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

JonO. wrote:

No

Because it's not a fixed thing. Repeat this to yourself s l o w l y.

You're not making any sense. We have a limits to heat production when we race. That's why you might run a 5k at only 10k pace on a warm/humid day.

Most important point for everyone here and in the world of ex phsy to grasp. The faster you race, the less total energy you are using. That is the trend for bioenergetics/biomechanics.

Arguing the point when you don't understand it is just inane.

JonO. wrote:

You're not making any sense. We have a limits to heat production when we race. That's why you might run a 5k at only 10k pace on a warm/humid day.

Most important point for everyone here and in the world of ex phsy to grasp. The faster you race, the less total energy you are using. That is the trend for bioenergetics/biomechanics.

Arguing the point when you don't understand it is just inane.

Heat shock proteins., brah. Look it up.

The faster you race the more rapid the rate of fuel burning. Kipchoge flames through the good stuff almost twice as fast as a 4:00 person.

Aragon wrote:

When you like to serial-quote everywhere the Lance Armstrong lecture from a few years ago ("During that lecture Lance says clearly - I can't emphasize enough the word 'clearly' - that EPO increases performance by 10 %, yes he says '10%', '10 %', '10%', that is one and a zero!"), here is a different opinion about efficacy of blood doping from a person whose credibity is considered to be undamaged from the testimony he gave some three years ago:

Well...then, maybe I'll start serial quoting another prolific doper: Danilo Di Luca.

"If I hadn't doped, I would never have won," Di Luca claims in a chapter excerpt released by the book publisher. "Doping improves your performance between 5 and 7 per cent, and maybe 10 to 12 per cent when you are in a peak shape."

He says his program was EPO, T & cortisone (same as LA minus the HGH), so there may some synergistic effects at play here. I think one of his pops was for 3rd gen CERA (Ramzi's fuel at Beijing).

Btw, I thought you weren't so fond of Ashenden because he suggested your guy blood doped during his 09 Tour comeback. ?

Subway Surfers wrote:

Aragon wrote:

How steroids enhance endurance performance is one topic of where there is practically zero research about and I have no clear opinion, but I do know that one Finnish middle distance runner claimed in the 1980's that one prominent Finnish sports doctor (presumably Lasse Viren's personal doctor) told him in 1974 that steroid (methandienone) could enhance 1500 m performance by 3-5 seconds when the doctor wrote him a prescription.

Those are by no means my last opinion about the subject.

Where did to read/here this? Source?

On the steriods in endurance events, I think that the East Germans covered this one as well. Someone can put that up here.

Here you go:

You have already serial quoted your handful of sources in every thread so business as usual. If I were you wouldn't do that for your credibility, and it is even more strange that you accuse everyone else of having "pretentious expertise" or having no scientific background or megalomania when (based on your use of source material) any random 15 year old kid could replicate 95-99 % of your years and years of research in 20-30 minutes with Google and Pubmed.

It's called trusting the experts.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Aragon wrote:

How steroids enhance endurance performance is one topic of where there is practically zero research about and I have no clear opinion, but I do know that one Finnish middle distance runner claimed in the 1980's that one prominent Finnish sports doctor (presumably Lasse Viren's personal doctor) told him in 1974 that steroid (methandienone) could enhance 1500 m performance by 3-5 seconds when the doctor wrote him a prescription.

Those are by no means my last opinion about the subject.

Where did to read/here this? Source?.

The incident is reported only in the Finnish media in the wake of the Martti Vainio steroid scandal in September 1984 when former mid D runner Jouko Niskanen (PB 3:41.2) told having inquired one Finnish sports MD in 1974 whether steroids would be beneficial for a 1,500 m runner after which the doctor was silent for a moment and told that the improvement would be "3-4 seconds" and wrote the prescription for an "made up" ilness.

I have a copy of the article and it has a photo of the prescription with name of the doctor blurred but someone apparently recoignized that the handwriting was that of Dr. Pekka Peltokallio, who was team doctor of the 1972, 1980 and 1984 Summer Olympics. He was also a personal friend of Lasse Viren and had earlier admitted administering a transfusion to an athlete before the 1972 games.

As the story goes, Niskanen used steroids for some three weeks and didn't improve his PB, but felt that his legs were very heavy and his performance was worse, later he emphasized that it was easy for him to confess having used them because his PB was run when he was still clean.

Of course Lance, and Di Luca are telling us what they believe. But they are not scientists or doctors. My question is, when they say 10%, it's 10% of what? Time? Power? Is Di Luca suggesting he gained 8-10 hours from doping over the course of the Tour de France? Otherwise you cannot really compare that with percentage of time improvements over an event. Second question is, what measurements were made to arrive at a result of 10%? I didn't see either of these items addressed in Lance's lecture, or Di Luca's article.

Lance's expert, Ferrari, famously said Lance could have won without doping.

You should try it wrote:

It's called trusting the experts.

Here another expert opinion from sports haematologist E. Randy Eichner from his 2007 conference paper titled Blood Doping: Infusions, Erythropoietin and Artificial Blood about how blood doping might work with elites for you to quote in the future:

Researchers have long been interested in how red cell mass and blood volume affect exercise capacity...Three studies in the 1980s that used freeze-preserved autologous red cells are noteworthy. In one doping increased VO2max by 5% and brief, all-out run time to exhaustion by 35%. In the second, doping cut mean 5-mile run time by 45 seconds. In the third, doping cut mean 10km race time by 69 seconds.

None of these studies are ideal; each has confounders. Yet, these and other studies suggest doping works. At the elite level, a 10km runner from sea level may gain a few seconds by doping, especially racing at altitude. A few seconds separate first place from sixth place.

rekrunner wrote:

Lance's expert, Ferrari, famously said Lance could have won without doping.

You should try it wrote:

It's called trusting the experts.

Of course you believe that statement of his but not the fact that he doped Lance to the gills despite believing that he could win clean.

Lance could have won clean, if the rest of the field was too.

I don't want to talk about beliefs. It's called trusting the experts.

you almost as funny as JonO wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Lance's expert, Ferrari, famously said Lance could have won without doping.

Of course you believe that statement of his but not the fact that he doped Lance to the gills despite believing that he could win clean.

Lance could have won clean, if the rest of the field was too.

rekrunner wrote:

I don't want to talk about beliefs.

It's called trusting the experts.

you almost as funny as JonO wrote:

Of course you believe that statement of his but not the fact that he doped Lance to the gills despite believing that he could win clean.

Lance could have won clean, if the rest of the field was too.

Then trust in the fact that he doped Lance rather than convincing him that he didn't need to.

you almost as funny as JonO wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Lance's expert, Ferrari, famously said Lance could have won without doping.

Of course you believe that statement of his but not the fact that he doped Lance to the gills despite believing that he could win clean.

Lance could have won clean, if the rest of the field was too.

That's right...if the rest of the field was clean. But since it wasn't, a clean Armstrong would have gotten annihilated.

"More importantly for Lance Armstrong, during the 7-year window when he won every Tour de France (1999-2005), 87% of the top-10 finishers (61 of 70) were confirmed dopers or suspected of doping."

I never doubted that. I would say it was very lucrative for Ferrari to sell his "services" to Lance and his teammates.

The former rather than the latter wrote:

Then trust in the fact that he doped Lance rather than convincing him that he didn't need to.

According to Lance's expert -- a clean Lance even beats a dirty peloton: "Therefore Armstrong would have achieved the same level of performance without resorting to doping, also thanks to his talent which was far superior to the rivals of his era."

Tour de Dope wrote:

you almost as funny as JonO wrote:

Of course you believe that statement of his but not the fact that he doped Lance to the gills despite believing that he could win clean.

Lance could have won clean, if the rest of the field was too.

That's right...if the rest of the field was clean. But since it wasn't, a clean Armstrong would have gotten annihilated.

"More importantly for Lance Armstrong, during the 7-year window when he won every Tour de France (1999-2005), 87% of the top-10 finishers (61 of 70) were confirmed dopers or suspected of doping."

"Of the substances and methods that had the biggest performance effect in his experience, EPO, blood doping and cortisone were the ones he cited. Rasmussen added that it would have been "completely impossible" to have won the Tour de France stages that he did without resorting to doping. "