Is Canova Right About EPO?

I think this is the case.

Reasoning is based on the Tour de France when epo use was rampant. Use was organized and under doctors help and there was no testing, so presumably they were hitting on the optimum dosage for cycling.

What was a problem at that time? Guys dropping dead.

It is unlikely evolution would allow enough epo to be produced naturally to maximize endurance performance if a side effect from that would be that you are likely to be dead in a year.

It is interesting that horses use their spleens to adjust their red blood cells. When exercising the spleen will dope their blood and dedope it when finished. Presumable this allows them to have ideal blood for endurance while exercising and yet avoid the bad health effects the rest of the time. Humans can't do this, so have to balance athletics and health.

So part of distance running talent is probably how much 'risk' your body is willing to take in epo production.

I just asked you for some of the "best" examples, hoping for specifity. I forgot Boulami, and Kenyan-born Jebet in my short list.

I have seen all the public information, but I haven't seen your suggested trend of jumps in improvement ("top" or "competitive") roughly correlated to positive tests for EPO or ABP. In fact, I have often seen the positive tests come years after, sometimes when aging athletes are slowing down. In some cases, the decision to dope is also accompanied by changes in training, in coaching, and sometimes nationality.

On the other side, many clean athletes also have significant breakthroughs (often in college for US athletes) likely due to years of accumulated training and perhaps better coaching and better training. Those athletes who don't have jumps in improvement usually don't win, or stop competing, and are not likely to be tested in the first place, either in or out of competition, in order to test positive -- so there is also a risk of selection bias producing your suggested correlation.

You can say "top", "competitive", or even "amateur" -- for athletes who train at altitude, to the extent that "EPO works", the increased EPO and RBC is already working, or has already worked. Adding synthetic EPO on top of that is all risk with questionable rewards.

Of course any athlete could be doping today, from "top" to "middle" to "bottom", but again, you talked about the timing of EPO and ABP positive tests correlated to jumps in improvements -- this suggested correlation to performance is the thing that interests me the most.

The examples of Marion Jones are not all that interesting with respect to showing a correlation with EPO and performance as Marion Jones is a women who was also taking "The Clear", and Armstrong admitted to taking testosterone, cortisone, HGH, and steroids -- not to mention training at altitude. Armstrong was a big believer in the power of "high octane" EPO, so there is also the potential benefit from placebo effect, as his use was not blinded, not to mention the organizational changes he made to his team structure, surrounding himself with a team of helpers dedicated to his victories.

There are still too many confounders and a clear lack of correlation to suggest the long term performance benefit from EPO, or any blood doping, is significantly greater, if at all, than what could be achieved naturally, by training at altitude.

El G was highly talented and trained well.

There is no reasonable basis to suggest that El G took EPO, without committing the fallacy of begging the question (assuming the conclusion or concluding the assumption).

As late as 2014, in a letsrun doping poll, among informed athletics fans, 43% of respondents still thought El G's records were clean. That's not too far from 50-50.

If El G had used EPO, presumably many others would have as well, especially when it was untestable, but very few athletes were able to run sub-3:30 in the entirety of the EPO-era. This should place some signficant doubt as to whether blood doping can cause El G-esque quality of performance for the 1500m/mile.

Oh well, this thread was fun while it lasted. El G was clean because a LetsRun poll in 2014 found that 43% of the ips that voted said yes. You do realize that probably 99% even here would say EPO DOES work, never mind the actual scientific community, but that doesn't appear to have any meaning for you and your belief that EPO does not work..

+1

The few studies that exist with respect to blood doping and performance suffer from low sample sizes, often lacking blinding and not controlling confounders and lacking control groups. The observed short term benefit seems more like a measure of how poor the chosen "clean" reference is, rather than showing the resulting blood-doped performance is unnaturally fast. And, it looks at the wrong thing (short term gains) often on the wrong people ("well trained" amateurs) without controlling their training. When they did look at a faster group of athletes, there was no control group, and the 3000m time trial performances were "tempo'd" at half-marathon to marathon pace.

A more interesting result, connected to showing unnaturally fast performances, would show the subjects running times that significantly exceeded their personal bests.

In addition, if "EPO works on every athlete", why haven't we seen more non-African athletes running sub-3:30s, sub-13:00s, sub-27:00s, and sub-2:07s, especially in the 1990s when EPO was both popular in sport and undetectable?

Before making the case that EPO works on Kenyans like everyone else, shouldn't we first make the case that it has worked on everyone else, for these "competitive" performances?

I'm sure it must be annoying for me to keep asking for any specific bases as if the questions were rhetorical, or have ever been answered. I see a lot of the same assumptions and empty conclusions but no one has actually done the homework and then shown their work. I see a lot of anonymous no-names with no training or doping expertise casting doubts based on these assumptions and baseless conclusions on the one coach here with a life long real experience training elite athletes at altitude.

I realize that 99% of anonymous posters would say EPO DOES work -- including me who strongly believes in the benefit of altitude training to increase both EPO and RBC. But the effect on elite running performance is still poorly understood and surely often over-estimated -- an idea also shared by some within the scientific community.

The scientific community opinion that "EPO DOES work" has little meaning for me (especially when "work" is vaguely defined) when it is provided without a relevant basis, as I have often made clear, because the studies and observations they rely on are of unquestionably poor quality, with fundamental lackings that undermine any conclusion. Some of the scientific community caution against interpreting short term results on amateurs with respect to the performance of elite athletes, but others presume too much on low quality data from amateurs projected contrary to such advised caution, onto elite athletes.

"Under PERFECT training conditions, with a PERFECT training plan, and a PERFECT athlete". Yes while this very rare it is the difference between someone like Eliud Kipchoge, Jakob Ingebrigtsen and those who are a couple min slower. Both have been training from a young age and so have build aerobic base. So yes you would need everything to be perfect but these are elite athletes they eat train sleep repeat 24/7 and they do everything right. They spend time on getting this perfect which is what makes them the best.

"Under PERFECT training conditions, with a PERFECT training plan, and a PERFECT athlete". Yes while this very rare it is the difference between someone like Eliud Kipchoge, Jakob Ingebrigtsen and those who are a couple min slower. Both have been training from a young age and so have build aerobic base. So yes you would need everything to be perfect but these are elite athletes they eat train sleep repeat 24/7 and they do everything right. They spend time on getting this perfect which is what makes them the best.

To the question posed by the thread, 6 pages of comments can be taken as a verdict. He is wrong. If he clearly wasn't there would be no debate.

The most part of posters are not able to have a discussion regarding FACTS we normally can see in athletes of top level. I never saw somebody contesting with some theory FACTS that normally we can know during the training activity. Every post cdomes from the belly of posters, not from a true knowledge of the training process.

Which these facts are ?

1- Hct is nor DIRECTLY related with the performance.

When I was responsible in China, before Asian Ch in Guangzhou 2014, I have all the Team in continuous training camp in Duoba (2370m). This is a Center of Chinese Olympic Committee, with good facilities, among them a lab for testing the values of the athletes. I was curious to see the EVOLUTION of the main blood parameters, week after week (not only before going to altitude, and at the end of the period, because I wanted to do a statistic about HOW the blood parameters can change under individual point of view).

I had the opportunity to have, depending on the athlete, from 8 to 11 exams regarding blood values. In Guangzhou, the athletes who improved their PB (one from 2'04" and 2'07" seasonal in 800m to 1'59"48, another from 15'55" / 33'14" to 15'13"/31'53", another in steeple from 9'46" to 9'35") competed with Hb and Hct LOWER than before going to altitude, while the athletes with the big improvement in these parameters were not able to improve their PB.

In all those cases, the evolution of the blood values showed a continue increase for Hb and Hct during the first 5-7 weeks, then a gradual decrease, with a smaller number of RBC and the increase in MCV.

Another proof was with Arne Gabius, athlete of Germany who also is a doctor. He showed me the values of Hct in more than 30 tests, during a period of 6 years, during our discussions regarding the Biological Passport. In all these tests, he had practically no fluctuation : every value of Hct was between 41.5 and 42.5, and clearly was not connected with his shape and with the distance, because these values were the same when he was in shape for short distances (3000m in 7'35") and Marathon (2:08:33), young (13'33" when 24) and more old (13'25" when 33), in winter (7'38" indoor) and summer (13'12") and fall (2:08:33 in Marathon), and also when was completely out of shape (30'50" in 10 km).

So, NO DIRECT INFLUENCE OF Hb AND HCT ON THE PERFORMANCES.

2 - The total volume of blood. I could check this situation for the first time in 1999, when I cololaborated with the Department of Hematology of University in Torino. At that time, Turin University had a good budget for some research, and the fact I had in Italy athletes normally training and living in altitude, remaining sea level for 2-3 weeks for their competitions, was very interesting for the responsible of the department, my personal friend and athletic judge. So, we could see how the total volume of blood continued to grow with the improvement of his shape, while Hct and Hb continued to low down. I published in Atletica Studi, technical magazine of Italian Federation, all the training of Christopher Kosgei (who was the only Gold Medal for Kenya in WCh of Seville) and all his blood parameters, including some test that after we didn't check anymore, because clearly not connected with the performance.

So, when I speak about blood manipulation, I have a lot of results achieved during the activity of top athletes, that clearly show differences in the body reaction between the following categories :

a) Athletes living and training ALWAYS in altitude (Kenyan - Ethiopian - Ugandan)

b) Athletes living and training the most part of time at sea level, with SOME PERIOD of training in altitude (European - American)

c) Athletes of the point b) who, year after year, increase the number of days training in altitude (Julien Wanders, Sondre Moen, and now Amanal Petros, Tadesse Abraham, Emile Cairess)

d) Athletes starting hard proper training from a level of shape very low (volume of blood as every normal person)

e) Athletes starting hard proper training from a good level of aerobic power

f) Athletes who develop their training in lactic direction (800-1500m)

g) Athletes who needs to increase mainly the aerobic power (Steeple - 5000 - 10000m)

h) Athletes who have to train their Intensive Aerobic Resistance (Marathon)

In every category, we can have athletes responding to the sollecitations of altitude and/or blood manipulation, and athletes not responding (for example, the percentage of increase of the total blood volume)

Normally, athletes training at sea level can have benefit (about the level of their performances) with blood manipulations (not only EPO), while athletes training for long time in altitude have little or NOT advantages (also in this case there is not any certainty about the advantage).

For my experience, the most talented athletes have the possibility to move their physiological limit at a level that any blood manipulation can't increase, and for that reason for them taking EPO is useless (looking at the performance), while who doesn't have that type of talent can have some advantage (also if very small when we speak about athletes with real training, in altitude).

At the end, my position is that I continue to think athletes with big ORGANICAL TALENT can reach their best in clean way, while who has less talent can have some advantage (in any case very small) with EPO.

The fact some top athletes used EPO doesn't show their performances are due to this, but only they and their coach are ignorant about the effect FOR THEMSELVES, and take EPO because THINK that can give advantage.

There is no debate for you because you are ignorant.

Then you should say that to all those who have spent the last 6 pages saying Canova is wrong. But with someone like you, anyone who says what you don't agree with is "ignorant" - despite the fact that they are all runners - if not a "former top runner" like you claim to be. You do know that even top runners dope?

Curious logic. The mere existence of comments from a small band of anonymous nobodies is sufficient to draw a verdict that the coach of elite athletes with real experience is wrong.

Flat-earth and moon landing threads rack up many pages of comments too. I guess if science was right, there would also be no debate.

I learned it was better to draw verdicts based on robust facts and evidence, instead of declaring yourself the winner without any real debate based on faith.

These are very serious offences and violations in antidoping. He deserved the sanctions then. How could he ever tampered with evidence? Never knew an honest man like Wilson Kipsang could ever do such a thing! Despicable to say the least. Guess Renato Canova was wrong after all, Wilson was indeed doping if he had to tamper evidence. Just like Asbel Kiprop.

Wow, so what Renato Canova says is that increases in blood volume supersedes increasing red blood cell numbers. QUALITY > QUANTITY!

It does make lots of sense so now we must all shift our attention only to the factors affecting the ability to manufacture huge volume red blood cells. I'm sure a top level athlete at some point reaches the peak of the bell curve and stops manufacturing huge volume red blood cells due to oxidative stress, inflammation, epigenetic and genetic issues. No athlete is infallible or forever manufacturing huge volume red blood cells so given this assumption has to be true then understanding the sequential temporality factors that tends to suppress red blood cell volume could help top level athletes decline slower and maintain a high-performance level for longer.

As I'm very well- versed with all the factors on earth that that suppress human health, hence suppress the volume of red blood cell, I shall list them off of the back of my mind effortlessly and surely with no hesitancy. This is my area of specialty:

1) COVID vaccine on the human physiology. In fact all vaccines.

2) Anthropogenic low frequency EMF and high frequency RF cumulative 24/7 exposure on the human physiology from all digital and electronic devices.

3) Polluted food/water chains and food products. (Think dioxins, PCBs, plastics, pesticides, GMOs, gosh the list is endless!)

4) Poor air quality (Think smog/smoke/petrochemicals and so many uncountable microscopic air particulate matter especially in cities and increasingly in mountain training bases as well)

5) Pharmaceutical Products

Renato Canova, if you bother to tell us about red blood cell volume but fail to tell us all the anthropogenic polluting factors on earth that distorts such volume how do you expect us to have any sense of complete-ness or closure of your generous insights?

All these 5 factors of pollution from the environment precisely DE-oxygenates the blood hence DE-generates the human mind and body and its health and natural vitality not only for high-performance running but for every other endeavor and employment under the sun.

Cheers

6 pages from runners saying Canova is full of it is nothing compared to countless athletes who use or have used the drug over the decades. "What were they thinking! Didn't they know it isn't performance enhancing?" (that is, if they are a top Kenyan training at altitude). Yet there isn't a single study of any of these top athletes using EPO to prove the drug doesn't work for them. You, too, are completely full of it. You could start your own flat-earth thread.

6 pages from runners? You are not a runner. Coevett is not a runner. You are full of it.

I know you are not very bright, so let me help you here.

I didn't say Canova was right or wrong. I didn't say other posters were right or wrong.

I stated a fact. When it comes to physiology, essential for this thread, when it comes to coaching experience, essential for this thread, you are ignorant. That's why there is no debate for you.

Cannova's points are 50 % true.

altitude, tents, threshold techniques, lactate monitoring, etc. with superior talents plus legal supplements (not yet banned), can substitute for moderate PED package.

meanwhile the reality of the past several decades is that much of african success, relied on PEDs, where they are behind the curve in avoiding detection with the increase and improvement in testing.

regarding genetic superiority, there is such a thing, but it's overstated. running all the time as a kid at altitude, and having a diet that doesn't make you fat, and having the better athletes in the country take up running, those are the main contributors to success.

the above is self evident by now.

what is impressive to me is that the western countries gone wrong with diet and life style are attracting talented young people, there are a few dozen of them who can run 330 or better in the 1500, which is a legit 334 back in the day, and this is a lot. phenomenal actually.

guys like grant fischer are running 1250 which is a lefit 1305 from back in the day, which is as fast as Rono ever did. though Rono never came close to optimizing.

the young fellas are doing real good.