The actual question about EPO doping allegations

It still isn't sarcasm. But keep tilting at your windmills, Don Quixote. That is, by the way.

Since no elite athletes who have doped participate in studies to evaluate the effects of their doping the estimation of what they may have gained must be speculative to a degree. It is also compounded by the fact that we know that there will be some variation of effects amongst individuals. However the evidence we have is that doping will generally make a difference and in some instances it will be considerable even if we can't be exact in measuring this.

Yes. You generally are.

I dont't think that "this stuff doesn't work" particularly when there have been elite level athletes in EPO and blood doping research papers and dissertations focusing on the topic now-and-then, and even they have had faster running times or increase in some proxy for performance after the surplus red blood cells.

Simultaneously the rare meta-analyses (from the scarce data) have indicated that the boost is significantly less in elite levels with similar blood doping protocols vs. recreational athletes.

ofc it's less for well trained natural distance athletes, but it's honestly maddening listening to y'all argue about whether or not it's effective given it's obvious almost everyone on this board has no actual experience, whereas I do and would bet my family's lives on it being significantly effective for anyone that doesn't have polycythemia

The main reason so many dispute or even reject its performance enhancing effects is that these would suggest most of the best performances in the sport in recent decades are attributable to drugs. This is too hard for them to accept. Their disillusionment would be too great - they would cease to be fans. They can accept doping is widespread in the sport provided it doesn't really affect performance - which is an absurdity, as well as being wrong.

Anecdotally, that doesn't seem to be case as there have been "mind-blowing" performances from doped endurance athletes greatly exceeding expectations from various disciplines over the decades.

Case in point: XC skiing at 2002 Winter games. Spaniard Johan Muhlegg won 3 Golds dominating each event - particularly the 50k classic - where no one was even near him toward the end of that race!

Muhlegg tested IC positive for the 2ng gen EPO - NESP. In looking into his background, he wasn't even good. But yet, he comes to the Olympics and dominates, not just in one event, but three! 😲

espn.com

IOC strips 3 more golds from Salt Lake Games

The IOC stripped three gold medals Saturday from two cross-country skiers who failed drug tests at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

Open link

Does doping make a difference? That horse has long bolted. But not to fans who cling to the absurdity that athletes dope but don't gain anything from it.

Of course nobody was close to him at the 50 km race, because it wasn't a mass start with the bronze being only some 38 seconds slower in the final standing.

In any case, cross-country skiing isn't a time trial with similar conditions and equipment, and a zillion factors can make someone to over- or underperform besides PED use. Noticeable fluctuations to one or other direction is not a bug but a feature in that sport.

Having followed the 2002 OGs pretty closely my impression is that it was the 30 km race that caused some suspicions about his secret juice when he made a solo attack quite early on in the mass start that lasted until the end with some 2 minute gap to the others.

If you are interested, here are his Hb and ret-% variations that arose the suspicions in the first place:

Open image

It is interesting that Drs Jim Stray-Gundersen, Tapio Videman et al. who had access to the detailed hematological data of the preceding World Championships (2001) have reached the conclusion that 50 % of the medallists were clean, ie. there were no notable abnormalities in several parameters they measured. They put their conclusion more modestly in their paper but have had that opinion publicly.

Regardless of your anecdotes, the increase in Vo2Max is significantly lower in elites vs. non elites in the blood doping papers with similar protocols.

To summarize: I have no doubt Mühlegg got a boost in speed from EPO-derivatives, but have no clue if it was 1, 2 or 5 %.

Interesting single data point about power for a cyclist, but there are a few unanswered questions.

How do you approximately correlate the 20' power increase in a cycling equivalent of an 800m runner to 4-6% off your 8K time? How does that example translate to the equivalent of a national class or world class distance runner who def is a 5k-10k type?

Since the focus in these doping threads seem to be the performance effect on altitude dwelling East African distance runners, how do you compensate such estimates accounting for the gains already achieved by living and training at high altitude, where EPO and RBC are already stimulated naturally, and will have already raised power, hematocrit, VO2max, etc. Keep in mind that in scientific studies on well trained amateurs, altitude training shows similar performance gains as blood doping, regardless of method/substance.

It's unsurprising that you presume to speak on behalf of most all others suggesting the "main reason", in your opinion. Your "main reason" looks like reverse self-projection -- you are heavily psychologically invested in this idea that best performances are only or mainly possible with drugs, as opposed to other paths, and it is hard for you to accept any modest intellectual challenge which asks you to support such ideas with tangible and substantial facts, evidence, and observations.

Speaking on behalf of myself, I do not so much dispute or reject these alleged performance enhancing effects on athletes with physical and psychological weaknesses, as ask for evidence and arguments that suggest such a strong correlation for the fastest performances.

Even if we accepted without such evidence, for the sake of argument, that the smallest quantities of micro-dosing doping guarantees a substantial maximum performance improvement across the board, this would still be insufficient to establish that the best performances are attributable to drugs, and not some other legal path, e.g. long term hi-lo altitude training, which are equally "scientifically proven" to have a substantial performance enhancement benefit.

You are projecting.

You don't realise it but you have just confirmed what I said above - albeit with your usual verbosity.

It isn't difficult to understand what reinforces the typical doping denial that characterises these threads. It is obvious. For many, to accept the reality of doping would end their belief in the sport. You are such a one. Your world would collapse if you came to see that doping has enhanced the performances of many altitude-trained Kenyan distance runners (many of whom dope) as well as enabling most of the best performances we see in the sport.

Doping only works on those with "psychological and physical weaknesses", you say. You presume to know this despite never having had any experience of doping while countless athletes have, and knowing no dopers. But that utterly unsubstantiated nonsense is how you preserve your fantasies.

It's quite appropriate that you describe yourself as DUMBstrong.

Ah yes, I remember, these were their conclusions in brief:

Of the skiers tested and finishing within the top 50 places in the competitions, 17% had “highly abnormal” hematologic profiles, 19% had “abnormal” values, and 64% were normal. Fifty percent of medal winners and 33% of those finishing from 4th to 10th place had highly abnormal hematologic profiles. In contrast, only 3% of skiers finishing from 41st to 50th place had highly abnormal values.

Quite a drop in suspicion from medal winners to also-rans...

Yeah, the glass was half full and half empty depending on the perspective.

Interesting that Dr. Tapio Videman has maintained that half of the medallists were clean despite him estimating that some lucky cross-country skiers could get a 10 % boost in racing speed with a clever blood manipulation. Yes, in one interview he indeed meant ~9 minutes faster finishing time in a hour and a half effort with ESAs and/or blood transfusions.

As expected, you are not intelligent enough to understand when people mock you.

You keep reinforcing your user name.

You keep reinforcing yiur narcissism, and your lack of intelligence. As you do every day.