'We Can Now Estimate the Effect of Blood Doping'

Also Baumann's 12:54 in 1998. We count all the times.

physics defiant wrote:

Cova blood doped, Vainio blood doped, Antibo blood doped. You can console yourself that it was hard to test for at the time.

Cova is an excellent example. Did he not win a couple of big ones in a row? Hello!

You can also console yourself with the fact that non-African countries switched their interest to other endurance sports which isn't really an option for Africans.

And EPO etc. let them light it up at those sports. I know, I know, running is different from other endurance sports. lol

You said "radically faster".

According to the data, the number of elite non-Africans on the track hasn't really declined over the last three decades.

And it's hard to see why they would if EPO was available and undetectable.

casual obsever wrote:

I didn't mean to imply that blood doping started to become widespread in the 80s. That's too late. as often discussed.

But, let's just look at the numbers. Decade by decade for non-African born male 5000 m runners, averaged over top-5 times as per rek's rules (feel free to check the stats):

1960s: 13:22.5

1970s: 13:13.4 -> -9.1 s

1980s: 13:04.9 -> -8.5 s

1990s: 12:59.2 -> -5.7 s

2000s: 12:56.3 -> -2.9 s

2010s: 12:57.7 -> +1.4 s

Large improvements at first, then leveling out, then going backwards despite ongoing technology (shoes!)/training/nutrition improvements.

You also said "became radically faster after blood doping became widespread".

You assume "doping was widespread" among these faster times, to conclude faster times were the result of blood doping.

You make the same mistake for this earlier era -- you are still missing the doping data.

physics defiant wrote:

Also Baumann's 12:54 in 1998. We count all the times.

Was Baumann's 12:54 doped?

Did Baumann blood-dope?

In the names you wrote (Cova, Vainio and Antibo) there is one proof that blood manipulation (in these cases, not EPO but auto-transfusion) was not important as you think.

Cova and Antibo (not Panetta, and not Mei) used the auto-transfusion till 1985. They never used altitude training, preferring to train in Finland (specifically Otaniemi) during the last period of preparation before the races.

After 1985, they quitted this practice, because it became doping. It's also correct to remember that, till 1985, the auto-tranfusion was an accepted practice, so is not correct to speak about "doping", that means the use of something illegal.

Anyway, Salvatore Antibo didn't use anymore that practice, from the beginning of 1986, and started to use altitude training from 1987.

The results he achieved were by far very better after quitting the auto-transfusion, and starting training in altitude.

Antibo used 3 different periods of 21-25 days in altitude in Sestriere (2050m) from half of May, alternated with periods of 3 weeks at sea level, and during winter went to train in South Africa for long periods.

All the best performances of Antibo (the gold medals in 5000 and 10000m in European Champs 1990, the Olympic silver 1988 in 10000m, the National records of 10000m (27'16" in 1989) and 5000m (13'05" in 1990) came AFTER the use of auto-transfusion.

So, Antibo can't be considered a whitness of the effects of "doping", but of the "better effects" of altitude training compared with the advantages of auto-transfusion.

I saw too many athletes able running faster AFTER quitting the practice of auto-transfusion for thinking it could produce big improvement in the performances, and all these improvements came when a long altitude training replaced any blood manipulation, with training at sea level.

rekrunner wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

Also Baumann's 12:54 in 1998. We count all the times.

Was Baumann's 12:54 doped?

Did Baumann blood-dope?

Logically, yes. But you're not logical.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I said:- "The illegality of blood-doping confirms ... that it is held to be unfairly performance enhancing".

And then you said:- "WADA bans a substance for its potential to unfairly enhance performance".

I realise you didn't mean to confirm what I said. But you just did.

But now you will try to argue that WADA doesn't really think blood-doping is performance enhancing, even while it bans the practice. You should be a press officer for Trump.

As I said, that the practice is banned also shows that your views are of an irrelevant minority. Up there with abduction by aliens.

So I see it is you floundering with an inability to grasp nuance.

You seem particularly comforted with belonging to a majority -- which I interpret as insecurity.

I don't decide questions by popular vote, but by a scientific methodology.

No you don't. The data proves that.

Scientific orthodoxy isn't decided by popular vote but by the weight of argument. You have none, which is why your views are irrelevant to the administration of the sport. You are the equivalent of a fake moon-landing conspiracy theorist.

Despite flannelling about "nuance" you are too obtuse to see that your statement about WADA above is effectively synonymous with what I said. How is it different? You can't say.

Armstronglivs wrote:

No you don't. The data proves that.

Scientific orthodoxy isn't decided by popular vote but by the weight of argument. You have none, which is why your views are irrelevant to the administration of the sport. You are the equivalent of a fake moon-landing conspiracy theorist.

Despite flannelling about "nuance" you are too obtuse to see that your statement about WADA above is effectively synonymous with what I said. How is it different? You can't say.

You are just hijacking and parotting precisely what "my views" are:

"Science is decided by the weight of argument. You have none."

I am unconcerned with the administration of the sport, but always discuss whether the radical jumps in performance we saw in the EPO-era can be scientifically linked to EPO, or whether it is part of one big myth, only loosely based on partial truths and weak associations.

Since you continue to fail to grasp obvious nuance, here is my quote in full:

"WADA bans a substance for its potential to unfairly enhance performance, and/or risk to athlete health, and/or violating the spirit of the sport. WADA makes this decision for all Olympic sports."

I've inserted the word "potential" -- a subtle nuance -- as the effect has never been scientifically observed in the fastest performances of elite athletes. I've also added two "and/or" possibilities. Athlete's health is also a strong consideration, particularly given rumors of cyclists dying in their sleep due to EPO and thick blood.

Note this decision is subjective -- it would be fallacious to make any conclusions based on a subjective assessment of two out of three criteria.

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Was Baumann's 12:54 doped?

Did Baumann blood-dope?

Logically, yes. But you're not logical.

Yes to which question?

Baumann was caught with steroids in his system two years after his single sub-13 performance, in a race where he took 5th.

Two years later, on steroids he was running 8-10 seconds slower.

Ignoring all other unknown factors, logic would only allow us to conclude that steroids made him slower.

Baumann was not caught blood doping. But let's say, as a matter of faith, he was benefitting from the synergies of blood doping and steroids.

Ignoring all other unknown factors, logic would only allow us to conclude that steroids combined with blood doping made him slower.

"casual obsever" would have us believe that the 1980s represents the best non-Africans can do, when fully doped (running as fast as clean Africans, where it was nearly impossible to blood dope). If Baumann's 12:54 was the product of the synergies of steroids and blood doping, and he is the best non-African example of the maximum potential of non-Africans, logic says we must look to other explanations to explain the massive jump from 12:54 (currently #102 on the all time list) to 12:37, and that 45 Africans were faster than Baumann's best.

rekrunner wrote:

You also said "became radically faster after blood doping became widespread".

Indeed - which is an observation, not an assumption.

rekrunner wrote:

You assume "doping was widespread" among these faster times, to conclude faster times were the result of blood doping.

No. That is not an assumption, it is a historical fact; even today we are still seeing 15% - 20% blood dopers ("micro"dosers, lol) among championship distance runners in various studies despite the ABP. In the beginning of that list, it wasn't even doping, instead it was simply a legal method.

rekrunner wrote:

You make the same mistake for this earlier era -- you are still missing the doping data.

Come again? Remember, that was based on your method, from which you somehow miraculously concluded that blood doping seems to be mostly inefficient. I merely added more detail, as per usual.

Illogical, fragmented argument. Baumann was always erratic in his performances and past his prime when finally caught doping.

rekrunner wrote:

"casual obsever" would have us believe that the 1980s represents the best non-Africans can do

Wth? I just proved that to be wrong! Troll somebody else please, this is getting ridiculous.

rekrunner wrote:

If Baumann's 12:54 was the product of the synergies of steroids and blood doping, and he is the best non-African example of the maximum potential of non-Africans, logic says we must look to other explanations to explain the massive jump from 12:54 (currently #102 on the all time list) to 12:37, and that 45 Africans were faster than Baumann's best.

Obfuscation again. Straw man. "other explanations" are needed for the difference between Bekele and Baumann, whether both of them doped or not.

But, let's look at the facts about the male 5000 m, without any assumptions:

- The fastest ever non-African runner was a doper, running his time before the ABP.

- The fastest non-Africans slowed down after the ABP despite technology and training advances.

- The fastest ever African ran 17 s faster than the fastest non-African, running his time before the ABP.

- The fastest Africans slowed down after the ABP despite technology and training advances.

Conclude from that what you want.

"Potential" isn't, in your case, a word of "subtle nuance"; it is you simply saying that the drug doesn't work - because (you say) it hasn't been "scientifically observed in top athletes".

Well, the science of anti-doping - and it is a science - relies on a determination by physicians and scientists that a given drug or procedure acts as a stimulant in an otherwise healthy human being. It isn't a speculative or subjective determination; their conclusive finding, through lab testing and study of the drug's use by human subjects, is that it is a significant stimulant - and clearly more so than caffeine or electrolyte drinks, which are the kind of stimulants that aren't banned.

What you are unable to grasp, since your intellect apparently doesn't equip you follow where a sophisticated argument might lead, is that the use of the word "potential" by WADA removes the obligation for it to prove the exact extent that a drug enhances a given athlete's performance - which the athlete who has tested positive could legally challenge. How would WADA be able to satisfy that burden of proof unless it was able to observe and measure the changes in the athlete's performance as a result of taking the drug? (and still to somehow separate that from the factors of "talent" and "training". Hullo, Canova.) Further, it would require retrospective data - an impossibility for obvious reasons. Clearly, you haven't pondered that.

That WADA hasn't required itself to measure the exact benefit that a given drug confers is therefore one of the reasons that there isn't a "scientific study of elite athletes" of the kind that would satisfy you. The other very obvious reason - which again escapes you - is the practical impossibility of finding competitive elite athletes who would consent to being part of such a study, which would also raise ethical issues. Can you see Kipchoge agreeing to take part? Or Kiprop? Again, that is why you don't have your "data". How convenient for you.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

You also said "became radically faster after blood doping became widespread".

Indeed - which is an observation, not an assumption.

rekrunner wrote:

You assume "doping was widespread" among these faster times, to conclude faster times were the result of blood doping.

No. That is not an assumption, it is a historical fact; even today we are still seeing 15% - 20% blood dopers ("micro"dosers, lol) among championship distance runners in various studies despite the ABP. In the beginning of that list, it wasn't even doping, instead it was simply a legal method.

rekrunner wrote:

You make the same mistake for this earlier era -- you are still missing the doping data.

Come again? Remember, that was based on your method, from which you somehow miraculously concluded that blood doping seems to be mostly inefficient. I merely added more detail, as per usual.

I always wondered why you think going from 13:22 to 13:00 from the 60s through the 80s was as significant. Going from 13:20 to 13:00 is not as impressive as going from 13:00 to 12:40.

I note here that East Africans also made the same progress between the 1960s up to 1990, from around 13:25 to 13:05, apparently without blood transfusions which you said were near impossible.

I have seen no data on blood transfusion prevalence in the '70s and '80s.

Blood transfusions are a lot more work than EPO, so I would be surprised if prevalence of transfusions, even when legal, would be higher. But again, we have no data beyond existence of the method being used in some countries.

When I looked at performance, I used my method to draw conclusions about progress, or in some cases, a lack of progress. I specifically said that with performance data alone, I could only speculate on what the causes of progress were. I made a hypothesis that if EPO was the most effective, that everyone should progress in the EPO-era. The performance data did not support that hypothesis very well for non-Africans.

If I concluded EPO was ineffective for non-Africans, it was because of the relatively poor quality and quantity of fast performances in the EPO-era, regardless of high, medium, or low, or no prevalence. It's a conclusion I can make without doping data.

The opposite is not true -- if you observe "radical" progress, you cannot identify the cause without looking at more data and factors.

Just out of curiosity, how much of this is pure speculation from your part and how much of it is based on knowledge of the anti-doping literature?

I've read something on the subject while not particularly interested in the issue, but just asking, because the recent review on the scientific basis showed absent of evidence on the efficacy of many of the products in the WADA list (even even a majority of scientists could see potential benefit):

It should be also noted that mildronate (meldonium), xenon and some other substances were added into the list of banned substances with next-to-no evidence that they were performance enhancing at all, only potential and ergo no "conclusive finding, through lab testing and study of the drug's use by human subjects".

I think that WADA's three criteria originate possibly from 1967, and do you know what drug was banned by the International Ski Federation (FIS) already in 1988 in the spirit of IOC code when there was no evidence that it even elevated Hct of healthy people, not alone increased performance of any healthy person? Yes, it was EPO, when only some 300 dialysis patient had received the substance.

My recollection also is that there is a body of evidence about performance enhancing effect of caffeine (Dr. Chris Cooper has written about this), but it wasn't against the spirit of sport, because consumption of caffeine in many forms was so prevalent throughout the society that it was a part of normal life and therefore it was dropped out of the banned list.

rekrunner wrote:

You assume "doping was widespread" among these faster times, to conclude faster times were the result of blood doping.

rekrunner wrote:

I have seen no data on blood transfusion prevalence in the '70s and '80s.

Here word for word from a 2004 review paper (doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2003.007195):

HISTORY

The first alleged use of blood boosting in sport was in the 1960s, when a French four times winner of the Tour de France (1961–1964) was named as one of the first cyclists to use the technique. Widespread use among endurance athletes (especially running, cycling, and cross country skiing) started after the 1968 Olympic Games...

qed

rekrunner wrote:

I always wondered why you think going from 13:22 to 13:00 from the 60s through the 80s was as significant. Going from 13:20 to 13:00 is not as impressive as going from 13:00 to 12:40.

.

No kidding. Especially when that drop was done by one guy right when EPO was hitting peak use.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

"casual obsever" would have us believe that the 1980s represents the best non-Africans can do

Wth? I just proved that to be wrong! Troll somebody else please, this is getting ridiculous.

Sorry not the best, but within 1%.

As you know, progress since 1990 from the non-Africans was comparatively poor, both in terms of quality and quantity. Only 8 running below 13:02 in subsequent three decades (compared to 104 Africans), and 4 of them from America, after the ABP was introduced in 2009.