'We Can Now Estimate the Effect of Blood Doping'

Aragon wrote:

Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:At about 2:20 in under "How much better you get" - Malm illustrates the following:

Amateur - 20% improvement.

Professional - 3% improvement.

Here it is noteworthy that the term "professional" is an umbrella term with athletes of very different capability. In the cycling world there are professional cyclists with Vo2Max values below 70 ml/min/kg, and particularly an European full-time pro runner making a living through sports can be relatively mediocrish runner.

If there is a gigantic fall in the performance boost from amateur to professional (20 % -> 3 %), by the same logic, the boost should be close to zero with elite pros if average pros get only a 3 % boost (3 % -> ??).

I agree the designation of a "professional" athlete entails a wide spectrum of different capabilities. But on the subject of international-level world class athletes - wouldn't the performance difference be slight?

And looking at Malm's 2016 paper on blood doping he writes:

"Initially, blood transfusion was used to enhance military aviation pilots’ work capacity to fly at high altitude during WWII, when pressurized cockpits were not used [21]. Later, submaximal [22] and maximal [23] running performance was shown to improve with blood transfusion. The discovery of erythropoietin (EPO) [24] simplified blood doping in sports, supplementing blood donation, storage and re-infusion. Similar performance enhancements of 6–12% could now be achieved by a simple recombinant human (rh) EPO injection [25–27]. In a review on blood doping published in 1989, Jones and Tunstall [28] describe increases in performance and VO2max ranging between 0% and 40%, depending on the subjects included and methods used for both testing and doping. From the summarized literature, it can be estimated that elite athletes may improve performance by up to 3% with blood doping, regardless of method [29–31]. 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."

He clearly states "world class" level on the "20-30 seconds" performance boost in the 5000.

Also, in that paper he conducted his transfusion study with recreational-level athletes (M/27 & F/11). Average VO2max: 53 (M) 48 (F). After re-infusion phase an increase in performance (treadmill) of ~15% was observed (20% for some individuals, but some subjects showed no improvement despite an increase in VO2max).

Armstronglivs, now you seem to be more reasonable than when say "all top athletes are doped", or "without doping it's not possible to be competitive". These two statements are absolutely not true.

And don't forget we speak SPECIFICALLY about blood doping, not "doping".

It's clearly acclarated that steroids produce a benefit superior to every possibility of training, not so much for increasing the level of endurance (also if many specialists of endurance, mainly women, used in the past, and still use them), BUT WE ARE SPEAKING ABOUT BLOOD DOPING ONLY. So, the number of Kenyan doped, related with the Coevett's argument, doesn't mean anything, because about 80% of Kenyan officially banned for doping, were banned for steroids and not for blood doping.

This means that the percentage of Kenyan athletes, banned for EPO, is very low, compared with the enormous number of tests OOC and in competitions Kenyan runners have.

Looking at athletes banned for EPO only, we never can be sure about WHEN they started to use EPO of something similar.

The general attitude is to think they started to dope from the beginning of their career. Nothing more wrong : the most part of them, if not the totality, started to dope after several years of career, of because they wanted to try to move their performances after 3-4 years of stagnation, or because, already old, had the stupid dream that external doping could balance the logic and natural decrease of the qualities at the base of their results.

I can give you one example, involving Rita Jeptoo.

She started with me in Italy when was only 18, in 1999. She lived in Italy almost 6 months every year, till 2003, in Domodossola, together with Jonah Koech, my second kenyan athletes whom I coached in Italy, abel to run 5000m in 13'10" in 1992 and 1993, and Marathon in 2:10:39 in 1999.

I resaigned from my role of Technical Scientific Director of Italian Federation on 31 December 2002, and from 2003 I had the opportunity to stay in Kenya for 6-8 months per year. In 2004, I opened a training camp in Iten, giving to another my athlete, Joseph Cheromei, who lived in Italy for long time, the task to organize everything, and I put as my assistant coach Peter Mathu, who in 2009 became the Head Coach of Kenya in WCh in Berlin. All this, without any management supporting me (I used the bonuses received by Qatar for the medals of the Kenyan-Qatari athletes for running the camp).

Rita Always lived in the camp, and I moved her to Marathon.

She had an Italian Team (Cover-Mapei), her manager was Gianni Demadonna, and, after running her PB during WCh in Helsinki 2005 (2:24:32) she worked very hard, with the goal to run in Boston 2006.

I never had some athlete, man or woman, more hard worker than Rita. I give you an example :

about one month before Boston 2006, she was able to run a Special Block with these results :

Morning : 3 km warm-up + 10 km in 34'23" (5' rest) + 21.1 km in 1:12'04" (34 km)

Afternoon : 3 km warm-up + 10 km in 34'36" + (in Kamariny Track) 6 times 2000m with 2' recivery, all between 6'18" (the slowest) and 6'12" (25 km) for a total volume of 59 km with 33 km of specific intensity and 20 km at 92-93% of Marathon pace.

Rita, in Italy, faced some problem for the US Visa, and Demadonna supposed she couldn't go Boston, so, for not wasting all her training, entered her in a road race in Napoli, the day before Boston (which is Always on Monday).

Two days before Boston, I was in Antalya (Turkey) as lecturer for the European Coaches for a Clinic about the preparation for 10000m on track (the next day there was the European Challenge of 10000m). When I went back to my Hotel, I received a call from the collaborator of Demadonna Eric Lilot (American) who infromed me there was a miracle, and Rita had the Visa during the afternoon of Saturday. So, Demadonna found a early flight Napoli - Milan for Sunday morning, I had my flight to Milan before Rita, and one friend of Eric working in the US Embassy arrived with Rita's passport with the Visa.

I explained the situation at the check-in, and the responsible of Delta was very kind, waiting Rita after the full boarding of all the passengers.

Rita arrived last ,minute, myself and her were boarded using a car, and finally we could fly to Boston, where we arrived 5 hours before the start, after about 10 hours in the night on the plane without sleeping.

In Boston, Rita had time to go in her room, to prepare the bag while I went to kake her number , and, after a cup of tea, to go on the bus going to the start.

She remained 30 km with the leading group of women, and after decided to attack. She won in 2:23'36", RUNNING THE LAST 12,2 KM OF THE RACE FASTER THAN ALL THE TOP 10 MEN (please, go to control the splits if somebody still has the results).

So, it's clear her value, with a normal situation, was already under 2:20'. And she didn't use in the camp anything else than the food I bought, and during the race water only.

So, why do I need to be surprised of her 2:18'57" years later (and not forget she really doped AFTER winning Boston 2014, and in Chicago she won with the worst time of her career) and why do I have to justify that performance with the EPO assumptions ?

I know what she were able to do, posters in LR don't know. And that one is one of the several examples because I don't believe in the effects of EPO when athletes train in this way.

Renato Canova wrote:

In Boston, Rita had time to go in her room, to prepare the bag

No kidding.

It's not kidding, this is exactly the truth. If you have something to share with the athletics of top level, you can ask somebody running Boston in 2006, and can go to control the splits of the race, from where you can see the times of the last 12.2 km.

The real problem is that you, and the most part of you, don't have any idea about what is possible to do in training, and which results is possible to achieve with that training.

Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:

I agree the designation of a "professional" athlete entails a wide spectrum of different capabilities. But on the subject of international-level world class athletes - wouldn't the performance difference be slight?

I don't know. I know only that the difference isn't (according to Malm) "slight" between amateur athletes and the professional ones, in fact it is enormous.

I don't know if you knew it, but I actually speak some Swedish (the "Finlandssvenska" variant, not the "Riksvenska" of Christer Malm), but if I understood his idiomatic "real" Swedish prononciation accurately, Malm estimates that the boost with amateurs is 5-20 % ("fem till tjugo procent") and with pros between 1-3 % ("en till tre procent"). This solves the enigma why he uses the vague estimate that "elite athletes may improve performance by up to 3% with blood doping" in the 2016 paper.

Perhaps you should ask someone fluent in Swedish to go through the video, but somehow I wouldn't get too excited about the "3 %" estimate as a general and expected boost when you dig up the Malm et al paper from your drawer the next time. And one just wonders how unequivocal the other estimates by experts are if they also feel the need to use caveats such as "can improve", "may improve", "up to" etc.

Renato Canova wrote:

It's not kidding, this is exactly the truth. If you have something to share with the athletics of top level, you can ask somebody running Boston in 2006, and can go to control the splits of the race, from where you can see the times of the last 12.2 km.

The real problem is that you, and the most part of you, don't have any idea about what is possible to do in training, and which results is possible to achieve with that training.

But while you were coaching her you probably thought she was too strong minded to ever dope and of the utmost high moral standards.

Renato Canova wrote:

It's not kidding, this is exactly the truth.

Quick fact check:

- Rita arrived on Saturday for the Monday race, not just "5 hours before the start";

- she beat Jeļena Prokopčuka (PR 2:22:56) by 10 seconds;

- she only started pulling away with less than three miles to go;

- no way she ran the last 12.2 km faster than the fastest man (winning time was 2:07:14!);

- she was DQ'd in Boston 2014 because she got caught doping just prior to Boston.

Splits?

Half time was 1:12:18 (3:26 min/km). I haven't found her 30 km time yet, but she ran from half way to 35 km with 3:27 min/km in a small pack. So no acceleration until then. She then ran the last 7.2 km (yes, the downhill part) in 23:55, which is 3:15 min/km. Impressive acceleration, no doubt, but not faster than the men.

In fact, Cheruiyot ran the last 12.2 km (yes, including the Newton hills) in 36:44, which is 3:01 min/km.

No. She was still in Milan on Sunday morning, and arrived Boston on Monday morning about 2am. If you have some other info, you are wrong.

About the times in the last 12.2 km, you have only to recover the splits, I think you can do it, if interested. You can find the times of ALL the athletes at 20 miles (32 km) and can easy see that the first 10 men ran slower than Rita.

It's true she did the final attack at 37 km, but from 30 she was the one pushing the pace, together with Prokopchuka (winner in New York the previous year, and again in the same 2006), who had PB of 14'47" and was able running 10000m in 30'38" sduring the same 2006. So, also Prokocpchuka ran the last 10 km faster than 8 of the top 10 men at the end.

I don't want to discuss about Boston 2014, already I said in the past the reasons of her ban BEFORE the OOC doped test. The only thing I can say is that I was able to see all the OOC tests of Rita creating her Biological Passport, and there were not important fluctuations in her level of Hb and Hct till the last test.

If you want to quarrel about what I wrote, you need to find the right informations, and if you are interested, it's not so difficult. In my description of what happened, I put the names of all people involved : you can ask them.

This is from the link given above:

"Then on Friday, as a press conference she should have been attending went off at the Fairmont Copley Plaza, Jeptoo learned that her passport had been found in the embassy. She would get to run Boston, after all.

She arrived Saturday at 6 p.m., preventing her from a preview of the course she was to run."

I took the splits from

https://aims-worldrunning.org/results/2006_04.htm

With Rita running the last 7.2 km in 3:15 min/km (and before that on average 3:26 min/km), it is impossible that she ran the last 12.2 km faster than Cheruiyot's 3:01 min/km.

We can calculate that of course.

Cheruiyot ran those 12.2 km in 36:44 (actually maybe 1 - 2 seconds slower, for he wasn't in the lead at 30 km).

Rita ran the last 7.2 km in 23:25. To equal Cheruiyot's time over the last 12.2 km, she would have had to run the 5 km from km 30 - 35 in (36:44 - 23:25) = 13:19, thus ridiculously faster than the female 5000 m world record despite the hills, together with Tosa and Prokopcuka. Impossible!

Straight from her mouth:

"Q. You got here to Boston late; when did you arrive and did you get a chance to see the course?

RITA JEPTOO: I arrived on Friday.

Q. And did you get a chance to see or run on the course at all, or was the first time you saw it when you lined up?

RITA JEPTOO: Yeah."

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=38474

:D

Renato Canova wrote:

The only thing I can say is that I was able to see all the OOC tests of Rita creating her Biological Passport, and there were not important fluctuations in her level of Hb and Hct till the last test.

.

Well that would be how micro-dosing works until you slip up.

I absolutely know she arrived on Monday at 2am. It's not possible to have any mistake : if you read what I wrote, I was still in Antalya on Saturday, and Rita was still in Napoli. Demadonna changed my flight from Antalya to Milan, that had to be on Sunday afternoon, to another flight Antalya - Istanbul late Saturday, then I slept in Istanbul and had a flight on Sunday, very early, reaching Milan Malpensa about 1 hour before Rita coming from Napoli. I was the only way for receiving on time the passport of Rita from the guy of the Embassy, and had to organize a car for going to the plane, because Rita arrived last minute, thanks to the kindness of the responsible of check-in.

In the interview, Rita said something not completely right, probably for problems regarding her English Language. More probably, being Boston on Monday, she supposed was on Sunday, and considered the arrival at 2am like in the night of the previous day.

About the times, since I wrote confident of my memory, I went to control in my computer : you have reason regarding the last 12.2 km (in any case, about Cheruiyot only), but Rita was the fastest in the last 7.2 km, because her split at 35 km was 2:00'13" (so she spent 23'25" for the last 7,2 km, that are not downhill, but up and down, and are the most difficult part of the race : the first 11 km are downhill, at the end there are the "Heartbreak Hills", and already the name can tell you the difficulty of the course), while the split of Cheruiyot at 35 km was 1:44'58" that means he ran the last 7.2 km in 22'16". Rita didn't have the best time of the race in the last 7,2 km, but the 4th best split, and the only athlete in top 10 able running faster was Cheruiyot, the other 3 men were not in top 10.

In 2006 there was no blood doping in Kenya. Some athletes started to use anabolic steroids, but were very few. I can ABSOLUTELY exclude that, during the period in my camp, some athlete could look at illegal substances.

I repeated several times : till 2010, NEVER I heard some kenyan athlete asking for supplements, and of course for doping. After 2010, some athlete started to ask if there was something able to help the training, but never some of the athletes I coached, because I Always explained I didn't believe in the effects of EPO, and I had the possibility to show examples of athletes at the level of WR or very close, whom every other athlete well knew were clean.

In every group athletes know each Others, and have suspicions, if somebody has the mentality to look for some doping. Sometimes, in my group some athlete came to me, doubting of some other athlete who could have a suspicious behavior. This never happened in athletes of my group, and Rita, till when remained in Iten before marrying, was the most precise and motivated athlete in all the camp.

Grazie - but of course the last 7.2 km are downhill. I've "enjoyed" those a couple of times...

Heartbreak Hill is around mile 21, so before km 34.

https://www.baa.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/2020_BM_CourseMap.jpg

Vaporfly Wang wrote:

Use of the scientific method is but one way to prove/disprove an hypothesis. Other ways are equally valid and can be vastly more efficient, depending on the context—and I am a physics PhD.

I understand your sentiment, of course. One thing you seem to misapprehend is that for the purpose of controlling doping, the class of things that “have the potential” to enhance performance includes all those things that “do” actually enhance performance.

Of course there are several valid ways to prove/disprove a hypothesis. There are also many invalid ways.

I'm not all that interested in the "purpose of controlling doping", but, for an example of one invalid way, it was suggested that, by virtue of a substance being banned by WADA, it must benefit the fastest performances.

Armstronglivs wrote:

...

An argument that would seek to draw conclusions based chiefly on the studies lacks the necessary data in the absence or insufficiency of such studies. That is the weakness I referred to in rekrunner's arguments. He draws conclusions without a study that confirms them. The research that exists only warns against making assumptions of benefit from blood doping in all elites - it doesn't go so far as to make it a finding - and other research differs on the same issue. The argument is thus apparently unresolved in the research.

When rekrunner then said he also relied on historical data of top performances he is ultimately speculating - like the rest of us - about whether doping contributed to those performances, because there is no definitive benchmark that separates the doped from the clean performance.

...

I'm not really sure what you are saying here. I do not seek to draw conclusions based chiefly on studies. I mean I would, if better ones were done, but in fact, I am usually critical of many doping studies, because they seem to have some fundamental defect that prevents me from having confidence in the conclusions. I find that rather disappointing after 30 years of EPO existence, and interest in altitude since (at least) 1968.

More important than studies, are reliable and controlled and carefully measured observations -- i.e. data.

To the extent I draw conclusions, I feel most confident on the ones based on these kinds of real world observations.

But I don't always draw conclusions. Sometimes I express doubts, arising from scenarios, where assumptions and predictions seem to be contradicted by real world observations, and the rationalizations seem even less likely, or contradicted by other data.

That's 1002 times you've repeated those words. Which is insanity.