marathon runners don't work for increasing their times in 3000m, so every help in that direction (maybe EPO or maybe a change of training, putting some more workout of specific speed endurance) can easily improve their best of percentage about 3-4%. But this doesn't have any influence in the final time of their marathon or HM, so the final consideration is absolutely useless.

b) a group of control, that didn't exist.

c) the differentiation of the physiological goal : for one type of athlete we need to look at the time of exhaustion, connected with the max oxygen output, for the other type of athletes about the oxidative ability at the base of any activity of long duration.

d) the NON CONTROL of their training, without analysing what everybody did BEFORE the research, without intervening DURING the period of research, and finally without controlling again what they did AFTER the period of administration.

How I continue to explain, training has a very deep influence on the physiological parameters, and to exclude the most important part of the activity of an athlete (the REAL reason of physiological changes that are themselves the reason for every type of improvement) means, already, that the research is a nonsense, lacking of every basic logic, if the final goal is to calculate the percentage of the improvement in a PRACTIC performance.

I accept the research for what is : if we give EPO, in a structured way, to runners of medium level, without changing their training, they can improve their performances in the race of 3000m (and I'm not sure about this fact, too, since for looking at a REAL improvement the only way was to put them in a official competition, where they can try their best).

This doesn't mean that if we give EPO to athletes of top level, CHANGING at the same time their training in the right way, they can have the same percentage of improvement (supposing they can improve, something we can see only looking at their competitions).

And, supposing they can improve in their PB of 3000m, if are Marathon or HM runners, this doesn't mean they can have some advantage in their main event. On the contrary, a marathon runner improving his best in 3000m teach his body how to use more fuel for having more power, but the final goal of a marathon runner is TO REDUCE THE CONSUMPTION OF FUEL AT THE SPEED OF THE RACE, so a marathon runner can have DAMAGE taking EPO, if we consider the final Marathon goal.

But, of course, this is too much difficult to understand for who believes in some research only, and doesn't have any real experience in what happens with training, when athletes have talent and are motivated for maintaining the best type of training for long time, in altitude and with the right modulation between volume and intensity.

A lot of athletes have run through the range of distances pretty thoroughly.

Rupp , Farah , Kipchoge and Geb have all been through the 1500-Marathon quite extensively.

Coe always spoke of the 'deadening" effect of long and hard road running. Despite the benefits there is always going to be the tissue damage which ultimately fells all runners.

Replace that with EPO and you can get right to the more specific stuff.

That's worth about 4% too.

Renato, calm down. As I have said before in this thread: it's wrong to use this study to prove you wrong. Obviously. That has nothing to do with me not understanding how training works. And yes, ideally we would study 100 sub-60 runners, don't change their training but control it, give half of them EPO injections and the other half "empty" injections, and then have them race every couple of weeks for a year. Or something like that. Obviously that will never happen though. Even if it would, there would be the ambiguity that several of them were likely already EPO users before the study. In the meantime, we continue to get more and more indications - yes, not necessarily hard core evidence - about the usefulness of EPO. For example that now a 3:28 or 12:43 (paced for 4750 m!) are very special and very rare, that the respective world records are 14 - 20 years old, i.e. from the EPO era, and that stars like Kiprop and Jeptoo are EPO cheats. I could go on, but we all know these observations. FYI, regarding the group of Kenyans studied here, I cite the whole paragraph:

Twenty Kenyan endurance runners from the Kalenjin tribe based at altitude (Eldoret, Kenya, ~2,150 m above sea level, PIO2: 115 mmHg); age: 26.4 ± 4.1 yr, body mass: 56.6 ± 4.7 kg, height: 171.8 ± 6.4 cm) were recruited for this study. Eighteen subjects were long distance runners (personal best times: 5,000 m: 14:22 ± 0:47 min:sec; 10,000 m: 29:43 ± 1:2 min:sec; half marathon: 1:03 ± 0:14 hr:min; marathon: 2:12 ± 0:19 hr:min) and 2 were specialized in shorter distances (800 m: 01:50 ± 0:3 min:sec; 1,500 m: 3:49 ± 0:4 min:sec). On average, the group had been training for 5 ± 2 yr and were training in the same group with an average running distance of 128 ± 25 km per week.

Casual observer, which is the "identitykit" of this group ?

Twenty Kenyan endurance runners from the Kalenjin tribe based at altitude (Eldoret, Kenya, ~2,150 m above sea level, PIO2: 115 mmHg); age: 26.4 ± 4.1 yr, body mass: 56.6 ± 4.7 kg, height: 171.8 ± 6.4 cm) were recruited for this study. Eighteen subjects were long distance runners (personal best times: 5,000 m: 14:22 ± 0:47 min:sec; 10,000 m: 29:43 ± 1:2 min:sec; half marathon: 1:03 ± 0:14 hr:min; marathon: 2:12 ± 0:19 hr:min) and 2 were specialized in shorter distances (800 m: 01:50 ± 0:3 min:sec; 1,500 m: 3:49 ± 0:4 min:sec). On average, the group had been training for 5 ± 2 yr and were training in the same group with an average running distance of 128 ± 25 km per week.

This can be read in more clear way :

Age : from 22y 3 months to 30y 6 months

Weight : from 51.9 kg to 61.3

Height : from 165.4 to 178.2

PB for 18 athletes : 5000m from 13:35 to 15:09 - 10000m from 28:41 to 30:45 - HM from 1:02:46 to 1:03:14 - Marathon from 2:11:41 to 2:12:19

PB for other 2 athletes : 800m in 1'47" and 1'53" - 1500m in 3'45" and 3'53".

History of training : From 3 to 7 years

Average Mileage : From 103 to 153 km per week.

Some comment, starting from the last point :

a) The average mileage is very low, and has nothing to do with a type of high level training. I think the 103 km per week is the average of the 2 runners specialists of 800 and 1500, while the average for the others regards specialists of long distance, and this is risible if we look at the training for their distance (both marathon and HM). This means that we can easily to have an improvement of 4 minutes in marathon and 2 minutes in HM, changing training in more proper way.

b) The history of training can change the situation in very strong way. Athletes need a period of 6-7 years for building their "aerobic house", if they have continuity in training, while can't be at their top after only 3 years of training. We can also to know if in their training the athletes had continuity or, how probably happened, they have long period of rest between one season and the next, so go to destroy what already were able to build. Don't forget that training is the ANSWER of the body to some stimulus, and without stimuli there is no training. The situation of progressive adaptation, that is the main enemy for every kind of improvement, is very usual in Africa, if there is not a coach following the athletes on daily basis, who knows the methodological way of training, using in right way the training modulation in order to take advantage by the OVERCOMPENSATION (and very, very few coaches know this art in Africa).

c) PB so far one from another are due to two possible options only :

1- Their talent is very different, and they can have the same type of training

2- Their training is very different, and with this training they can develop their talent

d) It's not clear if all the athletes had PB in all the distances from 5000m to Marathon, or if some of them used to be a runner of some of the events only (for example, 5000 - 10000 only, or 10000 - HM only, or HM - Marathon only). This means that, having one common distance as test, the statistic percentage of "affinity" with the main event is very much different among every athlete, and this makes every result without any clear connection with the main event and the PB of the athlete.

e) A good coach goes to vary volume and intensity of training looking at the morphological differences among every athlete, and at their running technique. Athletes tall (1.78 x 61 kg) have different length of their strides and different frequency, and need to do more training for the muscle strength. Athletes short (1.65 x 51 kg) instead use more frequency in their action, and don't need training for muscle strength. Also the optimal individual mileage must be different, depending on the organic characteristics they have. Usually, short athletes can run more mileage, and can also run slowly without losing technical efficiency, while tall athletes have a more narrow range of speed, because if they run too slow they lose efficiency increasing the cost of running. This means that we have to look at different biomechanical solutions, something that is not part of the research.

A final comment is that is not possible to do any research, without interacting with the right type of training for every subject. The individualization of training is one of the most important methodological factors, and I never saw the respect of this factor in any research, also because physiologists don't know anything about the REAL training, and that's the reason because there is no connection between any research in the lab and the reality of the performances.

rekrunner wrote:

You prop up this "opinion" attempting to give it weight coming from a "qualified researcher" because it appears in a meta-analysis.

It's not a very strong opinion, including a bunch of wiggle words, "it can be estimated that elite athletes may improve performance by up to 3%".

What puzzles me more, is not the opinion itself, but that you keep it calling it "interesting", and linking the paper. What about this opinion of a qualified researcher, given the shown lack of basis for it, makes it interesting?

So why should your opinion of less the 1% have any more weight than this? You're not even a qualified researcher with your "strong opinion." So what gives rekrunner? Only your opinion counts now?