'We Can Now Estimate the Effect of Blood Doping'

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It is correct, that his arguments are a red herring. And he is effectively an advocate or apologist. But despite his constant reference to the "scientific method" we can also see that he doesn't meet the test required by that method, as he forms his views on research that doesn't directly relate to the subject and claims trends in performances are indicative of doping or its absence without having a baseline for clean performances.

He will never play in our sandbox, however. He doesn't know how to .

I can't and don't apologize for doping. I guess I am an advocate for data, reason, logic, and the scientific method.

I formed my views on historical performance results, and a broad knowledge of several factors necessary for best performances.

Again, your use of historical performance results is unsound when you presume the presence or otherwise of only one doping factor, of blood-doping. That isn't the real world.

No, it isn't the purpose. But it is the only way of forming a reliable estimation of the effects of doping on performance when the scientific method does not and cannot offer sufficient data. A court will arrive at determinations of fact according to evidence that is rarely science. And that is how most of the world works.

That might explain some of the difference, but unlikely not in every case, because Vo2Max tends to reach its genetical limit relatively quickly with training, and the 50-65 ml/min/kg Vo2Max guys (many reached their Vo2Max peak) are "high responders" almost with no low responders almost without an exception (data is though very scarce).

As I mentioned in the earlier post, Christer Malm has no original study about the 3 % boost, but it is an estimate discussed in the introduction of one of his papers and he bases this estimate on the earlier research with non-elites and discussing the issue with Dr. Ekblom. And even when some folks here have calculated e.g. 5000 m improvements with the 3 % figure, it is the highest estimate, and his "informed expert opinion" is that:

- The measured boost with amateur athletes is between 5 and 20 % whereas with professional athletes it is between 1 and 3 %.

- There is a gigantic difference how blood doping improves perfomance depending on the baseline (either training status or genetical limit), and pro's tend to get only roughly 15-20 % of the benefit of the amateurs.

On general level I have issues with estimates even if they originate from experts. Sometimes same experts can give different estimates, and even when some figures are given during CAS hearing, these experts haven't published papers on the issue of performance boost (Schumacher will be an exception), ergo we don't know how fully they have thought through the subject, their performance increase estimates have no impact on the case (contrary to their ABP-readings) and they are almost certainly called primarily to give their expert opinion about blood parameters in which they have published papers on.

This false premise is not mine is not a basis for my doubts.

You are mixing things up. I do not use EPO studies in non-elites. I argue against those who attempt to use non-elite studies to show that EPO benefits elites similarly.

I use altitude studies on non-elites, not to argue benefits for elites, but to illustrate that we must consider all the factors, including non-doping factors, that can lead to higher blood values, and potentially improved performance.

If we witness significant improvements in performance, they can have legal causes.

This site was co-founded by someone who made significant gains in his 10K, after 5 years of competing at college, with Lydiard-like altitude training.

I don't make that presumption.

I prefer you to limit the discussion to blood doping, because lapsing into general vagaries as a response to my comments about blood doping creates confusion.

If you want to talk about all doping for distance events, we can have that discussion too.

We are in a thread about Russian doping.

By all accounts, no nation has doped more than Russia, and they have been at the forefront of doping since the Cold War.

Historical Russian performances match very well with my ideas about where all doping benefits endurance events.

The Russian men are notable for their absence in distance running, even if we just compare them to non-Africans.

I suspect their love for race-walking is partly driven by the knowledge of where doping works.

The Russian women have had some success in shorter distance events, events where the extra strength from male hormones may still contribute.

One Russian woman has had notable success in the marathon. Despite her extreme blood values, she was three minutes behind the world record. A deeper look at the best marathon performances shows that they are not as strong as Japan, a country not noted for doping.

I also note here that we are in a thread about a study of Russian women's performance, in a thread called "We Can Now Estimate the Effect of Blood Doping". This thread, and the study, presume the presence of only one doping factor, of blood-doping.

Will you acknowledge that this thread, and that study, are based on this false premise?

But this is the sandbox I'm being asked to argue in.

I'm not arguing that WADA needs to scientifically prove effect in elites in order to ban a substance or ban the athlete. That is a sandbox that no one is arguing in.

I'm not arguing to unban EPO or blood doping or to "apologize" for its use -- that is the red-herring.

And on the contrary, WADA takes that approach precisely because it cannot reliably estimate the effects of doping on performance.

The arbiters in doping cases do not decide on, and guilty verdicts do not depend on, whether specific performance benefits were realized. Dopers are convicted even when performances are slower, or there is no performance to judge (OOC).

I don't know whether through training an athlete can reach a limit in VO2 max that cannot be improved by blood doping. Even if that were true, how do we explain the continued improvements in performance in individual athletes, presumably without doping and despite no improvement in their VO2 max, as well as the improvements we have seen in the sport generally? Do athletes today have a higher VO2 max than athletes 20-30-or 40 years ago? Or - even more strangely - do athletes today have a lower VO2 max today than in the 90's, when many of the world records and fastest times were recorded? There appears to be something more going on in these performance developments than attaining a limit in VO2 max through better training.

I am also inclined to think that blood doping has contributed to performance improvements above and beyond training, because altitude training became a norm well before blood doping and EPO became pervasive, and despite the supposed benefits of altitude training - that some argue may even exceed the supposed benefits of doping - we have seen performance times consistently improve over the years. It may be the case that doping actually extends the "limits" in VO2 max reached by training.

I take your point that in these discussions we are dealing with estimates, and while that is unsatisfactory in ultimately resolving these questions it is unavoidable since elite athletes do not make themselves available as subjects of doping studies, and no two athletes will respond the same.

My mistake in referring to EPO studies in non elites rather than altitude-training studies, but I would suspect the same problem arises, that any conclusions from those studies can only offer approximations for elites. But of course that also doesn't mean the findings for non-elites will have no application with regard to elites. That would be an assumption.

We are not in a thread about Russian doping, as such - that is a vast subject - but the relevance of a study of Russian athletes who were blood-doping (your admittedly favorite subject). Unless they are of a different species to athletes from other countries, the results of the study will be helpful. That doesn't mean the study is required to resolve all questions on the subject.

You misunderstand the sandbox analogy. It is not an argument about whether blood doping should be banned or not. No one is arguing that. The point is that anti-doping generally (and not just WADA) works from a broad evidentiary basis that doping typically enhances performance, that is not confined to or is dependent upon what the academic studies can tell us. And there is such evidence available. You attempt to use some of it yourself, with historical data (although that isn't typically what WADA will turn to). In that sense, the process of assembling evidence is more like a court or commission of inquiry. Science alone won't tell you everything we need to know and you will miss the mark altogether if you confine yourself to such a process.

Yep...definitely absent in distance running. Simple answer for that: The Russian male endurance athletes decided to pursue race walking where they would have a much better chance at world domination not having to compete against the East Africans (the men also pursue XC skiing where they've had a pretty showing internationally).

Keep in mind, though, that their RW program is just as doped up as other sports program over there (imagine that. Lol). Life-time banned legendary coach Viktor Chegin coached world record holders, Olympic & world champions all with the use of blood doping. So, are you conceding that blood doping is effective for RW but not the marathon or distance events? The signature event for men's RW is the 50k - just a few miles over the marathon. To my surprise, many of the top race walkers have a VO2max similar to that of many international-level marathoners. I would think the 50k race walk might be similar in aerobic capacity performance to the marathon?

Some success? Try five (5) Olympic & World Champions in the 800, 1500 & SC - all with top-35 all-time fastest; Galkina (Olympic gold, former SC WR holder), Zaripova (Olympic gold), Savinova (Olympic gold), Tomashova (WC gold) & Masterkova (Olympic gold & former mile WR holder). Savinova & Tomashova were banned for blood doping, Zaripova had a double hit - blood doping & turinbol, Masterkova competed & dominated in the 90s where there was no EPO test, and Galkina somehow came through her career unscathed (a miracle. Lol).

So, I would say they're benefiting from a combination of androgens and blood doping. If it was just roids benefiting them - then why the blood doping? That just adds another risk factor for getting caught.

For one, your comparison to Japan doesn't make sense. It's like saying a deeper look at the NFL teams that routinely make the playoffs every year, the Baltimore Ravens are not as strong as the New England Patriots. The Russian marathoners have four(4) in the top-100 all-time; Shobukhova (9th), Bogomalova (51st), Petrova (74th) & Zakhorova (77th). In addition, they have another 8 women who have gone sub-2:25! They also have a few Olympic & WC medals and a ton of marathon titles. Since the signature events for the Russian women are the 400h, 800, 1500 & SC, I would say their performance in the marathon is nothing short of remarkable. And if you look at the top-100 list, it's flooded with East Africans - so four Russians on that list is amazing!

My point actually was that most of these 50-65 ml/min/kg "high responders" (+10-15 % Vo2Max) and certainly practically all of the high caliber 75-85 high caliber "lower responders" (+3-6 % Vo2Max) of blood doping studies had reached their trained Vo2Max peak, but still improved, therefore there could be some other reason than training status explaining why elites doesn't get the same benefit from blood doping as amateur athletes.

I think it still holds true for individual athletes and athletes as a group what physiologists P.-O. Åstrand and Bengt Saltin wrote in the mid-1960s when they wondered this improvement without increase in Vo2Max (except that there are also rabbit-paced runs, financial incentives, non-technique ways to improve mechanical efficiency etc):

There is some tendency for Vo2Max figures to have risen slightly since the 1960s, but I think that a group of physiologist couldn't find a single case of endurance runner surpassing the figure of 90 ml/min/kg in one review a year or two ago, ergo most of the improvement is caused by other factors (not necessarily training-related but also genetically superior athletes) unless the super-fast 1990s athletes had blood doped their figures to close to 100 ml/min/kg (not an impossibility). One non-blood doping related explanation is that the track runners clocking the fastest times of 2020 indeed have lower Vo2Max values than the 1990s athletes simply because the genetically superior talent is elsewhere (e.g. marathon).

There is no generic "altitude training", but many different techniques that produce different results with different individuals (the response to hypoxia does vary significantly). Here the 2000s knowledge with hypoxic tents and LHTL-techniques can be far superior vs. the information of 1960s when many teams had to start the acclimatization research for the 1968 Summer Olympics almost from the scratch.

If I recall correctly, cyclist Eddy Merckx prepared for his hour record in 1972 with hypoxic training but residing at sea level, which would be the worst combination for most of the people (ie. his trainers had no clue how to do it properly even if it worked for him).

Today, all the coaches of top athletes dom't care about the values of VO2 max. This value is widely connected with genetics, can increase very little with training, and is not fundamental in the improvement of performances (of course, inside some limits : athletes with value of 50 never can become Champions).

In the past there was a clear example with Derek Clayton, the Australian who was the first athlete running Marathon under 2:10. His VO2 max was about 69, when many runners having a value higher than 70 were not able to run under 2:30 !

VO2 max can have some interest for specialists of short distances (800 - 1500m) because is connected with the POWER of their engine, but, longer is the distance, loses signification, because the most important factor is the ability to use a HIGH percentage of the personal VO2 max, and this depends on several different factors.

The combination of different factors (including the psychological ability, never considered when we go to analyze some performance) can be so complicated that the simple values, normally considered at the base of any performance, such as the levels of Hb and Hct, have only a PARTIAL role in the final result. Coaches of top athletes don't know WHY, but know what to do in order to achieve the personal bests.

For this final goal, altitude training has a great importance, of course connected with some specific type of training where the intensity and the modulation are the key of the improvement.

Training for long distances changed a lot in the last 60 years, while training for short distances didn't change in the last 40 years, and, if changed, became worse.

I already gave a simpler answer.

Despite your prolific use of italics, I find your list of palmares for the Russian women not so amazing for the nation that leads the world in doping, and has done so for many decades. Zero men, and a dozen or so women -- all time. Only 5? Only top-35? Only 4 in the top-100?

How does the comparison to Japan make no sense? A nation that leads the world in doping cannot outperform a nation not known for doping, with only one exception. If you built two 5-women teams of Japan and Russia, formed with their all-time historical bests, and scored them like cross-country, Japan wins.

I would agree that the altitude study suffers the same issues when projecting onto elites, but that does not apply here, as that is not the point I made about altitude training. The point is that the same effects that are "proven" for EPO, on non-elites, can also be achieved legally. So in the absence of any EPO positives, this reality, along with other realities, must also be considered.

You side-stepped the question. Isn't this study on Russian performance based on the same faulty premise you (wrongly) accused me of? That would make the association found in this study virtually useless, if not entirely misleading.

The sandbox analogy is an attempt to turn a performance discussion into "anti-doping generally". For anti-doping purposes, performance benefit is wholly immaterial, when determining guilt. The low bar required by WADA, for evidence of potential effect, is a weak basis for attempting to argue what really causes, and caused, the fastest performances for elite athletes.

1. The studies of non-elites who are altitude trained do not show that the same results can be obtained legally as are achieved through doping. The studies only caution against assuming that the effects of blood-doping in non- elites will be the same for elites. If your view was correct it would be safe to say that blood-doping would not be consistently pursued by altitude-trained athletes (yet it is) or that it would not be penalised - as it is. Anti-doping is a constantly evolving process that depends on the most up to date information available. There has been no revision of the position on the effects of blood-doping, a practice that has existed in the sport for over half a century, because there isn't a credible argument for making exception amongst certain categories of athletes.

2. The Russian study was of elite women and the effect the bio passport has had on their comparative performances. That is highly relevant research in respect of elites anywhere.

3. You keep misunderstanding the sandbox argument. It isnt about being able to prove guilt on the part of an individual athlete but of seeing the broader picture of how doping is performance enhancing, obtained through all the evidence available. There would be no justification for the former if the latter was not also provable. It is - although you choose not to accept that for altitude-trained elites.

Armstronglivs wrote:

There has been no revision of the position on the effects of blood-doping, a practice that has existed in the sport for over half a century, because there isn't a credible argument for making exception amongst certain categories of athletes.

+1

That otherwise healthy high altitude Kenyans can't blood dope for no medical reason whatsoever even if it gave them no benefit is such a human right violation that if there would exist even a 1 % possibility that they wouldn't get the benefit, the code would make an exception in their case.

I heard that Kenyan Federations are constantly lobbying to get the rules more flexible for high altitude athletes to blood dope, and they have even workgroups of experts thinking about ways through which one could prove he/she is a native high-altitude resident and not just a sealander who resides a few weeks a year at altitude to be able then to use rHUEPO and transfusions. Perhaps microchip at birth + GPS should solve that problem to get the WADA code changed.

Armstronglivs understands what is happening, rekrunner does not—or if he does, then he’s simply a strategic advocate.

And not a good one, at that. Rekrunner you might want to take a multi-faceted approach instead.

☝️ More pontificating by you. Yes...only 5 Olympic champions in the 800/1500/SC events. Masterkova (3:57.11) is 2-time Olympic champion (800/1500) & WC (1500), plus the former mile WR holder. Savinova (1:55.87 @ Dague) is an Olympic & World Champion and took down Semenya & Jelimo twice! (Dague & London). So, if you don't understand the power of their doping program with these results (plus the performances of Zaripova, Tomashova, Chizhenko), then you're just playing games and it's pointless to discuss anymore the impact doping had on the Russian women mid-d runners.

On Japan: A nation "not known for doping" (i.e., not getting caught) doesn't mean they're not doping. Their female marathoners have had a couple of busts including one with EPO-IC at the 2012 Honolulu marathon - so it's not like there's nothing on their record. They could be micro-doping working efficiently within the upper & lower parameters of the ABP.

Lastly, on their marathoners - 4 is impressive. That's twice as many as Europe has on the list. There's one Kazakhstan-German and of course, the highly-supicious full-throttle Paula. And as I said, the list is flooded with Kenyans including several of their confirmed dopers. And given the high prevalence of doping busts with the Kenyan marathoners, I'm suspicious of everyone of those Kenyan top-100 performances. So, it's a case of the Russian dopers vs Kenyan dopers and Kenya has the numbers and less strict anti-doping up to about a couple of years ago when the PLK lab went online in Nairobi.

This is where you amaze me in how naive you pretend to be with a prolific doping nation like Kenya. Either that or as I have suggested before, you're just trolling to liven things up on these doping threads. ?

Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:

This is where you amaze me in how naive you pretend to be with a prolific doping nation like Kenya. Either that or as I have suggested before, you're just trolling to liven things up on these doping threads. ?

^This, with emphasis on "pretend". In reality, rekrunner is neither dumb nor naive.

Rekrunner also doesn't appear to see that his view that altitude-trained elites can obtain the same or better results than blood-doped athletes trained at sea-level is a double-edged sword. It doesn't necessarily show that blood-doping doesn't work (we know it does) but that the benefits of altitude-training can exceed those of blood doping (or so he believes). Altitude training could then be construed as "unfair advantage". And where might that lead?

It would lead to nowhere, because altitude training (or being a resident there from birth) fits only one out of three doping criteria.

Aragon wrote:

It would lead to nowhere, because altitude training (or being a resident there from birth) fits only one out of three doping criteria.

It doesn't have to satisfy all three criteria. One is sufficient. Performance enhancing would do the job.

Of course, it isn't a drug but it could theoretically invoke the same argument about what constitutes unfair advantage. (That is, if you believe altitude-training is more effective than doping. I dont. And neither does anyone else that I am aware of, other than rekrunner and Canova).