10,000m WR Progression: A Microcosm of How the EPO Era Changed the Sport

A point that has a big weakness: Athletes "from the countries that had more and better access to PEDs" disappeared from the sport in late 80's. We can discuss the reasons, but this is simply a fact. And those, who remained in the sport, used PEDs similarly like East africans. But considering that they were 2nd-3rd tier athletes, their times only reached the level of the previous non-EPO generation from mid-80's. After the introduction of effective tests on EPO, their times copied the trend seen in Africans, i.e. a sudden worsening and falling back on the level that was normal in mid-70's.

McFlounder wrote:

... and greater opportunity to not be tested at marathons.

mx443 wrote:

You're not mentioning the fact that over the last five years, marathons are way more popular for African athletes to compete in given the money. There is comparatively much less money to be gained from 10000m races. AND there are far fewer opportunities to run 10000m races every year. Ten and twenty years ago there were 2-4 meets a year that were known to feature high quality 10000s (like Brussels). That is no longer the case. The event has sadly devolved into a secondary event.

I agree. The fact that track times stopped improving after the introduction of tests against proteases (2006), while times in the marathon did not, is an indirect proof that doping tests at marathons are an utter joke.

Of course, we had out-of-competition testing in 1988. This led to a marked decline of performances in many athletic events. But with the then primitive testing methods, how would you prove transfusions of your own blood?

If the track in mid-90's were full of Europeans passionately waiting for a new drug, it would be them, who would start to use it. This was not the case, however. It was Africans, who started to use it en masse in 1995, and only 2-3 years later you started to see some European (especially Spanish) runners with unlikely improvements.

There not slowing down in the marathon. They've 10,000 runners just shifted to the marathon where the money is.

And 1500 m runners just shifted to the marathon, too? And what about 3000 m runners? 5000 m runners? All have shifted to the marathon, after the introduction of Epo and protease tests and biological passports.

Didn't the Kenyans largely stay away from the scene until the 1990s?

You are cherry picking years to make the changes per year larger and smaller in the two eras. In the earlier era you are taking from just after it had been broken several times and knocked down (I am going off memory here) and if you went back another 10 years and picked up Clark's and Viren's beatings (the latter also 'assisted') the Delta would not look quite so small compared to the EPO era.

Then, why the year 2005; was that a big EPO detectability era or just the most recent record... (but not much different than Geb's.

I am not saying your general thesis is wrong, just that the numbers are cherry-picked a little bit in a way that they did not really have to in order to make your point.

26mi235 wrote:

You are cherry picking years to make the changes per year larger and smaller in the two eras. In the earlier era you are taking from just after it had been broken several times and knocked down (I am going off memory here) and if you went back another 10 years and picked up Clark's and Viren's beatings (the latter also 'assisted') the Delta would not look quite so small compared to the EPO era.

As the world record improves, it gets harder to better.

Then, why the year 2005; was that a big EPO detectability era or just the most recent record... (but not much different than Geb's.

More effective epo test rolled out.

Sport physiologist wrote:

There not slowing down in the marathon. They've 10,000 runners just shifted to the marathon where the money is.

And 1500 m runners just shifted to the marathon, too? And what about 3000 m runners? 5000 m runners? All have shifted to the marathon, after the introduction of Epo and protease tests and biological passports.

Last I checked, the 1500 is still ruled by Kenyans

jsjsj wrote:

Sport physiologist wrote:

And 1500 m runners just shifted to the marathon, too? And what about 3000 m runners? 5000 m runners? All have shifted to the marathon, after the introduction of Epo and protease tests and biological passports.

Last I checked, the 1500 is still ruled by Kenyans

I did not notice the Kenyans ruling the Olympic 1500 finals in London. That race was the true measure, not a performance list.

someone had to do it wrote:

Augusto E. Perez wrote:

I'm pretty sure there was a big name Kenya who had an out of competition infraction back in the 90s.

Besides, if there were countries where out of competition testing didn't exist, wouldn't dopers from all coutries in all events flock there?

You mean like all the elite runners that travel to kenya each year to train at altitude?

No, I mean the Ostapachuks of the world. Throwers, sprinters, etc. If you wanted to train with drugs in the off season, and there was a place where there simply was no testing, everyone whp wanted to do so would go there.

look at history, not hysteria wrote:

I did not notice the Kenyans ruling the Olympic 1500 finals in London. That race was the true measure, not a performance list.

Yeah, don't be dense. The Olympics isn't the only race that matters.

Furthermore, this thread is about physiological performance. That has nothing to do with winning or losing the Olympics. Last I checked the Kenyans are the only guys with multiple active sub 3:30 runners.

And your analysis of his problem is naive. The fact that european coaches and "trainers" were moving to Kenya and Ethiopia during that time to support the runners had nothing to do with all the potential and money they were earning I'm sure, they just wanted to help out all the poor runners!!

Good point, but performances had already declined before 88, and they declined just as dramatically over even the longest distances where steroids and stimulants are much less effective than transfusions.

While difficult to prove transfusions, the mere fact that they were no longer legal must have discouraged a lot of people from using them. Imagine if altitude tents were illegal, would you risk getting caught with one? Having a bag of blood stashed away would be a similar risk.

I dunno if Cacho was doping, but he certainly was competitive in 96. And Baumann could have been using more than nandrolone through the 90's.

Maybe most Europeans were content to compete clean for a few years.

ace in the troll wrote:

And your analysis of his problem is naive. The fact that european coaches and "trainers" were moving to Kenya and Ethiopia during that time to support the runners had nothing to do with all the potential and money they were earning I'm sure, they just wanted to help out all the poor runners!!

How do you cheat to get ahead at your place of employment?

Zatopek, hope all is well.

I think the progression is largely due to the faster runners moving to the 10000m. This began with Rono.

Rono believed he could run 27 under ideal conditions and I don't doubt it. Most of the difference between Rono and the sub 26:35 guys is speed side capability and a tad allometrics. Eventually no one faster in the shorter distances has any incentive to move up. Some will move to the 5000 and not higher. And if you can run faster at 1500 than Bekele,who was probably a 3:30 guy at peak, why bother with the 10000m at all? Think of Lagat: move to the 5000m knowing anyone close from the 10000m will be racing with tired legs and will have trouble kicking faster anyway, so it comes down to the strategy and the day, or maybe even a bump.

Basically the winner of a 10000m will be the skinniest guy with something close to 3:31-3:32 speed. Few of those guys will be all in on a 10000m record attempt. And big races will be fast finishes more than not as no one with a chance at a medal will want to pace the others only to lose.

What flawed thinking! If EPO is good for 10,000M, it is good for 3,000M, 5,000M, half-marathon, full marathon and many other events. What you seem to be arguing (which is the contention of some others on this board) that there was a time when 10,000M was the IT event, but it has been replaced by the marathon; that is where the money and the glory is.

It is odd to me how people analyze mid and long distance running between the years before 1960s (when African's were not in the scene) and the years beyond and into the EPO era and to present times. Do you really think that Africans entering running in the sixties to 90s were really what you would consider professional athletes in terms of lets say American runners were after a half century of experience on the track? I am sure that EPO did change the landscape but please argue critically because your own post suggests other events apart from 10,000M could have benefited in the height of EPO era. Case and point, give us your BEST argument why marathon times did not shift as much. Also, how comes you imply only Africans were using EPO before consistent testing was adopted. Was this just privy to Africans in track or to everybody? If it was to everybody, where are those other bodies and their mark on 10,000M progression?

dsrunner wrote:

Most of the difference between Rono and the sub 26:35 guys is speed side capability and a tad allometrics.

And the drinking.

EPOtest wrote:

Zat0pek wrote:

The last time the 10,000 WR was broken was in 2005, right after effective EPO testing went into widespread use.

I thought that the EPO test was used starting in 2000 and was fairly prevalent in the early 2000s at major competitions. Where did you get the information that widespread testing started in 2005? Or was did you make the conclusion of increased testing based on the absence of phenomenal times after 2005?

First test that came out at the Sydney Games 2000 was not effective. Gave several false positives (e.g. Lagat) and subsequently known dopers who admitted to using EPO (e.g Jones) passed the test every time!

A new more effective test came out in 2005/06.

Nowhere near the same evidence.

For a start Coe ran a 3:29.7 in 86, apparently the era when everything was legit. Transfusions were already banned by then and Coe was the one that got them banned through the Sports Council.

Your use of 800m is rather a moot point. Would have been the least effected distance as a result of blood doping. A lot more effective for 1500, and even more for 5 & 10k.

Stagnating times after 86 at 800 were due to fact that the 2 outstanding half milers of the previous 6 years were, 1) injured in case of Cruz and 2) getting on, in case of Coe.

Cram was pretty much permanently injured from 87, and Ereng, who should have run sub 1:43 didn't seem to be bothered with times.

You may have something in the longer distances, especially with some countries like Italy and Finland, but there is no concrete evidence that blood doping was widespread in the middle distances prior to 86