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

Renato Canova wrote:

Nobody inside the difference of 4% with the WR of some event was caught for doping (except Rita Jeptoo), and there is no reason to suppose the athletes inside this difference could run faster if decided to take EPO.

I am not quite sure what you are referring to here but this statement looks wrong. Without even researching this, here are just a few names:

Brahim Boulami, Jolanda Ceplak, Rashid Ramzi, Fouad Chouki, Wilson Loyanae Ekupe, Sergio Sanchez, Alberto Garcia, Ammine Laalou, Muhammed Mourhit.

Someone with more knowledege than me on this subject will for sure be able to bring up more names.

Besides, all of the names listed above have tested positive for EPO, all have ran within 4% of the world record of their respective events. I don't think it is cynical to say that the testing system is not catching every doper so there are likely more within this 4% of the world-record threshold who are doping with EPO.

In addition, athletes who have tested positive for substances other than EPO may well have also been taking EPO. For example Kisorio seems to be saying that he was taking EPO in addition to nandrolone:

From the article:

Kisorio “claims that he was incited by his doctor,” reports Seppelt. "The doctor has apparently given him injections of banned substances and also tablets. One of these tablets led to the alleged positive test." Kisorio was found to have taken steroids, notes Seppelt, but "he also speaks of seemingly EPO injections, i.e., blood doping, and also of [doping] products that stimulate the mind."

No problems in Kenya...all is well & good. Lol.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-3691103/British-Athletics-reviewing-Kenya-training-camps-amid-doping-allegations.html

Mr. Obvious wrote:

No, every time you state it, you change something or refuse to answer something.

Well, what else is new?

I give you a hint for understanding rekrunner: look at my username, Mr. Obvious.

It's a study, yet not a study. Knock yourself out.

I told you repeatedly what I measured, and for whom. We know the 1985 best times. We know the 2009 best times. There is absolutely no uncertainty calculating the overall change, from this population, over these two+ decades, over all endurance running events.

My findings about progression "at the top", for "my" population, during the EPO-era, are historically and mathematically self-evident.

Other posters have claimed, -- without defining their population, or "N", or "intervention", or supplying any shred of analysis and statistics, in their respective "studies" -- while you have remained silent -- that I ignored steroids, improved steroid testing, blood transfusions, or global decreasing lack of interest.

These factors are actually all in my numbers, so technically they are not ignored. These individual factors are also all unmeasured, with no reliable way to observe or measure it. In other words, the untested "EPO works at the top" hypothesis requires being supported by a number of other untested hypotheses.

You are almost there -- EPO apparently does not factor into the progress "at the top" of a group of people that made little progress "at the top" in the EPO era.

Yes, the Kenyans may train with greater volume and intensity.

Do they sell Androgel in the drugstores in Iten?

rekrunner wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

EPO apparently does not factor into your study ...

You are almost there -- EPO apparently does not factor into the progress "at the top" of a group of people that made little progress "at the top" in the EPO era.

Yes, once you eliminate almost all of the top runners, the top runners didn't improve that much.

It is just cheap and transparent P-hacking.

rekrunner wrote:

I gave a reply in the other thread, and then it seems to have disappeared (the thread, along with my reply).

At that time, I said:

- Guys in the '60s were probably smarter at math than today

- The problem is easily solved with pins (around the curve), a piece of string, and chalk

- something about using Radians and polar coordinates

I do want to take a look at it, but haven't had the time it would require. I will see if I can make any better progress than five equations with five unknowns.

In the meantime, this might provide you some clues:

http://barnyard.syr.edu/waterfall.shtml

Many Thanks

It is Appreciated

( I got no takers on Physics Forums !!! )

It's a calculation to work away at...

Weekend pass from the asylum?

Nonsense. He is correct: the best are all clean, as proven here multiple times!

I wonder if Renato occasionally scrolls through this thread and just shakes his head in disbelief and bewilderment.

Disbelief and bewilderment. wrote:

I wonder if Renato occasionally scrolls through this thread and just shakes his head in disbelief and bewilderment.

Good to see Renato has finally come to his senses.

When evaluating rebuttals to Renato's claims like "EPO works for top East Africans, because it works for everyone", it seems fair to attempt to analyze the top performances of other populations during the EPO-era.The assumption that top East Africans are just like everyone, including top non-Africans, did not come from me. I'm willing to concede that top East Africans are different.I did not filter data on the basis of performance. The effect, availability, and testability of EPO is global. I do not claim the data of non-Africans, applies to Africans, but that non-African top performances seems to be a weak basis to support "EPO works for top East Africans". Therefore we must turn to the less representative sources for more support: studies on amateurs, women's performances, race-walking and cycling.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Yes, once you eliminate almost all of the top runners, the top runners didn't improve that much.

It is just cheap and transparent P-hacking.

Aragon, it doesn't seem fair that I have not replied to your posts -- they are among the best in this thread.Indeed, drugs are a sexy topic for gossip, but there are many significant factors that do not get there fair share of discussion.While it's tempting to think athletes like Radcliffe and Baumann doped their way to levels never achieved before or since, no one talks about drafting or pacing:- Radcliffe was paced all the way to the finish line in London 2003.- Baumann held on to a group in a fast race to eventually place 5th in his best performance. He has never run sub-13:00 again.The autonomous reflex to link fast performances to doping is not one that requires much thought. Those who obsess with external factors, like "ventolin/calculo" in his "shoulda woulda" calculations expose themselves to ridicule.Rivalry is also another significant factor (IMO) severely underestimated. Great times come when we have a clash of titans attempting to be the best. This is also what makes the sport interesting. Would Coe have run as fast without Ovett? Geb without Tergat and Komen? The best runners only run as fast as they need to win -- the real goal. Part of why Farah doesn't run faster is that, once he developed a finishing kick, he has no clear rival.Look at recent marathon progress, running in groups that can share the work, coupled with the rivalry within a group of a critical mass of Kenyans and Ethiopians, often put together with pacemakers for the purpose of producing fast times. By comparison, the women's races often lack the critical mass of talent to produce similar rivalry and drafted influenced performance, with rare exceptions like an aggressive Shalane Flanagan leading a pack of four women to break the course record.For distance running, doping as a factor, doesn't make my top 3.

Aragon wrote:

When one looks for reasons why almost all European records improved after 1985 despite the declining interest in running, draft effect shouldn't be dismissed as one factor, as European runners could run with fast Africans. The positive effect of running in a group or behind a pacemaker isn't just psychological but also physiological.

rekrunner wrote:

I did not filter data on the basis of performance. The effect, availability, and testability of EPO is global.

[/quote]

None of this is true.

You did filter based on performance.

How many times do I have to say this, countries with central/federal government control of purchasing controlled or expensive medicines like Australia, Canada (???), Finland, Japan, New Zealand, Sweden it was impossible to get epo domestically. Not surprisingly these type of countries feared poorly in the 1990s.

But if we take Deano and Calculo (actually just Deano) and given Ryun 3:31. Did Coe and Ovett really lower things that much over the mile/1500m? Compared with Andersson and Hagg.

The other thing that you miss as a line off thought is that Coe and Ovett approached the limits that humans could do cleanly and times that are better could only be achieved with PEDS.

rekrunner wrote:

Geb without Tergat and Komen?

But if one of these took EPO and got away with then the rest will have to take EPO in order to will. Competition is a slippery slope of escalation. Hence the drug abuse observed from both sides during the cold war.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Geb without Tergat and Komen?

But if one of these took EPO and got away with then the rest will have to take EPO in order to will. Competition is a slippery slope of escalation. Hence the drug abuse observed from both sides during the cold war.

^This. If number 10 dopes, because he believes it helps and he can't get caught (undetectable blood or EPO doping for example), then number 9 will have to do it, or he'll lose to a weaker athlete, then number 8 and so on and so on.

By extension, neither Coe nor Ovett nor Geb nor Tergat could have been clean, and also by extension, they shouldn't be blamed for that.