'We Can Now Estimate the Effect of Blood Doping'

rekrunner wrote:

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.

All wrong.

First, they improved by 8.6 seconds over 5000 m, using your metrics, from the 80s to the 00s. Fact.

Second, as you just wrote, you don't know whether more used blood doping in the 80s than EPO in the 00s, or less. Fact.

Third, they improved by 25 seconds over 5000 m from pre-blood doping to the EPO era. Fact.

Fourth, they slowed down after the introduction of the ABP. Fact.

Here is a picture demonstrating how the blood doping, EPO or otherwise, decreased over time:

So your "conclusion" is absurd, without basis, and apparently the opposite of your conclusion is true: EPO helps the non-Africans too - as also corroborated by several experts, as proven earlier in this very thread.

Here is even a better quote about how early blood doping became a part of the toolbox of endurance athletes from the Brien et al paper (1987):

The subject of red blood cell (RBC) infusions as an ergogenic aid has been of special interest to coaches, athletes, and scientists since Pace et al first conducted a study on homologous blood infusion in 1947.

And here from a 2006 paper by Lippi et al ("Biochemistry, physiology, and complications of blood doping: facts and speculation"):

The first clear evidence of blood doping through blood transfusion came from a controlled experiment carried out in 1947. Since then, transfusions have long been used for this purpose, as they are an extremely straightforward, simple, and effective method of increasing the oxygen carrying capacity of blood.

Everyone can have his/her opinion, but unless Lippi, Brien, Simon or someone from their team can establish how they have reached their timeline (with e.g. knowing an actual instance of use, connection to the people "in-the-know"), there is no evidence to believe that they have any deeper insight into the matter.

Simon Leigh-Smith (his first name is Simon, the name I used in my earlier post) lists also a source for the "Widespread use after 1968"-claim, it is footnote [1] by E. Randy Eichner. Have you read the 1992 paper by Eichner and checked if it corroborates the claim of the 2004 paper? Do you find Leigh-Smith's other information on the history of blood doping accurate?

Aragon wrote:

Here is even a better quote about how early blood doping became a part of the toolbox of endurance athletes from the Brien et al paper (1987)

"became a part of the toolbox", yes, the science of blood transfusion is proven in publications since at least the 40s, as we discussed years ago. But rekrunner wanted to see evidence for "widespread" use, so I provided that, verbatim actually, although I know that he knows that I know the literature.

But now I'm done jumping through his hoops, and yours. Gets too repetitive after a rather short while.

My views are a summary of what I have gleaned from reading anti-doping literature and talking to contacts I have had in WADA. The actual process of determining whether a drug should be banned is quite complicated, and involves wide consultation from a range of scientific experts and others involved in sport. As I have indicated, WADA comes to a view that a particular drug has the "potential" to be performance enhancing based chiefly on that consultative process, because it isn't typically possible to conduct studies on elite athletes, for the reasons I gave above.

The issue for WADA is also a legal one, as their Prohibited List is a legal document that could be subject to legal challenge. The main requirement is that the substances are correctly described. I am aware - in part because I am legally trained but also from conversations with officials - that in saying a drug has the "potential" to be performance enhancing effectively removes the legal burden of proving it.

Here is a summary from USADA about how WADA decides a drug could be performance enhancing.

"Before adding a substance or method to the Prohibited List, WADA examines emerging doping threats and reviews research from scientists around the world. This research helps WADA determine if a substance or method indeed provides performance-enhancing effects."

"In 2016, for example, the review and consultation process allowed WADA to determine that 5α-androst-2-ene-17-one, commonly known as “Delta-2” or 2-androstenone, should be added as an example of a metabolite of DHEA, more recently found in dietary supplements and prohibited at all times."

"Due to research limitations and/or ethical concerns, it’s not always possible to design human research studies to identify the performance-enhancing qualities of all substances. Therefore, in some cases, the Prohibited List Expert Group must make judgement calls based on comparisons to other similar prohibited substances to determine whether inclusion is warranted."

"Over time, the use of substances for performance enhancement can also become part of the culture in a specific sport, which is why WADA and anti-doping organizations worldwide maintain the Monitoring Program. This program identifies trends of substance use in specific sports by testing for substances on the monitoring list, analyzing both in and out-of-competition samples, and aggregating the results by sport."

Renato Canova wrote:

Ronald is the typical example of a person whose fluctuation of Hct practically doesn't exist.

His level never goes under 52, and never goes over 53.5 (max level in 16 blood tests, not depending on his shape : he had 52.8 during the period of stop following the stress fracture in Monaco 2017).

Several times I pointed out the big individual difference between Gelindo Bordin, Olympic Marathon Champion 1988, and Gennaro Di Napoli, Italian record holder of 1500m.

Gelindo won in Seoul '88 with Hct of 39.7 and Hb of 12.9.

Genny Di Napoli had normal Hct of 51-52, and Hb between 18.5 and 19. When had 17.5, his feeling was to be in anemia.

This clearly shows that these parameters, alone, don't mean anything, and that the way of working of our body is very much more complicated than what people think.

What matters is the mass/weight of the total Hgb/Hct

Aragon wrote:

Simon Leigh-Smith (his first name is Simon, the name I used in my earlier post) lists also a source for the "Widespread use after 1968"-claim, it is footnote [1] by E. Randy Eichner. Have you read the 1992 paper by Eichner and checked if it corroborates the claim of the 2004 paper? Do you find Leigh-Smith's other information on the history of blood doping accurate?

Your counter argument is always that study X claims this and that the history of blood doping is Y, but the truth is we know very little about the history of blood doping because people are clearly incentivised not to give details. We wouldn't have a clue how widespread the practice is or when it started. However, what we do know is that it goes on and transfusions as well epo obviously work because the best testers aren't the unfit nobody's doing the research in Universities, but are the athletes using the practice in secret. And how do we know this? Because an elite runner can easily tell if there is any benefit by comparing identical before and after sessions. An elite runner can easily tell if a session of 12 x 400m in 63s before becomes 61s after. If it doesn't they are unlikely to risk everything on its use and will try something else that does.

You can be 100 % correct, but it has nothing to do with the issue that everyone should evaluate the quality of the sources they use.

I don't dispute that blood doping "obviously works", but I have an issue with your claim that dopers "risk everything", because you seem to think that OOC/ABP catches like 40 % of the blood dopers or that there is like 10 % risk of dying because of the method.

Unlike you, I don't claim that "we know this", but even the belief that some have boosted their performance by 5 % with blood doping can be enough incentive for many to keep using a quite undetectable method even if their own measured gains were negligible/difficult to differentiate from normal progress/even nonexistent.

Armstronglivs wrote:

"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 ...

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. ...

You shifted the goalpost. Before you said I said exactly the same as you. Now you concede I did not and instead argue that I don't understand how my words are more correct -- precisely because I have "pondered that" and realize the scientists and physicians have limited knowledge, which prevent me from acception your conclusions.

It would be incorrect to understand me saying the drug doesn't work. I recently explained to you, my thinking is that EPO can work for everyone, when they are aerobically weak, but fail for everyone, when they are aerobically strong, e.g. when they are in the best shape of their lives, especially after extended training at altitude. This is why it is important for scientists to control the state of training before the intervention. I have yet to see this done in any EPO or blood doping study.

As you correctly point out, words like "potential" are not scientific, but "legal". This is why you are also incorrect to attempt to draw conclusions about what really happened in elite performances. Most scientists that study EPO and blood doping agree with me, and say so in the "limitations" portion of their studies.

Aragon wrote:

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, ...

I noticed the strong parallels between meldonium and thyroid medication, that resulted in a different outcomes. It seems highly inconsistent to ban meldonium, yet not ban thyroid medication.

casual obsever wrote:

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

This is not blood "doping data" "among these faster times".

Appearing in a "history" section, it also looks like not an original source.

Is "widespread" 5% or 50%? Did Ron Clarke, or Dick Quax, or David Bedford, or Rod Dixon, or Brendan Foster, or Ian McCafferty use transfusions? How about Fernando Mamede or Carlos Lopes?

I cannot tell the likelihood from your peer-reviewed quote.

I note that 1) altitude training also became widespread, and 2) as I said earlier, East Africans showed the same improvements pre-EPO, apparently, according to you, without blood transfusions.

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

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.

Um, what? No you can't. You need to know their doping regimes specifically to come to that conclusion.

The same way you said we can't attribute spectacular drops in time to doping unless we have their doping data in detail.

This is you being illogical.

If you want to say EPO caused radically faster times, you have to show how these two variables are connected.

If I say non-Africans did not run comparably radically faster times, this is independent of specific doping regimes.

This does leave us open to several conclusions, whether doping prevalence was none, low, or high.

I also used the knowledge that blood doping was globally available, outside of Africa, and that athletes, coaches, and fans alike, have a strong belief in the effects of doping, and that it was completely undetectable until Syndey 2000, to rule out "none", and make "low" seemingly unlikely.

casual obsever wrote:

All wrong.

First, they improved by 8.6 seconds over 5000 m, using your metrics, from the 80s to the 00s. Fact.

Second, as you just wrote, you don't know whether more used blood doping in the 80s than EPO in the 00s, or less. Fact.

Third, they improved by 25 seconds over 5000 m from pre-blood doping to the EPO era. Fact.

Fourth, they slowed down after the introduction of the ABP. Fact.

Here is a picture demonstrating how the blood doping, EPO or otherwise, decreased over time:

So your "conclusion" is absurd, without basis, and apparently the opposite of your conclusion is true: EPO helps the non-Africans too - as also corroborated by several experts, as proven earlier in this very thread.

Conclusions based on half the facts.

Fact: 4 of the 8 non-Africans post-1990 ran below 13:02 after the implementation of the ABP.

Fact: Africans also improved some 15-16 seconds by 1996, and 20 seconds by 2000, after improving the same 20 seconds pre-EPO era as non-Africans.

Not Fact: Transfusions and EPO caused all improvements since 1968.

rekrunner wrote:

Not Fact: Transfusions and EPO caused all improvements since 1968.

Straw man as per usual. I never claimed that, on the contrary, I merely showed how absurd your trolling is when you claim that all these improvements during transfusion and EPO eras "prove" that doping doesn't work.

Your facts don't help you there either, no matter what arbitrary baseline like 13:02 you pick next time.

rekrunner wrote:

Is "widespread" 5% or 50%?

Hold on. You trolled me after my evidently correct statement, challenging my use of the word "widespread" although you knew it was based on often-discussed literature:

casual observer wrote:

And Spain, or Europe, or America, or Russia, became radically faster after blood doping became widespread.

Now you want details about the word "widespread". Troll somebody else. Happy Easter!

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Is "widespread" 5% or 50%?

Hold on. You trolled me after my evidently correct statement, challenging my use of the word "widespread" although you knew it was based on often-discussed literature:

casual observer wrote:

And Spain, or Europe, or America, or Russia, became radically faster after blood doping became widespread.

Now you want details about the word "widespread". Troll somebody else. Happy Easter!

I didn't just challenge the word "widespread".

I said you lacked "doping data".

I said "You assume "doping was widespread" among these faster times"

You even quoted that: "among these faster times".

Your quote doesn't address these points.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Not Fact: Transfusions and EPO caused all improvements since 1968.

Straw man as per usual. I never claimed that, on the contrary, I merely showed how absurd your trolling is when you claim that all these improvements during transfusion and EPO eras "prove" that doping doesn't work.

Your facts don't help you there either, no matter what arbitrary baseline like 13:02 you pick next time.

You said:

"Spain, or Europe, or America, or Russia, became radically faster after blood doping became widespread."

"The difference here is not so much the blood doping in the 90s but in the 80s, where it was next to impossible in Africa."

"apparently the opposite of your conclusion is true: EPO helps the non-Africans too"

I did not conclude or purport to prove that "EPO" doesn't work, but that historically, over the course of nearly three decades, that it didn't help many non-Africans progress by very much, both in terms of quality and quantity, relative to a strong benchmark achievable in 1990.

13:02 was my 1990s pre-EPO era reference, a date that we both chose for comparing the two decades that non-Africans improved by 8.6 seconds versus the 15-20 seconds of the East Africans, after both groups experienced the 20 seconds "radically faster" times pre-EPO era, the East Africans apparently achieving this without blood doping.

We can pick other references, this doesn't change the fact that four of the fastest non-Africans 5000m times occurred after the implementation of the ABP.

Here is a quote from historian John Gleaves ("Manufactured dope") who interviewed cycling coach Eddie B, went through the IOC archives and newspaper archives extensively and who has published many papers on the history of anti-doping:

... in the doping world where rumours spread faster than practice, the relatively few cases that have surfaced indicate that it is unlikely blood transfusions for athletes had become widespread prior to the 1984 Los Angeles Games.

Why do you prefer the haematologist Simon-Leigh quote over this one except for the reason that it fits better into your narrative?

No, you don't get to vary your argument rules at will. Try again without just repeating what you already said.