A closer look at EPO-era performances

In the post, he said "email me at wejo@letsrun.com" -- twice.

Not Buying It wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

What really happened:

"wejo", posting as "Letsrunpicks" said he wasn't protecting Gary (Paula's husband) and wondered which poster you all thought Gary was. He did not mention "rekrunner" once in that post.

He also wondered what was meant by protection, and wondered how anyone thought they were protecting Paula's husband, probably because he is not under attack, and doesn't need protection.

I never admitted my name was Gary, and it is not.

Now that that comment is deleted, as well as my response to it, no one can see "the truth".

Weird rekrunner; how would you know that "Letsrunpicks" is "wejo" if you're not a mod? And then you deleted your own comment so no one can see the truth? Weird...very weird. ?

^ this hahaha rekrunner WILL BE HIM AND HIS WIFES OWN UNDOING!!!

things we know

-rekrunner says he is from the UK

-rekrunner has admitted his name is gary, but now denies it

-wejo knows rekrunner is in fact Gary Lough, rekrunner deleted this, but remembers what wejos handle was

-rekrunner deletes mine and casual observers comments among others

-rekrunner defends renatos claims about EPO not working

-rekrunner defends paula ratcliff, and seems to have way more inside data than just some hobby jogger would have

look gary the gig is up, i know you are gary lough, husband to paula. it all makes too perfect of a coincidence. wejo said he doesnt protect you, so that can only mean one thing...you are a MOD and have the ability to delete threads, posts and comments and ban peoples handles. you are a MOD because of the relationship of the brojos and your wife from when they paced her.

you defend paula to the point that is creepy if you were just a hobby jogger, only two ways a person would know this much about her, a) your a creepy stalker, or b) you are in fact gary lough

you rant about how EPO and PEDs dont work, why? well if your wifes blood values show the effects of EPO use then she is exposed. if you can convince the world that EPO doesnt work than those blood values have to have some far fetched bullsh*t reason and she stays the WR holder and not become an eye sore in the eyes of the british media.

you made a 10 second drop in the 1500m right there in the main heyday of the EPO era, and once you started coaching paula

2000, she went from getting blasted the last lap to being UNBEATABLE. now she owns the WR in the marathon in a time that is FLOJO status. you and renato want to make claims that africans are so vastly superior to whites, yet somehow your wife is 2 min faster than any african, and a few that have run "close" to her time have been BUSTED FOR EPO USE.

you keep your rant up and know we all know you are gary lough. you keep your rant up defending your wife and eventually the results will come out, she will be exposed and you two will be shunned by the british media and sport. you and coe can try and protect her all you want but it will come out that she was on EPO from 2000-2005. the excuses for the 2004 olympics is rubbish (i bet you love that word, you and vent!), no she dropped out because the much more precise test for EPO was being used in athens.

but back on the sauce in 05 to run fast again. interesting that the iaaf wants to scrub all the records from before 2005. in 2006 the testing became much more precise, and micro dosing became the way to go.

for all the people on here who dont seem to grasp the concept about when you would be using EPO, let me explain. you would use EPO during the base and whatever the next phase would be for your current school of thought. now for the ones able to take this blood out at the end, and then put it back in for a championship or big time race they just have to have made sure they were micro dosing just low enough a red flag isnt shown when they take the test. my bet is this is what paula and now mo do, and this is what caused her strange results in her tests.

then you have renato saying athletes get mindweak if they take EPO and get popped, and he is partially correct. because taking EPO a week or less before say the olympic marathon is dumb and there will be no benefit. i am sure renato, rossa and you gary...you guys all understand how EPO works and when it should be used and discontinued. im sure you guys all know how many IUs are needed to gain benefits yet stay below the testing limit. they know that taking EPO during the peaking part of your season is pointless, they know that EPO and altitude is the BEST combination, allowing to gain incredible fitness and giving the ability to perform amazingly hard workouts but doing these paces at a lower HR thus being able to stay in the aerobic energy systems. this can allow a person who has foot speed but always died out now have a devastating KICK, or allowing a person who can push the pace but always get out kicked to now be waaaay out front and CRUSHING people...think paula and all these new euros dropping fast times all the sudden.

no coincidence that the places that EPO abuse is happening are all at ALTITUDE. ethiopia and kenya, morocco, those places in spain, and FLAGSTAFF. what is so good about ethiopia and kenya is no real infrastructure for out of season testing, which is when the doping is going on. two its WARM, three its right there at the equator so there is a higher % of oxygen, and yes the last facts are what really ties it all together. LOTS of fast training partners and the simple life so there is no distractions for your 3 month stint. oh and aden can hold your stop watch

rekrunner wrote:

Marion Jones took The Clear -- a designer steroid.

One thing I noticed in Icarus that seems to have gotten lost with the shift in focus to Rodchenkov's plight, Bryan Fogel's doping experiment was a failure: despite the initial power increase, he performed worse when it came time to race, and was rather bummed out about it.

weak-mind disease in Africa wrote:

Why EPO is not working in 800m, Marion Jones admitted EPO use as far as I know. So she was out of her mind, maybe?

Also regarding EPO, PED not working in Icarus movie guy increased his output from 250W to 349W.

Nothing to see there?

Of course this all should be addressed to rekrunner not you.

Gary, stop deleting comments. As noted the guy crashed and got flats in the race. Drugs don't offset that.

He was WAY better all EPOed up.

Mr. Paula Radcliffe, stop deleting posts. Thank you!

nice gary deleting all the comments that expose him as being paulas husband huh...nice gary

i love how you claim you dont lie, and how you claim you dont know anything about peoples comments getting deleted....you are such a coward and a liar.

found this nice write up, i know you prob wont like it even though it is a PROFESSIONAL paper "American Journal of Hematology" published it is what i have gathered...you know some low budget group. but im sure this like everything else me and casual observer write you will delete.

scroll down to the "Detection Window" pretty interesting.

"A single subcutaneous injection of Darbepoetin-a (40 lg of ARANESP1 injected) lead to a positive IEF-based urinary Epo test in all samples until 7 days after injection, which is approximately two times longer than for rhEpo-b (4,000 IU of Recormon1 injected)"

" By injecting microdoses of rhEpo, the window of detection can be reduced to as little as 12–18 hr postinjection"

and this one

"In subjects with a naturally elevated or stimulated Epo production rate (altitude training, hypoxic tent, etc), there is a reduced detection window for bone marrow stimulators such as Darbepoetin-a."

if i was to guess i would say darbepoetin-a is a the top shelf version of EPO, but has the 7day glowing issue...buuuuuut if you do it at altitude it drops the detection window. EVEN BETTER! man training at altitude is a masking agent for EPO haha classic!

https://gbiomed.kuleuven.be/english/research/50000618/50753339/files/revepo.pdf

so gary im just a little curious, back in 2001 when you made that sign for paula to taunt that russion "EPO CHEATS OUT", yet now you scream "EPO and PEDs DONT WORK"....does it at least make you feel like a huge jerk to hassle that russian girl now knowing that EPO doesnt work? you and your wife should go apologize on live tv to that lady.

Regarding Bryan Fogel in Icarus, I re-watched that portion of the film, and saw no mention of a crash or a flat in the race. Maybe I missed it, can you point me to a specific time in the film for these events? There was one day, where his derailleur was stuck for 100km. That would explain the drop in the standings on that day. But then he was unable to recover, dropping even more places, and, it's all rather subjective, his depression didn't seem to be one purely about mechanical failures. He said he felt strong, and was able to recover. But he clearly had trouble keeping up with the top-10, and staying with the top group, and concluded that a 21-year old version of him, with EPO and blood bags, would never be a Tour de France contender. He didn't look like a man with a strong faith in drugs. In any case, his drug experiment was not a success -- he was unable to become a successful anecdote for doping, even with the best help in the world. Maybe next year.

Dodging the isssue wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

One thing I noticed in Icarus that seems to have gotten lost with the shift in focus to Rodchenkov's plight, Bryan Fogel's doping experiment was a failure: despite the initial power increase, he performed worse when it came time to race, and was rather bummed out about it.

As noted the guy crashed and got flats in the race. Drugs don't offset that.

He was WAY better all EPOed up.

rekrunner murdered David Torrence?

Why does it have to be in the film? He was stronger and faster all doped up. Whether he would turn into a Tour contender is completely irrelevant.

As noted dozens of times, doping makes an athlete better, it does not create talent.

"I had some technical issues that weren't shown [in the film]. These drugs don't make you any better of an athlete. What they allow you to do is recover. That was the biggest difference. The first year I walked out of that race and was in physical therapy for three weeks. I could barely walk. I had Achilles tendinitis, I had hip dysplasia. I trained just as hard the second year, but with the testosterone and the HGH and EPO and these vitamins injections I was taking, I was recovering."

.[/quote]

But he was better, he just didn't do enough competitions to prove it. You don't decide if your training program is good based on a single race.

Dodging the issue wrote:

As noted dozens of times, doping makes an athlete better, it does not create talent.

+1 Exactly!

I think this is where rekrunner's misunderstanding shines through: That doping should turn every athlete into a WR record holder or Olympic/WC gold medalist or running a PB that is faster than the "top 5 average" of the pre-EPO era.

You guys are way out of line.

wejohovah's witness wrote:

weakermind wrote:

here on LR you are doing the lance, you lie, deny and SILENCE anyone who is speaking the truth, hell you even deleted a comment from wejo.....whats next you find out who i am and come silence me like you did to david torrence?

rekrunner murdered David Torrence?

If you say he crashed or had flats, that should be somewhere. If you say doping improves racing performance, then race performance has to improve, to become an anecdote.

Dodging the issue wrote:

Why does it have to be in the film? He was stronger and faster all doped up. Whether he would turn into a Tour contender is completely irrelevant.

As noted dozens of times, doping makes an athlete better, it does not create talent.

the trouble with your analysis is that the method does not fit the hypothesis you want to test.

the way intervention studies work is this:

1. establish two groups of evenly matched consenting subjects. divide them randomly into two groups.

2. measure the appropriate metrics for all subjects.

3. one group perform the intervention. the other group, the control, do not.

4. re-measure the metrics, perform analysis, determine whether the intervention has worked.

5. invite others to replicate your experiment and see if they can repeat your result.

6. in the light of new discoveries, revise your hypothesis and go back to step 1.

what you did was the following:

1. assume everyone is in the intervention group. do away with any control group, or consent. hand pick subjects.

2. measure one metric on incredibly small sample.

3. assume that any change must be due solely to the intervention you assumed they were on in the first place, and ignore the existence of any other possibility.

4. publish.

5. publish again because no one believed you the first time.

6. in the light of new discoveries, go back to step 4.

that any 9-year-old girl can see through this sham is not really the point. I am more than a little concerned that the guy who is supposed to be coaching Mo Farah doesn't have more important things to do than try to convince a bunch of anonymous non-entities on the web that his pet hypothesis is not a dead squirrel.

I sincerely hope you know a lot more about training than you do about statistical analysis, because the evidence so far is that you are shite at one of them.

cheers.

Interesting quote -- where did you find it? What does "These drugs don't make you any better of an athlete" mean? You recover faster, but don't perform better? "he just didn't do enough competitions to prove it." -- that's what I said -- his experiment failed because his one competition didn't "prove it". Maybe next year.

Daedalus and his Moran wrote:

"I had some technical issues that weren't shown [in the film]. These drugs don't make you any better of an athlete. What they allow you to do is recover. That was the biggest difference. The first year I walked out of that race and was in physical therapy for three weeks. I could barely walk. I had Achilles tendinitis, I had hip dysplasia. I trained just as hard the second year, but with the testosterone and the HGH and EPO and these vitamins injections I was taking, I was recovering."

But he was better, he just didn't do enough competitions to prove it. You don't decide if your training program is good based on a single race.

I found it in an interview. What does his quote mean? It means he was wrong. It definitely makes you a better athlete but it doesn't create talent jumps that bridge a whole class level or two.

Everything was reasonably fine until you said "I am more than a little concerned that the guy who is supposed to be coaching Mo Farah doesn't have more important things to do". What type of scientific standard did you apply before typing that? What is the scientific label for "believe in rumors like a lemming"? I am not supposed to be coaching Mo Farah. Don't get all confused about my hypothesis and interventions and controls and statistical averages of the top 5. What I did was more like an after the fact observation of a bunch of large craters, concentrated in one area, counting all of them, measuring the size of the top 5, comparing them to a time when meteors and craters were thought to be smaller, and then looking elsewhere, observing a notable lack of a large craters, and a couple small ones, and asking, if meteors cause large craters, and meteors can fall anywhere, why do we only see them here? Why don't we see any over there, or anywhere else? We know for a fact that meteors fell in Spain -- why are their craters so few and so small? There can be many explanations: discuss. Hope that analogy helps understand what I was initially going for. Cheers.

I get that not everyone becomes a world-class athlete with dope. I didn't look at everyone (nor at medal winners per se), but at the fastest results ever, from each era, over different populations, over decades, comparing crude but simple measures of quality and quantity. If it makes the best athletes better, presumably something can be observed in these measures.

Voice of Reason wrote:

Dodging the issue wrote:

As noted dozens of times, doping makes an athlete better, it does not create talent.

+1 Exactly!

I think this is where rekrunner's misunderstanding shines through: That doping should turn every athlete into a WR record holder or Olympic/WC gold medalist or running a PB that is faster than the "top 5 average" of the pre-EPO era.

Gary Lough,

http://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/41811637

[quote]rekrunner wrote:

If it makes the best athletes better, presumably something can be observed in these measures.

Of course something can be observed. People haven't done any really fast track running since they cracked down on EPO. Geez, you're thick.