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

I thought you were through debating the issue of the power of 02-vector doping with high-responders? However, I know the subject of EPO/blood doping with athletes is your bailiwick.

On Montaño: I don’t think the article is a distraction. She states that she observed her "Russian competition emerge from nowhere." She is very specific on Savinova's time improvement. Once the article was published, don't you think she would have read it, and if the 1 year/6 second improvement was inaccurate or taken out of context, she would have had it corrected? Also, Savinova never challenged the statement, as I'm sure she was made aware of the article (they have Internet in Russia...don't they? Lol).

I still think you underestimate the significant performance gains of 02-vector doping & steriods and/or HGH with *high-responders* 🤔. Once again, you got Stepanova going from 2:08.47 to 1:58.47 in less than 2 years; a ~7.5 % improvement. With her 2:08 she couldn't even make the WC "A" standard, but after going high-octane she eventually ends up in a WC final. And another "high-responder" (or better yet; "super-respnder") that's been overlooked in this discussion is "Liliya Shobukhova."

Her super-fast marathon times have been wiped out due to doping (ABP sanction👍), so her "revised" PB is now 2:24, set in 09. The following year she runs 2:22 at London, and the shocker in 2011: 2:18:20 at Chicago, which is a Russian record and 2nd fastest all-time behind Radcliffe 😨 (a ~5.5% improvement) Here's a quote from the McLaren report (pg 239) on her ABP profile during that time period:

"The ABP expert panel concluded that the athlete’s abnormal profile was likely the result

of the use of a prohibited substance or method, specifically blood manipulation with

“massive use of erythropoietin” associated with an autologous blood transfusion

strategy. One expert considered that two of the athlete’s hemoglobin values obtained in

October 2009 and October 2011, in strict correlation with the Chicago Marathon, which

Ms. Shobukhova won both years on 11 October 2009 and 09 October 2011, respectively,

were so high that they should be considered a medical emergency."

wada_independent_commission_report_1_en.pdf

A "medical emergency"...Yikes! 😨. Sounds like Shobukhova went full-throttle with oxygen-vector doping blowing her passport right off the charts. So, here's another compelling case of the power of 02-vector doping with a high-responder. And it's no wonder the Russians are World leaders in ABP sanctions. Lol.

EPO can work for everyone, with a weak body and a weak mind.If women, race walkers, and cyclists took steroids, and HGH, I would not like to comment on EPO alone.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

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...

Technically it's not my thesis. Hypothetically it was assigned it to you, as an example of a thesis that I think would be impossible for a PhD student to write, while upholding scientific standards. Let's agree it's not worthy of a Phd thesis and call it an undergrad entrance exam question, or a tough interview question. I still say it will be impossible to write, while upholding your scientific standard, because it will be difficult to find sufficient data that supports the premise. But who cares what I say. I did not provide any data to show that there is no data.Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that science proved "EPO works", and by extrapolation, it works, "at the top".Historically, in your OPINION, do you think EPO actually impacted elite American (or choose any sufficiently large non-African nation or area or continent) track and field, during the EPO-era, for distance events for the men? Yes or no. How would you quantify the impact: negligible, marginal, average, significant? Chose your own best word or words if these don't fit.Do you think American (or the rest) race times, at the top, neglecting foreign imports, SHOULD, reflect that impact? If not, why not.Do you think a statistical analysis WILL find evidence of an impact? If not, then why not? How much should we expect to see: negative, negligible, marginal, average, significant? Chose your own words if these don't fit.Do you think it is an invalid approach to look at top race times of different non-African populations for evidence of an effect of drug that is claimed to be universally effective, available, cheap, prevalent, abused, and undetectable, recalling Goldman's dilemma, that athletes would drastically shorten their lives for such a drug? If so, then why?casual obsever says Americans (and the rest) more or less maintained the status quo, exchanging unlimited steroids for limited steroids, and unlimited EPO. Do you agree? He says it's based on facts, repeated ad naseum. Do you agree with his claim that it is based on facts? Do you agree with his facts? Do you agree with his claim? Do you think his claim is scientific, or also unscientific BS?Maybe these questions will help us find common ground, or irreconcilable differences.

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".

Everything is possible, but strong improvement in one or two seasons are quite normal with change of training, without looking at doping.

For example, preparing Asian Games in 2014 with the Chinese Team, I had 3 athletes dramatically improving : Zhao Jing started the season very late because discussed her degree in the University, and at half July was only able running 2'07" in 800m. After a period of 7 weeks in altitude in Duoba (2400m), she ran in Incheon for Asian Games 1'59"48.

In other events, Ding Changqin, whose limit was 15'55" in 5000m, after the same 7 weeks in Duoba won silver in 10000 with 31'53" (16'20" + 15'33"), and after two days bronze in 5000m, pacing all the race till last lap, with 15'12".

The third was Li Zhenzhu, steeple runner who had a SB of 10'05", who ran in 9'35" winning silver behind the current WR holder Ruth Jebet (9'32").

What is funny, is that ALL THESE 3 ATHLETES RAN ASIAN GAMES WITH BLOOD VALUES LOWER THAN BEFORE THE PERIOD IN ALTITUDE, and this clearly demonstrates that high blood levels don't have anything to do with the level of the performances.

If you look at the improvement, connecting everything with doping, how can you, for example, explain the explosion of Callum Hawkins, now almost 25 years old, who has the following career :

3000m : 8:10.28 (2014)

5000m : 14:06.57 (2015)

10000m : 28:49.57 (2014)

10 km Road : 29:15 (2015)

HM : 62:42 (2015) and estimated 60:55 in 2016

Yesterday, he ran HM in 60:00, running two times in 28:28 + 28:27, better than his PB in 10000m.

Following your "evidence", Callum MUST BE DOPED, at 100%, when instead the big jump of quality was probably due to a professional approach of training, for the first time in his life (I don't know anything about him).

Don't try to analyze in the opposite way the development of a career, starting from the results athletes achieved. Training is a long and complicated process, and many times athletes already mature (for example, almost 30 years old), changing completely training approach (more volume, more intensity, more motivation, more technical and physiotherapic assistance), can have big jumps in their performances.

The problem is that the most part of people here think that the only thing never changing is training, so the responsible for the improvements must be doping. This is an approach completely stupid, and clearly only people not doing anything about training methodology (for example, runners at level of amateur, or runners in college, or doctors with physical degrees that NEVER had the possibility to work with top athletes and fund their knowledge on all the books they studied, which never spoke about the real training) .

Instead, the main reason because athletes improve their performances is a change of training.

So, you start from the END for finding conclusions that are wrong, exactly how physiologists who confuse CAUSE with EFFECT (every athlete, when improve his PB, makes his blood values LOWER than when is not in full training, but the effect of training for the performance is positive because the athlete improve, IN SPITE OF LOWER VALUES). Instead, many physiologist and coaches start from the EFFECT, transforming it in CAUSE, looking at blood values as main reason of the performances.

This is AGAINST every data we can investigate, in top athletes, following their training when are in shape.

And this happens, also if you don't agree, and don't understand how it's possible (I repeat, scientists need to start to STUDY the effect of TOP TRAINING, that absolutely don't know).

I didn't consider the article a distraction, but referred to your obsession about the article and its nonexistent "6 second" improvement occurring in some parallel universe. Savinova's silence tells nothing, as there was little incentive to correct the record, because even when untrue, the allegation has no slighest impact on the life of Savinova who was in middle of a lot of other troubles, if she was even aware of its contents. In essence, the debate about the article was, is and will be a waste of time and any honest person would've dropped the matter a long time ago. Even you have admitted not knowing about which time frame she is discussing.

"On Montaño's times improving over that 2 year period: Comparable...yes". Those are your own words, so if a natural athlete can gain two thirds of the Stepanova's 9.48 second improvement in 2 years (2:08.47-> 1:58.99), you pretty much give up most of the argument about only PED-fueled athletes taking sudden leaps forward or that Stepanova's all improvement was necessarily PED-fueled.

There are some biographical items about Stepanova in the letter she sent WADA. These tilt heavily to the direction that 1) her training was not too professional by 2007 and 2) she also had medical issues before she entered the PED program.

- She started something resembling serious training earliest at late summer 2003, when she was 17.

- Even in 2005-2006 her coach told her not do dope because "[h]e was telling me that it’s too early for me because my base training is not at the necessary level yet".

- She was diagnosed a tuberculosis in March 2006 which ruined a lot of her training ("I slowly started running again and the first 6 months or so I was training lightly and was taking only pills that were prescribed to help recover from tuberculosis").

- Interestingly she took testosterone during winter 2006-2007 before the "real" PED-program to recover from the illness.

While WADA takes a lot of information about her biography from Stepanova herself, it is interesting that WADA-report concludes that "[a]s 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..." even when she herself states clearly that "really it’s hard to tell at some points of my career whether my result was getting better because I trained more or because I used some medicine or because I thought that I’m taking some medicine and I must be faster".

To make any conclusions about Shobukleva's PED-fueled improvement from her possibly first marathon in 2009 onward is questionable. I don't dispute that she used doping methods with some possible advantage, but when you consider the following things, it isn't that clear just when she started her miraculous "super responder" PED-program.

- Do you assume that the "revised" marathon PB from 2009 is clean? If so, then you are arguing that her 14:23.75 time for 5000m a year before the "revised" marathon was most likely also clean (6th all-time list, marathon equivalent roughly 2:18:00).

- Shobukleva also performed brilliantly at 3000m (8:34.85) as early as 2004 (84th in the all-time list).

- Her indoor 3000m time of 8:46.92 for 2002 is also worth mentioning and correspondingly she was positioned well in that years indoor list (6th), just behind known doper Olga Yegorova.

Her seasonal best times in the IAAF profile do fluctuate a lot between 2002 and 2009 (there is only fragmentary information about the years 2001-2003), but assuming that the 3000m indoor time showed the uttermost limits of her capabilities in 2002 (which I doubt), her improvement from February 2002 to 2008 is in the range of some 3-4 percent, which is a huge improvement but not anything totally amazing. Perhaps she started her PED-program before the IAAF or the Russian Athletics had much information about her performances, but in this case you don't know anything about her natural capabilities nor about her prior exercise regimen, in essence nothing.

rekrunner wrote:

casual obsever says Americans (and the rest) more or less maintained the status quo, exchanging unlimited steroids for limited steroids, and unlimited EPO.

I said non-Africans (your distinction, actually) improved, but not by a lot, and not in the 800 as there the steroid factor is dominant, both for males and females.

Focusing on one specific country can lead to different results, depending on which country one picks, because of the small numbers involved.

You are the one with something to prove, not me. It is up to you to make the argument. I would not defend your position.All the evidence that we have, clinical trials, anecdotal evidence, evidence from other endurance sports, evidence from women, evidence from race-walking, evidence from masters runners, evidence from sub-elites, etc. all tends to show (with varying degrees of certainty) that EPO works. The universal practice of medicine would be to assume it works on everybody unless there is evidence that it does not (we have been over this before). This would be evidence that it would be up to you to provide. Given the very large amount of evidence and conditions under which EPO is shown to work, you would need some very strong evidence indeed.Do you think it is an invalid approach to look at top race times of different non-African populations for evidence of an effect of drug that is claimed to be universally effective, available, cheap, prevalent, abused, and undetectable, First, these claims about EPO are your claims, so it would be up to you to define and defend them. I am not sure "cheap" is a valid descriptor for EPO, and universal availability is also not a good assumption. We talked about confounding factors on one side (the results side) but there are also confounding factors on the supply side as well, such as different countries having different pharmaceutical control regimes, different testing regiments, etc. What you are proposing to do is a sort of population study. Population studies can be a good way of looking for impact, but I believe it is a particularly poor subject to be a population study. Population studies have some conditions under which they are suitable. One of the most important is that they are conducted among a large population. One of the large benefits of a population study is that by studying a sufficiently large population, you are minimizing or controlling all of the confounding factors, assuming they will all come out in the wash, or at least that with a sufficient study size all those factors will be reflective of real world conditions. So, if you were to do a population study on running, and EPO effectiveness, AT ALL, the thing to do would be to make your population as inclusive as possible. On the contrary, you keep whittling down and whittling down your sample size by excluding all sorts of people (women, masters, East Africans, North Africans, everybody who is slower than X time (although you can't really explain what X time is or what the scientific rationale for choosing it is etc. etc. etc.). As reasoning, you state that it is because they have too many confounding factors, but in fact this is exactly the opposite of what a good population study design should be doing. What would be the cutoff for inclusion in your study? What level of performance? What would be the potential numbers of runners that would effect? Not only would your small study size be a nightmare of confounding factors, it would be extraordinarily underpowered from a statistical size. The other factor that makes for a good population study is sort of similar to the confounding factors, point. Population studies are commonly conducted in medicine, but are only really effective when you have access to lots, and lots of data on the interventions/effects you are seeking. So, they work pretty great in places where you have central repositories of data, either state-run health care systems, or through large health insurance company. So you can sort through and analyze it to see, for example, what number of people are taking statins, and compare them to people with similar characteristics but without the intervention and compare outcomes. And you can sort them and control for smoking, income, race, gender, weight, and any other number of factors. In doping, this sort of data is not just hard to come by, but it is missing entirely. We have no idea how many people or which particular people are taking which doping products, how many mix their EPO with steroids and HGH, etc. etc. etc.So small population size and absence of data on the intervention actually being studied. Your entire approach is invalid. It is not at all scientific. Your "proposal" would never be approved, because the holes are too obvious for anybody to ignore, or anybody besides you.

rekrunner wrote:

EPO can work for everyone, with a weak body and a weak mind.

If women, race walkers, and cyclists took steroids, and HGH, I would not like to comment on EPO alone.

Totally unscientific. You can't even scientifically define "weak body" and "weak mind."

I can't believe that the issue of whether epo works has generated 25 pages of discussion. What's the point of all this? Is someone arguing that it should be legalized, or is this just purely academic?

Just the same, both you and "casual obsever" misstated my claims.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

EPO can work for everyone, with a weak body and a weak mind.

If women, race walkers, and cyclists took steroids, and HGH, I would not like to comment on EPO alone.

Totally unscientific. You can't even scientifically define "weak body" and "weak mind."

Your "claim" is bunk.

rekrunner wrote:

Just the same, both you and "casual obsever" misstated my claims.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Totally unscientific. You can't even scientifically define "weak body" and "weak mind."

New York Times:

"Late last year, an investigator for the World Anti-Doping Agency published evidence that Russia’s government-directed doping schemes had involved, or benefited, more than 1,000 athletes across 30 disciplines."

New York Mag:

"Strange things started happening in Russia. On February 3 of this year, the founding chairperson of Russia’s state-led anti-doping agency — who resigned in disgrace after the report came out in December — died unexpectedly. No cause of death was given. Less than two weeks later, a former director for the agency also died — officials said of a heart attack

. Fearing for his life, Rodchenkov fled to the United States. In May, he went to the New York Times and detailed how he fed athletes a cocktail of performance-enhancing drugs mixed into alcohol — whiskey for men, Martini vermouth for women — and then participated in an elaborate ruse to replace their tainted urine samples with clean ones through a hole in the wall at the anti-doping lab headquarters.

In 2014, Russian athletes won more medals than any other country — a dramatic improvement over their 2010 performance at the Winter Games in Vancouver, when they won the sixth most."

Interesting, I heard something similar that a hard night on the bender can help water down positive test readings (done in house) for certain drugs. So it is somewhat amusing that Muslim North-African runners have hard drinking sessions. I wonder why?

rekrunner wrote:

Just the same, both you and "casual obsever" misstated my claims.

What are you claims then? Would be nice to know so we don't continue to go in infinite circles.

I was admittedly rather short with my "anyone"; so far I understand your claims to be that EPO does not help any properly trained professional runner, male or female alike, while the various steroid cocktails do provide an advantage for those runners too.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

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...

It can definitely work for XC skiers. Johann Muhlegg of Spain had three golds stripped for doping at the 2002 Olympics. He used a second generation EPO; darbepoetin, and smoked top competition in three events:

Sorry to disagree, but:- extrapolating observations of mediocre performances in lab conditions, to the extreme performances in the real world is bad science- anecdotes and proofs by example are bad scienceEven with the very large evidence we have, if you want to claim "EPO works at the top", this question has not been properly examined, and all of this body of very large evidence has reduced that burden very little:- Studies that show "EPO works" have not looked "at the top"- Anecdotes and proofs "at the top" have not been shown to be caused by EPOAll we have today, is enough evidence to form an "EPO works at the top" hypothesis, and determine further tests to confirm or contradict it.Barring the gold standard of double-blind studies, it is not bad science to look for effects in the real world, at least for data that supports the hypothesis, but especially for contradictions, which would force us to refine our thinking.I'm amazed to see you say I "keep whittling down" the population. I've just whittled it down now to the entire male population of North and South America, Europe, Russia, China, Japan, India, Australia, and New Zealand, spanning the period of two decades that covers the EPO-era. That doesn't seem like a small population to me, and it covers the whole period in question.You want to add the women? OK, except for the ones on steroids. This would exclude the Russians. Probably the Chinese too.You want to add the masters to a discussion of "at the top"? OK. Hellebuyck didn't even set his own PB, when he set a masters record on EPO.You want to add slow runners to a discussion of "at the top"? OK. Doesn't make much sense to me, but OK, the more the merrier.Let's be scientific, and work with definitions.In physics, "work" is defined as the displacement of an object by force, from a starting point, to an end point. No displacement, no work.In EPO studies, "EPO works" can be measured by the displacement of timesSo when asking, "does EPO work at the top", "work" can be measured by the displacement of "times at the top"When we look at the entire non-African population above, starting from the beginning of the EPO-era, we can measure the displacement of "top times" through 2009, and see that very little "work" was done, during the EPO-era, by this rather large, nearly global population of first world countries.Outside of this population, most of the "work" was done by East Africans, with some "work" being done by North Africans.Post-ABP, some Americans, like Rupp, Solinsky, and Jager, started to do some more "work", much more work than in the previous two decades known as the EPO-era.Now, how does a good scientist use "EPO works in studies" to reconcile these real world observations?

Mr. Obvious wrote:

...

All the evidence that we have, ...

What you are proposing to do is a sort of population study. ...

On the contrary, you keep whittling down and whittling down your sample size by excluding all sorts of people (women, masters, East Africans, North Africans, everybody who is slower than X time (although you can't really explain what X time is or what the scientific rationale for choosing it is etc. etc. etc.). ...

My claim is that, by looking at improvements in "top times" we have seen EPO work, at best, very little, in non-African males "at the top" during the EPO-era (similar to what started this thread about the Russian men). This is because "top times" have moved so little, over two decades, regardless of the source.And, EPO does not work more for African males than non-African males. It is likely less considering altitude adaptations.Regarding women, race-walking, and cycling, we have seen real world effects, but I would not attribute these to EPO alone, since they are all well known to be combined with cocktails, steroids, HGH, testosterone, etc.While not central to this thread, I also claimed (my opinion) that if any man or women, was trained to their clean potential, that EPO wouldn't help any further.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Just the same, both you and "casual obsever" misstated my claims.

What are you claims then? Would be nice to know so we don't continue to go in infinite circles.

I was admittedly rather short with my "anyone"; so far I understand your claims to be that EPO does not help any properly trained professional runner, male or female alike, while the various steroid cocktails do provide an advantage for those runners too.

Back defending the PED-fueled Russian women again? You're making me laugh now with your rationalization of their systematic doping program 😄. And FWIW, if I have an "obsession" with Montaño's performance assesment of a career doper, then you're obsessed with the fallacy that 02-vector doping & PEDs have a minimal effect on performance, and the notion that these dopers could have achieved their accomplishments clean. This is what many of the dopers have spewed out time after time, i.e., "PEDs had a minimal effect on my performance, I'm a talented athlete who didn't need to dope and would have achieved these results anyway, my coaches made me do it," etc., etc., etc."

On Stepanova: you keep rationalizing her PED-fueled improvement by redundantly comparing it to Montaño's improvement. There's NO EVIDENCE of doping with Montaño. She has achieved her level of performance & accomplishments through her training program, and consequently she gets robbed of 3 WC/Olympic medals from the Russian doping machine! On the contrary, Stepanova DID NOT achieve her enormous jump in performance without the assistance of PEDs (if you disagree, do you have ANY evidence that her 9+ second improvement and consequently making it to the 2011 WC final was done WITHOUT the use of PEDs?).

The article you linked on Stepanova's letter to WADA highlights the performance benefits she received from PEDs. In fact, it's so ridiculous of the improvement she received from doping that I'm surprised you would continue to defend her. She mentions that in 06 she was using "testosterone injections the wrong way," and when she corrected it her 2:13 PB improved to 2:08.47 in several months! She further relates that in 07 she initiates using the cocktail of Turinabolan & EPO and improves to 2:03.47 in less than year, and in 08 she records a doped time of 2:01.96. She says herself: "The more I trained the more PHARMALOGICAL help my body needed to keep improving." No kidding...confessions of a career doper 😄. Sadly, the article also highlights her indoctrination into the Russian PED program at a young age. She was very well educated on the types of drugs to use, the most efficient methods of administration, glow times and who to pay off for adverting positive test samples. Pathetic...and I can see why Montaño is so pissed-off with this egregious situation with the Russians 😠.

On Shobukhova: You state "I don't dispute that she used doping methods with some possible advantage..." "Possible advantage?" You're kidding right? She's a career doper, who like many of the others was indoctrined into the Russian doping machine at a young age with an astute knowledge of doping methods & practices. I believe she ramped up her program in 09 with Pantani-style 02-vector doping when she showed that remarkable ~5.5% improvement culminating in that shocking Chicago win recording the 2nd fastest marathon time of 2:18:20 😨. Did you bother to read page 239 of the McLaren report? Her ABP profile revealed signs of polythecymia to the point of a "medical emergency" deemed by some of the reviewing experts (I wonder what her Off-score was...maybe a record? Lol). She was sanctioned for a passport doping violation, and consequently her Chicago time was wiped out, her titles and 2012 Olympic Gold stripped, and she had to pay back her marathon earnings👍.