Alex Hutchinson calls out CANOVA over study confirming EPO works on Kenyan runners

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Mour Hits wrote:

Of course there's data. All of those titles and records held and set by dopers who still train at latitude is data.

No, its not. Not in the scientific sense. They are "interesting case reports", nothing more, nothing less...............until established otherwise through a sound scientific approach.

Of course.. Drug apologists must be relieved that there's never going to be a study done on the top runners because they are not allowed to openly dope in a study and race at the top.

So round and round they go with their dodging the issue.

Of course the athletes of Salazar use great volume and are ready for different distances during all the season.

However, running in 12 days in 3'32"59 and in 59'17" is something amazing and not usual. To compare this with Mo Farah running 3'28"81 on 19th July, and 60:10 on 15th September (two months of difference) is wrong, because Mo had more than one month of training for HM, after winning 10000m and 5000m in WCh.

About Erick, the reason because he "wasted" his time running 1500m is very clear : he trained in the group of Defense for 1500m, and only in October 2016 joined my group, with the task to help Ronald Kwemoi in his preparation for 1500m.

Only when Ronald got injured, and Erick didn't have any specific task to help some runner at the top of the world, I purposed him to try something longer, and I could discover his real talent.

Cases like the one of Erick are very frequent in Kenya : many remain all their life on a distance that is not their best event looking at their qualities, but is the event they started to run for several reasons.

One anecdote. Wilfred Bungei was the best runner of 800m, and he had a brother, Samson, running 1500m. Wilfred paid the ticket to Italy to his brother for 3 following years, and Samson never ran under 3'44". So, I seated with Wilfred and I told him : "Wilfred, do you understand your brother doesn't have any talent for short distances. This means there are two options only : or he doesn't have really ANY talent, so it's better you use the money for buying for him a piece of land, explaining that is better if he works like farmer ; or he can have some talent in the direction of long endurance. Please, let me try to see if he can have some talent for a marathon".

I gave him an easy program for long distances, and after 3 months he ran Mombasa (very hot and humid) with the goal to run 30 km only, but at the end he finished in 2:14 in January. Only one month later, he won Seville in 2:10:52, and the next year ran in 2:08:36.

Samson never was a top runner, but till now in his career he ran 9 times under 2:11, becoming a Marathon runner of medium level, no more "the brother of the Olympic Champion".

Why Samson never ran Marathon before ? Because in the village of Wilfred every athlete trained with him and like him, not having any clue about the best possible event, connected with their best qualities.

Among my athletes, I several times had successful results changing their previous event. Paul Kosgei, world Junior record holder of steeple, won the HM championships and bettered the WR of 25 km on the road ; Dorcus Inzikuru moved from 5000m to steeple for winning the first edition of WCh in the event in 2005 ; Philip Manyim, first pacer for Shaheen in 3000 steeple, in one year became the winner of Berlin Marathon with 2:07:41 ; Florence Kiplagat, silver medal in 5000m in WJCh, became World Champion and WR holder of HM and won two times Berlin and two times Chicago. Silas Kiplagat, on the contrary, moved from 28:00 in 10 km to 3'29"27 in 1500m in less than 7 months.

And if you look at Eliud Kipchoge, the situation is the same, of course at very higher level.

The only reason it's unusual is because it's unusual for people to attempt to run different distances close together.

Any time a person does this and puts any reasonable amount of effort in they tend to run a comparable performance even if they haven't '"trained" for it.

Steve Ovett jogged a 1;05 half while in mile racing shape.

It's easy to improve some of the studies that have been done on sub-elites. For example, in this Kenyan study: 1) Include pre-training phase before the intervention 2) Include a placebo group 3) Double-blind 4) Give the participants an incentive to try during the time-trials, rather than running 85-90% of their predicted "clean" potential

physics defiant wrote:

...there's never going to be a study done on the top runners because they are not allowed to openly dope in a study and race at the top.

rekrunner wrote:

It's easy to improve some of the studies that have been done on sub-elites.

For example, in this Kenyan study:

1) Include pre-training phase before the intervention

2) Include a placebo group

3) Double-blind

4) Give the participants an incentive to try during the time-trials, rather than running 85-90% of their predicted "clean" potential

physics defiant wrote:

...there's never going to be a study done on the top runners because they are not allowed to openly dope in a study and race at the top.

You'd still move the goalposts.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

There is no data that has been collected in elite, lifetime altitude acclimated athletes indicating that...

Well, there are no data collected by scientists on EPO doping elite athletes, period. The only data we have are their race results.

What we do have, is an apparently undivided opinion among the experts cited here, that blood/EPO doping helps at the very top by 1% - 3%.

casual obsever wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

There is no data that has been collected in elite, lifetime altitude acclimated athletes indicating that...

Well, there are no data collected by scientists on EPO doping elite athletes, period. The only data we have are their race results.

What we do have, is an apparently undivided opinion among the experts cited here, that blood/EPO doping helps at the very top by 1% - 3%.

+1

I only ever move them back to the original starting point.

and one more thing etc. wrote:

You'd still move the goalposts.

It's better you don't speak about methodology, because you really don't understand how it works.

Do you understand that 1:05 in HM is a little bit slower than the WR for women ? Of course an athlete like Ovett could run a HM in 65' in every moment of the year, but 65' in HM means 4'05" in one mile, and has nothing to do with the possibility to be at TOP level, with the same value, at the same time, in very different distances.

Shaheen ran, 6 days after winning Golden Gala in July 2005 in 7'56" (3000 steeple), 37 km in Iten in 2:01', giving 5 minutes to the Kenyan Marathon team preparing WCh of Helsinki. This is a great performance for a steeple runner, and shows that always, during the season, a top athlete of those distances MUST be aerobically ready for running fast long distances.

However, we can translate that training in a marathon in 2:13' - 2:14' at sea level, and this can't be compared with the value of steeple (number one in the world vs. number 300).

Hi Renato:

You wrote this in another thread:

"During the preparation for a marathon athletes have to optimize their "specific marathon speed endurance", that substantially means long and fast run, even paced or using variations (for example, 7k+6k+5k+4k+3k+2k starting with 7k at Marathon Pace and increasing, for every distance, the pace for 2" per km, with 1k of recovery at 80% of MP).

For these reasons, after the race the athletes have less muscle strength and less elasticity/reactivity.

We need to work, during the first 6 weeks after the race, for recruiting these qualities, using circuits, short intervals and gym.

The fact that, if athletes understand the right way of training, from a Marathon is possible to run fast on track, can be confirmed by some excellent example :

a) After running her first marathon in London in 2:18, about 60 days later, Paula Radcliffe, in 2002, destroyed her PB in 3000m running 8'22", after trying in 6 years (1994-2000) to move from 8'31" to 8'28" using a lot of speed.

b) In 2010, Geoffrey Mutai ran under 2:05 in Rotterdam, and Wilson Kiprop in 2:09:09 in Prague (9th May). After, they went to 10000m, running at the end of June (so, for Wilson 47 days later) in 27:26 (Wilson) and 27:27 (Geoffrey) during the National Kenyan Champs, WR in altitude, and one month later Wilson won African Champs in 27'32" with Geoffrey number 3. And, in October, Wilson became the World Champion in HM, and Geoffrey ran in Berlin 2:05 again.

c) In 2000m, my Italian Record Holder, Maura Viceconte, beated the National Record of Marathon winning Vienna (21st May) in 2:23:47, after 3 weeks bettered her PB in 5000m (15:18 from 15:45) during the European Cup, and at the end of July improved the NR of 10000m in 31:05.54.

d) Last year, exactly 44 days after running 2:03:06 in Boston, Moses Mosop destroyed the WR of 30,000m on track in Eugene, running 1:26:47 (technically better than his 2:03 in Marathon), and 31 days after Boston was able to run on track (2400m, earth) 18 x 1000m with the first 2:45, 16 times 2:42 and the last in 2:36, with 1:20 recovery.

We can have a lot of other examples. One thing in common : after the marathon, instead relaxing, these athletes used the big aerobic base they built for developing the specific speed endurance requested for the shorter distances."

Do you think Radcliffe and Viceconte would have run even faster on the track with some training other than the marathon training that they did?

Thanks.

He wasn't racing all out and the WR was only a few minutes faster. This was before EPO and magic methodology was a thing, remember.

If there is a consensus view amongst the three sources, it is that blood doping works, but if the variety of opinion on an item was from 1 to 3 percent in some other area (such as GDP forecast etc. ) it hardly would be called "undivided opinion". One can even question the low end estimate, because Randy Eichner's "a few seconds" in 10,000 sounds less than one percent 17 seconds (at least to me).

My reading is also that the estimated improvements are blood doped speed gains when compared to baseline, not gains in excess of what Hb elevation-induced improvements via hypoxic/high altitude/LHTL - training regimen can provide.

Mike Ashenden apparently doesn't have a high opinion about those methods and considers them more or less same as the baseline, whereas Jim Stray-Gundersen (one author listed in the source material behind Malm's 3 % estimate) has specifically stated that blood doping-like improvements are possible via other and legal methods pointing out that half of the 2001 XC World Championships medallists had no hematological abnormalities (they looked beyond Hb/%ret).

Because Michele Ferrari was quoted earlier, it is interesting that according to author Michael Shermer, his opinion was in 2012 that performance enhancing effect of blood doping is significant:

When he reviewed the 2017 Mt. Ventoux study in his 53x12 website, he sounds suddenly not too convinced even when he acknowledges that it is hard to believe that there is no improvement:

Mo farah may have done 3 and 28 in 1,5 mt but that is his best result on all distances. You must have a meter if not, it is fried air. Or you must compare in proportion with the records of the world or with a score like that of the decathlon.

If mo farah do 3 and 28, it means that its prininpal qualities are VO2 max + lactacide, not others. He can not for example be able to draw a better time in HM than in 10K. It does not happen that way, if it happens it is because the athlete has still had a few occasions to compete to set the times.

From the best attitude, the time gradually worsens in a fan-shaped progressive way, if the distance is intermediate as a 5k they get worse both towards 800 and towards the marathon.

if you study the pb of the athletes you will notice that the distance that is often out of place is 2000 meters because it is little frequented in the race and it can happen that an athlete who has an attitude on 5k has a better time on 800 than 2000, BUT this is IMPOSSIBLE.

In reference to Steve Ovett, his best time is about 1500, then his 1000 meters is best of his 800.

Now we look at the opposite side: its mile is better than its 2000 and its 2000 meters is better than its 3000 meters which at its turn is better than its 5000 which is better than its half marathon in 65' ...

Indeed it would still have room to improve the 65 'but it would be even worse than its 5000 mt ...

This is to say starting from the attitude, which can be the peak of a pyramid, then the times get worse on both sides of the pyramid in a progressive way, for Ovett it is impossible to make a HM better than his 3 or 5k times.

physics defiant wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

No, its not. Not in the scientific sense. They are "interesting case reports", nothing more, nothing less...............until established otherwise through a sound scientific approach.

Of course.. Drug apologists must be relieved that there's never going to be a study done on the top runners because they are not allowed to openly dope in a study and race at the top.

So round and round they go with their dodging the issue.

Has nothing to do with being an "apologist" or not. Want the information one way or another? Do the study. WADA can fund it. Otherwise you don't really know.

casual obsever wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

There is no data that has been collected in elite, lifetime altitude acclimated athletes indicating that...

Well, there are no data collected by scientists on EPO doping elite athletes, period. The only data we have are their race results.

What we do have, is an apparently undivided opinion among the experts cited here, that blood/EPO doping helps at the very top by 1% - 3%.

Based on what data? Observation? Observation of who, and based on what exactly? Thats why opinions, even among so called "experts", are still only that. Opinions. Want to find out without a shadow of doubt (assuming of course study design is sound)? Do the study. Do it correctly. Have it peer reviewed. Publish it for all to see. I was involved with a degenerative disease primary and secondary prevention program many years ago that the founders had made certain "claims" about, based on currently available scientific information. The program was widely criticized by a number of healthcare professionals, and rightly so, for making claims that had not yet been scientifically validated, despite being theoretically sound. So we established a research foundation, funded it and did the scientific research. Data was gathered, peer reviewed, presented at scientific conferences and published. Published studies by others subsequently confirmed the data we had presented and published. Point is, the studies were done that validated the scientific validity of the program. Thats the way it works. Opinions don't mean sh!t in the scientific world. So in the absence of hard data, Mr. Canova, given his direct work with elite level, altitude adjusted athletes is the expert, until proven otherwise by sound scientific research.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

So in the absence of hard data, Mr. Canova, given his direct work with elite level, altitude adjusted athletes is the expert, until proven otherwise by sound scientific research.

a) There is a difference between estimate and opinion. (But yes, as I said, we don't have the scientific evidence, one way or the other.)

b) Mr. Canova also said that he had zero experience with EPO.

c) Rosa and Aden appear to think differently, and appear to have experience with EPO and elite level, altitude adjusted athletes.

in all these "scientific" studies, never there is a clear idea about the performances that can be achieved by CLEAN athletes, and when somebody is able running faster than the IDEA of the limit (in the mind of the "believers" in doping), the same researchers are not able to explain WHY, so arrive to the wrong conclusion that are doped, not still caught.

I work on the ground, with the athletes, every day. There are coaches that I respect, not because are my friends, but because I know their passion, their knowledge and their ethic. For example, Patrick Sang and Brother Colm. These coaches are always in touch with their athletes, who are not "free dogs", but professional runners staying together in a well structured training camp, with full control and full assistance. The same happens now, and happened in the past, with the athletes I coached, helped in the past by Peter Matu (who for two years was the head coach of Kenya, too), and in the last two years by John Litei, all persons very strict, with big values, and passion for athletics (not for money).

Now, I want to give you a list of CLEAN athletes we coached, for every event.

800m (under 1:43.50)

1:40.91 David Rudisha London 09.08.2012 Brother Colm (WR)

1:43.03 Kennedy Kimwetich Stuttgart 19.07.1998 Renato Canova

1:43.12 Wycliffe Kinyamal London 22.07.2018 Patrick Sang

1:43.33 Joseph Mutua Zurich 16.08.2002 Renato Canova

1:43.40 Leonard Kosencha Monaco 20.07.2012 Renato Canova

1500m (under 3:30.50)

3:27.64 Silas Kiplagat Monaco 18.07.2014 Renato Canova

3:28.81 Ronald Kwemoi Monaco 18.07.2014 Renato Canova

3:29.47 Augustine Choge Berlin 14.06.2009 Brother Colm

3:29.50 Caleb Ndiku Monaco 19.07.2013 Renato Canova

3:29.77 Nixon Chepseba Monaco 20.07.2012 Patrick Sang

3:30.34 Collins Cheboi Monaco 17.07.2015 Renato Canova

Mile (under 3:50.00)

3:47.88 Silas Kiplagat Eugene 31.05.2014 Renato Canova

3:47.97 Daham Bashir (David Nyaga) Oslo 29.07.2005 Renato Canova

3:49.04 Ronald Kwemoi Eugene 27.05.2017 Renato Canova

3:49.56 Collins Cheboi Eugene 31.05.2014 Renato Canova

3:49.77 Caleb Ndiku Eugene 04.06.2011 Renato Canova

3000m (under 7:31.00)

7:27.55 Edwin Soi Doha 06.05.2011 Renato Canova

7:27.66 Eliud Kipchoge Doha 06.05.2011 Patrick Sang

7:28.28 James Kwalia Bruxelles 03.09.2004 Renato Canova

7:28.72 Isaac Songok Rieti 27.08.2006 Brother Colm

7:28.73 Ronald Kwemoi Doha 05.05.2017 Renato Canova

7:28.76 Augustin Choge Doha 06.05.2011 Brother Colm

7:30.09 Thomas Longosiwa Doha 08.05.2009 Renato Canova

7:30.15 Vincent Chepkok Doha 06.05.2011 Patrick Sang

7:30.76 Jamal Bilal Salem (Katui) Doha 13.05.2005 Renato Canova

7:30.99 Caleb Ndiku Stockholm 17.08.2012 Renato Canova

Back when I was much more in academia, and heavily involved with ACSM, I had the opportunity to attend a presentation by a very well respected researcher at an ACSM national meeting. I remember wondering how many of the people in the room, most of them well respected researchers themselves knew exactly who was presenting. As I found out following, from discussion with a number of them, not that many. The presenter was Peter Snell. My point is that researchers and physiologists as a group, know next to nothing about training.....concepts, cycles, etc. Most were not athletes themselves...... not all but most. Most never coached. Most did not follow competitive athletics to any degree. They deal fundamentally in the theoretical analysis of performance, not in the practical application of sound coaching to performance. So most cannot wrap their heads around the fact that elite levels of performance may well be just that......elite levels of performance as directed by outstanding coaches. The coaches intuitively determine what works with each athlete, training is based on continual analysis of training response and racing performance. I know full well that EPO and other PED's are in use. PED's were in use when I was competing. The question at hand is whether EPO infers significant performance benefit vs what can be done by training alone. In some sub classes of athletes, sub elite for example, quite possibly. Your contention is that in the elite altitude acclimated athlete, probably not. Certainly the data isn't there to support one way or another but my vote would be with your position.