Literate Man wrote:
Strange then that Kenya's most high profile busts in recent times, Rita Jeptoo and Mathew Kisorio, were felled by out-of-competition tests in Kenya.
It's shocking.
Imagine how many they would catch if they were actually subject to something more than the 5th rate testing regime they currently are?
A detection window of over a year? Any documentation of this? That seems to make it almost useless. OTOH Nandro was a more common bust in Western countries 10-15 years ago. Can anyone confirm or deny?
Querfeldein wrote:
The reason so many second-tier Kenyans have tested positive for Nandrolone ("Norandrosterone" is a Nadrolone metabolite) is that it's cheap, effective, and widely available.
The reason elite runners in other countries aren't tested for it more often is that it would now (in the 2010s) be stupid to take a drug with a detection window of over a year, in a country that has a functioning drug testing system. Obviously, prior to the swathe of nandrolone busts, Kenyan athletes or their coaches must have felt pretty confident that they were never going to be tested. With this knowledge, it's also no surprise that the positives for Nandrolone were all for second-tier athletes, as those who compete in the top international races would risk testing positive for nandrolone even in-competition.
It's hard to believe that all the second-tier Kenyans dope, while the top-tier Kenyans are clean - it appears much more likely that they simply use less easily detectable methods.
I don't think that Kenyans are any worse than athletes from other countries, but I do think Athletics Kenya is particularly corrupt, and the Kenyan Anti Doping Agency is particularly bad, which makes it easier for runners who have the advantage of doping to rise to the top.
rekrunner wrote:
I don't see how you can interpret it more than one way, when you see "huge success" in it's original context.
Just the same, I followed up with clarification which also needs a response.
fred wrote:The context of your question could be interpreted in many ways and consequently only the exact question needs a response.
I suppose that you don't see a lot of things. That's OK. It's probably that the mood stabilizers have lost their effectiveness.
I never was joined with any doped athlete (among hundreds athletes I coached from different Country, nobody never failed some test), and now are more than two years I don't go Kenya, so I don't have any reason to defend myself or Kenyan runners (not coached by myself).
My intervention on this site, when there is some argument of doping, is for trying to explain the reality, on the side of somebody living this reality from more than 40 years.
This is my world, was my world and I hope can be still for some time my world, since I'm now 71 and don't have a long future ahead.
May be I'm like "Don Quijote", fighting against windmills, but I don't accept as reality opinions not considering all the real facts, and stereotypes coming from the belly instead that from the brain.
Put in your mind I coached in Kenya for 16 years, staying in Iten about 6-9 months per year, producing some of the WR holders and world Champions, so I suppose to know the Kenyan reality better than the most part of LR posters.
Something changed in the last 3 years (read the interview of Br. Colm), but I don't think there was a total revolution in the behavior of Kenyan runners.
Put in your mind, also, that there are not scientific and proper researches about the effect of blood doping with top athletes born, living and training in altitude. When we speak about this, everybody can only show researches with different Group of athletes, born at sea level, training in altitude (eventually) for short time, and not very strong. When we ask for some top name as example of the fact that blood doping works, the only names are Always the same : Rita Jeptoo and Mathew Kisorio (who used nandrolone), and this is very strange, if we compare the list of top African runners caught positive, with the list of top sprinters, who have more money and assistance than in Africa.
I frankly hope we can have in short time not only a working lab for antidoping in Nairobi, but also a lab for testing frequently the best runners in altitude, in order to collect new data, that partially I already have, while all the experts of antidoping don't have. The data they have about variations of values foir athletes training in altitude are very poor, and it's possible to compare them only with athletes having the most part of training at sea level, if we want to look at differences between altitude training and sea level training.
But, about Kenyans and Ethiopians, we have not to see the differences among sea level and altitude, because theyr ALWAYS have training in altitude, and NEVER there was a research about their data.
The data I have explain me something different. My "pseudo-scientific" explanation of the reasons because, in my opinion, EPO doesn't give any advantage for the top Kenyans and Ethiopians, is based on several factors :
1) I know personally that it's possible to achieve WR in many distances with athletes completely clean (800 with Rudisha, steeple with Shaheen, HM and 25-30 km with Paul Kosgei, Florence Kiplagat, Moses Mosop). For that reason, I don't think EPO can give the opportunity to run faster, and of sure not with the "official" advantages many wrote in the past (8" for 3000m, till 40"/1' in 10000m, till 3'-4' for Marathon).
2) Starting from this point of view, I tried to understand the differences between these athletes and other athletes (for example, Moroccans, who had of sure advantages taking EPO). May be nothing scientific, or better, nothing connected with the "official science", but you must remember that the "official science" NEVER studied this phenomen with this type of athletes.
3) The main difference between the blood of top African runners and the blood of caucasian athletes is in the viscosity. Kenyans and Ethiopians are able to reach, under maximal effort, a higher number of heart beats than European or American, and practically the same HR they can reach at sea level. For example, if we ask some European athlete (having normally a max HR of 200) to run at his max speed 400m uphill at sea level, or at 2400m of Iten, we can see a difference of about 10% (200 at sea level, 180 in altitude). If we ask the same for some top runner Kenyan or Ethiopian, we can see a very little difference (for example, 200 at sea level and 195 in altitude). This is due to the less viscosity of their blood.
4) We know EPO increases the ability to transport Oxygen, but at the same time the viscosity. We know it's possible to use some blood thinner, but this means to increase the volume of plasma, and it's possible only if the total volume of blood is not at the same level top athletes reach after a proper and long training in altitude, when they can increase the total volume of about 25%. In this case, we can have two situations only : or we have the same volume with high density, because there is no more space for adding plasma in the circulatory system, or we have the same volume of plasma, but also the same volume of RBC, so the effects is exactly the same of the training. I don't know if it's possible to understand my explanation, but this is what happens with the best African athletes.
5) The main effect of altitude is not the increase of RBC. We have many "responders" able running faster after going back at sea level, with the same values of Hct and Hb. So, what did change ? Tha affinity between Hb and Oxygen, in other words the ability to "catch" oxygen from the air.
This means the limiting factor is not a lack of transportation of Oxygen, but the lack of available Oxygen itself, and under this point of view EPO doesn't have any effect.
I'm not a scientist, but I have a lot of data, because you can't be a coach if you don't understand (and of course don't know) what happens inside the body, using different types of training.
For that reason, I say that there is not knowledge enough about effects of EPO and performances, when we speak about athletes living and training in altitude.
Everything we can suppose at the moment is fried air, and we need proper investigation on the phenomen, without transfer data valid for other athletes to this type of situation.
We can't study something in one type of conditions, transfering the results on situations that are completely different. Every phenomen must have a clear uniqueness, and the behavior and the body reaction to altitude training for Kenyans and Ethiopians is something specific, which never was investigated in a proper way.
Renato, you coached Rita Jeptoo when she was 18?
I would love to see her values for when you coached her, when her husband coached her, and when she tested positive for EPO.
You said that when she ran 2:23 she had the capability of a 2:21. In the years before her EPO positive she dropped to 2:19, then 2:18.xx.
People are going to say that the sub 2:19 could not happen without the EPO.
Do you think that it is possible for a 41 year old woman to run 2:22 without EPO or some type of continuous EPO receptor agent.
A Kenyan 41-year old could, but not a Russian.
Renato, just because people can set WRs clean does not mean they wouldn't benefit from doping.
Renato Canova wrote:
4) We know EPO increases the ability to transport Oxygen, but at the same time the viscosity. We know it's possible to use some blood thinner, but this means to increase the volume of plasma, and it's possible only if the total volume of blood is not at the same level top athletes reach after a proper and long training in altitude, when they can increase the total volume of about 25%. In this case, we can have two situations only : or we have the same volume with high density, because there is no more space for adding plasma in the circulatory system, or we have the same volume of plasma, but also the same volume of RBC, so the effects is exactly the same of the training. I don't know if it's possible to understand my explanation, but this is what happens with the best African athletes.
This homeostasis is the best effect of any drug treatment,
i.e. to do nothing better, but pretend to do something magic,
by lying, setting up bogus agencies and studies, all to make money,
but cannot make any advantage beyond normal means that have real results.
Mr. Canova,
I want to believe you. But then you claim the circulatory system can have a condition of "no more space."
Transfusions in elite sports not only increase performance, but defies your "no more space" hypothesis.
J.R. wrote:
This homeostasis is the best effect of any drug treatment,
i.e. to do nothing better, but pretend to do something magic,
by lying, setting up bogus agencies and studies, all to make money,
but cannot make any advantage beyond normal means that have real results.
What about Marita Koch J.R?
Did the steroids help her to 47.60, or was that natural?
You don't think testosterone administered to women will make them more masculine?
Maybe I was not clear i my previous explanation.
If an athlete increases of 25% his total volume of blood, there is no more space in his circulatory system for other blood (plasma or blood cells). This increase is normally possible for athletes particularly talented, with proper training in altitude. Less talented athletes can't reach the same increase of volume, because their circulatory apparatus doesn't have "space enough" for hosting so much more blood, and this is one of the main differences between a strong athlete and a big champion, difference that we can't see, because is part of different elasticity of the tissues.
Athletes using transfusions, put other blood in their circulatory system when the volume of blood is normal, so the increase of volume is carried out with the added transfused blood, but at the end the total volume of blood is the same we can reach with proper training.
Only athletes with "less space" in their circulatory system can benefit of EPO, and these athletes are "physiologically" weaker than the top talented (under organic point of view). That's the reason because the most part of Kenyan caught for doping are athletes of second level, and because with the best athletes EPO doesn't work. And that is also the reason because the most part of Kenyans were positive for steroids, with the idea to enhance their ability to recover very tough training. However, also under the side of recovery, athletes very professional, having great continuity in their training, don't have any advantage from the use of steroids : these are athletes using long periods of inactivity, who try to reach again in very short time a level of shape valid for some good result, after long rest.
About Rita Jeptoo, I can say that, till 2007, she never had values of Hct higher than 40, and of Hb higher than 13. What I can say is that her values were higher in 1999-2000, when she was still very Young and was a runner of distances around 5 km, with not too much training, than before her first victory in Boston. On the other side, I can say there were no Kenyan women able to be so tough with themselves in training, as Rita, so in my opinion I'm not surprised that, with her continuity for 3-4 years in training after having the baby, she was able running under 2:19, and I don't give any merit to the EPO assumption for her performances. But, of course, this is my opinion, based on the knowledge of the athlete some year ago.
agip wrote:
Renato Canova wrote:Meucci didn't dope, and I never was his coach.
here he is saying Meucci didn't dope
To be straight. Unless the person has been tested and found to be doping, that's exactly the attitude you should be taking. You should cast zero aspersions.
You aren't a doper until you are found guilty of doping. It has little to do with what the coach says. The athlete is not a doper. People should not be considered dopers unless proven otherwise. That's what you are doing.
Better running through chemistry.
Sports are being destroyed through drugs.
What times, Renato, would we see in each even with NO drugs in your estimation?
Thank you.
Thanks for your willingness to keep posting in the face of stupidity. I hope that you can return to discussing training and racing.
J.R. wrote:
This homeostasis is the best effect of any drug treatment,
i.e. to do nothing better, but pretend to do something magic,
by lying, setting up bogus agencies and studies, all to make money,
but cannot make any advantage beyond normal means that have real results.
trollism wrote:
What about Marita Koch J.R?
Did the steroids help her to 47.60, or was that natural?
Marita Koch had all the technical abilities to run 47.60, missing from others in the same event, who even so still ran less than 49 seconds, so I see no reason she wouldn't run somewhat faster without doing anything unusual, and of course such things which wouldn't help anyway.
Koch is 7th on the all time list for 200 meters, and look at this list how many others are similarly fast, but don't have the training, determination, and technical abilities that she had. For example, the main training for 400m for women in the US is avoidance. Likewise the 800m for women is quite weak internationally.
http://www.alltime-athletics.com/w_200ok.htmCertainly drugs can play a part in this, but not a positive one, i.e. more drugs being used now means runners are weaker, less able to compete at their innate capacities, and the mentality of track fans is generally weak.
Renato, it looks like you, Jon O and J.R want to form the denial triumvirate.
Show us the studies that show the best athletes have more elasticity and capacity for volume of blood. naturally.
Renato Canova wrote:
About Rita Jeptoo, I can say that, till 2007, she never had values of Hct higher than 40, and of Hb higher than 13. What I can say is that her values were higher in 1999-2000, when she was still very Young and was a runner of distances around 5 km, with not too much training, than before her first victory in Boston. On the other side, I can say there were no Kenyan women able to be so tough with themselves in training, as Rita, so in my opinion I'm not surprised that, with her continuity for 3-4 years in training after having the baby, she was able running under 2:19, and I don't give any merit to the EPO assumption for her performances. But, of course, this is my opinion, based on the knowledge of the athlete some year ago.
Thank you Renato
I say that the studies come Always AFTER finding something different from the "official science" of the moment.
Physiology is not mathematics, where you can make some theorical calculation and, applying it (of course if it's correct), you can create a pratical system for sending a shuttle around the Moon. We can call this " theorical science".
Physiology is only the investigation of some phenomen really existing. It's an "experimental science", and it's not possible to transferr the investigation of some phenomen to another phenomen with different variabilites.
Many times some physiologist asked me to make tests with my best athletes, after they bettered some WR or had top results. This happened with Shaheen, with Moses Mosop, with Nicholas Kemboi and with Florence Kiplagat. The proposed tests Always had to follow the same protocol : running on treadmill, increasing speed and controlling the breathed out gases. I Always refused, because these tests could be only a "static picture" of a final part of a training project, and could not explain anything about the variations produced by training.
Instead, I asked to follow in scientific way a full training plan, when athletes move from point A (the beginning of preparation) to point B (the final performance), in a period of 5-6 months. What happens inside the body of some athlete increasing his shape ? Which are the physiological variations ? How some variations can influence other qualities ?
I have very precise data, but there is not at the moment a full scientific explanation. For example, increasing the shape ALL THE ATHLETES (no one has different behavior) decrease their Hct and their Hb, and this is the opposite of people thinking not possible running fast with low Hct.
Gelindo Bordin won Marathon in OG (Seoul '88) with Hct lower than 40 and Hb lower than 13. Similar values for Schwazer, winning OG in Beijing (50 km walking) 4 years before starting doping, when his values were very high (but his best performances were BEFORE doping, and with low values). The first Kenyan training with me and winning WCh, Christopher Koskei (1999, steeple), two weeks before Seville had 39.7 of Hct.
However, the scientists of antidoping supposed Schwazer took some pharmac for lowering the Hct, "because it's not possible to win Olympics in some endurance event with Hct under 40".
So, if the Hct is high this is due to blood doping (EPO or similar), but if is low is because the athlete uses a masking agent for reducing the blood viscosity.
I know very well how the physiological data change, when the shape increases because of training only, but I don't have any "official scientific explanation", for the simple reason NEVER scientists had interest (or possibility) to study the effects of training with the best specialist (that in the case of endurance events are ALL people born, living and training in altitude, so very far from the facilities that there are in some University for studying what happens inside the body).
In the current mentality, NEVER people speak about the effects of training. It seems that every change in the individual performances is only due to doping, like training didn't have any importance. In the world of amateurs, they ask me "what do you give to your athletes", not "how they train", and this is something I can't accept, because is a very wrong message.
Doping is really a big scourge for the sport, and athletics is part of this world. However, the current idea about doping and performances doesn't correspond with the truth, and there is some excess of suspicion, with the final effect to criminalize athletes without any real base.
It's of Yesterday an article in two English newspapers where the argument was "Farah trained in Oregon in 2012 with the Italian doped Meucci". This is something not only ridiculous, but not honest and fruit of a sick mind.
First, it's wrong to call the 26 Italian (including Meucci) in the list of the "Antidoping attorney" as "doped" : they are charged for lack of communications, with great responsibility of the NADO itself, but in any case they can be accused of superficiality, not of doping, that NEVER was in any test (and they had several tests, in spite of lack of informations in their whereabouts). I don't think they call Ohuruogu "doped", also if had a missed test (and the Italian didn't have any missed test, but are charged for administrative mistakes).
Second, when top athletes stay together some day, it's normal they go running together, when there is easy run after some competition. We usually have small groups of athletes of different Countries running together the day before, or the day after, some track meeting, or the day before a top Marathon, and it's ridiculous to look at this activity like "Training together". It's correct to say "running together" when they meet, for 2 or 3 days, and to create a case around this situation is something not only stupid, but showing there is a suspicious mentality, with the certainty everybody is guilty.
Of course I can't accept this behavior, that is the main source of new doping for all athletes of medium level and the amateurs, who well know they never can have some test in their career (because never their results become important), but suppose to have, at their level, good advantages assuming PEDs, with big risks for their health without any reason.
t
love canova.
but probably 20% of the cheaters were busted. or some such.
really, what kenyan that has a family to feed would not dope, particularly when the major competition of ethopia and morocco were on epo plus. combine that with bogus testing locally and under this environment. you are not loyal to your family if you don't cheat. plus are some africans really aware of the what is legal and illegal? or really have a clue about say bro jo moral stance.
next up. the entire of carribean track.