Olympic Marathon Silver Medalist Eunice Kirwa Busted for EPO Doping

Count me out of the "some", because it is just the opposite case with me.

Unfortunately my writing career here and elsewhere is like my annual door-to-door christmas carol tour with my son. People have offered me very handsome rewards if I promise to end the habit and never to do it again.

What is Durianrider's opinion of EPO?

https://youtu.be/yMwQiBvbWB8

Aragon wrote:

Count me out of the "some", because it is just the opposite case with me.

Unfortunately my writing career here and elsewhere is like my annual door-to-door christmas carol tour with my son. People have offered me very handsome rewards if I promise to end the habit and never to do it again.

I think I'd prefer your carols.

The moral of all this discussion is very simple :

a) Coaches MUST try to bring athletes to their best possible performances, in clean and legal way (something not always happening)

b) Physiologists MUST try to understand the effects of medical substances on the way of working of the body. The way of working depends on the basic level of body and training of every person (for example, obviously every medicine works at different percentage if used with somebody having a high level of disease, or with somebody in very good health). Their behavior not always is correct.

c) Antidoping officials MUST control the athletes, giving sanctions if they don't follow the rules (something sometimes happens).

d) All other people, NOT having any specific competence in the above situations, can only evaluate what happens in the athletics world, and their suppositions are not always correct, because of the lack of specific knowledge about value of the results, historical memory, ignorance of the training systems and their effect, so they can only SUPPOSE what can happen.

We have to be clear : the final goal for an athlete is to reach the best possible personal performance, the most part of times in clean way. I never met some athlete whose goal was to have high Hct, or high Hb, or high VO2 max : what they want is the ability running faster.

But, also, I never met some physiologists whose final goal was to increase the performance of an athlete STUDYING MORE ADVANCED TRAINING METHODS. What they do, is to test (using always the same protocol) the values that can be tested (such as VO2 max, practically useless for determining the level of a performance), SO SOME VALUE THAT IS ALREADY THE PRODUCT OF WHAT THE ATHLETE DID BEFORE, never creating a training program for increasing and overtaking what already the athlete is able to do.

And I never met some official of antidoping, interested to know the individual values of every tested athlete, in order to have a longitudinal knowledge of the values depending on the evolution of training.

At the end of the day, the moral is that everybody has to do his job, without trying to "invent" reasons for the improvements depending on their mental approach.

In other words, coaches have to look at training in clean way, without excluding the possibility that some athletes can use doping ; scientists have to look at the performances, without excluding the possibility that also WR can be clean ; official of antidoping have to look at longitudinal parameters for every athlete, without excluding that some value out of the average range can be absolutely natural and not fruit of some doping ; and LR readers have to look at all the infos can have, opening their minds to a wider range of factors and of reasons.

casual obsever wrote:

Coevett wrote:

You claim that EPO can improve performances by 6% then argue that it really doesn't matter because everyone dopes.

Three obvious lies in this introductory sentence. Even for you, that's a lot. Troll somebody else.

Hmmm.

Lie 1 - 'you claim that EPO can improve performances by 6%'

In the very next post you claim that EPO improves close to elite runners by 5%. So not exactly a huge whopping lie was it?

casual obsever wrote:

We learn for the, on average, 1:03/2:12 altitude-based runners that they improved by 5% right after getting EPO,

Lie 2 - 'it really doesn't matter'. and Lie 3 'because everybody dopes'.

From the same page you posted

casual obsever wrote:

Having said that, FloJo, Koch, El G, Radcliffe and Kipchoge are all clearly the best of their era.

Actually of all eras so far.

So what on Earth does this mean if we apply logic to it? The very best runners were clearly the best anyway. So what does it matter if they doped? According to you, they not only weren't cheating anybody out of medals or titles, they weren't even cheating anyone out of WRs or GOAT status, because they were the 'best of all eras'.

And if EPO can improve close to elite times by 5%, that means that, for example, Kipchoge would be a 2:07 runner or so. But you claim that he's the best of any era, so everybody whose ever ran faster than 2:07 must have been doped, leaving aside improvements in tech or training (for example, it would likely entail that anyone who ran under 2:10 twenty years ago was doped). It's also ignoring the improvements that other peds would give. You've often stated that roids are effective even for the Marathon. In fact you'd stated that the reason the Brit middle-distance runners declined in the EPO 90s, even though you presume they were all drinking it from the well, is because they were no longer able to roid.

So your statments just on this one page of the hundreds of pages of text you've posted on LetsRun over the years, clearly entails that 1 - you think EPO alone has a huge effect (close to 6%) so EPO and all the other juice must surely have a much bigger effect than 6%, 2 - it doesn't matter and 3 - everybody at the top dopes and has for decades.

All the information we have is doping cases coming up every week from Kenya and that it's just the tip of the iceberg.