Lasse Viren = Fraud? 1976 article shows that he was a blood doper

0ik wrote:

Blood doping not as effective as EPO.

How is that? ?

rekrunner wrote:

I agree with "dopers succeeded to use doping". This includes talented runners capable of remarkable performances.

Talented dopers capable of remarkable performances.

FTFY

Surely someone owns a jersey and pair of shorts he ran in. Get the shorts off of ebay and test for semen.

Forensic Files wrote:

Surely someone owns a jersey and pair of shorts he ran in. Get the shorts off of ebay and test for semen.

Say what? ?

0ik wrote:

Blood doping not as effective as EPO.

It's efficacy is equal, as well as instantaneous. There is no waiting for creation of new red blood cells. It's also a bit more exact when "aiming" for a specific hematocrit.

Personal experience wrote:

0ik wrote:

Blood doping not as effective as EPO.

It's efficacy is equal, as well as instantaneous. There is no waiting for creation of new red blood cells. It's also a bit more exact when "aiming" for a specific hematocrit.

epo is just easier to use year round and slightly less risky. In more modern times blood packing is most useful in multi day racing. Where you can get an instant boost without drugs (assuming the blood was clean when drawn). Very common in multi week cycling tours. The logistics are just way more complicated.

Baby yoda wrote:

Personal experience wrote:

It's efficacy is equal, as well as instantaneous. There is no waiting for creation of new red blood cells. It's also a bit more exact when "aiming" for a specific hematocrit.

epo is just easier to use year round and slightly less risky. In more modern times blood packing is most useful in multi day racing. Where you can get an instant boost without drugs (assuming the blood was clean when drawn). Very common in multi week cycling tours. The logistics are just way more complicated.

This man knows what he's talking about. The shots can also be tedious, but is much easier once you figure out how your body responds to specific dosages. I'm glad those days are behind me. Still have lots of guilt.

Think this one through wrote:

Religious Fundamentalism wrote:

That's not an explanation, just a repetition of the stupidity.

Well...then, there must have been thousands of stupid endurance athletes that successfully used blood doping and EPO over several decades...Jon.

Yes it noticed who that was too.

1955 wrote:

In the first place, I don't really care. Blood doping wasn't illegal and anyone else could have done.

In the second place, even if he did, I don't think it offered a clear advantage, not like EPO or current PEDs.

In the third place, for goodness sake, can't we just appreciate 5 very special Olympic performances, 4 of which were gold? Amazing, amazing performances, against some pretty good competition.

What happen to simply not endangering one's health in an effort to try to perform better than the one's who are not endangering themselves? Hasn't that been the spirit of the rule since modern olympics?

Also can you explain what rhEPO is supposed to do that blood packing doesn't?

And to answer your question, no, I can't appreciate 5 very special olympic performances if fair play and sportsmanship have been ignored in order to produce them.

Baby yoda wrote:

Personal experience wrote:

It's efficacy is equal, as well as instantaneous. There is no waiting for creation of new red blood cells. It's also a bit more exact when "aiming" for a specific hematocrit.

epo is just easier to use year round and slightly less risky. In more modern times blood packing is most useful in multi day racing. Where you can get an instant boost without drugs (assuming the blood was clean when drawn). Very common in multi week cycling tours. The logistics are just way more complicated.

Pete on a mobile wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I agree with "dopers succeeded to use doping". This includes talented runners capable of remarkable performances.

Talented dopers capable of remarkable performances.

FTFY

It wasn't broken -- I had already said "dopers".

Interesting to look at a study on its own, and 45 seconds and 2.5% is significant to be sure, but how does this blood packing experiment compare to legal methods like Hi-Lo training? Recall the results of blood-packing for runners capable of 6-7 minute mile pace for 5 miles: "In that study, a group of local road runners capable of 30- to 35-minute efforts in area 5-milers, improved an average of 45 seconds after they received transfusions of their own blood. That’s about a 2.5 percent improvement. " In 1997, Ben Levine and James Stray-Gundersen did a "Living high-training low" study with much better results, at least 3.1% from altitude training, and as much as 6.5% over 14 weeks for a group of 9 men able to run 16:54 5000m. LENGTHY DETAILS: They picked 39 runners (27 men ~16:30-16:50 for 5K; 12 women ~19:18-19:37 for 5K), and split them into three groups: 1) "lo-lo" 2) "hi-lo" 3) "hi-hi" In a sea-level control phase, after 6 weeks of training, before going to altitude: - 39 subjects in a 5000m time trial improved 18-25 seconds, or 1.7% to 2.3%, before going to altitude - the "hi-lo" group improved from 17:38.4 by 24.6 seconds or 2.32%, before going to altitude - the "hi-hi" group improved 17:26.4 by 24.6 seconds or 2.32%, before going to altitude NOTE: This sea-level control phase is something that is lacking in many EPO or blood doping studies. The 2.3% improvement from sea-level training alone before any altitude intervention looks too significant to ignore, particularly when a blood-packing study on slower runners produces 2.5% improvement, and other experts offer opinions of "up to 3%". Effect of 4-weeks training at altitude: - the "hi-lo" group improved another 13.8 seconds, or 1.33% - the "hi-hi" group actually slowed down (insignificantly) by 4 seconds Continuation for 4-weeks post-altitude at sea level: - the "hi-lo" group improved another ~15 seconds, or 2.79% post-sea level control, and 5.05% over the course of the study - the "hi-hi" group improved another ~15 seconds, or 1.12% post-sea level control, and 3.38% over the course of the study (the "lo-lo" control group initially improved, but then regressed back to their original performance level). In that study, they also looked at men separately, as some of the women performed poorly, significantly lowering the average effect. Here the results for the "hi-lo" group were even greater: ~36 seconds, or 3.55% sea-level control, before going to altitude; an additional ~24 seconds 2.45% after 4 weeks of altitude; an additional ~6 seconds 4 weeks post-altitude, or 3.07% post-sea level control, and 6.51% over the course of the study; CONCLUSION: So using the legal method of altitude training, Levine and Stray Gundersen took a group of 9 runners starting out at ~16:54, and over the course of 14 weeks of legal training and methods, the group improved their 5000m time by 66 seconds, or 6.51%. By comparison, Mel Williams 30-35 minute 5 mile runners improved an average of 45 seconds, or 2.5%

Everyone is looking for an edge wrote:

https://www.runnersworld.com/health-injuries/a20840999/meet-the-first-blood-doping-american-runner/

Forensic Files wrote:

Surely someone owns a jersey and pair of shorts he ran in. Get the shorts off of ebay and test for semen.

Thats how Willie Clinton got busted with that blue dress.

You with NCIS, too?

rekrunner wrote:

Interesting to look at a study on its own, and 45 seconds and 2.5% is significant to be sure, but how does this blood packing experiment compare to legal methods like Hi-Lo training?

It is not either legal or illegal methods, it is both. Athletes at the top optimize legal and illegal methods, see e.g. Kiprop, Jeptoo, Sumgong, and Kiptum, to name a few.

Science supports that too, see e.g. this 2018 altitude paper from the Pitsiladis group:

Conclusion. Four weeks of rHuEpo increased the HGB and HCT of Kenyan endurance runners to a lesser extent than in SCO (~17% vs ~10%, respectively) and these alterations were associated with similar improvements in running performance immediately after the rHuEpo administration (~5%) and 4 weeks after rHuEpo (~3%).

Kenyans: living at 2150 m; SCO: sea level for comparison; improvements of the Kenyans 3% - 5%, depending on timing.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Interesting to look at a study on its own, and 45 seconds and 2.5% is significant to be sure, but how does this blood packing experiment compare to legal methods like Hi-Lo training?

It is not either legal or illegal methods, it is both. Athletes at the top optimize legal and illegal methods, see e.g. Kiprop, Jeptoo, Sumgong, and Kiptum, to name a few.

Science supports that too, see e.g. this 2018 altitude paper from the Pitsiladis group:

Conclusion. Four weeks of rHuEpo increased the HGB and HCT of Kenyan endurance runners to a lesser extent than in SCO (~17% vs ~10%, respectively) and these alterations were associated with similar improvements in running performance immediately after the rHuEpo administration (~5%) and 4 weeks after rHuEpo (~3%).

Kenyans: living at 2150 m; SCO: sea level for comparison; improvements of the Kenyans 3% - 5%, depending on timing.

I don't understand why these Kenyan altitude natives are using 02-vector doping in the first place? (I can understand the use of androgens to aid in recovery given their brutal workouts they've been known to do).

Furthermore, hasn't Canova said vehemently that Kenyans living and training at altitude wouldn't benefit from either EPO or transfusions? And now with the transparency with the Disciplinary Tribunals on these Kenyan hematological-anomalies ABP cases we can get some insight on their numbers that triggered a flag and subsequent ban.

In the Kiptum case, which has been discussed on another thread, he topped out with one Hct reading over 60%! (99.99% specificity or 1 in 10,000 change of being undoped). The Rutto DT just became available and he's topping out at a reading of 57.6% (also 99.99 specificity).

If these two Kenyans are living & training at altitude (~2300m), why the need to boost up their already high baseline Hct through doping? Is it the coaches and/or agents of these Kenyans who are doping them up or is it the individual athlete waking up one day and deciding to start using EPO or hooking up with doctor for blood transfusions?

Here's the Rutto DT - similar circumstances of Kiptum's case though Rutto's council argued that his client's 57.6 Hct is normal for Kenyan altitude natives:

Well, various groups have decades of experience with blood doping. They know exactly which concentrations work best. Now they need to adopt to the increased testing frequencies...

Also note how all these tribunals put emphasis on the ret-%. Certain doping apologists here love to discount them because someone once found a publication that claimed that the ret-% determination may come with an experimental error.

casual obsever wrote:

Well, various groups have decades of experience with blood doping. They know exactly which concentrations work best. Now they need to adopt to the increased testing frequencies...

Also note how all these tribunals put emphasis on the ret-%. Certain doping apologists here love to discount them because someone once found a publication that claimed that the ret-% determination may come with an experimental error.

Yes...indeed. I had posted on another thread the importance of elevated hemoglobin & low RET% at or near competition as a dead giveaway for the evidence of blood doping and someone slammed that study at me (I'm not sure, but maybe rekrunner).

As you know, it's the elevated hemoglobin & low RET% that jacks up these Off-scores more so than elevated hemoglobin/elevated RET%. And as the anti-doping research has shown, it's unlikely that high hemoglobin in conjunction with low RET% can be the result of any physiological or pathological reason (including altitude training) and suggestive of either a blood transfusion or off-phase use of an ESA agent. And notice in these Tribunals/CAS hearings how elevated hemoglobin/low RET% just happens to coincide with the athlete's competition schedule thus proving a doping scheme that the arbitrators want to see.

But it's irrelevant with the doping apologists here because even if they accept the hematological evidence of blood doping in these ABP cases, they dismiss any relevancy with elevated hemoglobin enhancing performance as testified to by the anti-doping experts.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Interesting to look at a study on its own, and 45 seconds and 2.5% is significant to be sure, but how does this blood packing experiment compare to legal methods like Hi-Lo training?

It is not either legal or illegal methods, it is both. Athletes at the top optimize legal and illegal methods, see e.g. Kiprop, Jeptoo, Sumgong, and Kiptum, to name a few.

Science supports that too, see e.g. this 2018 altitude paper from the Pitsiladis group:

Conclusion. Four weeks of rHuEpo increased the HGB and HCT of Kenyan endurance runners to a lesser extent than in SCO (~17% vs ~10%, respectively) and these alterations were associated with similar improvements in running performance immediately after the rHuEpo administration (~5%) and 4 weeks after rHuEpo (~3%).

Kenyans: living at 2150 m; SCO: sea level for comparison; improvements of the Kenyans 3% - 5%, depending on timing.

It's an interesting hypothesis, but sadly, while I don't doubt the blood measurement increases, we don't have meaningful performance data from Pitsiladis for the Kenyans. As you already know, the Kenyan performance data is problematic for number of reasons, the most important one being that the Kenyans were not trying to run the time trials very fast, either pre- or post-EPO, unlike the slower Scots. We know this from the RPE measurements recorded by the group, and can further cross check this be predicting their expected 3000m times from other performances, and plainly observing that the Kenyans ran about 1 minute slower than their predicted ability in the EPO trials.

casual obsever wrote:

Well, various groups have decades of experience with blood doping. They know exactly which concentrations work best. Now they need to adopt to the increased testing frequencies...

Also note how all these tribunals put emphasis on the ret-%. Certain doping apologists here love to discount them because someone once found a publication that claimed that the ret-% determination may come with an experimental error.

Not sure what you are driving at here -- the RET% variations should be solved post-2009, when proper ABP processes are strictly applied. Tribunals placed no emphasis on RET% before 2009.