Rhonex Kipruto suspended

rekrunner wrote:

Passport Doping wrote:

The Malm study:

"From the summarized literature, it can be estimated that elite athletes may improve performance by up to 3% with blood doping, regardless of method [

–]. This enhancement is equivalent to, for example, seven minutes faster winning time in the 90 km cross country ski race Vasaloppet, 20–30 seconds faster time in any given 5000 m run at world class level, and four minutes faster finishing time in a marathon race. In cycling, a 3% increase in performance translate to a more than two hour faster winning time in Tour de France 2014."

Christer Malm:

Who are people going listen to - you or leading experts in the field like Malm & Schumacher. Lol

My question is, are you listening to your experts?

In the CAS hearing, Schumacher says "can ... take as much as", essentially predicting a possibility within an upper bound. He did not provide the CAS arbitrators any supporting data or evidence.

In his paper, Malm says "it can be" and "may improve ... up to", again, a prediction of what might be possible, within an upper bound, and further points us to three studies:

1) a 2000 study on EPO and cycling; cycling performance measured was Time to Exhaustion in a cycle ergometer and VO2max;

2) a 1987 study on blood transfusions for cross-country skiers performance was measured in a 15km cross-country skiing race;

3) a 1987 blood transfusion study on the 10,000 performance of 33-minute runners. These runners did improve by 1 minute, consistent with Schumacher's statement.

Of the three, it is only this third study, conducted by PhDs AJ Brien and TL Simon, that is applicable to running. The experts conducting that study say it has limitations: "The subjects in this study, although good-caliber runners, were not elite distance runners, and the results obtained in this study may or may not be applicable to the latter".

I say - listen to the experts.

rekrunner wrote:

woofy wrote:

rekrunner, I want to ask you: Do you think that taking EPO has no effect for the elite distance runner? I mean with regard to improving performances by any physical means like better training or recovery or race efforts.

Do you think it has a little effect?

For me personally I think there are so many factors at play.

I believe there are factors that help more than EPO use, but I do believe that EPO use can help some people (not all). I also believe it can be harmful, obviously not just to performance there.

What do I think? I see it like this.

I don't make any difference between elite and amateur runners, except for an expectation of smaller benefits for naturally faster runners.

How much EPO works depends on where the distance runner is on their spectrum of his/her own level of aerobic fitness.

If any sea-level runner is 80% fit, then EPO and training will help him/her get 90% fit faster.

If any runner is 99% fit, especially after training for weeks, or months, or years, or decades, at altitude, I think any additional benefit of EPO is highly questionable.

Passport Doping wrote:

We're arguing over our personal preference of that statement from the study.

You conclude that it "may not" or not at all apply to elites - while I conclude that it "may" and more than likely does.

I'll take it a step further and I look at the anecdotal evidence of some of these doping cases where we're privy to the evidence & ABP data presented in the hearings.

For example, Kiptum setting the HM WR at Valencia with a 60% Hct level at a 99.99% specificity level (less than 1 in 10,000 chance of being undoped).

He was doped to the gills & smashed a WR! Lol Can't you see this & use a little common sense?

I know if frustrates you that altitude trained athletes, especially the Kenyans, would resort to doping. But hey - they're looking for an edge like many others. And $ talks - Kenyans need to win if they're going to try to earn a living as a professional runner. Life doesn't get any easier for them as the competition is fierce among the East Africans.

rekrunner wrote:

Passport Doping wrote:

We're arguing over our personal preference of that statement from the study.

You conclude that it "may not" or not at all apply to elites - while I conclude that it "may" and more than likely does.

I'll take it a step further and I look at the anecdotal evidence of some of these doping cases where we're privy to the evidence & ABP data presented in the hearings.

For example, Kiptum setting the HM WR at Valencia with a 60% Hct level at a 99.99% specificity level (less than 1 in 10,000 chance of being undoped).

He was doped to the gills & smashed a WR! Lol Can't you see this & use a little common sense?

I know if frustrates you that altitude trained athletes, especially the Kenyans, would resort to doping. But hey - they're looking for an edge like many others. And $ talks - Kenyans need to win if they're going to try to earn a living as a professional runner. Life doesn't get any easier for them as the competition is fierce among the East Africans.

I concluded "may or may not" is necessarily inconclusive. You cannot flip a coin to determine who is right.

Quite frankly, this is not for you or me to argue or interpret or conclude. You relied on scientific "experts" who in fact, rely on other "experts" who in fact do not commit to applying their observations beyond the limits of their study to explain the performance of elite athetes.

Your step further looking at a few handpicked anecdotes, combined with a little common sense, only strenghthen my conviction that even the fastest athletes can have big incentives to take bigger risks based on non-scientifically established beliefs.

It doesn't frustrate me that many Kenyans dope. I simply call it belief -- this seems to frustrate many of you.

rekrunner wrote:

Passport Doping wrote:

Why do you think it's "highly questionable?"

Altitude training doesn't raise Hct as much as you think it does unless the athlete is at very high altitude for very long periods of time (e.g. 9000 ft plus). There are plenty of studies on this - many authored by Schumacher - that you can look up. Plus their referenced a lot in these hearings with altitude trained athletes.

So, the Kenyans in these doping cases use EPO to increase their blood levels above & beyond where they're at at altitude. That's why you have Kenyans getting flagged for exceedingly high values when they sojourn down to sea level to race (e.g. Kiptum & Wanjiru).

I think it is "highly questionable" because no one has ever asked and answered that question for athletes at their peak fitness, especially for athletes having trained at altitude.

You seem to focus a lot on blood values. This doesn't interest me so much until you can link the blood values to peak performance. Performance is measured by time, not by blood tests.

Altitude studies have determined a "sweet spot" for altitude training around 6000-8500 feet. What would be the performance value of raising Hct above that?

Passport Doping wrote:

It doesn't frustrate me that Kenyans are caught & banned for doping. I'm just confused as to this "belief" you say they maintain.

You're a proponent of altitude traininh - you're very well researched in the science. And altitude training is an excellent method of training for any endurance athlete.

What I don't understand is why some of these altitude-trained Kenyans would resort to doping & risk the devastating consequences of getting caught. If just mere "belief" is the catalyst for these Kenyans deciding to dope - then where are they getting this "belief" from? Coaches? Agents? Fellow athletes?

Take the case here with Kipruto. The young man has a very bright future setting the 10k road WR. All this can implode & his career is essentially ruined forever if a doping ban is upheld in the forthcoming hearing.

Just like convicted dopers Kiprock, Jeptoo, Sumgong, Kiptum, etc. No one takes them serious anymore & they always be remembered for their doping busts rather than any of their accomplishments in their careers.

Why would this young athlete dope based solely on your assessment of "belief" & risk destroying his career?

Passport Doping wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I think it is "highly questionable" because no one has ever asked and answered that question for athletes at their peak fitness, especially for athletes having trained at altitude.

You seem to focus a lot on blood values. This doesn't interest me so much until you can link the blood values to peak performance. Performance is measured by time, not by blood tests.

Altitude studies have determined a "sweet spot" for altitude training around 6000-8500 feet. What would be the performance value of raising Hct above that?

Well...obviously a lot since Hct levels aren't that high for Kenyans living & training at altitude in their home country.

In this study, 10 elite Kenyan runners who live & train at Eldoret (2090 m) had average Hct of only ~48.

Link:pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19952848/

That really isn't that high. It's considerably higher than average sea level numbers for a lot runners (I saw a study that showed it around ~42 for elites at sea level). I'm not elite, but I live & train at 5300 ft & my Hct over the years has been ~45.

So, Kiptum & Wanjiru who were using EPO or another ESA at their altitude training camp induced erthrocythosis raising those already higher values into the upper 50s (actually 60 for Kiptum).

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So if someone hit you over the head with a club - as he did verbally - you would call that a "vague opinion". But it doesn't hurt, does it? Despite your trying to dismiss his palpable scorn you nonetheless spend pages defending yourself. That is a typical response to narcissistic ego-injury. Which means it does hurt.

OK -- I guess you are the 8 year old, so I have to dust off an old nursery rhyme:

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

I guess for you it was a much needed distraction, because you were failing to explain why a study on amateurs that apparently didn't measure running performance is actually relevant. Or maybe you realized your adamant argument that "(doping efficacy) lacks comprehensive evidence either way, full stop", was an admission that EPO doping/performance for elite distance runners is all non-science based mythology.

He gave you a desparately needed excuse to change the subject.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

OK -- I guess you are the 8 year old, so I have to dust off an old nursery rhyme:

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

I guess for you it was a much needed distraction, because you were failing to explain why a study on amateurs that apparently didn't measure running performance is actually relevant. Or maybe you realized your adamant argument that "(doping efficacy) lacks comprehensive evidence either way, full stop", was an admission that EPO doping/performance for elite distance runners is all non-science based mythology.

He gave you a desparately needed excuse to change the subject.

Words do hurt you - despite your trite adage about "stick and stones". You cannot leave it alone but insist on trying to defend yourself. As you show - when your self esteem is in the line you never stop. As for debating the doping study with you - that isn't necessary. It would be a complete waste of time. Sage Canaday summed you up neatly enough for me. He read you like a book.