Half Marathon WR holder Abraham Kiptum busted by Bio Passport!!!!!!!!

casual obsever wrote:

False dichotomy, obviously.

a) it could be 1% for the 400, 3% for the 5000, and 2% for the marathon, for example.

The boost could be whatever in different types of sports, but by your own logic you are a (2) guy ("gives little evidence'"), because if the expected 1 % boost is enough for a 400m guy to try it, there is not that much reason for a 5000 m guy to have higher expectations about its benefits. Scientific proven benefit from the literature is with 100 m runners is close to if not exactly 0 %.

By other means we could prove or know that it indeed is 3, 5 or 10% for a 5000m guy, but the decision making process as such doesn't reveal too much details about this.

Yet it is plausible to think that risk aversion (ABP/more EPO testing etc/higher cost in running complicated reinfusion schemes) would lead the elite runners to expect a higher boost from EPO in order to use it.

About the testing system, one must still decide whether:

1) The testing with law enforcement is very effective and catches a significant amount of dopers and correspondingly one wouldn't take the risk and use EPO without a very high expected boost.

2) Or whether it takes bad luck or incompetence to get caught because the anti-doping system is in many countries very corrupt and the ABP program far too lenient particularly when reticulocyte manipulation (microdosing/unknown ESAs) and blood dilution takes place to fine tune the parameters.

You mean testing with anti-doping? It would depend on the country/nation....wouldn't it? The risk would probably be low in first world countries considering the low number of AAF positives and ABP sanctions.

Look at "Operation Aderlass" which primarily involved athletes from first world nations. It took a disgruntled athlete to drop a dime with the police authorities and not WADA to blow that doping ring open. None of the athletes involved with Schmidt's blood doping program were tripping their passports and WADA had no idea anything like this was going on. And Schmidt had been running this operation since 2011 in his little town in Germany making a pretty penny off his clients. And the real fallout is yet to come.

And let's not forgot the Russian doping dynasty. It was Stepanova, who was disgruntled about something (may have been that she didn't get selected for the Nation team one year), who first informed WADA of the State-sponsored doping program. Not getting the response she expected, she started recording the conversations with doping doctors/coaches and other athletes, and fowarded that info to Seppelt for the famous ARD-recordings that was the Achilles heal of Russian doping.

The parameters of the ABP are generous that's basically to eliminate any false positives. A lot of the Russian ABP cases were examined retrospectively after the ARD-recordings when certain athletes were recorded talking about their programs as well as doping doctors/coaches explaining the specifics of the programs they put their athletes on.

A classic case is Savinova (WC gold/London gold) who was recorded talking about her program and the anti-doping countermeasures she utilized. With this info WADA retrospectively looked at her ABP data over the time period of Daegu & London and saw sufficient hematological anomalies that it was "highly likely" that she was doping over that time period. Keep in mind she never tested positive (even on the re-tests) nor tripped her passport. And in the recordings, one of her doping doctors or coaches mentioned "they pour so much into her" (EPO, steroids, HGH).

I'm scratching my head wondering where this came from. It doesn't seem to be connected to anything I recently said here. I always think these kinds of accusations are just personal projections of the unseen traits of the accuser onto me, because those are the terms how they view the world. I'm fairly certain I have never singled out caucasian athletes for anything, except rare instances, for example, when I re-quoted someone else's words for context. For example, when I started the performance thread, I looked at all performances, and then I formed three groups, "East", "North", and "Rest of World", to look at how the different groups performed, finding HIGH, MEDIUM, and LOW progress. This does not ignore Africans, because their results were also included. The "Rest of World" is not just caucasians, but, includes Indians, Asians, African-Americans and African Europeans of West African origin, and, for that matter, West Africans and Central Africans and South Africans. Another example, when I looked at WADA statistics for countries with doping problems, I did not single out caucausians, but found many other countries with historical evidence of doping problems. It often includes countries like France (including busted athletes of North African origin), and sometimes USA (including busted non-caucasian African-American athletes).

GoodPerf wrote:

Rekrunner has to toss in clean caucasian athletes to be PC, and chooses to ignore most Africans while pretending to want to make the sport fair. LOL

It's not just that someone tried it once, hoping for a boost. Rather, literally thousands of athletes, including those with all the resources and support, have been doing it for decades, optimizing its dosages etc.

As for the 100 m runners, the ones we know of used EPO as part of a package, and there are no scientific studies about the synergistic effects of such combinations.

We have also seen from Saugy's 2011 blood doping paper, that the "prevalence estimates of abnormal

blood profiles in elite track and field athletes" is a lot lower in the non-endurance events than in the endurance events: depending on the model used, either 3% versus 18% or 1% versus 19%.

And we don't need to decide whether the ABP is hard to beat - we know it is easy (see Passport Era Doping's comments). But one has to take precautions (depending on the country, yes); today athletes with Ramzi's or Radcliffe's data would get banned on the spot.

Here's my take wrote:

The one thing I don't like about rekrunner is at times he gets very aggressive and contemptuous with people who disagree with him on this issue. Instead of saying that he has his opinion and others have their opinion, and we'll agree to disagree, he seems hell bent on forcing his opinion while suppressing the opinions of others.

Well, he will delete this again of course, but I am quite sure he stirs the pot like this on purpose, just like he is routinely wrong on purpose, to keep the discussion going. Somewhat of a twisted Advocatus Diaboli.

Like Aragon said earlier, I have never reported a post, and never have caused one to be deleted, and I do not mind if negative posts about me remain posted, because I am not insecure or thin-skinned. What is annoying, because it detracts from the conversation, is that those who lack self-control want to blame me for what happens to them, when I've played no role at any stage. What is also annoying is that some posters like you should know better, but can't resist hopping on the bandwagon. These attempts to make everything about me are various forms of deflection away from the real topics under discussion.

casual obsever wrote:

Well, he will delete this again of course, but I am quite sure he stirs the pot like this on purpose, just like he is routinely wrong on purpose, to keep the discussion going. Somewhat of a twisted Advocatus Diaboli.

I would say I have a scientific agenda, and in a discussion forum, want to promote thoughtful discussion on topics. I don't try to suppress opinions, but ask you to support them externally, and ask you to explain apparent contradictions, and furthermore, support these explanations externally. This seems like appropriate behavior for a discussion forum. There are strong ways to support opinions, and there are weaker ways. Many of the weaker ways are called fallacies. This goes two ways -- you should consider my opinions to the extent I can support them, and feel free to reject the ones you feel are not supported, or better, ask me to provide more support. I think I am rarely aggressive, if ever. I go out of my way to be diplomatic. In any case, I receive 100x, if not more, aggression and contemptuousness from several posters here -- I wonder, does that annoy you too? Any rare display of aggression is only an echo of what I receive. I can name several posters here who are aggressive and contemptuous towards me, rather than agreeing to disagree, and trying to suppress my opinions.

Here's my take wrote:

I wonder what rekrunner & Aragon's agenda is? Paid trolls? Canova is easy to figure out because he's built a legacy on coaching Kenyans, therefore, he would feel the need to defend them and minimize the effect of EPO/blood doping (i.e., don't bite the hand that feeds you). But rekrunner and Aragon have some kind of other motive (unless rekrunner is an elite running coach?). The one thing I don't like about rekrunner is at times he gets very aggressive and contemptuous with people who disagree with him on this issue. Instead of saying that he has his opinion and others have their opinion, and we'll agree to disagree, he seems hell bent on forcing his opinion while suppressing the opinions of others.

The ABP standards are super generous. Kiprop’s passport was only flagged as “suspicious”.

LoneStarXC wrote:

The ABP standards are super generous. Kiprop’s passport was only flagged as “suspicious”.

Good point...and it makes me wonder how the athletes listed on that leaked document as "likely doping" with a high priority ranking (+++ /+++++) haven't tested positive. ?

rekrunner wrote:

Count it however you want. I just couldn't be bothered to count performers.

Why so sarcastic? In your performance thread you counted performers and not performances, therefore, I followed your methodology for thevpurpose of this illustration.

rekrunner wrote:

I showed you #3 was from 1988. Only two men were ever faster over the next 30 years.

And #3 also served a ban for doping.

rekrunner wrote:

If the best you can do is #15, it's like you are arguing my point.

Your #15 would have tied for #3 in 1988.

Why so condescending? And what the heck do you mean the best I could do? I gave you hard facts.

You posted this statement: "I noticed that the choice of 400m is also an event that seems to be unimpacted at the top by the introduction of EPO into the sport." I researched and found Yousef Al-Masrahi of the KSA who is a 400m specialist.

Al-Masrahi tested positive for EPO and was consequently given a 4-yr ban. Maybe he was also using other PEDs but the official positive was for EPO. His PB was 43.93 ran before the AAF. "43.93" is very fast as a stand alone time. When you count "performers," he's currently the *15th* fastest in the world. For several years, he's a mid-45ish guy who in a couple of years sheds ~1.5 seconds. Mid-45s wouldn't even qualify for the Olympics/WC.

And yet what do you do? You pull out the fastest pre-90's time for comparison deflecting from the point that it's conceivable that EPO assisted with and improve his training load to improve from a clean best mid-45s to "43.93" and Olympic qualifier, Asian champ and 15th fastest all-time.

I strangely agree with you here for once, the Videman et al paper from 2000 also measured that at least hemoglobin concentrations of the EPO-era were lowest in ski jumping (144 g/l) where Vo2Max values were low in general whereas it was higher in cross-country skiing, alpine skiing and biathlon etc (~155-160 g/l).

The obvious followup question is the validity of the "extra training load"-issue because what does it then tell about the extra training load with EPO made possible by the extra red blood cells if the blood values of sprinters are by a magnitude more often normal? Do they not want to train more or does EPO help in training by some other way than via elevated RBC count?

The original point was whether use alone was enough proof that one can extrapolate enough of the benefit of EPO with endurance runners to sprinters (someone called it "all-purpose PED") or whether sprinters were just another case of dopers who use of all the means available with barely above marginal expected benefit. The absense of prevalent use by your own source (I also specifically do not believe that a few testimonials from clients of Victor Conte is enough to automatically presume that the is a significant benefit with sprinters) tilts towards the latter in my opinion, but - as you state - this isn't necessarily the case with endurance athletes, far from it.

The problem is that this exactly same argument can be said to claim that high altitude/hypoxic training brings huge benefits and in this case the performance boost is still very debatable and if there is a general expected benefit, it is usually not believed to be near that of blood doping. There still has been R&D ongoing for rougly five decades and athletes still travel to foreign countries and install hypoxic equipment into their homes with high cost in terms of financial resources and opportunity cost.

I haven't followed the ABP-issue closely and I have avoided taking any position about its efficacy. But if if there was a huge risk of getting caught and athletes would still take the risk, It would be easier to argue that use as such would be a significantly higher proof of a huge benefit of EPO/transfusions.

Every comment about Aderlass, the Russians or about the lenient ABP just makes it more difficult to believe that there is an enormous risk of getting caught.

It wasn't sarcasm. Counting performers or performances leads me to the same conclusion. Pick your poison. #3 was banned for steroids? That's a good argument for steroids impacting top performances. I appreciate your fact-finding. That is better than some. I also responded with hard facts, not deflecting from your point, but relevant to my point to which you were responding. But if that was your point, I would agree it is conceivable that EPO assisted with and improve his training load to improve from a clean best mid-45s to "43.93" and Olympic qualifier, Asian champ and 15th fastest all-time.

As for the ABP, it does influence people's doping, for it's to a large part public knowledge what's inconspicuous and what isn't. It doesn't force athletes to stop, but to use smaller dosages (or bribe the officials or install a quiet doorbell). And then we can see some more risk-oriented dopers crashing through the treshold (see the IAAF likely doping list) and just hope for the best.

As you know, the stepwise increasing usefulness of the EPO test in turn forces athletes (and others) to go back to blood doping, at least to supplement the smaller EPO doses. One would think that all of the above would cede, if neither EPO nor blood doping were beneficial.

Couple of sources:

Michael Ashenden, SIAB Research Consortium:

"Our treatment regimen elicited a 10% increase in total haemoglobin mass equivalent to approximately two bags of reinfused blood. The passport software did not flag any subjects as being suspicious of doping whilst they were receiving rhEPO. "

"Retrospective analyses of databanks have revealed some of the cat-and-mouse nuances of the interplay between blood monitoring and athlete's responses. In the years immediately after the introduction of an enlarged blood testing programme by the International Ski Federation (FIS), the unexpected high mean [Hb] values encountered in 1997–1999 (i.e., 16.2 g/dL) declined closer to normal values (14.8 g/dL). However, in subsequent years, the [Hb] began to creep upwards again whilst reticulocyte levels fell, which the authors cautioned was likely a sign that skiers had adopted new strategies to manipulate their blood values (Morkeberg et al. 2009b). It is disconcerting to note that cycling, which also introduced blood monitoring during this period, reported a similar 'evolution' in blood values (Zorzoli 2005)."

See here how the cyclists changed from extremely high ret-% (sign of EPO) after 2002 to extremely low ret-% (sign of blood transfusions), at first to a comparable extent, and then decreasing after the introduction of the APB:

https://i0.wp.com/www.sportsscientists.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Screen-shot-2011-03-20-at-7.18.png

See here how the runners actually came to be worse blood dopers than the cyclists starting in 2008:

http://features.thesundaytimes.co.uk/web/public/2015/the-doping-scandal/assets/images/cycling.jpg

casual obsever wrote:

"Retrospective analyses of databanks have revealed some of the cat-and-mouse nuances of the interplay between blood monitoring and athlete's responses. In the years immediately after the introduction of an enlarged blood testing programme by the International Ski Federation (FIS), the unexpected high mean [Hb] values encountered in 1997–1999 (i.e., 16.2 g/dL) declined closer to normal values (14.8 g/dL). However, in subsequent years, the [Hb] began to creep upwards again whilst reticulocyte levels fell, which the authors cautioned was likely a sign that skiers had adopted new strategies to manipulate their blood values (Morkeberg et al. 2009b). It is disconcerting to note that cycling, which also introduced blood monitoring during this period, reported a similar 'evolution' in blood values (Zorzoli 2005)."

Of course. Why do you think Renato was testing the hb and ret% of his athletes.

caller out of B.S. wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

"Retrospective analyses of databanks have revealed some of the cat-and-mouse nuances of the interplay between blood monitoring and athlete's responses. In the years immediately after the introduction of an enlarged blood testing programme by the International Ski Federation (FIS), the unexpected high mean [Hb] values encountered in 1997–1999 (i.e., 16.2 g/dL) declined closer to normal values (14.8 g/dL). However, in subsequent years, the [Hb] began to creep upwards again whilst reticulocyte levels fell, which the authors cautioned was likely a sign that skiers had adopted new strategies to manipulate their blood values (Morkeberg et al. 2009b). It is disconcerting to note that cycling, which also introduced blood monitoring during this period, reported a similar 'evolution' in blood values (Zorzoli 2005)."

Of course. Why do you think Renato was testing the hb and ret% of his athletes.

Small transfusions

And small transfusions can pack a punch:

https://cleancompetition.org/2018/12/11/small-amount-of-blood-doping-large-impact/

Great find! As the paper states, it is true that you can restore your watt output back to normal if you micro-reinfuse the blood you stored earlier and get your Hb back to the original level.

Also if we have opposite ideas, I always respected you as person. But when I read something as "small transfusions", I lose all the respect for the PERSON, and you showed to be an obsessed idiot like the most part of persons speaking about doping in this website.

Accusing somebody without knowing anything about his ideas, his ethics, his life, and trying to throw mud on persons without any evidence, is an exercise that can only produce VOMIT, and of sure shows the worst side of persons who think to be "honest talebans", but instead are only dishonest buffoons.

I can forgive a lot of mistakes done by people, but neve a lack of human respect without any reason.

And, for your info, I never did with my athletes some test about rethyculocytes, while investigations about the level of Hb is something normal for every coach, who wants to see the state of health of the athlete (and is a normal test for every person, the first asked by a doctor in any occasion).

Wash your mouth, and open your brain. And, if you are a man and not a "quaquaraqua", apologyze with ALL the subjects you consider dopers, without any evidence and any reason.

Aragon wrote:

Great find! As the paper states, it is true that you can restore your watt output back to normal if you micro-reinfuse the blood you stored earlier and get your Hb back to the original level.

Too funny. When I posted the link I started my stopwatch thinking it will be just a short time before Aragon or rekrunner jumps on this. And less than hour...not bad! ?.

Yeah boy ...I know all about your opposition to this study (and a lot of others as well). Then question is why doesn't the abstract make any reference to that? (it's pretty straight forward about the methods used & conclusions reached i.e., "4.7%" ) Isn't the Journal editor suppose to read the entire the study and approve the abstract before it's accepted for publishing:(this isn't no cheesy journal).

In addition, on the twitter comments from some of the PhDs they're not mentioning any of that? (I haven't read them all yet):