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

Great, we will look forward to you publishing results of your study. Since you are the one who decides what proper study design is and what results are acceptable instead of say, the scientists who design and conduct studies and the peer reviewers who decide whether to publish them or not.

rekrunner wrote:

Is this Mr. Obvious undercover? After some reflection, I would accept 6 weeks.

See the 1997 Stray-Gundersen altitude study: A 6 week pre-intervention training control phase was sufficient to cause a 2.3% improvement in all subjects (college subjects post spring track), before any altitude intervention, with high-low altitude causing an additional 1.3% gain, with no significant gain from a sea-level control group. Without a pre-intervention phase, and a control group, we might have concluded a 3.6% improvement caused by high-low altitude training, rather than 1.3%.

Rekrunner is a liar wrote:

None that had 600 week pre-intervention controls or consisted only of potential world record holders.

Coevett wrote:

Mardi Lestari!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mardi_Lestari

I don't doubt that all the top sprinters back then (and likely now) were doping. Which means maybe Ben Johnson should be given more credit given that he was running 9.79 (when celebrating early Bolt style) in a period when running faster than 10.31 was good enough to get you into world finals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_1988_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_100_metres#Semi_finals

It would actually be quite funny if history were to reveal that we would have to look way down the list to find say the true bronze medalist.

rekrunner wrote:

So you cannot support it with data and studies, just a few anecdotes that, besides Lombard, didn't address changes in training load.

How did the training load of Eddy H change before and after EPO? He was an ageing master and did not run his PBs while on EPO.

Christian H said "he never raced on EPO but used it to recover from injuries." "I can and have run all those times perfectly clean. It’s not that difficult to run these times, and it doesn’t take any outside help."

physics defiant wrote:

Yes, ask Cathal Lombard, Eddy H and Christian H among others.

So you believe Christian H. Nice

As noted you will just endlessly move the goalposts and change your mind after you've decided what would be acceptable in your little mind.

“I ran 2:12:47 on that course, at age 42, and I totally destroyed the field. I took the lead at the 23-mile mark, and I won by a minute and a half. There were six Africans with me, it was an uphill course at that point, there were three miles to go, and I just powered away from them. I felt like anything was possible with EPO. I felt like Superman.”

Sometimes it doesn't have to be a PR to tell the tale.

You know I am not, for you read that that very article called him "naive" because of that, clearly judging him negatively.

Say what? Publishing a study with disclaimers is fine, but publishing a study despite disclaimers is irresponsible?

If one published a study with disclaimers, then one published obviously a study despite disclaimers. Non?

Every month, you are getting more desperate here.

Also, earlier you wrote when defending your statement of

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

Not: publishing despite disclaimers as you now wrote, but the mere presence of "the long list of disclaimers".

That's even trollier than your normal nonsense.

Take a break!

He has to be a spin doctor in real life. Even with his Science degree.

rekrunner wrote:

So you cannot support it with data and studies, just a few anecdotes that, besides Lombard, didn't address changes in training load.

How did the training load of Eddy H change before and after EPO? He was an ageing master and did not run his PBs while on EPO.

Christian H said "he never raced on EPO but used it to recover from injuries." "I can and have run all those times perfectly clean. It’s not that difficult to run these times, and it doesn’t take any outside help."

We have problem here rekrunner because Hesch is telling a different story in response to another article about the situation. ? First the article:

"And finally, in reading the NYT piece, Christian Hesch will say that he did not use EPO in his racing EVER. Perhaps he is naive, or perhaps he thinks NYT readers are. Here is the skinny on drug use in sports: like all other drugs, EPO allows one to recover from training, or injuries, so that you can train more, recover faster, and hence, get the one up on the competition. Hesch calculated which races he would run, makes sense, as he was a 4 minute mile and a 1:05 half marathoner. I would see Christian pace making for various races. Cheating is cheating, in the end."

Now scroll down to the comments section where Hesch responds to Mr. Eder by stating: "I never used it to recover from injuries, i used it to be beyond normal." Hesch goes on to say how EPO allow him to run his mile repeats faster than clean and EPO gave him a "pretty significant benefit."

Aragon, calling Aragon. Here is the evidence you were asking for. The improvement may come from the increased training load.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I would not call it "irresponsible" to publish a study with disclaimers, but rather that they decided to publish it, despite the disclaimers

Say what? Publishing a study with disclaimers is fine, but publishing a study despite disclaimers is irresponsible?

If one published a study with disclaimers, then one published obviously a study despite disclaimers. Non?

Every month, you are getting more desperate here.

Ha! So when I asked about his pre-1990 data for North African 5000m times, the fact that it wasn't right didn't seem to matter for our Rek.

Well, he isn't interested in facts, but in opportunities for trolling. The older a thread gets, the more obvious this becomes.

I have to learn to resist correcting him, but my OCD doesn't let me.

Ah, it must be Mr. Obvious. It is not me that decides the consequence of a lack of blinding or controlling. In the meantime, we can be cautious about how we interpret these studies.

Rekrunner is a liar wrote:

Great, we will look forward to you publishing results of your study. Since you are the one who decides what proper study design is and what results are acceptable instead of say, the scientists who design and conduct studies and the peer reviewers who decide whether to publish them or not.

rekrunner wrote:

Is this Mr. Obvious undercover? After some reflection, I would accept 6 weeks.

See the 1997 Stray-Gundersen altitude study: A 6 week pre-intervention training control phase was sufficient to cause a 2.3% improvement in all subjects (college subjects post spring track), before any altitude intervention, with high-low altitude causing an additional 1.3% gain, with no significant gain from a sea-level control group. Without a pre-intervention phase, and a control group, we might have concluded a 3.6% improvement caused by high-low altitude training, rather than 1.3%.

Fair enough, perhaps we can call that evidence. But in addition to the Hesch story been so heavily injury-related (ie. he clearly didn't increase his training load from 100 % of normal to 110 % of normal with rHuEPO), I also find the following issues with his account:

- If I read Hesch's account correctly, he puts all the benefit to the increased training load and none to the increase in his Hct from 44 % to 51.7 % (+17.5 %) because he claims that he didn't use rHuEPO in connection with races but took care that he ended the treatment a few weeks before races. This is hard to believe and sounds more like whitewashing and at least one your pals found this also hard to believe and didn't even believe half of his story:

Even Larry Eder from the other link wrote that "in reading the NYT piece, Christian Hesch will say that he did not use EPO in his racing EVER. Perhaps he is naive, or perhaps he thinks NYT readers are". If one thinks that Hesch is lying, it is a very slippery slope to the conclusion that the "training load" mechanism is just a madeup story (even when he most likely ran faster even when training with those extra RBC).

- Even if his account is 100 % accurate and he might've improved by hugely after his rHuEPO regimen, in larger context he improved very little even with the extra training load (and with some extra residual RBCs remaining after his treatment). He had clearly natural talent having 3:40.68 PB at 1500m and his half marathon PB improved by roughly a minute after his treatment (1:04:56 -> 1:03.53).

But here is some extra anecdotal evidence I found, not too convincing either. By going through the USADA-report and the CIRC-report, there is nothing about the recovery aspect of rHuEPO, but it is actually possibly mentioned in the Report on Doping in Danish Cycling 1998-2015 focusing in large part on Michael Rasmussen and Bjarne Riis:

You were the one that said to ask Christian H. to answer on your behalf. If you think your best reference is not credible, I'm not sure how that's my problem. My goalpost didn't change, but telling me to ask Christian H, and then doubting his answer sure has my head dizzy from all that spin.

physics defiant wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

So you cannot support it with data and studies, just a few anecdotes that, besides Lombard, didn't address changes in training load.

How did the training load of Eddy H change before and after EPO? He was an ageing master and did not run his PBs while on EPO.

Christian H said "he never raced on EPO but used it to recover from injuries." "I can and have run all those times perfectly clean. It’s not that difficult to run these times, and it doesn’t take any outside help."

So you believe Christian H. Nice

As noted you will just endlessly move the goalposts and change your mind after you've decided what would be acceptable in your little mind.

"Naive romantic" is positive, indicating a faith in fellow humans not to cheat or lie. Rather than any negative judgement, I judge that Pound did the right thing under the circumstances, with limited time and limited information. The long list of disclaimers was the real basis for my judgement -- as a contrast for your lack of real basis for your judgement. It wasn't the mere presence of the disclaimers but the meaning and potential undermining consequence on any interpretations of the results. The disclaimers mean something, and have a certain gravity. This gravity and impact can change on a case by case basis, mattering more for some studies, and less for others. I'm not making a general rule, but specifically criticizing this instance of the experiment on the Scots and Kenyans. No matter how many times you rewrite it, they published the time trial results knowing that the experiment was neither blinded or controlled. We can see from previous studies that these are not trivial limitations. Any conclusions need to interpreted always keeping that in mind, something that the general public would not do, and something that will not make headlines for the journalists. They will be content to say "scientists prove" EPO works by 5%, and that Canova is wrong because "scientists prove" it works 5% for Kenyans too. I find that irresponsible because as scientists and researchers, they should know this better than journalists, or the general public.

When I asked for data, I was told to ask Eddy H. Is there an Eddy H. quote that shows "he was able to train differently because EPO raised his level"? That is the goalpost. This looks like a quote about how EPO made him feel when he raced, attributing it to EPO, and not mentioning his training with real data before and after EPO.

years after his last PR wrote:

“I ran 2:12:47 on that course, at age 42, and I totally destroyed the field. I took the lead at the 23-mile mark, and I won by a minute and a half. There were six Africans with me, it was an uphill course at that point, there were three miles to go, and I just powered away from them. I felt like anything was possible with EPO. I felt like Superman.”

Sometimes it doesn't have to be a PR to tell the tale.

So asking Christian Hesch doesn't seem to be a reliable way to get the data we need to evaluate how EPO changed his level of training. Regarding whether training with EPO allowed him to race faster, he says: "Instead of starting my first week back running, struggling to run 5:20 pace, i'd start back able to run mile reps at 5:00 pace, a week into my comeback." "To essentially lop 4-5 weeks off of your training to get back to racing shape is a HUGE benefit." "A sad side note is that I know if i'd returned each time with hard work, dedicated cross training, and the ethics that my peers hold themselves to, i likely could have done just as well." "I've returned from injury multiple times and been hitting 4:45-4:50 mile reps less than a week back, completely clean." He seems to believe that EPO didn't make him race faster, but just shortened the time to get into his clean racing shape.

rekrunner wrote:

Similarly, Lombard, the sub-sub-sub elite runner, besides taking EPO, made significant changes to his training, which cannot be ignored. Maybe EPO helped him by 3%, and the remaining 7% has other causes.

But you conveniently ignore the possibility that EPO allowed him to make significant changes to his training. Do you seriously expect an elite athlete to start taking PEDs and to then continue doing exactly the same training load as they were before taking PEDs?

My pre-1990 data for North African times was not wrong -- it just didn't exist. I made one choice of reference, while you proposed it would be better to make a different choice. I'm not sure why you are not getting how the choice of initial reference, especially this minor change you proposed, matters very little in the end. By changing the reference, you make the numbers bigger, but how would that change the discussion, or the relative observation of "so few, by so little" non-Africans? Group progress was not meant to be a direct measure of individual EPO effect, so I don't get the value of trying to make the numbers bigger by using a different definition of quality and quantity, which must be interpreted based on the new definition. Changing the measure from Celsius to Fahrenheit makes the numbers bigger, but it doesn't make it warmer or colder. Change from miles to kilometers makes the numbers bigger, but it doesn't make it longer or shorter. Using an inferior reference is not more right or wrong, but it just means these numbers get bigger for everyone, because the starting point is slower. We can still observe "so few, by so little" non-Africans. This doesn't have any impact on the conclusions that the best East Africans were measurably better (quality and quantity) than the best North Africans and both were measurably better (quality and quantity) than the best of all non-Africans combined. I find the new measure slightly worse, as we also factor in a lack of depth that existed before 1990.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Ha! So when I asked about his pre-1990 data for North African 5000m times, the fact that it wasn't right didn't seem to matter for our Rek.

On the contrary, I am interested in more facts, and less interpretations presented as facts.

casual obsever wrote:

Well, he isn't interested in facts, but in opportunities for trolling. The older a thread gets, the more obvious this becomes.

I have to learn to resist correcting him, but my OCD doesn't let me.