Why so much Lance Armstrong hate but turn a blind eye at Bekele, Geb, etc ?

'I mean, if you want to believe that times from that era were clean, go ahead. It's not reality though and never will be. EPO was commonly used by top track athletes to lay down insane times that cannot be approached ~15 years later. Athletes didn't have to worry about testing because there was NO TEST.'

What about those 4 sub 12:50 times last year in 1 race. Or 2 3:28 times. Then all those fast marathon times.

I'm not buying the argument that people would know about doping or have written a book like the brojos said though. Athletes is an individual sport and other than suspicions not much comes out before a positive

GenericID wrote:

There is a difference between being aerobically weak, and being limited by your oxygen delivery system (which is the sense in which I used the word "weakness").

But we aren't limited in our oxygen delivery in the way that you think, we are limited in our neuromotor efficiency and this manifests itself as an apparent oxygen delivery problem rather than a real one.

jono wrote:

But we aren't limited in our oxygen delivery in the way that you think, we are limited in our neuromotor efficiency and this manifests itself as an apparent oxygen delivery problem rather than a real one.

Cyclists are limited by their oxygen delivery systems.

A 4 hour stage event is well below your VO2max (an 11 minute all out effort) -- maybe you can explain how oxygen delivery is always a weakness? In any case, I used the term first, so if you used it differently, ...

Basically, a drug only works, if it's addressing a weakness. The benefit is relative to the amount that weakness can be strengthened. This is why it might help a 15:00 5K runner more than a 13:00 5K runner -- because of the difference of their state of training. This is what I meant by weakness.

I don't say that EPO doesn't work at all. Clearly studies show that it works for running and cycling. (But I never heard of a study on elite athletes.) I say that the benefit depends on the athlete, and his current state of fitness, not to mention detailed factors like dosage and timing. It would be a mistake to cling to a percentage improvement, or an absolute time advantage. EPO might give one person 20 second advantage, another 5 seconds, another 1 second, and another becomes sick. In different circumstances (changing dosage, frequency, training, ...), the same people might get bigger or smaller advantages.

From a scientific point of view, it is risky to draw conclusions from one sample, and apply them to a different sample. 18:00 runners are not the same as 13:00 runners. Cycling 2000 miles in 3 weeks is not the same as running 26 miles in 2 hours. Extrapolation and projection are useful scientific tools, but conclusions can only be drawn understanding that risk.

How do I think people misunderstand EPO? People act as if it's a light switch, that provides some predictable percentage, or absolute time, of improvement. "Everybody doped, therefore the playing field was level". It's also more than about improving "oxygen delivery" during a race. It's also effective during training, and after a race, helping you to recover faster. While EPO is helping peak power on climbs, it is also helping cyclists push harder in stages, and not bonk the day after. This is an example of a benefit for cycling grand tours, that doesn't translate at all to running a 10K or a marathon -- there is no race the next day. But then again, steroids, HGH, and testosterone also provide both strength and recovery. The contribution of EPO is only one part of this multi-cocktail doping regime.

I'm not sure what you think my opinion is. My opinion is to be reasonable. My opinion is that cycling 3 week grand tours, is not the same as running a 10K or a marathon. My opinion is that a drug that provided "global" benefits to cycling cannot provide "regional" or "local" benefits to a few tribes in poor nations. My opinion is don't jump to conclusions, but use supporting facts to build bridges, or stepping stones, and take baby steps. I think it's naive to leap to conclusions, yet I'm often called naive for not making that leap entirely on faith.

The very premise of this whole thread -- that Geb and Bekele are equally guilty as Lance -- is a clear example. It accuses Lance haters of applying a double standard. The same rigid standard allows me discredit Lance, while defending Geb, Bekele, Komen, Lagat, and even El Guerrouj. I need more supporting facts than coincidence in time, and incredible times. There are a dozens, if not hundreds, of known facts against Lance that don't exist for Geb and Bekele. They are not equivalent.

Regarding EPO effectiveness, what kind of proof can I, or anyone else, provide? I know there are EPO studies on good, amateur cyclists. I know there are EPO studies showing 40 second improvements over 10K (for the subjects in the study). I also know that "hi-lo" altitude training also gave a 20 second improvement for subjects over a 5K. There's some proof that I already offered that makes me ask, if sea-level subjects can adapt to altitude in 4 weeks, and maintain the effect for 4 more weeks, why wouldn't East Africans already have some of this oxygen delivery benefit? And my unsupported, but I think logical, question is, wouldn't that make EPO less effective for them (since they have already strengthened that weakness)?

That's a very long-winded way to admit that you haven't a clue!

clean guys couldn't win after epo hit pro cycling and performances went through the roof

are we to believe the opposite somehow happened in distance running around the same time?

performances also went through the roof

but somehow a couple of clean guys prevailed?

the goats wrote:

clean guys couldn't win after epo hit pro cycling and performances went through the roof

are we to believe the opposite somehow happened in distance running around the same time?

performances also went through the roof

but somehow a couple of clean guys prevailed?

Yep, prove otherwise.

I say much more than that -- no one has a clue.Yet many are pretending belief and speculation is the same as knowledge and evidence, and casting pre-judgements.

GenericID wrote:

That's a very long-winded way to admit that you haven't a clue!

I say much more than that

No you don't, sadly you just repeat the same thing over and over.

Why don't you try to prove your claims instead of just indulging in the same level of speculation as the other side?

GenericID wrote:

I say much more than that

No you don't, sadly you just repeat the same thing over and over.

Why don't you try to prove your claims instead of just indulging in the same level of speculation as the other side?

^^^^^bingo^^^^^^^^^^^^

The fact that anyone could know Hermens' life history and imagine he isn't doping his ETH athletes is proof that some people will go to great lengths to self-delude.

still talking? wrote:

The fact that anyone could know Hermens' life history and imagine he isn't doping his ETH athletes is proof that some people will go to great lengths to self-delude.

It's neither proof that people go to great lengths to self-delude or that his athletes were doping. Show us something other than speculation and association. Not only do you believe they were all on something, you also want them to be on something...why?

still talking? wrote:

The fact that anyone could know Hermens' life history and imagine he isn't doping his ETH athletes is proof that some people will go to great lengths to self-delude.

A more succinct, but equally delusional example of wishful thinking. Any proof?

Just so you are aware, rekrunner, this is what you are doing, it's just that you are doing it in the opposite direction.

I don't know what you are talking about.Please give me a brief but specific list of the claims you think I make, and I will provide you proof.

GenericID wrote:

Why don't you try to prove your claims instead of just indulging in the same level of speculation as the other side?

they all make money together

hermens( the agent )and the superstars

peds are an important part of this financial arrangement

wouldn't be worth doing business without them

Please give me a brief but specific list of the claims you think I make, and I will provide you proof

I won't give you a list, but you can attempt to prove one of your claims for me: you claimed that some athletes are negative responders to EPO - any proof?

I can't find it back now, but what was behind that specific statement comes from one of the many doping threads where Renato described some Italian history, where doping didn't always improve results, and some athletes just got sick. Since I can't find it back, I can't say for sure it was EPO, or maybe blood transfusions that went wrong, or something else.But it's easy for me to google "adverse reactions", and find things like cyclists dying attributed to EPO abuse, and blood clots causing strokes or heart attacks. I even found "fever, vomiting, diarrhea, shortness of breath, paresthesia, and upper respiratory tract infection ... high blood pressure". I also found that it can make pregnant women sick. These factors could negatively impact training.The fact is that there is no reliable model for when EPO works, when it is neutral, or even counter-productive. What does Renato say? A higher viscosity interferes with blood volume expansion and could result in overall lower oxygen delivery. But I admit, I don't know, like everyone else, because there are too few studies that controlled enough variables to come up with reliable conclusions.But all that seems beside the point. I simply don't understand your reaction. I'm not taking the other side, or committing the same errors in the other extreme. I don't think it's extreme to say "it's premature to conclude anything because the current set of facts are circumstantial". We started by me asking if EPO was the "wonder drug" people seem to think (questioning the relative magnitude of improvement attributed to EPO -- because in cycling, many other effective drugs were taken simultaneously), and you saying that EPO was really amazing, based on your personal anecdote from not climbing stairs to actually starting running within a span of 1 week. Excuse me for doubting your running ability, but this sounds like you were very far away, in that 1 week, from elite distance running performances. Your 1 week personal experiment falls short of justifying a claim that EPO is the only way Geb and Bekele could have set world records untouchable in the modern era. Sorry I don't have proof for my opinion. Yet you want to project your personal experience onto elite East Africans, how?, by only imagining what it could do for them when they are in top shape. Really? Imagine? You seem to be an expert on logical fallacies -- maybe you have a name for conclusions based on extrapolation.When someone says Geb, or Bekele, or (in another thread) El Guerrouj was "clearly juiced with EPO", my reaction is to say these accusations are unfounded. Maybe they were juiced on EPO, but there is no factual basis. "Nappy Roots" thinks Canova is a ring-leading drug lord of Kenya. No foundation. No facts. No knowledge (despite claiming it's something "we all know"). You are pushing me to prove the other side, when I'm saying there is no proof either way. Is "false dichotomy" also a logical fallacy?Here someone wants to equate Lance with Geb and Bekele, based on world records occuring during an "EPO era". I'm asking out loud -- really? How can anyone seriously compare Lance to Geb or Bekele? How is anyone naive enough to fall for that? I'm not saying Geb and Bekele and Canova and Kenyans etc. are clean. I'm saying the few facts supporting the "dirty" hypothesis is uncompelling. Sorry if I don't have exhaustive proof for my opinion.Another fallacy somewhere is the assumption that what is true for cycling is true for running. You told me that oxygen delivery is always weak for cycling. Although you didn't answer my question to explain that further (since 4-5 hour cycling is way sub-V02max), the fact is that cycling (grand tours) has important factors not present in 10Ks and marathons, like competing 4-5 hours a day for 21 days in a row. And running has some important factors not present in cycling, like muscle and tendon elasticity, and neuro-muscular coordination. Again, there is some kind of "projection" fallacy that ignores these differences, by equating these two as "endurance" events.

GenericID wrote:

I won't give you a list, but you can attempt to prove one of your claims for me: you claimed that some athletes are negative responders to EPO - any proof?

I didn't realize Geb and Bekele were American heroes.

rekrunner wrote:

Another fallacy somewhere is the assumption that what is true for cycling is true for running. You told me that oxygen delivery is always weak for cycling. Although you didn't answer my question to explain that further (since 4-5 hour cycling is way sub-V02max), the fact is that cycling (grand tours) has important factors not present in 10Ks and marathons, like competing 4-5 hours a day for 21 days in a row. And running has some important factors not present in cycling, like muscle and tendon elasticity, and neuro-muscular coordination. Again, there is some kind of "projection" fallacy that ignores these differences, by equating these two as "endurance" events.

Another important difference between cycling and distance running: the history of PED use in cycling goes back a long long way, is well documented, and much more ingrained than in distance running. I am not saying it hasn't existed in distance running, but certainly not to the same extent. Drug use is almost as much a part of cycling as is the bike.

ISBN wrote:

There is a lot of evidence pointing towards widespread use of EPO in the 90's, not least the rapid meteoric rise of athletes like Ngeny & Komen, and their equally rapid fall in their early 20's, which seemed to coincide with the introduction of an EPO test in 2000, despite the fact it was useless until a new one came into use around 2006.

So meteoric rise and fall of top athletes is a sign of drug use, but.......

Bekele and Geb (and Tergat too?), who were great from day 1 and forever..., ALSO must be doping??

When trying to make a point, consistency is not your strong point, is it?

So rapid rises/falls are proof of drug user, as are long consistent improvements and careers and....everything in between? oookay.