Renato Canova repeats 'epo is overrated'. How exactly does he known epo is overrated? NOT an accusation - Just wondering wheres this research?
Renato Canova repeats 'epo is overrated'. How exactly does he known epo is overrated? NOT an accusation - Just wondering wheres this research?
I complement the discussion from time to time reminding everyone what was last reported in the Spanish newspapers. Since last June, the news basically dried up, and the courts gave Aden and Balla back their passports.You're welcome.
Are you that guy? wrote:
Are you the guy who comes on here to tell us that the most important part of the Aden reports is not (1) that EPO was found in his athlete's room during the raid or (2) that he was seen discarding syringes around town (which was evidence used to support the raid) but instead that the syringes he discarded did not test positive for PEDs (never addressing for the idea that they could have been cleaned). If so, thanks for all of your contributions and criticisms of others.
I don't see how anyone can argue that EPO does not help endurance athletes, even marathoners, after what we have seen in cycling. Response levels will vary individually but let's get real - it's likely to help. Arguing that we need an EPO study on elites is just distraction because we know it will never happen. The only real question is: how prevalent is EPO use? My hope is that it's not a very high percentage.
jeff tallon wrote:
well,the east germans,and soviets trained their athletes very well,and used copious amounts of drugs to help them along.in fact id say they trained their athletes better,and harder than anyone.their athletes were also very talented.marita koch was still a super talent,as were all east europeans,like kratochvilova,and the russians.they were super talented,super trained,and used super drugs.where it gets very suspicious ,is when super talented ,super trained,and super juiced athletes records get broken,by supposedly clean athletes.im from a body building background,and i can tell you almost all olympic leval sprinters use steroids.i can tell by their prominant trapezius muscles,shredded glutes,veins, round shoulders and .the shredded cut,dry look to their arms.some have the classic v shape of a steroid user.shoulders too wide,on a skinny waist.field athletes arent natural either.they train hard,and they dope harder.and for the most part,they and the top distance runners will never be caught.
Good post. Almost 20 years ago Lance Armstrong was was telling the press that the US postal team had the oldest secret in the book - "hard work". The problem is that many still present this false dichotomy of an athlete reaching a top level performance either by training really hard or by using drugs. Posters like Rekrunner seem to be asking for some sort of "Asterix's magic potion effect" as evidence that EPO works. It doesn't work that way, most PEDs like EPO or steroids will allow you to train harder than someone who is not using them (all other things being equal) and there will be a synergistic effect of the hard training and the PEDs in terms of performance improvement.
rekrunner wrote:
Since last June, the news basically dried up, and the courts gave Aden and Balla back their passports.
]
And guilty people never walk free from the courts ...
Rosa was most likely behind the EPO use although at a distance to protect himself
Also, the Miscros 60 testing machine he had installed would have flagged the EPO use
it's not just hard work wrote:
jeff tallon wrote:well,the east germans,and soviets trained their athletes very well,and used copious amounts of drugs to help them along.in fact id say they trained their athletes better,and harder than anyone.their athletes were also very talented.marita koch was still a super talent,as were all east europeans,like kratochvilova,and the russians.they were super talented,super trained,and used super drugs.where it gets very suspicious ,is when super talented ,super trained,and super juiced athletes records get broken,by supposedly clean athletes.im from a body building background,and i can tell you almost all olympic leval sprinters use steroids.i can tell by their prominant trapezius muscles,shredded glutes,veins, round shoulders and .the shredded cut,dry look to their arms.some have the classic v shape of a steroid user.shoulders too wide,on a skinny waist.field athletes arent natural either.they train hard,and they dope harder.and for the most part,they and the top distance runners will never be caught.
Good post. Almost 20 years ago Lance Armstrong was was telling the press that the US postal team had the oldest secret in the book - "hard work". The problem is that many still present this false dichotomy of an athlete reaching a top level performance either by training really hard or by using drugs. Posters like Rekrunner seem to be asking for some sort of "Asterix's magic potion effect" as evidence that EPO works. It doesn't work that way, most PEDs like EPO or steroids will allow you to train harder than someone who is not using them (all other things being equal) and there will be a synergistic effect of the hard training and the PEDs in terms of performance improvement.
If EPO did not work, people would find it out very quickly.
Lance Armstrong was very good at pretending to be innocent. This creates a no-win scenario for truly innocent athletes, who, when just acting naturally, are suspected because they are acting like Lance.Harder training (and recovery) is probably a more interesting question -- are you aware of any EPO studies that looked at increased training load that was enabled by EPO? The studies usually seem to link short term improved performance to changes in blood values and VO2max caused by EPO, something often repeated in forums and in newspaper articles as a direct cause and effect relation.
it's not just hard work wrote:
Good post. Almost 20 years ago Lance Armstrong was was telling the press that the US postal team had the oldest secret in the book - "hard work". The problem is that many still present this false dichotomy of an athlete reaching a top level performance either by training really hard or by using drugs. Posters like Rekrunner seem to be asking for some sort of "Asterix's magic potion effect" as evidence that EPO works. It doesn't work that way, most PEDs like EPO or steroids will allow you to train harder than someone who is not using them (all other things being equal) and there will be a synergistic effect of the hard training and the PEDs in terms of performance improvement.
Sumgong is a YET ANOTHER "massive talent"? -- ranking 27th women of all time, on a non-record quality, point to point, downhill course? 2:20:41 places her just 25 seconds ahead of Ingrid Kristiansen's London pre-EPO 1985 performance. Does anyone think Kristiansen could have achieved 2:12:06 with EPO?Here's something to think about. If women keep trying EPO and yet keep failing to approach Paula's record to within 2:55, exactly how many times does EPO have to fail, before you verify your assumptions about EPO and about the reasons behind Paula's performance?
bend your mind, not the spoon wrote:
Everyone is looking at this wrong. This is not the story of whether Jemima is guilty or innocent. It's not the debate of whether she got her gains from training or from doping.
It's that story that YET ANOTHER massive talent, with massive training improvements, and EPO, still managed to 'hit a wall' minutes behind Paula's 2:15. Hmmm....
it's not just hard work wrote:
Good post. Almost 20 years ago Lance Armstrong was was telling the press that the US postal team had the oldest secret in the book - "hard work". The problem is that many still present this false dichotomy of an athlete reaching a top level performance either by training really hard or by using drugs. Posters like Rekrunner seem to be asking for some sort of "Asterix's magic potion effect" as evidence that EPO works. It doesn't work that way, most PEDs like EPO or steroids will allow you to train harder than someone who is not using them (all other things being equal) and there will be a synergistic effect of the hard training and the PEDs in terms of performance improvement.
And another good post...glad to see some people have common sense & logic when it comes to the performance benefits of "performance enhancing drugs."
And for the deniers here...I think they live in a culture of ignorance.
All is not well & good as logic seems not to be taught anymore.
rekrunner wrote:
Here's something to think about. If women keep trying EPO and yet keep failing to approach Paula's record to within 2:55, exactly how many times does EPO have to fail, before you verify your assumptions about EPO and about the reasons behind Paula's performance?
+1
Why don't they start TRAINING instead? Nobody (except for Armstrong) ever trained as hard as Paula.
test2 wrote:
But there is scientific evidence that EPO works on populations researchers have access to. Like a lot of people on here, I have a problem with Renato claiming without hard evidence that the general finding don't apply to his specific case. He's going against the scientific consensus so the burden of proof should fall on him not the rest of us.
Here's one for Renato. Say a top athlete with a 2:07/8 marathon merely BELIEVES he can get faster by taking EPO. Say also that this athlete is now confident he's on a more level playing field and starts to train harder and as a result brings his time down to 2:05/6. Would you still say it didn't help him at all?
I'm just trying to meet you somewhere in the middle now. Work with me here. For you to claim with so much conviction that EPO has no impact on top athletes is plainly irresponsible.
rekrunner wrote:
Sumgong is a YET ANOTHER "massive talent"? -- ranking 27th women of all time, on a non-record quality, point to point, downhill course? 2:20:41 places her just 25 seconds ahead of Ingrid Kristiansen's London pre-EPO 1985 performance. Does anyone think Kristiansen could have achieved 2:12:06 with EPO?
Here's something to think about. If women keep trying EPO and yet keep failing to approach Paula's record to within 2:55, exactly how many times does EPO have to fail, before you verify your assumptions about EPO and about the reasons behind Paula's performance?
bend your mind, not the spoon wrote:Everyone is looking at this wrong. This is not the story of whether Jemima is guilty or innocent. It's not the debate of whether she got her gains from training or from doping.
It's that story that YET ANOTHER massive talent, with massive training improvements, and EPO, still managed to 'hit a wall' minutes behind Paula's 2:15. Hmmm....
I argue they were all on their way. Paula had special access and privileges.
rekrunner wrote:
Sumgong is a YET ANOTHER "massive talent"? -- ranking 27th women of all time, on a non-record quality, point to point, downhill course? 2:20:41 places her just 25 seconds ahead of Ingrid Kristiansen's London pre-EPO 1985 performance. Does anyone think Kristiansen could have achieved 2:12:06 with EPO?
Here's something to think about. If women keep trying EPO and yet keep failing to approach Paula's record to within 2:55, exactly how many times does EPO have to fail, before you verify your assumptions about EPO and about the reasons behind Paula's performance?
This is just bizarre. Sumgong dopes, improves nine minutes, wins Olympic Gold, and rekrunner believes it shows that doping doesn't work because she didn't improve 14 minutes.
Solid logic.
thankfully paula didnt win an olympic gold.there is a god.
Actually your timeline is out of order.
Sumgong improves nine minutes, races two more years from 2-7 minutes slower, wins Olympic Gold, and then, six months later, gets busted for EPO. With this timeline, when did she start EPO? Maybe she started EPO because she slowed down after 2014. Timeline:
2006: 2:35:22
2007: 2:29:41
2011: 2:28:32
2013: 2:23:27
2013: 2:20:48
2014: 2:20:41 (a)
2014: 2:25:10
2015: 2:24:23
2015: 2:27:42
2016: 2:22:58
2016: 2:24:04
...
2017: EPO A-sample positive
I don't believe EPO gave Sumgong a 9 minute improvement.
It's not me who called #27 of all time a "massive talent" and attempted to conclude something about #1.
I do believe the best known EPO-busted runners are at least 2:55 behind -- what did they do wrong? Too much EPO? Paula had "altitude-esque" values. Not enough years on EPO? Shobukhova started in 2005.
Does anyone believe Ingrid Kristiansen, with medicinal help, could have run 2:12? or even 2:15?
No, of course not. But her marathon time is a tad weaker than her 10000m/1/2 marathon; 30:13 and 66:40. 2:19 perhaps.
rekrunner wrote:
Actually your timeline is out of order.
Sumgong improves nine minutes, races two more years from 2-7 minutes slower, wins Olympic Gold, and then, six months later, gets busted for EPO. With this timeline, when did she start EPO? Maybe she started EPO because she slowed down after 2014. Timeline:
2006: 2:35:22
2007: 2:29:41
2011: 2:28:32
2013: 2:23:27
2013: 2:20:48
2014: 2:20:41 (a)
2014: 2:25:10
2015: 2:24:23
2015: 2:27:42
2016: 2:22:58
2016: 2:24:04
...
2017: EPO A-sample positive
I don't believe EPO gave Sumgong a 9 minute improvement.
It's not me who called #27 of all time a "massive talent" and attempted to conclude something about #1.
I do believe the best known EPO-busted runners are at least 2:55 behind -- what did they do wrong? Too much EPO? Paula had "altitude-esque" values. Not enough years on EPO? Shobukhova started in 2005.
Does anyone believe Ingrid Kristiansen, with medicinal help, could have run 2:12? or even 2:15?
So what you're saying is that for EPO to work, everybody who takes it has to break the WR?
What do you get from hero worship of cheats? It's weird.
rekrunner wrote:
Here's something to think about. If women keep trying EPO and yet keep failing to approach Paula's record to within 2:55, exactly how many times does EPO have to fail, before you verify your assumptions about EPO and about the reasons behind Paula's performance?
Looking at some of Paula' numbers that were posted here previously, I think the speculation is that it is more likely that she blood doped. She may have used EPO in training, but the posted race blood values show a hemoglobin concentration that managed to soar in the span of a few days. EPO doesn't work like that.
The other issue was the erythrocyte ratio, which also suggested blood doping.
Not everyone, but at least someone else should be closer than 2:55 minutes. Anyone can get it if they want it, EPO works for everybody, by a lot if you read this thread, it is virtually undetectable until recently, with the ABP. It seems at least more women should have beaten Catherine Ndereba. A women using just enough EPO to run 2:20:00 would have won all but 21 races in the history of women's marathons. I don't expect the widespread abuse of EPO (or blood transfusions in Paula's case) to produce such a big single outlier that no one else can match.I don't worship cheats. That is weird.
trollism wrote:
So what you're saying is that for EPO to work, everybody who takes it has to break the WR?
What do you get from hero worship of cheats? It's weird.
Yes, the before and after blood values we've seen don't indicate EPO use.I will leave what it does indicate, with what certainty, up to the experts.
got blood? wrote:
Looking at some of Paula' numbers that were posted here previously, I think the speculation is that it is more likely that she blood doped. She may have used EPO in training, but the posted race blood values show a hemoglobin concentration that managed to soar in the span of a few days. EPO doesn't work like that.
The other issue was the erythrocyte ratio, which also suggested blood doping.