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

Deanouk wrote:

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

+1

Gary ran 2:41 at 36; that's a 3:55 miler in his prime. Eddy ran 2:12 on EPO post 40.

rekrunner wrote:

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.

Hellebuyck was a full time professional distance runner since his early adult years, Jack Foster took up running at age 32.

Hellebuyck made his marathon debut aged 21. Meb ran his first marathon aged 27.

rekrunner wrote:

I think it is statistically unlikely that a "Lance Armstrong" type of runner, in all the rich non-African nations of the world, over a period of two decades when the drug was undetectable, would be unable to find a way to produce comparable results.

What non African elite runner in 1990s to 2000s had the money, sponsorship backing and resources to fund themselves in a Lance Armstrong type doping program?

whitewashed wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

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.

Hellebuyck was a full time professional distance runner since his early adult years, Jack Foster took up running at age 32.

Hellebuyck made his marathon debut aged 21. Meb ran his first marathon aged 27.

rekrunner will ignore the improved results of runners who actually took EPO, in preference for his observational study of runners (but not race-walkers, or women, or North Africans, or East Africans, or world record holders like Boulami, or World and Olympic Champions like Ramzi) in which he cannot define his study population and he cannot point to a single runner who actually took EPO.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

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.

Of course there are several problems with that approach, as you should know, due to the lack of controls:

- Reliably determining the "before" and "after" EPO times, to isolate and quantify the effective impact from EPO.

- Ensuring that doping was solely from EPO.

If we apply your crazy idea properly, we will find that we have absolutely no field data "at the top".

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Without that, you have absolutely no study.

You were the one who characterised it as a study, only to argue that it was not a study. Let me know what you decide.

I'm using real world data to cross-check how well this data supports a "popular, yet unproven" hypothesis, and to develop an alternative hypotheses that still fits the data just as well.

I find it extremely unlikely that over a period of two decades:

- Cyclists (allegedly) universally gain a "game changing" benefit with EPO, with no national, or ethnic boundaries

- Distance runners exclusively gained a benefit from EPO, only in select narrow populations which:

i) are less likely able to afford it, compared to first world nations

ii) generally lacked a reliable infrastructure -- basic things like continuous electricity, refrigerators and hospitals -- compared to first world nations

iii) live at altitudes long enough to adapt to high exercise demands in low oxygen conditions, unlike most sea-level habitants of first world nations

iv) was conducted on a massive scale never seen before, or since, in any sport

v) managed to keep the secret hidden for decades (unlike cycling and the Russians)

- At least some distance runners from the global pool of richer, first world nations would not find a way to leverage "EPO works", like the cyclists and East Africans, in a way that would at least result in "game changing" improvements from 1985 level performances, let alone compete with the East Africans

Which African elite runner in 1990s to 2000s had the money, sponsorship backing and resources to fund themselves in a Lance Armstrong type doping program?

whitewashed wrote:

What non African elite runner in 1990s to 2000s had the money, sponsorship backing and resources to fund themselves in a Lance Armstrong type doping program?

I will not ignore reliable data. Did Hellebuyck actually improve? -- kinda depends on where you chose to start. You chose 1997, when in 1996 he ran 2:11:53.How much was due to EPO? He himself started believing in EPO, and started improving, only after:“Mark gave me this deep-tissue massage that made me cry, that hurt like it must hurt a woman in childbirth. But that broke down the scar tissue, and like a miracle, it cured me in one session. Now I’m able to run pain-free again.”

Mr. Obvious wrote:

rekrunner will ignore the improved results of runners who actually took EPO, in preference for his observational study of runners (but not race-walkers, or women, or North Africans, or East Africans, or world record holders like Boulami, or World and Olympic Champions like Ramzi) in which he cannot define his study population and he cannot point to a single runner who actually took EPO.

What countries did not improve their distance records during the EPO era exactly (I define as c.1988-2009 but 1992-2007 sounds more plausible but your post 1985 will do)?

Britain, Finland, New Zealand and Sweden. Who else???

rekrunner wrote:

Which African elite runner in 1990s to 2000s had the money, sponsorship backing and resources to fund themselves in a Lance Armstrong type doping program?

whitewashed wrote:

What non African elite runner in 1990s to 2000s had the money, sponsorship backing and resources to fund themselves in a Lance Armstrong type doping program?

Kim McDonald & Nike

You are cherry picking data to support your own previoysly arrived at conclusion. It is not in any way scientific and proves absolutely nothing at all about EPO and its effectiveness.

Jos Hermans group.

rekrunner wrote:

Which African elite runner in 1990s to 2000s had the money, sponsorship backing and resources to fund themselves in a Lance Armstrong type doping program?

whitewashed wrote:

What non African elite runner in 1990s to 2000s had the money, sponsorship backing and resources to fund themselves in a Lance Armstrong type doping program?

This is about the 15th different framing of your hypothesis. All in all, though, here is a good summary of your observation....Runners ran much faster after epo was introduced. However once you invent reasons to disregard most of the fastest runners (and race walkers, and women, etc, etc.) then the fastest runners weren't that much faster.

Deanouk wrote:

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.

Not the fault of the athletes, no, but many used it to their advantage.

Majority no peds? Maybe, by a few percent (e.g. 55% clean, 45% dirty).

Did you see whitewash's link from the New York Times from 1988 (here on page 28):

"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."

Recently we learned from Seppelt that the better the performance, the more suspicious the blood values were (in the last decade). So if more than 4500 athletes in Seoul were dirty, that could very well include most medal winners.

Well, rekrunner, if you exclude the stars from the EPO era whose performances remain mysteriously unmatched among their peers until today, such as El G, Baumann, Junxia, Radcliffe etc., because they were not caught with EPO (while it was practically non-detectable until 2005), and if you exclude those who were later caught with EPO, e.g. Eddie, Hersh, Jeptoo etc., because they might have improved with better training or might have used other drugs too, then well, there is indeed no evidence left.

Armstrong just got unlucky, because of the unique efforts of federal agent Novitzky and USADA/Tygart. Otherwise he'd kept all his wins, and people like you would still defend him.

Every Nike sponsored athleteAll Chinese male athletesAll Russian male athletesEvery Leonid Shvetsov clientEven amateur BBC reporter Mark Daly found a way to buy it and "fool" the ABP....

whitewashed wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I think it is statistically unlikely that a "Lance Armstrong" type of runner, in all the rich non-African nations of the world, over a period of two decades when the drug was undetectable, would be unable to find a way to produce comparable results.

What non African elite runner in 1990s to 2000s had the money, sponsorship backing and resources to fund themselves in a Lance Armstrong type doping program?

In your approach all of the same issues arise. I've asked repeatedly how many of the runners in your sample took epo. You have no idea. Honestly you can't even identify who is in your study population. This is no study. It lacks all of the basic elements. Including defining the study population, tracking the intervention, and even a shred of actual data or analysis.

rekrunner wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

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.

Of course there are several problems with that approach, as you should know, due to the lack of controls:

- Reliably determining the "before" and "after" EPO times, to isolate and quantify the effective impact from EPO.

- Ensuring that doping was solely from EPO.

If we apply your crazy idea properly, we will find that we have absolutely no field data "at the top"

Cherry picking would be singling out exceptions like Spain or Morocco or Baumann on steroids or Boulami in the steeple.Bad science would be pretending women, cycling and race-walking are the same as men and running, when discussing performance response to drugs.Bad science would be pretending Africans and non-Africans are completely alike with respect to sports performance.Bad science would be using steroids and testosterone to show "EPO works".I gave you an entire class of athlete, from a pool representing about 85-90% of the world population, spanning the entire EPO-era over two decades.The undeniable historical fact is that the progression of non-African male best performances during the EPO era was extremely underwhelming.The undeniable historical fact is that from this very same pool of non-African male athletes from 85%-90% of the world, cyclists excelled universally, while distance runners plateaued universally.The undeniable historical fact is that virtually all of the significant progress during the EPO-era was performed by small minorities within two larger regions of Africa, the larger regions representing a pool of about 8% of the world population.Whatever your notions of what constitutes a proper "study" -- doesn't change any of these undeniable facts.These are not my own "previously arrived at" conclusions, but inescapable conclusions drawn from the global pool of historical performances spanning two decades.Whatever your notions of how effective EPO works for each and every individual -- it doesn't appear to have played any effective role for the top performances from 85-90% of the population, as a group, for the entire period during the EPO-era.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

You are cherry picking data to support your own previoysly arrived at conclusion. It is not in any way scientific and proves absolutely nothing at all about EPO and its effectiveness.

rekrunner wrote:

Every Nike sponsored athlete

All Chinese male athletes

All Russian male athletes

Every Leonid Shvetsov client

Even amateur BBC reporter Mark Daly found a way to buy it and "fool" the ABP.

...

.What non African elite runner in 1990s to 2000s had the money, sponsorship backing and resources to fund themselves in a Lance Armstrong type doping program?

Nike sponshorship can vary from getting a few pairs of shoes each year to be being sponsored like Lance Arsmtrong. You are not seriously suggesting that those at bottom of the Nike sponsorship spectrum were able to fly in private jets to Italy and Spain to see doctors such as Ferrari or Fuentes?

Tell us about the millions of dollars China poured into to their men's distance running program in the 1990s/2000s.

Tell us about the millions of dollars Russia poured into their men's distance running program in the 1990s/2000s.

Name all the millionaire athletes who went to visit Leonid Shvetsov for doping assistance.

Do you honestly believe an amateur ordering a few weeks EPO on the internet from China (which did help him a lot over a few weeks BTW) is the same thing as a Lance Armstrong style doping program?