Lydiard Imitations

Alberto Contadoro wrote:

I think we agree fully in the case of Lombard, im just stating that the full 4 minutes can not be attributed to the drug. I am 100% sure he also become more professional and systematic with regards to training, recovery and life situation and that those factors contribute to a significant (at least half of the absolute improvement). Of course getting from 28.30 to 27.30 is much harder than from 30 to 29.

Gypsy does also speak the truth, the juice is pointless (and can of course also be conterproductive if not used with the right timing in the right doses in conjunction with the right training).

That's another point, from what I recall, Lombard was not using the epo at the right times and sequence to make any difference to his competitive times. The Lombard Paradox (little joke).

The drug argument is like people standing looking at a wall, and they don't see the forest behind them. They keep looking for more crevices in the wall.

This is why there are 28xx marathoners running 2:10 marathons, because they have done the training for this, but others can only run 2:15-18. Look at Joan Benoit, who had low speed for 10k yet ran 2:21 for the marathon. It was not due to drugs but her training, and many other examples.

So it is not correct to say that someone needs to have drugs/epo to carry speed over distance.

Again no one has answered the question, why did P Radliffe run 2:15? Was that due to some drug? If not, then drugs are not necessary, and certainly not important - nothing to worry about unless danger from taking them.

Tom fits well into your original topic. He was a great "Lydiard imitator." His whole approach is a result of reading "Run to the Top" in 1964 or '65.

You cannot discount the effect of having pacers from the start to the finish in Radcliffe's performance. As far as whether or not she took drugs, who knows? She's never failed a test but neither did Marion Jones or Regina Jacobs.

There is a huge difference between saying "I am clean and my athletes are clean" versus someone who says PEDs don't work. When someone says drugs don't work it is a huge red flag. During the '60s and '70s when steroid use exploded and the mainstream population yet wasn't fully aware of how powerful the drugs were and how widespread the use was in the sprints and weight events and weightlifing and powerlifting and body building and Pro Football starting with the San Diego Chargers in 1964, etc. A common claim by the users was that the drugs don't really work. Most doctors also said at the time steroids didn't work. Arnold Schwarzenneg was typical of the period saying "they really don't help much for someone with great genetics and my current level of development, I only took them for psychological reasons."

Canova saying that EPO doesn't work is a huge red flag.

Also how do you place a poster such as JR on ignore? Does that feature exist on this site?

HRE wrote:

You cannot discount the effect of having pacers from the start to the finish in Radcliffe's performance. As far as whether or not she took drugs, who knows? She's never failed a test but neither did Marion Jones or Regina Jacobs.

Agreed, or maybe some other reason too.

little one wrote:

how do you place a poster such as JR on ignore? Does that feature exist on this site?

Just keep ignoring the truth, it should be easy for you.

Little One, you can remove the red flag, because I fully confirm what I already said. And I explain how.

1) The athletes born and living in altitude DON'T HAVE any stimulus from that situation, but a different type of advantage, connected with the ADAPTATION.

Synthetically, when an athlete living at sea level goes to altitude, there is a new stimulus coming from the lack of oxygen, and the answer of the body (in individual percentage) is to sollecitate the medulla in producing more erythroicytes. So, at the end of the story, these athletes HAVE A HIGHER HAEMATOCRYT BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE RED CELLS.

Instead, for an athlete living and training in altitude, this fact doesn't give any stimulus, BUT HE NEEDS TO FIND A DIFFERENT ADAPTATION.

Because haematocryt is the product of the number of RBC (red cells) per their volume (MCV), we can have a high haematocryt or because the number of RBD grows, or because the volume is bigger.

In the case of African top runners, their MCV has a value very much higher than in the case of athletes coming from sea level. For this type of athletes, the MCV is about 85-88, and doesn't change after a period in altitude : what can change is the number of RBC.

In the case of top African runners, instead, we can find a number of RBC not very high, but a big MCV (100-110).

What does it mean ? That every RBC has more plasma (so contains more liquid percentage) with consequently LESS VISCOSITY. This is the big advantage for this type of athletes, and if we give EPO we enhance the viscosity (and the disadvantage is bigger than the advantages).

2) The top African runners have very elastic tissues, not only in their muscles, but also in their internal apparatus. After a period of 3-4 months of hard aerobic training, THEY CAN INCREASE THEIR TOTAL VOLUME OF BLOOD OF ABOUT 25%, so they have one anf half liter of blood MORE THAN BEFORE in their body. And this is the reason because they are able to improve so quickly (so they can transport more oxygen because they have MORE HAEMOGLOBIN because they have more blood, and the same blood can go more frequently to the fibers because, due to the low viscosity and consequentely less periferal resistance, the circulation is faster. AND ATHLETES WITHOUT THIS KIND OF ELASTICITY DON'T HAVE THE POSSIBILITY TO ENHANCE THE TOTAL VOLUME OF BLOOD, BECAUSE THE BLOOD DOESN'T HAVE THE PLACE TO STAY.

3) In about 600 blood tests I had with the best my athletes (African or Italian) in the University of Torino I always saw that, GROWING THE SHAPE, the value of haematocryt becomers lower. Gelindo Bordin won OG in 1988 with an haematocryt of 41.2 and haemoglobin of 12.8, Maura Viceconte beated the Italian Record of Marathon (2:23:47) in 2000 with values of 37.6 and 11.6, the same values were from Maria Guida (European Champion 2002), Christopher Koskei won in 1999 World Championships with 39 something and less than 12, and Shaheen, normally with values of 49 and 16.5 when in little training, had values of 42.8 / 14.2 immediately after beating the WR.

So, my question is :

If, looking at a technical strategy for peaking in the right period, WHEN THE ATHLETES ARE IN THEIR BEST SHAPE THEIR VALUES ARE LOWER THAN WHEN ARE NOT IN SHAPE, WHY WE MUST THINK THE ATHLETES CAN RUN FAST ONLY WHEN THEY HAVE HIGH LEVEL OF HAEMATOCRYT ?

I look at the TRAINING only, and the blood values are the EFFECT of training, and, if the athlete is able to improve, it means the training is ok. So, GOOD TRAINING, GOOD RESULTS, LOW BLOOD VALUES.

Instead, especially in cycling, many look at the values as CAUSE, not as effect.

For that reason, I repeat : I never said blood doping doesn't work (also if in my opinion can give little advantage, no more than 30"/40" in 10000m) WITH NORMAL ATHLETES, that don't have the elasticity of African and have a MCV of 85. BUT I SAID AND I REPEAT THAT CANT WORK WITH TOP AFRICAN RUNNERS. For them, the modifications connected with the stay and training in altitude, and their morphology, are gthe responsibles for the 100% of their improvements, and every blood doping can only reduce the advantages they have from the above situations.

Well, Coach Canova, even if one were to accept your stipulation about EPO, which I don't, that doesn't mean anabolic steroids couldn't benefit the runner in terms of recovery and other aspects. Do you think David Rudisha couldn't benefit from taking anabolic steroids?

Renato Canova wrote:

Gelindo Bordin won OG in 1988 with an haematocryt of 41.2 and haemoglobin of 12.8.

I still have the tape of that Marathon. The announcer Jim McKay explained in great detail how Bordin extracted his own blood froze it and received a tranfusion prior to competition. They were even bragging about his coaches ingenuity.

It was not illegal back then but a big no no now.

So I wouldn't be using Bordin as an example.

I don't know about these other guys.

little one wrote:

Canova saying that EPO doesn't work is a huge red flag.

When you say "it works", do you mean it raises an almost dead person's rbc's, or do you mean it makes someone fit and healthy? I have much respect for Mr. Canova, however we are not the same person. Please don't confuse us.

If epo can change the blood parameters, which doesn't mean anything, more likely that is a negative. Maybe it can make some little difference in performance, but not significantly better, probably worse. Let's say it raises the rbc's of an almost dead or out of fit person. This certainly does not make any change to lifespan or performance, which are the criteria, not a change of blood parameters or color of skin, how long the hair is etc.

So even if epo makes some non significant change that makes no difference, it is certainly not any good change that improves the health or fitness.

For these reasons and more, I say that epo does not work.

Maybe you think because epo makes some laboratory change (that does nothing for living), that this proves that epo works. We can agree that it makes some change, but the question for me is does it make any beneficial difference. Does it improve fitness or performance, and especially does it make any improvement of health or longevity?

I have to be honest and say no, and therefore the epo does not work.

However there is much paid epo and other drug propaganda, so it is good to be aware and beware of the misleading commercials.

This really explains nothing, but does give some insight into how you are thinking about all of this. I have a number of problems with some of the things you say, because they are non-sensical to me. This post has similar such things. I will add i know little to nothing about the science of EPO, so i'm glad you seem to know a hell of a lot about it Renato.

So we would need to hear from you what these disadvantages are? This cyclists seem to have a very high viscosity, and this is what they intend. How would it be different for runners?

If we believe this, then we have the perfect vehicle for blood transfusions and EPO usage combined with with some simple addition of saline solution. In fact both increased number of RBCs and increased MCV of this RBCs would be occurring, as well as an increase in total blood volume.

But the right training will enhance this in these athletes right? You already said it i just thought i would highlight it again in relation to this comment.Renato said:"I look at the TRAINING only, and the blood values are the EFFECT of training, and, if the athlete is able to improve, it means the training is ok. So, GOOD TRAINING, GOOD RESULTS, LOW BLOOD VALUES."

and i would like to know your answer to the inspectors question as well.

Could you explain this in further detail?

Cheers.

Hilversum wrote:Another version of the story can be read in "The Death of Marco Pantani" by Matt Rendel: "In the 1990s, with EPO use rampant, the cyclists would set their heart rate monitors to sound an alarm if their heart rate dropped below a certain level. On hearing the alarm, the cyclists would have to wake up, get the bike out and spend 10 minutes on the rollers, in their hotel rooms, just to jump start the circulation."

According to the most usual version, though EPO merely killed 18 Dutch and Belgian cyclists in the late 1980s and early 1990s. However, Bernat Lopez, a Spanish sports historian,seems to have an argument with this much repeated claim. If you are interested, you could read: López, B. The Invention of a ‘Drug of Mass Destruction’: Deconstructing the EPO Myth. Sport in History 31[1], 84-109. 2011. Routledge.

Seems i may have been quite out with my figures. Have to admit i am going on a very old memory.

I read the abstract but 36 bucks for the full version isn't of interest. Still, it throws up the question doesn't it. I guess i just keep coming back to the fact is is so widespread in cycling, almost so much so that it is seen as a necessity to be competitive.

Renato, sorry, but when i read your post i shake my head.

What would Dr. Conconi and Michele Ferrari say? Would they laugh or be proud of your creativity.

1. "In the case of African top runners, their MCV has a value very much higher than in the case of athletes coming from sea level. For this type of athletes, the MCV is about 85-88, and doesn't change after a period in altitude : what can change is the number of RBC.

In the case of top African runners, instead, we can find a number of RBC not very high, but a big MCV (100-110).

What does it mean ? That every RBC has more plasma (so contains more liquid percentage) with consequently LESS VISCOSITY. This is the big advantage for this type of athletes, and if we give EPO we enhance the viscosity (and the disadvantage is bigger than the advantages)."

-This is complete nonsense.

If MCV is large, (this means that each red cell is large)

peripheral resistance will be higher.

Peripheral resistance is the resistance of the blood passing through the small capillaries (that typically have sizes of the same magnitude as the blood cells (and even abit smaller, where the cells are squeezed through)).

If the size of the red blood cells increase, as you propose for the african runners, the resistance will increase since the cells will have more difficoulty passing the capillaries.

Many and very small oxygen carriers would be the ideal situation (this will be the next advanced method you read about, like Hemospan, PHER-O2 and Oxygent).

2. This is your claim, and it is true that blood volume can increase very much with training resulting in lower hematocrit (but equal or more total number of RBC).

3. This is again your claim, and i have no reason to believe it is wrong.

"If, looking at a technical strategy for peaking in the right period, WHEN THE ATHLETES ARE IN THEIR BEST SHAPE THEIR VALUES ARE LOWER THAN WHEN ARE NOT IN SHAPE, WHY WE MUST THINK THE ATHLETES CAN RUN FAST ONLY WHEN THEY HAVE HIGH LEVEL OF HAEMATOCRYT ?

I look at the TRAINING only, and the blood values are the EFFECT of training, and, if the athlete is able to improve, it means the training is ok. So, GOOD TRAINING, GOOD RESULTS, LOW BLOOD VALUES."

What is important is the total RBC mass. Better than blood doping alone, is blood doping and a plasma expander (a liquid that increase the osmolarity of the blood compared to other tissues, keeping more water inside the vessels, this can be a simple salt solution, or a more advanced starch like dextran or others).

But if you already have a very large plasma volume (like you state for africans). You are the ideal candidate for epo, since you have no need for any plasma expander.

Well, you could always sponge off on your mates who have access to a decent university library!

The good inspector is off by a few years when he writes that blood doping was not illegal in 1988 (when Gelindo Bordin won Olympic gold). Blood doping was banned in 1985.

But I'm not sure that we should assume that Bordin was doped because an announcer on US television said so (probably based on nothing more concrete than the facts that Bordin was Italian, was not American and won gold).

Did you not just a few posts earlier tell us how cyclists died in their sleep because their blood became so viscous the heart couldn't pump it around anymore?

My knowledge about the science of EPO is probably somewhere between your level of ignorance you boasted of and the level of knowledge you attributed to Renato (without in any way wishing to suggest that such level of knowledge is suspicious for someone who claims that his athletes are clean), but if the heart must pump harder due to the enhanced viscosity, wouldn't it cancel out the enhanced oxygen carrying capacity?

I thought that EPO only increases the number of RBCs and that there is no effect on MCV?

Anyway, the purpose of plasma expanders (until 2001 when tests for detecting them were approved - although it could be new kinds of plasma expanders have been developed since), human albumin or simple saline solution was to decrease the hematocrit (in cyclists) or hemoglobin (in cross-countrey skiers) so that doped athletes would pass the pre-race test.

In other words - and if I have understood it completely wrong - blood doping combined with such blood manipulation does not equal a natural increase in blood volume. You would need some other, more developed means to overcome the disadvantage of enhanced viscosity.

[quote]

If it doesn't work, why did Ramzi take it?

"My knowledge about the science of EPO is probably somewhere between your level of ignorance you boasted of and the level of knowledge you attributed to Renato (without in any way wishing to suggest that such level of knowledge is suspicious for someone who claims that his athletes are clean), but if the heart must pump harder due to the enhanced viscosity, wouldn't it cancel out the enhanced oxygen carrying capacity?"

It would eventually cancel out the enhanced carrying capacity, but not until your hematocrit is dangerously high.

The goal is not to have high hematocrit in itself, but to have many carriers (red blood cells). This can be achieved by a combination of blood boosting and volume expanders.

However epo in itself improve performance (by quite alot) also without any expander. Especially much if the athlete already have a large plasma volume compared to RBC mass, as is the case in a well trained athlete.

"Anyway, the purpose of plasma expanders (until 2001 when tests for detecting them were approved - although it could be new kinds of plasma expanders have been developed since), human albumin or simple saline solution was to decrease the hematocrit (in cyclists) or hemoglobin (in cross-countrey skiers) so that doped athletes would pass the pre-race test."

This is not the full truth. Plasma expanders also increase performance (especially in doped athletes with thick blood) due to reduced viscosity and increase in the stroke volume of the heart.

It was common practice also in the 80's before invention of epo, for performance boost. Especially in long endurance events like maraton and in cycling, where it would in addition reduce the negative effects of dehydration.

I can see how different drugs can overcome some of the "cons" -- probably of both linear and non-linear approaches, so there is some connection. I don't doubt your facts, but simply don't want to discuss them. Although doping is almost as old as the sport of running, I'm sure that athletes in the Lydiard era had less knowledge about using drugs effectively than athletes today. I guess they are clean, but if not, it might not be signficant anyway.Maybe to make my position more clear, I look to threads like these for new tidbits of information that I can use for myself, share with my kids, how to structure their training for the long term. Of course drugs in sports are an unfortunate reality, and I would briefly be prepared to say there is a dark side to the sport, and advise the kids with campaign slogans like "Just say no", or "Drugs are for losers". I am not about to start a drug regime, and don't want to give my kids a detailed drug regime with doses and timings and how to defeat drug testers, as part of their training education.The problem with bringing drugs up into a topic about training, is just what you see now -- training discussion has virtually stopped for the last two pages, while we talk about potential blood doping for Kenyans and JR's flawed logic about how EPO didn't work for his dad's health, so drugs must never work anywhere for anyone. It has effectively derailed any interesting training discussion. In that sense, the topic of drugs has a negative importance, as it sucks the value out of what is an otherwise valuable discussion.This is why I think the drug topic would be better if decoupled from a clean training discussion, maybe in another thread called "Ma Junren imitations".

Of course, I well know when I speak about blood doping (and my position never changed in my life) I go to create a lot of discussions.

Something to clarify :

a) NEVER Gelindo Bordin took anything. I don't have any problem in speaking about the past, and in Italy there were athletes using the self-transfusion (Cova, Dorio, the Selvaggio twins, Antibo, Fontanella, Scartezzini, Gerbi)during the period 1979-85, but others always refusing to do it (Panetta, Mei and precisely Bordin). So, what the speaker of TV said can be something for going to the Court, being the opposite of the reality.

b) Some of the athletes using self-transfusions (particularly Antibo) was able running very much faster AFTER quitting the practice, so I have doubt about the real effects of this procedure, becasuse Antibo is exactly the case of athletes having this practice BEFORE (with PB of 27'39") and running fast many years AFTER (his best year was 1990, 6 years after quitting the self-transfusion).

c) Some athlete of long distance tried to use this in the period between 1980 abd 1984. For example, Maurizio Damilano won OG in 1980 (20 km walking) without any practice, and because of the pressure of Italian Federation did self-transfusion before European Championships 1982. He says was the WORST comèpetition of his life, and his sensations were very bad. In 1987, without any help, he won again WCh, and in 1992 he beated the WR of 30 km on track. The same happened to Massimo Magnani, one of the most consistent Italian Marathon runners of the period : he tried the practice once, and had to drop out in the race. So, for the Italian specialists of long distances, this practice NEVER worked (apart Barbi in 2001, but this was a particular case, because he left his job for becoming full time athlete only AFTER starting the blood doping, and was able to double the mileage and to increase the quality of his training BECAUSE of that reason, not because of doping).

d) I admit everybody can have advantage (also top African) in their performance using GH or steroids, and this is exactly what happens in cycling. But we are speaking about EPO, not about other kinds of doping.

e) About what Conconi and Ferrari think, I want to give you an anedoct. In 1999, the daughter of Michele Ferrari, Sara, was with me in training together Maura Viceconte and Maria Guida before the European Challenge of 10000m. We did blood tests for all the ladies, and their haematocryt was before 37 and 39 (for ALL of them). When the father of Sara saw the values, he told me we never could go running, because they were completely out of shape. Under my point of view, their training was very good, so I didn't believe in the bad effects of low values.

They went, and everybody destroyed their PB. Sara (previous PB was 33'08") ran 32'27", Maura moved from 32'49" to 32'05", and Maria Guida ran under 32'.

So, I think these doctors have their convinctions, depending on the fact they use the practice for enhancing the values, and after there are good results. But NEVER they tried to have results looking at training, and not at a different physiology.

At the end of every thing, they know what can happen increasing the blood values, BUT DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENS INCREASING TRAINING.

Everybody has to do their job, and a doctor is not a methodologist neither a coach, BUT SAYS HE'S A COACH FOR RECEIVING MONEY FROM THE ATHLETES SPEAKING ABOUT ADVANCED SCIENCE FOR CHEATING OTHER ATHLETES AND THE INSTITUTIONS.

Sorry, this is not my goal.

Alberto Contadoro wrote:

This is not the full truth. Plasma expanders also increase performance (especially in doped athletes with thick blood) due to reduced viscosity and increase in the stroke volume of the heart.

It was common practice also in the 80's before invention of epo, for performance boost. Especially in long endurance events like maraton and in cycling, where it would in addition reduce the negative effects of dehydration.

FWIW when six Finnish XC skiers tested positive for Hemohes (a plasma expander) during the WChs in 2011, it was the unanimous opinion of the coaches of Norway and Sweden (i.e. the "clean" countries, if there are any), sports physiologists and anti-doping Dr.Meds that the Finns could not have any other use for it (than to lower the Hb below) because the kind of advantages you mention were insignificant (compared to normal, allowed methods of fluid intake and replacement.

But granted: I know far too little to disagree vehemently with your view.