Alex Hutchinson calls out CANOVA over study confirming EPO works on Kenyan runners

Yes there's a real problem, but you don't know what it is because you are ignorant and misinformed.

The problem is that you believe in so called PEDs. You believe in pretend science with made up numbers. You don't believe in human physiology. And your knowledge of psychology is weak too.

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Woah, what? I thought we were talking about fast performances hypothetically being caused by EPO -- and now you bring some mythical EPO-apologists into the conversation. I don't see the link. Who said it was OK to dope with EPO? And what exactly is this broad, if not contradictory, range of what is obvious among these mythical EPO-apologists?

Mythical? You guys are right here on the daily.

Says the troll posting as physics defiant.

rekrunner wrote:

and now you bring some mythical EPO-apologists into the conversation.

Indeed! We need to use the rekrunner-approved words:

rekrunner wrote:

I guess you could say "doper apologist", but no one ever does.

JonO. wrote:

physics defiant wrote:

Mythical? You guys are right here on the daily.

Says the troll posting as physics defiant.

Says the moran posting as himself. Did you actually do any research during your little hiatus and then realize you were going to have to resort to the old standby above?

Dunning -Kruger strikes again.

We don't know "how or why" rHuEPO increases training load because it isn't certain that it does so in any meaningfull/significant manner. While the mechanism is mentioned in passing now-and-then, that quote from JV is actually the only instance I can recall the effect being mentioned by an athlete/physiologist/sports MD and even JV can't quite make out anything about how important it is.

Here is an interesting paragraph from the Sgrò et al review which has the key to the most simplest explanation for the increased training load:

It is indeed plausible intuitively that because submaximal heart rate is lower at any given absolute intensity (e.g. 250 W) after transfusions/rHuEPO, a blood doped athlete can most likely do more training hours at any given fixed watt output, because it is less in relative terms of max HR or Vo2Max. Correspondingly there is less physiological stress on body and recovery time is correspondingly shorter and more work can be done in some sense.

Whether this extra "more total work" brings any extra training effect is another matter.

JV discussed Armstrong's possible clean comeback in Alex Gibney's film The Armstrong Lie, which has the following dialogue:

JonO. wrote:

Yes there's a real problem, but you don't know what it is because you are ignorant and misinformed.

The problem is that you believe in so called PEDs. You believe in pretend science with made up numbers. You don't believe in human physiology. And your knowledge of psychology is weak too.

I really don't follow you on this JonO.

We have a World Anti-Doping Agency that has established a list of prohibited substances that they have deemed as performance enhancing drugs. Pharmaceuticals such as anabolic androgenic steroids, peptide hormones & hormone modulators, erythropoietin, stimulants, narcotics, etc. The rules are if you test positive for any of these substances you break the rules and are consequently banned. Real straightforward and a 10 yr old could understand it.

Are you postulating that none of aforementioned substances should be banned? IOW, that none of these substances are performance enhancing and therefore WADA has no idea of what they're doing by creating a list of banned PEDs?

If this is the case, I'd be interested in hearing your breakdown of all the prohibited substances listed by WADA and your evidence that none of these drugs have performance enhancing properties.

For example, do you have any evidence that anabolic androgenic steroids don't promote an increase in muscle tissue & strength above & beyond what the human body is capable of naturally, and therefore wouldn't give an advantage to a doper in Olympic strength & power events? (e.g., throws, powerlifting, sprints, wrestling, etc.). Do you have any evidence that stimulants don't affect the neurological system reducing the perceived time to exhaustion & perception of fatigue levels therefore providing an unfair advantage in an endurance event? Or an athlete using a dangerous narcotic IC to reduce the sensitivity of the brain's pain receptors giving an athlete an unfair advantage in a sport like wrestling, boxing, martial arts, etc.?

Please provide your analysis on all of this...I'm all ears. ?

Here's the current WADA list of prohibited substances to refresh your memory JonO.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/content/what-is-prohibited

For all that other stuff, I'm pretty much in agreement. A doping problem exists, not only in Kenya and Russia, but globally. In Kenya, an anti-doping problem exists. AKAD, and AIU, and a new lab in Kenya look like recent steps in the right direction. I'm OK with keeping EPO banned and punishing athletes caught, regardless of questions of effectiveness. I'm not sure what "drug culture nation" is supposed to mean, so will not comment on that. I never doubted Morocco doped their athletes, and recently Bahrain seems to have a problem. The IAAF is going to reinstate Russia? Are you sure you aren't talking about WADA and RUSADA?

I did not advise you not to judge -- I just pointed out that the basis for your judgement was not something you could find in the article you linked. In the case of these studies, it's not a question if I liked or didn't like -- the reasons for my judgement are the long list of disclaimers by the study authors themselves.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

But this does not excuse the irresponsibility of those who decided to publish the time trial results as a study.

You are back to full troll mode - cool. Didn't you just advise me to not judge people? And here you go, condemning a group of international scientists, along with their peer reviewers and the editor, for publishing a study that you dislike. The nerves...

BOOM! syringe drop.

rekrunner wrote:

For all that other stuff, I'm pretty much in agreement.

A doping problem exists, not only in Kenya and Russia, but globally.

In Kenya, an anti-doping problem exists.

AKAD, and AIU, and a new lab in Kenya look like recent steps in the right direction.

I'm OK with keeping EPO banned and punishing athletes caught, regardless of questions of effectiveness.

I'm not sure what "drug culture nation" is supposed to mean, so will not comment on that.

I never doubted Morocco doped their athletes, and recently Bahrain seems to have a problem.

The IAAF is going to reinstate Russia? Are you sure you aren't talking about WADA and RUSADA?

Well...from the reports I've read it's sound like it's impending and just matter of time for the IAAF & IPC to reinstate Russia:

"Reinstating Russia's anti-doping agency (Rusada) after three years in exile removes one of the few remaining barriers to lifting the bans still imposed on Russian teams by both athletics' governing body, the IAAF, and the International Paralympic Committee (IPC)."

This is about as bad as it gets, IMO. I mentioned two Russians had tested positive from the AIU list just this year (mid-d runner & racewalker), and now a third Russian medalist (2017 WC) was stripped of his neutral-athlete status and is facing a wherabouts ban. What a joke!...how can anyone take this sport serious anymore?!? ?

I'm often here, but wondering what is the link to doping apologists. I think banned doping should be sanctioned. I fully support the WADA rules and guidelines. I asked "Who said it was OK to dope with EPO?", and you left that question unanswered. I asked, "what exactly is this broad, if not contradictory, range of what is obvious among these mythical EPO-apologists?", and you left that question unanswered.

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Woah, what? I thought we were talking about fast performances hypothetically being caused by EPO -- and now you bring some mythical EPO-apologists into the conversation. I don't see the link. Who said it was OK to dope with EPO? And what exactly is this broad, if not contradictory, range of what is obvious among these mythical EPO-apologists?

Mythical? You guys are right here on the daily.

rekrunner wrote:

I'm often here, but wondering what is the link to doping apologists.

I think banned doping should be sanctioned. I fully support the WADA rules and guidelines.

I asked "Who said it was OK to dope with EPO?", and you left that question unanswered.

I asked, "what exactly is this broad, if not contradictory, range of what is obvious among these mythical EPO-apologists?", and you left that question unanswered.

You wouldn't think that if deep down you didn't believe it all works to enhance performance.

Jon Orange is fine if people dope. He doesn't think it matters. He just thinks the people who misled them should be punished.

The obvious thing is that you all have a weird way of dodging the fact that it works and have some convoluted reason for simultaneously condemning it while being OK with it since it doesn't work anyway.

rekrunner wrote:

I'm often here, but wondering what is the link to doping apologists.

I think banned doping should be sanctioned. I fully support the WADA rules and guidelines.

I asked "Who said it was OK to dope with EPO?", and you left that question unanswered.

Well for a start, you're white washing an era in which distance running performances went off the scale, and now that better testing has been introduced (including finally in Kenya), performances are generally back to Earth. It's obvious to most people (including the IAAF, by their efforts to erase world records pre 2004) that the entire era is as tainted as the 80's female sprint and middle-distance East European times were. What you're saying is that people like Nick Willis really are at a lower level to the likes of Kiprop, when really, they're not. You're saying that there's no hope for talented young non-Africans, because yeah, even though Kenyans and Ethiopians dope themselves silly with EPO, it happens to be the case that the drugs don't work, and all their domination down to pure genetic superiority.

In other words you're apologizing for the doping of athletes who have been caught (such as Kiprop and Ramzi) - it didn't help them - as well as the doping of the many superstars in the 90s and early 00s who made millions and won golds and broke records through cheating with EPO. You're saying that Kiprop and Ramzi would have won their medals anyway, so no real harm was done and the likes of Nick Willis shouldn't feel aggrieved. Kyle Langford shouldn't feel he would hav won a historic bronze in London last year if it weren't for Bett's cheating, because Bett's cheating didn't actually help him to finish the thickness of a vest ahead of Kyle. If that's not doping apologism, what is?

You clearly think EPO should be legal, unless you believe substances that are not performance enhances should be or remain illegal.

So you think EPO should be legal and you think the accomplishments and times of EPO doped runners who won golds and broke world records are valid. Not sure what part of the link to doping apologism you're having trouble understanding.

It's also the way you argue and your clear agenda. It's not simply that you argue that EPO doesn't work, it's the fact that you derail every single doping thread by starting the 'EPO doesn't work' debate and constantly shifting your ground and position. For example, you've claimed numerous times that you're NOT arguing that EPO doesn't improve performances.

Another opportunity, and the questions remain unanswered. This is you dodging your own assertion, seemingly unable to back it up. Here is a partial answer to the first question: Not me. Maybe this should resolve the weirdness. I'm actually not OK with it. I don't say "it doesn't work anyway". I do say "training at altitude works".

Please stop making up lies about what I think. I do not think EPO should be legal. I think athletes should not take EPO, both because it is not legal, and because legal methods can achieve much of the same effect. Arguing about exaggerations of magnitude of effect is not apologizing for breaking the rules. I can be completely against doping, and still say 5% for fully trained elites is nonsense. I don't say genetic superiority, because there are many factors in combination besides genetics. I don't argue that "EPO doesn't work" -- other people start these arguments. Training at altitude works.

I don't agree with the conclusions of Sgro'. If it's true that runners can run at the same speed with a lower HR, when they take EPO, it's also true that their MAX HR is reduced, because the increase of the periferal resistance due to the increase of viscosity.

This mean that the PERCENTAGE of HR used in sub-maximal speed, compared with the max HR the athlete can reach, is practically the same, and this doesn't have any advantage to the performance.

What happens in training, for example, for the same athlete at sea level or in altitude, is that at sea level can have a HR, when in total rest (for example, immediately waking in the morning), about 5% - 10% lower than in high altitude (for example, HR of 40 at sea level, and of 44 in altitude). But, at the same time, can have a MAX HR higher of about 5%-10% at sea level, compared with altitude(for example, HR of 200 at sea level, and of 185 in altitude).

This means that the RANGE of working of the heart can be reduced : if at sea level the heart can work 5 times the basic HR (40 vs 200), in altitude can work only more 4.2 times (44 vs 185).

This when we speak about athletes normally training at sea level, and only some times going altitude.

Instead, what we can see with athletes living and training ALWAYS in altitude (something the Maroccans never did), is that they are able to reduce the gap between sea level and altitude, sometimes maintaining the same parameters.

So, a top Kenyan athlete who can have at sea level the same values of the above example (HR of 40 and 200), while in full training in altitude can lose only a very small part of his range, for example moving to 42 and 195.

The practic training control, for example using repetitions of 300m climbing at max personal speed (a good way for knowing the level of strength endurance in a maximal lactic situation), can show that at the end of the training, if the hill is at sea level or in high altitude, the max HR can be similar (about 200, in the case of an athlete like the above example).

The situation, in case of blood manipulation (with homologus transfusion or with the assumption of EPO), is similar what happens in altitude with athletes normally training at sea level, with more ability to transport Oxygen at the range in the middle (so, in case of submaximal effort), but LESS ability to transport Oxygen when at maximal effort.

The increase of transport of Oxygen for CLEAN athletes in altitude is due to the big increase of the total volume of blood, well over what physiologists explain in their resesraches (they speak about 5-10% like maximal increase, but really the best athletes, at the top of their shape, can increase the total volume till 25%), not increasing the periferal resistance because the most part of the increased volume is PLASMA, so the blood can maintain the same low level of viscosity, not reducing the velocity of circulation.

With EPO, or with homologus transfusion, is not possible to increase the total volume of blood at the same level. And this is clearly due to the fact that this increase, with clean athletes, happens in a long period (of about 3-4 months with aerobic training of high intensity and extension) in natural way, with graduality and without changing blood parameters suddenly.

This is, instead, what can happens taking EPO, or with a transfusion : the change happens in short time, and the enhancement of volume can't be of the same quantity.

Not only, but in the case of big increase of the total volume, the Hct of the athletes becomes LOWER, also if their ability to transport Oxygen becomes bigger. Instead, in the case of EPO or transfusion, the increase of ability in the transportation is connected with the enhancement of Hct.

Two situations not comparable, and in some case athletes WITHOUT EPO or transfusion can have ADVANTAGE compared with athletes using blood doping.

rekrunner wrote:

and because legal methods can achieve much of the same effect.

Arguing about exaggerations of magnitude of effect is not apologizing for breaking the rules.

I can be completely against doping, and still say 5% for fully trained elites is nonsense.

I don't say genetic superiority, because there are many factors in combination besides genetics.

I don't argue that "EPO doesn't work" -- other people start these arguments.

"much of the same effect..." But not all.

Who cares if it's .1 % or 5%?

Are you seriously spending a large part of your spare time merely debating the % that it works.

JHF