Cherrypicked stats, as usual. The main point that WADA makes is that T and F is amongst a bunch of dirty sports when it comes to doping.
Surely even you must be able to comprehend that 173 ADRVs out of 34,576 samples tested (0.5%) is not quite as bad as 172 ADRVs out of 930 samples tested (18.5%).
You allege that it is WADA who makes a main point, but I have only seen your own recollection of what you think WADA said.
The WADA observations grouping T and F with sports like cycling, weightlifting and bodybuilding (all dirty) for risk of doping is reinforced by confidential athletes surveys that suggest doping could be more than 1 in 2 athletes at championship level. With Kenyans today, the incidence is likely to be even higher.
Surely even you must be able to comprehend that 173 ADRVs out of 34,576 samples tested (0.5%) is not quite as bad as 172 ADRVs out of 930 samples tested (18.5%).
You allege that it is WADA who makes a main point, but I have only seen your own recollection of what you think WADA said.
The WADA observations grouping T and F with sports like cycling, weightlifting and bodybuilding (all dirty) for risk of doping is reinforced by confidential athletes surveys that suggest doping could be more than 1 in 2 athletes at championship level. With Kenyans today, the incidence is likely to be even higher.
Surely even you must be able to comprehend that 173 ADRVs out of 34,576 samples tested (0.5%) is not quite as bad as 172 ADRVs out of 930 samples tested (18.5%).
You allege that it is WADA who makes a main point, but I have only seen your own recollection of what you think WADA said.
The WADA observations grouping T and F with sports like cycling, weightlifting and bodybuilding (all dirty) for risk of doping is reinforced by confidential athletes surveys that suggest doping could be more than 1 in 2 athletes at championship level. With Kenyans today, the incidence is likely to be even higher.
Are you saying you cannot even comprehend the difference?
Why do you keep saying WADA observations? So far these are just your own "observations".
Similarly, the suggestion that doping could be more than 1 in 2 athletes is also yours, not coming from any confidential athlete survey -- even before considering the accuracy and reliability of such surveys.
In the end over 400 Kenyans have been banned in relatively short time. Nation of cheats. End of discussion. The Aman case points to other problems as well, least of which is Ethiopia is a land of cheats as well.
In the end over 400 Kenyans have been banned in relatively short time. Nation of cheats. End of discussion. The Aman case points to other problems as well, least of which is Ethiopia is a land of cheats as well.
Is Epiopian federation covering for its athletes? Is that what you saying?
In the end over 400 Kenyans have been banned in relatively short time. Nation of cheats. End of discussion. The Aman case points to other problems as well, least of which is Ethiopia is a land of cheats as well.
Is Epiopian federation covering for its athletes? Is that what you saying?
Of course they are. Hell, WADA officialsrun interference for third world countries anyway. “For the good of the sport” of course. Look at all the sneakiness in the Aman case. They only face real tests if they get old and fall off, or if they’re second or third raters. Cheers
An investigative journalist (I forgot who) found it was easy to purchase EPO at a pharmacy in Ethiopia.
However, the Ethiopian highlanders have genetic adaptation to altitude that is unique and different than Tibetans and Andeans. I don't know all the details. It seems that hemoglobin/hematocrit is not the only adaptation to altitude in some ethnic groups.
Compare that with natural hematocrit of various ethnicities living at altitude and consider detrimental effect of hypoxia on mitochondria adaptations through training.
HIF stabilizers -> natural EPO and VEGF
Metabolic modulators -> mitochondria adaptations
Look at WADA's threshold limits document. The AICAR research is missing.
Look at molidustat curve and WADA lab requirements. And 2 HIF stabilizers are missing.
I'm not sure what this is in response to. Are you responding to "why that would be relevant to top marathon performance"? Because nothing in your post, or the study, talks about or attempts to make any connection to top marathon performance.
The linked study proposes a new model for calculating the optimal hematocrit. It is a proposed theoretical model, and in the authors own words, simplified.
Assuming for argument that the model is accurate enough, because it fits the existing data rather well, it is a calculation of an "optimal" amount of hematocrit, suggesting too little, or too much, is sub-optimal. As the focus is "optimal" rather than "maximal", increasing hematocrit may be better, or may be worse. Is altitude exposure at 2000m-3000m already optimal, or still sub-optimal? In other words, "does that mean that altitude based athletes needed EPO, or as was suggested, that more would be better?"
Maybe it's more interesting to look, not at the cases of altitude athletes taking EPO, but the case of sea-level athletes, who arguably would have a less optimal hematocrit than permanent altitude residents, and more to gain from increased hematocrit. Yet sea-level athletes descended from 5-continents struggle to go below 2:05, something Paul Tergat, currently ranked #111th all-time fastest, did in 2003.
But before I start to get excited about HIF stabilizers, and natural EPO and VEGF and metabolic modulators and mitochondria adaptations and AICAR and molidustat and WADA lab requirements and 2 HIF stabilizers, what is it that suggests it is connected to enhanced top distance running performance, beyond theory and speculation?
Have you not heard about all the cyclists in the 90's? Their hematocrits were in the mid-50's, and they used saline bags to drop below 50 to pass the tests. These days, there is not a 50% cutoff but a passport and EPO test instead. Bjorne Riis (sp?) had a nickname: "Mr. Sixty." That was just speculation, but it was clear that 50% was sub-optimal.
I have to question your sincerity in these discussions. Not sure I want to waste my time if nobody is taking you seriously. We can dig through studies on natural hematocrit if there's legit interest though.
An investigative journalist (I forgot who) found it was easy to purchase EPO at a pharmacy in Ethiopia.
However, the Ethiopian highlanders have genetic adaptation to altitude that is unique and different than Tibetans and Andeans. I don't know all the details. It seems that hemoglobin/hematocrit is not the only adaptation to altitude in some ethnic groups.
In 1950's Ethiopia, there was national conscription.
All soldiers had to do running tests. Any soldiers who displayed talent were sent to elite training camps at altitude modelled on those of the GDR (even GDR athletes like Beyer and Straub trained in them!).
Abebe Bikila was picked out that way and given the best training in the world that was possible back then, full-time 150 MPW, including track sessions.
Yet he 'only' ended up running 2:12.
In other words, he was a 1 in a million talent (as in 1 in a million Ethiopians), and trained full-time in ways decades ahead of his rivals. He was very likely doped too, with whatever was available back then.
But they didn't have EPO and possibly not blood doping yet.
Oh, and if the Australian Olympic team organizers weren't so incompetent, Herb Elliott would have entered the marathon for a laugh and likely destroyed him in Rome.
Instead, he's laughably held up as the first evidence of the 'natural born altitude gene modified East African'.
Similarly, the suggestion that doping could be more than 1 in 2 athletes is also yours, not coming from any confidential athlete survey -- even before considering the accuracy and reliability of such surveys.
What do you not understand, the word "could" or the expression "95% confidence interval"? Just ask, instead of making false claims.
Doping appears remarkably widespread among elite athletes, and remains largely unchecked despite current biological testing. The survey technique presented here will allow future investigators to generate continued reference...
In 1950's Ethiopia, there was national conscription.
All soldiers had to do running tests. Any soldiers who displayed talent were sent to elite training camps at altitude modelled on those of the GDR (even GDR athletes like Beyer and Straub trained in them!).
Abebe Bikila was picked out that way and given the best training in the world that was possible back then, full-time 150 MPW, including track sessions.
Yet he 'only' ended up running 2:12.
In other words, he was a 1 in a million talent (as in 1 in a million Ethiopians), and trained full-time in ways decades ahead of his rivals. He was very likely doped too, with whatever was available back then.
But they didn't have EPO and possibly not blood doping yet.
Oh, and if the Australian Olympic team organizers weren't so incompetent, Herb Elliott would have entered the marathon for a laugh and likely destroyed him in Rome.
Instead, he's laughably held up as the first evidence of the 'natural born altitude gene modified East African'.
Bikila only won 12 of 13 marathons in his prime, and garnered a lackluster two Olympic golds including one without shoes. Clear evidence that Ethiopians can’t have talent. His hyper-specific drug regimen of “whatever was available back then” is the only reason he broke 3 hours.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Assuming for argument that the model is accurate enough, because it fits the existing data rather well, it is a calculation of an "optimal" amount of hematocrit, suggesting too little, or too much, is sub-optimal. As the focus is "optimal" rather than "maximal", increasing hematocrit may be better, or may be worse. Is altitude exposure at 2000m-3000m already optimal, or still sub-optimal? In other words, "does that mean that altitude based athletes needed EPO, or as was suggested, that more would be better?"
"We show that the optimal HCT under constant power ranges from 0.5 to 0.7, in agreement with observed values in natural blood dopers at exertion."
Dopers try to go above 0.5, as numerous examples show. No one ever (that we have seen from the many published blood doping cases) reached 0.7, some reached 0.55 - 0.6.
So your question has already been answered: normally the athletes have too little. Jeptoo was the first case showing that iirc.
Have you not heard about all the cyclists in the 90's? Their hematocrits were in the mid-50's, and they used saline bags to drop below 50 to pass the tests. These days, there is not a 50% cutoff but a passport and EPO test instead. Bjorne Riis (sp?) had a nickname: "Mr. Sixty." That was just speculation, but it was clear that 50% was sub-optimal.
I have to question your sincerity in these discussions. Not sure I want to waste my time if nobody is taking you seriously. We can dig through studies on natural hematocrit if there's legit interest though.
I do not want to talk about hematocrit, or any of these other things, unless and until you can make the link to enhanced marathon performances.
You are wasting your time if you talk about everything but marathon performances.
I have heard about the cyclists in the '90s, but I'm not familiar with their marathon times, although I think Lance ran under 2:50.
In the end over 400 Kenyans have been banned in relatively short time. Nation of cheats. End of discussion. The Aman case points to other problems as well, least of which is Ethiopia is a land of cheats as well.
Whether it is the end of the discussion depends on the discussion. It is also the beginning of many discussions.
Similarly, the suggestion that doping could be more than 1 in 2 athletes is also yours, not coming from any confidential athlete survey -- even before considering the accuracy and reliability of such surveys.
What do you not understand, the word "could" or the expression "95% confidence interval"? Just ask, instead of making false claims.
The estimated prevalence of past-year doping was 43.6% (95% confidence interval 39.4-47.9) at WCA
Looking into details: the attachment has a couple of scenarios that went over those 43.6%.
So the "dishonesty" all hinges on the word "could"? It could also be "1 in 1", or "1 in 100".
I understood the word "suggests", and there was no such suggestion in the study you linked. Even the 95% confidence interval is below 1 in 2.
I understood the word "surveys" is plural, but it seems that this is the only one involving World Championship Athletes.
Using your same "honest" arguments, with 95% confidence, an anonymous survey suggests that doping at the same World Championship could be just 9.69% -- it could be under 1 in 10 athletes.
Assuming for argument that the model is accurate enough, because it fits the existing data rather well, it is a calculation of an "optimal" amount of hematocrit, suggesting too little, or too much, is sub-optimal. As the focus is "optimal" rather than "maximal", increasing hematocrit may be better, or may be worse. Is altitude exposure at 2000m-3000m already optimal, or still sub-optimal? In other words, "does that mean that altitude based athletes needed EPO, or as was suggested, that more would be better?"
"We show that the optimal HCT under constant power ranges from 0.5 to 0.7, in agreement with observed values in natural blood dopers at exertion."
Dopers try to go above 0.5, as numerous examples show. No one ever (that we have seen from the many published blood doping cases) reached 0.7, some reached 0.55 - 0.6.
So your question has already been answered: normally the athletes have too little. Jeptoo was the first case showing that iirc.
What dopers try to do doesn't begin to answer any of my questions -- how many dopers have run 2:07 because of a higher than natural hematocrit? or sub-2:05?
Who already answered "normally the athletes have too little"? While Jeptoo is an example of an East African athlete taking EPO, nothing answers, and nobody has answered, whether she needed it.
The study also doesn't say what values are typical for athletes who go to altitude, or who are born and raised at altitude, and whether their values are already optimal, with respect to their best marathon performances.
In the study, "natural blood dopers" refers to animals like horses, which have the ability to release extra red blood cells from their spleen during intense efforts. Humans are different, in that intense exercise can also cause the hematocrit to increase during the effort, from resting values, but this is due to plasma volume changes.
In 1950's Ethiopia, there was national conscription.
All soldiers had to do running tests. Any soldiers who displayed talent were sent to elite training camps at altitude modelled on those of the GDR (even GDR athletes like Beyer and Straub trained in them!).
Abebe Bikila was picked out that way and given the best training in the world that was possible back then, full-time 150 MPW, including track sessions.
Yet he 'only' ended up running 2:12.
In other words, he was a 1 in a million talent (as in 1 in a million Ethiopians), and trained full-time in ways decades ahead of his rivals. He was very likely doped too, with whatever was available back then.
But they didn't have EPO and possibly not blood doping yet.
Oh, and if the Australian Olympic team organizers weren't so incompetent, Herb Elliott would have entered the marathon for a laugh and likely destroyed him in Rome.
Instead, he's laughably held up as the first evidence of the 'natural born altitude gene modified East African'.
Bikila only won 12 of 13 marathons in his prime, and garnered a lackluster two Olympic golds including one without shoes. Clear evidence that Ethiopians can’t have talent. His hyper-specific drug regimen of “whatever was available back then” is the only reason he broke 3 hours.
The WADA observations grouping T and F with sports like cycling, weightlifting and bodybuilding (all dirty) for risk of doping is reinforced by confidential athletes surveys that suggest doping could be more than 1 in 2 athletes at championship level. With Kenyans today, the incidence is likely to be even higher.
The WADA observations grouping T and F with sports like cycling, weightlifting and bodybuilding (all dirty) for risk of doping is reinforced by confidential athletes surveys that suggest doping could be more than 1 in 2 athletes at championship level. With Kenyans today, the incidence is likely to be even higher.
Are you saying you cannot even comprehend the difference?
Why do you keep saying WADA observations? So far these are just your own "observations".
Similarly, the suggestion that doping could be more than 1 in 2 athletes is also yours, not coming from any confidential athlete survey -- even before considering the accuracy and reliability of such surveys.
There isn't a significant difference, except to a cherry-picking doping apologist. T and F is just another dirty sport. Nothing you say changes that.
