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

Yes. He states it gives you more endurance. Which meant he was less tired at the end of a marathon and more able to kick.I'm sorry such a concept eludes you.

rekrunner wrote:

He also believes EPO also gives you a "kick":

"I got that extra boost, and I finished unbelievably fast. How can you possibly kick that fast at the end of a marathon?"

Mr. Obvious wrote:

“I came to the conclusion that if I had used EPO in my prime, I could have run low 27 for the 10K and 2:06 for the marathon. Because I’ve got the leg speed and everything else. I just didn’t have the endurance. That’s what EPO gives you, endurance.”

"I felt like anything was possible with EPO. I felt like Superman.”

Yes, I actually have this crazy idea that to look at whether EPO works or not in real world conditions, we actually ought to look at people who have been known to take EPO.

I am not sure that the difference between a observational study, as you prefer to label it, and a population study. But I'm more than willing to let you name your type of study. Please let me know which subcategory it fits into:

There are several types of observational study. Case series are the simplest form and follow the clinical course of a particular condition in a group of individuals. Cross-sectional studies, such as surveys and chart reviews, are studies in which exposures and outcomes are ascertained simultaneously. Case–control studies are those in which the frequency of specific exposures are compared between cases and matched controls. In cohort studies, the presence of specific exposures are ascertained within a group of individuals who are free of the outcome of interest, and incident events are evaluated from that point forward. Database studies involve the analysis of the relationship between exposures and outcomes based on patient data from a registry. Cross-sectional, case–control and cohort studies constitute the bulk of observational studies in the medical literature.

Note that in each case it is necessary to identify which subjects in the study have received the "exposure" that you are purporting to study. In your observational study, how do you identify which subjects have received EPO?

Without that, you have absolutely no study.

casual obsever wrote:

And that no non-African ever could beat drug cheat Baumann's 5000 time from 20 (!) years ago. Some as with Radcliffe's marathon time from 14 and Coe's 800 from 36 years ago.

Very skewed analysis.

Another non-African, Cruz, came within 0.04 sec of Coe's 800m record 3 years later, so the suggestion no one has approached it in 36 years is nonsense.

In addition, EPO didn't exist in 1981, so lumping Coe's run with Baumann's and Radcliffe's, both of whom competed in the EPO era, is also misleading.

You do realise that steroids were tested for at all champs during Coe's era and for every World Record set, otherwise it wouldn't have been ratified. So Coe was tested many, many times, including by the BAAB, who had random out of season testing from 1983, 6 years before the IAAF introduced such testing amongst the world's elite.

In terms of blood doping, which is more beneficial the longer the distance, this was banned in 1985. Coe's best 1500m time was set a year later, in 86. He was instrumental at the time in getting blood doping banned. If Coe had blood doped it would have made sense doping before 85, but certainly not after. Being caught for infringing rules introduced at one'd own behest, would have been a risk of such stupidity hitherto unmatched in the history of the sport.

If he could run 3:29 at almost 30 in an era before EPO and when he would have been subject to random out of competition and out of season testing by his own national federation, controlled in some part by Andy Norman, his nemesis's (Ovett) personal agent and best man, then he would have run significantly quicker over 1500m prior to 85 had he been doping.

Rekrunner is spot on.

You do realise that realistic analysis of Ryun's 3:33.1 WR on cinders in 67 is indicative of 3:30/3:31 ability on synthetic tracks?

A decade later Walker was no better than Ryun. Within the next decade, it is not unreasonable to credit the likes of Coe, Ovett and Cram with at least 3:29 flat ability. A 2 secs improvement on Ryun 15 years earlier is very reasonable. None of this 'evolution' looks suspect or indicates drug use. It's called progression.

Cacho and Baala ran 3:28 at the height of the EPO era. Neither were as talented as the 5 athletes I've already mentioned.

Willis is running 30 years + after Coe, Ovett, Cram, on mondo tracks, which are faster, with 30 + years improved knowledge in physiology, (e.g. altitude training ~ Coe's father deterred his son from running at altitude for most of his career, unconvinced at the time of the benefits!). He competes in races where he can guarantee even pacing with a host of African athletes in front dragging every ounce of effort from him.

With all these benefits he is literally a few hundredths faster than what Coe or Cram run in the mid 80's. That is not indicative of progress. Willis is not as talented over 1500m as Coe, Ovett or Cram.

Rekrunner is correct in stating that there has been no improvement in non-African miling since c. 1985. This is largely due to a complete lack of interest in T&F in Europe since those days, and the simultaneous take off of football. Few teenage boys with sporting talent dreams of running a sub 3:30 1500m, they all want to play in the Premiership for millions.

It also comes with a change of attitude in the West. Middle distance running is a hard, solitary, non monetary dedicated lifestyle. It offers few rewards and little improvements in the short term, which is a complete anathema to the celebrity driven, social media savvy, quick gratification ideology that has been the prevalent lifestyle of the past 15 years.

The lack of sub 3:30 non African 1500m runners has little to do with drug use, and certainly is no reflection on those in the past being somewhat tainted. There are many other influences at play that are far more important.

Come Undone wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

And that no non-African ever could beat drug cheat Baumann's 5000 time from 20 (!) years ago. Some as with Radcliffe's marathon time from 14 and Coe's 800 from 36 years ago.

Very skewed analysis.

Another non-African, Cruz, came within 0.04 sec of Coe's 800m record 3 years later, so the suggestion no one has approached it in 36 years is nonsense.

In addition, EPO didn't exist in 1981, so lumping Coe's run with Baumann's and Radcliffe's, both of whom competed in the EPO era, is also misleading.

You do realise that steroids were tested for at all champs during Coe's era and for every World Record set, otherwise it wouldn't have been ratified. So Coe was tested many, many times, including by the BAAB, who had random out of season testing from 1983, 6 years before the IAAF introduced such testing amongst the world's elite.

You do realize/realise that

a) I wrote "no non-African ever could beat...", not "no one has approached it"

b) your example Cruz is also from the 'roid era, further supporting my point

c) I didn't comment on EPO, but on how suspicious old records are

d) only one East German was caught during those times, proving how ludicrous those tests were.

But thanks for twisting my words in good old troll tradition, rekrunner-2.

Anyway, let's go back to the original question of the thread....

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

Seems pretty easy to answer with a definitive NO.

There is no proof or even allegation any male distance runners received any doping products.

The women who received doping products, including EPO, seem to have improved quite a bit and won quite a few medals at global championships.

Canova's claims are specifically about East Africans, born, living and training at altitude. These criteria do not apply to either the Russian men or Russian women.

Canova's claims are only about the most talented runners (which is still fairly undefined) but does not seem to apply to any of the Russian men and may or may not apply to the Russian women.

Canova's claims are not specific to men or women (that I have seen, but he can correct me if I am wrong).

Canova says other products, such as steroids, can work and help improve runners. The women appear to have taken a cocktail of drugs in addition to EPO. So evaluating how much of the improvement was EPO and how much was steroids or other drugs is pretty much impossible.

That's pretty much all we can say definitively. But on the whole it appears pretty irrelevant to Canova's claims.

What are you talking about, ' only one East German caught during those times?

Prior to 85, Petrova, Haglund, Kazankina, Plunkett, Oerter, Verouli, Vaiinio, Slupianek, Silai, .. were all at the very top in their respective events when caught for drug violations.

Yawn. "only one East German" => only one person from East Germany.

Reference given by wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_athletics

"Furthermore, a number of athletes who underwent state-sponsored doping programmes in East Germany between the 1960s and 1980s were competitors in athletics, but the quality of the international anti-doping work was so poor that only one East German athlete ever tested positive.[1]"

But keep telling yourself that the old stars were clean because they were tested.

Disappointing deduction Deano. You probably arrived at this discussion some 28 pages too late. Your response does not match with what I have been advancing over numerous pages. Rekrunner is saying that EPO doesn't work on the white man or any other non-East African for that matter, which is complete and utter nonsense. Rekrunner has pushed the argument that because westerners didn't perform better in the 1990s (or since) then pre-1985 (Coe, Ovett and Cram for the 1500m/mile for example) it must be proof of epo's impotence. But as you just stated young athletic males played soccer and other sports instead. Added to this is the declining birth rates, as you know the most common baby name in Britain and many other European countries is Mohammed. Most western countries have relied on immigration for population growth (hence Brexit, Trump and now Le Pen).

Baala is a North African that ran for France (though Willis did beat him in the 2008 Olympic final). He does look more like a European though, until you hear his name. But you are really confirming rekrunner's error, for if Baala & Cacho were less talented than Coe, Ovett, Cram or Ryun then how did they run faster times? It is called epo and it obviously works.

I mentioned Walker because his urine sample tested in 1984 was deemed by the UCLA labs as being the cleanest sample given by an elite athlete at the games (though he bombed out at the 5000m). At that time he was 32 but still could run sub-3:50. His sample was used for comparative analysis and for model building until the 1990s software revolution. As I mentioned I do believe that white runners could run faster than Walker naturally in the pre-1985 I just used him as a starting point to establish a trend in the case rampant steroid abuse or blood doping succeeded him. I never stated he was faster than Ryun, but truth is he had a longer more successful career. But you are beginning to sound like Calculo. Ryun's cinders tracks were rolled pre-race which makes the conversion difficult. So 3:30 no. Ryun's 1966 880yds was considered the first WR on a synthetic track. I can vouch having raced 3k & 5k in recent weeks on asphalt, a bumpy grass track and a mondo track I can a test that there is no statistically significant difference between mondo and a 5k on asphalt but the bumpy grass track is 4/5s per km slower than both. Ryun did run on synthetic tracks later in his career and failed to run as fast. But let us assume 3:31-flat for Ryun in 1967, who did 110 miles per week, did 40 x 400m sessions, so he was well conditioned by modern standards and he was light years ahead in his use of altitude training. Now if we fast forward in time 25 years to the early-1990s the WR for 1500m by your own analysis (at 3:29.5) had only improved by 1.5s (or 0.5s if your unrealistic 3:30 time is used) and that record was held by Aouita who was as dirty as they come. Yet in less than 6 years it melted by 3.5s!!!! Now what could explain this sudden drop? But what is worse, since 1998, in nearly twenty years the best miler Asbel Kiprop (who's coach di Rosa looks pretty dodgy), who has not failed a doping test in the ABP era, can barely get within 0.7 of the 1500m WR and Kiprop weighs next to nothing and has strides that are huge and effortless (heck he can almost beat Rudisha in 800m races so he is fast). This is not a progression it is a decline. Now a straight line from Coe, Ovett & Cram to Kiprop is entirely plausible but not the 1990s-2005 detour.

Now Deano if you really want me to put the knife in (or a rusty spoon) I can because the truth is, unlike the tracks for Ryun in the late-1960s, the track Herb Elliot ran on in the 1960 Olympic final was totally shot and is clearly worth 1s per lap which would mean that he would have beaten Seb Coe in 1984. Again minimal improvement in the pre-EPO period.

Now, Ryun I hope was clean, but steroids were actually more rampant in the late 1960s than what people assume (shot putters were on it at the 1956 Olympics).

As I stated previously I would be gutted if Ovett was doping but I have to say 1984 does sound like an early-epo era cycling story, he was only 28 and was having a heart attack. Still I hope not. I sort of know an elite French triathlete who died recently, that sounds fishy. The truth is rekrunner has no proof that athletes were not on steriods, stimulants or doing blood doping pre-1985. Again, I hope that they were clean but if they weren't it gives a distorted/understated picture for epo's affects on the men's 1500m (or longer distances).

Western 1500m/mile times actually fit the same performance chart we see in men's (discus, shot put, hammer, high jump, long jump) and women's (shot put, discus, long jump, heptathlon, high jump) field events peaking in the 1985-1989 period then a drop off since. This is also visible in women's short distances (100m-800m) and was clearly influenced by out of competition testing being introduced in 1989.

Track and field was big in Europe in the 1990s and after, while football was big before 1985. Pele, Maradona, George Best etc pretty famous footballers.

The 1500m seems to have come into focus here, but really the 5 & 10 makes far more sense when discussing epo. Uncoordinated and visibly less talented white runners (Baumann and Kennedy) ran significantly faster than pre-1985 whites. People that were alot faster over short distances than the two I mentioned.

Renato argues that EPO works for sea-level natives but doubts it works for Kenyans and Ethiopians. Rekrunner actually argues the opposite that it doesn't work for sea level athletes at all.

Now a sensible argument from rekrunner would have been that standard epo may not work for all people but this can be countered with fact that numerous different epo's have been produced to cater for differing genotypes.

Come Undone wrote:

You do realise that steroids were tested for at all champs during Coe's era and for every World Record set, otherwise it wouldn't have been ratified. So Coe was tested many, many times, including by the BAAB, who had random out of season testing from 1983, 6 years before the IAAF introduced such testing amongst the world's elite.

In terms of blood doping, which is more beneficial the longer the distance, this was banned in 1985. Coe's best 1500m time was set a year later, in 86. He was instrumental at the time in getting blood doping banned. If Coe had blood doped it would have made sense doping before 85, but certainly not after. Being caught for infringing rules introduced at one'd own behest, would have been a risk of such stupidity hitherto unmatched in the history of the sport.

British 400m runner David Jenkins set up a steroid factory in Mexico in 1981 and suppplied steroid to many athletes all over the world including British athletes. How many British athletes tested positive for steroids after 1983? Jenkins was busted in 1987 - how did the Brtish track and field team perform shortly after that?

From the article:

"There are some athletes in Britain who are doing that now, living a perpetual lie. Some of them have gone up to Elizabeth Windsor's house and shaken her hand and got their little medal. They know who they are."

From the article:

"At least half of the 9,000 athletes who competed at the Olympics in Seoul used performance-enhancing drugs in training, according to estimates by medical and legal experts as well as traffickers in these substances. These experts also contend that the drug-testing programs of the International Olympic Committee and other sports associations have had no impact in reducing the use of such drugs, including anabolic steroids."

"* Estimates of how many Olympic athletes used performance-enhancing drugs in training range from 10 percent by Dr. Park - a figure he called conservative - to 99.9 percent by David Jenkins, a former British track star who is awaiting sentencing for his part in a steroid-trafficking ring. Most experts interviewed, including Dr. Robert Voy, the chief medical officer of the United States Olympic Committee, agreed the figure is above 50 percent. An athlete like Johnson, they say, was caught because of his failure to stop using drugs before they were eliminated from his body."

"Jenkins, who was a sprinter on Britain's 1972 Olympic team, divulged another aspect of the problem when he admitted that he had once been ''protected'' by the system. Jenkins, who was using steroids at the time, said that a meet director in Britain told him that the seventh-place finisher in Jenkins's race would be tested. Jenkins said he evaluated the field and decided there was a good chance he could finish seventh, then he withdrew."

''Whether it's a country or a federation,'' he said, ''it is not in their vested interest to lose their competitors.''

Finally, what test was there to detect blood doping in 1986? It is not much use banning something if you cannot tell whether or not someone is doing it.

Wow! There is a lot there, some of which I disagree with, but I agree that EPO works for all athletes, irrespective of colour of skin or whether they were born at altitude or not. So for that, I apologise if my previous account supporting Rekrunner was off the mark. I skimmed the previous 28 pages, and from what I could gather, it appeared to me that many were arguing that those prior to 85 were doping (I'm talking middle distances), and the fact that the times of non Africans haven't really improved since, was indicative of this. I don't believe this is the full picture, and I got the impression that Rekrunner was the only one claiming something similar. If that is not the case, then again, apologies to you.

I have to add that I am nowhere near the same as Calculo in my summation of Ryun! He believes he was capable of 3:24 for 1500! I do have to say however, that it is impossible for a cinder track to be as fast as a modern synthetic one, although the difference has been wildly exaggerated. Having discussed this with ex athletes and statisticians working then and now, people whose opinions I respect and trust, I would say that a well kept cinder track would have been perhaps 0.5 sec per lap slower in a mile race. That works out about 1.8 sec for 1500. That would put Ryun's 3:33.1 at 3:31.3.

I have also read claims that a well kept grass track is faster than a cinders one, including from Snell himself.

I really don't get how John Walker could have the 'cleanest' urine sample!? I have never heard that claim before, but surely a urine sample is either clean of peds or not?

I don't think Ovett's problems in LA was anything to do with peds. He had bronchitis and we are talking about the smog capital of the world!

I agree that the period from 1990 - 2005 was rampant with EPO use and that the times set during that period were almost certainly affected.

casual obsever wrote:

Yawn. "only one East German" => only one person from East Germany.

Reference given by wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_athletics

"Furthermore, a number of athletes who underwent state-sponsored doping programmes in East Germany between the 1960s and 1980s were competitors in athletics, but the quality of the international anti-doping work was so poor that only one East German athlete ever tested positive.[1]"

But keep telling yourself that the old stars were clean because they were tested.

Cone undone is absolutely correct. Regardless of what that account says, there were dozens of athletes caught doping prior to 85! To suggest only one East German was ever caught is laughable. There must be a very specific context for that claim. I often recall reading about elite athletes testing positive in the pages of AW in the early 80's. I specifucally remember Petrova, an 800 runner from Bulgaria IIRC, being busted along with 2 others in 79.

I'm sure the testing was nowhere near as efficient or robust as it is now, back in 1980, but that would be the same for all sports. To claim there was no testing in the early 80's and that only one athlete ever failed a test is factually inaccurate.

Most of the drug use was state sponsored from Eastern block countries. And it was mainly in power events. There was little money in the sport prior to 82, and if drug use was so rife in the U.K. And other parts of Western Europe, then why were athletes busting a guy to run 45 flat for men or 51 for the 400m when the likes of Koch was jogging round in 49!

If it was so prevalent in the middle distances, then how come the GDR could only produce athletes if 1:43.8 and 3:33 ability, much slower than the Brits or Americans at that time. Or are you going to tell me that the Eastern Block doped everyone except their middle distance men and the UK only doped their middle distance men, preventing their women from access to the sauce, meaning they floundered around the 2:00 and 4:04 marks for 800 and 1500 for a decade!

I think in 1980 the WR for the women's 400 was 48.6, (Koch GDR), and the UK record was 50.88.

In the 1500 it was something like 3:52.47 (Kazankina) and 4:01. That's 9 secs.

If it is to be believed that everyone was doping, then were the East Europeans really that much better than those in Western Europe?

Sounds like good summary👍.

I think in the case of the Russian mid-D runners, 02-vector doping was a significant factor. I can't find a case with any of their medal winners from WC & Olympic events from 2008-2013 (8 medals and 2 WL times) where EPO was not used in combination with their anabolic steroid(s) regiment. There were also several others during that time period who didn't medal but made the finals in their discipline and were sanctioned for a ABP hematological violation (i.e., either EPO or blood doping). What's astonishing with the gold medal winners (e.g., Savinova & Zaripova) is their margin of victory against world-class fields in the WC/Olympics, which included top East Africans. Looking back at videos, these two annihilated the field in their events. And in 2011 alone, Savinova won 9 out of 10 races she competed in that year. Very high-responders to O2-vector doping and steriods.

And let's not forget race walking where the Russian men were killing it from 2008-2013 with 02-vector doping and steriods. Dominating the medals at WC & Olympic events and even setting a World Record now & then (currently they hold the 2nd fastest times for both the 20k & 50k events):

Looking over these cases of doping positives & ABP sanctions, the majority were for EPO or hematological anomalies of their passport. And in the sport of competitive race walking where submaximal effort and time to exhaustion are important physiological factors, 02-vector doping would be beneficial for a good responder (I think Chegin had that all figured out. Lol):

.

You misunderstand that claim. The claim is

a) East Germany's athletes were literally all doped

b) only one of them was caught

c) therefore testing was poor.

The claim is not that no Bulgarian was caught.

Nobody claimed that.

State-sponsored doping beat state-encouraged and state-tolerated doping. Clearly the East went further (just look at their female wonders), while the West wasn't exactly clean. For the latter, please refer to the infamous bundestag sitzung uncovered after their reunion or the cover-up of over 100 positive drug tests in the US including Carl Lewis.

Interestingly, the current Russian doping is not enough for Russia to currently keep up with the UK runners - so let me ask you this about the last six years:

If it is to be believed that all Russians were doping, and the British clean, then were the Russians not so much better than the British?

Rekrunner, you have argued against the effect of EPO for ages..

Why dont you try it on yourself? You dont need to enter competitions. You may not be an elite runner, but I assure you, you will be overwhelmed at the level of improvement you can achieve.

Would it not be sad to enter the grave without knowing the effect of this drug that you have argued against for so long? Now is the time!

If after your trial you come back to this forum arguing against the effect on elite runners (it still of course can not logically be excluded that it dont work on the best), I will respect your opinion. But i am quite convinced you will change your mind.

Renato very well knows the truth. He has other motives to speak as he does.

Christian Hesch experimented with EPO on himself...54 times over 2 years:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/sports/runner-christian-hesch-describes-doping-with-epo.html?referer=

Technically Hellebuyck was nearly 1 minute slower than his personal best.Meb Keflezighi ran his PB marathon, of 2:08:37, by 31 seconds, two weeks before turning 39.Jack Foster ran a Masters record, and his personal best of 2:11:19, at age 41 and 8 months.I came close to my lifetime personal best (like Hellebuyck) at 10K at 44.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

You live in an alternative universe where it is perfectly normal for 42 year old masters to run at their lifetime best...

You should join the rest of us in the real world.

Not quite. I'm saying the progression of times for non-African elite males "at their top", has largely remained flat, for the two decades of the EPO-era, before the introduction of the ABP.EPO did not help them progress, because they did not progress.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

...

Rekrunner is saying that EPO doesn't work on the white man or any other non-East African for that matter, which is complete and utter nonsense.

...

Right! Ok, I apologise. It wasn't clear. I read it as only one athlete, an East German, was caught doping in that period, which of course was not the case.

Of course the testing in the late 70's/ early 80's was not as robust as it is today, which is hardly the fault of the athletes. I still believe that the majority of athletes outside of the Eastern Block were not taking peds.

The fact you raise about the GDR underlines just how good their state sponsored system was. Testing during this time was mainly focused on championships and world records. The GDR system would obviously test internally and not send their athletes into a championships if the peds hadn't cleared. This wouldn't have been quite the same in the U.K., and some other countries, when there was random out of season and competition testing much earlier than the IAAF.

The prevailing view in the late 70's was also that steroids were far more effective when taken by women and that it only benefited power events, hence why the Eastern Europeans were superior in all women events but only in sprints and field events amongst men, but not so great in middle and distance events.

With regards blood doping, this seems to have been confined to a few Finns and then later the Italians. I can't recall anyone from any other country being found participating or admitting to this practice!? It seems a retrospective illusion that everyone was blood doping at this time. Again, I think the use of blood doping during this period has been widely exaggerated.